These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123
 

Replace Local with an Intel Tool!!!!
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jaari Val'Dara
Grim Sleepers
#41 - 2012-01-31 20:35:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Jaari Val'Dara
How about this:

We get a radar-like interface, which shows all ships signatures around your ship. It's refreshed every 20 seconds (10 seconds with level 5 skill), it's range is say 15AU (30AU with lvl 5 skill). The ships are shown as unknown signature until you scan them individually, I assume by clicking on a dot on an interface (it takes 10 seconds to scan a signature, 5 seconds with level 5 skill), then it shows intel for that ship, as it is now.
Also every warp initiation transmits your signature to all the ships in the system of course it only appears on the next scan so it can but up to 20 seconds late, unknown signature is showed outside the bounds of radar, though you can't scan unless it is within the range of your ship.

As for covert ops ships, they are not shown unless they initiate a warp and even then they always appear as if they are outside the range.

One more thing, if a warping ship does not enter your range in say 30 seconds they disappear from radar, no matter whether they are still in the system.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#42 - 2012-02-01 18:49:46 UTC
Jaari Val'Dara wrote:
How about this:

We get a radar-like interface, which shows all ships signatures around your ship. It's refreshed every 20 seconds (10 seconds with level 5 skill), it's range is say 15AU (30AU with lvl 5 skill). The ships are shown as unknown signature until you scan them individually, I assume by clicking on a dot on an interface (it takes 10 seconds to scan a signature, 5 seconds with level 5 skill), then it shows intel for that ship, as it is now.
Also every warp initiation transmits your signature to all the ships in the system of course it only appears on the next scan so it can but up to 20 seconds late, unknown signature is showed outside the bounds of radar, though you can't scan unless it is within the range of your ship.

As for covert ops ships, they are not shown unless they initiate a warp and even then they always appear as if they are outside the range.

One more thing, if a warping ship does not enter your range in say 30 seconds they disappear from radar, no matter whether they are still in the system.

Good basic idea.

I like that, although I think it should not be hard set at a one range for all.

Two reasons for that detail:
One, the 4 races each use a different type of detection. For game balance, they are considered equal. But they might have different strengths on things like ship type ID, vs range of contact detected, and warp detection.
Two, each ship has a specific strength of sensors used to detect with, further modified by boosters and such.

If you make this radar a priority on your ship, you should have greater effective range. If you ignore it, you should have default range. One more detail to make choosing modules and rigs a careful consideration.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#43 - 2012-02-03 15:16:57 UTC
Noitserri
Zervas Aeronautics
#44 - 2012-02-05 23:34:13 UTC
I have been doing a good bit of thinking and researching on this topic and here are my suggestions

High sec, local chat would be mandatory except for those with high enough standing with the sovereign faction. Those with standing high enough could choose to not be listed in local. Also in systems with security .1 (the security rating could be different .1 is just a suggestion, though for faction based it sounds reasonable) or higher players who incur aggression timers (or if something more is needed anyone with low security staus) will automatically be forced to local. I

Null sec local would be sovereignty based. The option being forced or optional (as forcing only reds to show up in local would be overpowered) except in territories that are unclaimed.

Lastly I suggest a new battlecruiser type(using tech2 versions of drake/harby/myrmi/cane) possessing a new module that would either be able to detect(not locate)cloaks and include say a script to force decloak like an interdiction field generator. This module could be made to require fuel, have a sensor recalibration penalty, and or a speed penalty.
Macs Mayhem
Bunyip Trading
#45 - 2012-02-06 11:22:05 UTC
+1 for balancing local, hope to see the changes in the next big update P

as for cloakers - I thought that making all cloak devices use a fuel would be the way Blink
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#46 - 2012-02-06 19:27:22 UTC
Noitserri wrote:
I have been doing a good bit of thinking and researching on this topic and here are my suggestions

High sec, local chat would be mandatory except for those with high enough standing with the sovereign faction. Those with standing high enough could choose to not be listed in local. Also in systems with security .1 (the security rating could be different .1 is just a suggestion, though for faction based it sounds reasonable) or higher players who incur aggression timers (or if something more is needed anyone with low security staus) will automatically be forced to local. I

Null sec local would be sovereignty based. The option being forced or optional (as forcing only reds to show up in local would be overpowered) except in territories that are unclaimed.

Lastly I suggest a new battlecruiser type(using tech2 versions of drake/harby/myrmi/cane) possessing a new module that would either be able to detect(not locate)cloaks and include say a script to force decloak like an interdiction field generator. This module could be made to require fuel, have a sensor recalibration penalty, and or a speed penalty.


That last part about the battlecruiser, I could accept that under the provision that local or it's equivalent did not sell out the cloaking ship.
If you figured out the cloaking ship was there on your own, with no automated help, then that is more likely balanced.

For Null Sec, if sovereignty has value, then it grants advantage. The invader should always be fighting an uphill struggle, facing all the defenses the system holder had the foresight to place. That includes making intel one sided to benefit the sov holders.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Noitserri
Zervas Aeronautics
#47 - 2012-02-06 19:47:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Noitserri
Nikk Narrel wrote:
That last part about the battlecruiser, I could accept that under the provision that local or it's equivalent did not sell out the cloaking ship.
If you figured out the cloaking ship was there on your own, with no automated help, then that is more likely balanced.


For the new bc yes I would only ask that it gets put in with the optional local part. I'm aiming for more emphasis on intel gathering and balancing.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
For Null Sec, if sovereignty has value, then it grants advantage. The invader should always be fighting an uphill struggle, facing all the defenses the system holder had the foresight to place. That includes making intel one sided to benefit the sov holders.


Thats why I gave them the option. they could have a system set to optional local chat and setup pvp ops and ambushes from that spot while forcing local in the surrounding systems. Though I could see allowing them to do it by standing as well but I would then say add a ship type or module that could fly around 0.0 without showing up in local.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#48 - 2012-02-07 15:17:11 UTC
Noitserri wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
For Null Sec, if sovereignty has value, then it grants advantage. The invader should always be fighting an uphill struggle, facing all the defenses the system holder had the foresight to place. That includes making intel one sided to benefit the sov holders.


Thats why I gave them the option. they could have a system set to optional local chat and setup pvp ops and ambushes from that spot while forcing local in the surrounding systems. Though I could see allowing them to do it by standing as well but I would then say add a ship type or module that could fly around 0.0 without showing up in local.


Not showing up in local is an issue that needs attention. I don't believe cloaked vessels should be seen in local, but if they are forced to be present, then they should be immune to being hunted with any absolute expectation of success.
(IE: You should have a better chance of hitting the lotto, and getting struck by lightning while going to collect your money rather than being able to track down an afk cloaker in a deep safe.)

Now, if you have no local that reports the cloaked vessel, I can then support some means to hunt them, as you are not being handed free intel about them.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Lucjan
Deutzer Freiheit
#49 - 2012-02-07 16:52:51 UTC
Just move to W-space for a month see if you like it.

It would be enough to turn 0.0 space local into what w-space is right now.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#50 - 2012-02-07 17:23:08 UTC
Jaari Val'Dara wrote:
How about this:

We get a radar-like interface, which shows all ships signatures around your ship. It's refreshed every 20 seconds (10 seconds with level 5 skill), it's range is say 15AU (30AU with lvl 5 skill). The ships are shown as unknown signature until you scan them individually, I assume by clicking on a dot on an interface (it takes 10 seconds to scan a signature, 5 seconds with level 5 skill), then it shows intel for that ship, as it is now.
Also every warp initiation transmits your signature to all the ships in the system of course it only appears on the next scan so it can but up to 20 seconds late, unknown signature is showed outside the bounds of radar, though you can't scan unless it is within the range of your ship.

As for covert ops ships, they are not shown unless they initiate a warp and even then they always appear as if they are outside the range.

One more thing, if a warping ship does not enter your range in say 30 seconds they disappear from radar, no matter whether they are still in the system.


A couple of thoughts:

1.) While I like your "scan individual sigs" idea, I think an intel tool that rely's on lots of clicking is just not going to fly. Your suggestion makes PI look like moon mining!

2.) I think you give cloaks too much power. Now, afk cloakers need only cloak in a belt and sit there. They will eventually fall off the radar, becoming a completely invisible enemy. Then its just a matter of time slowboating into the right position in the belt and nabbing a ratter that didn't know there was any danger about.

3.) I really think that the hunted needs to be alerted to danger whenever in system. The best balance to this, is to obfuscate true threats with "false alarms" from friendly traffic.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#51 - 2012-02-07 17:58:24 UTC
Noitserri wrote:
I have been doing a good bit of thinking and researching on this topic and here are my suggestions

High sec, local chat would be mandatory except for those with high enough standing with the sovereign faction. Those with standing high enough could choose to not be listed in local. Also in systems with security .1 (the security rating could be different .1 is just a suggestion, though for faction based it sounds reasonable) or higher players who incur aggression timers (or if something more is needed anyone with low security staus) will automatically be forced to local. .


So you want players with high faction standings (ex: mission runners) to be removed from hi-sec local, so they are harder to find. I see a lot of ways to abuse this. I just bring in my high-standings alt into corp whenever I wardec someone... their high standings means they don't appear in local, and I can then get the drop on a completely unsuspecting enemy... I'm not sure this is a good thing...

Noitserri wrote:

Lastly I suggest a new battlecruiser type(using tech2 versions of drake/harby/myrmi/cane) possessing a new module that would either be able to detect(not locate)cloaks and include say a script to force decloak like an interdiction field generator. This module could be made to require fuel, have a sensor recalibration penalty, and or a speed penalty.


This would break cloaks.... Add one or two of these to a gate camp, so it'll decloak or prevent a ship from cloaking that's trying to break through the camp. I'm sorry, this just doesn't fly for me... I wrote my opinion out in more detail in this thread: Guildelines for Anti-cloaking Mechanics
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#52 - 2012-02-07 18:20:52 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Noitserri wrote:

Lastly I suggest a new battlecruiser type(using tech2 versions of drake/harby/myrmi/cane) possessing a new module that would either be able to detect(not locate)cloaks and include say a script to force decloak like an interdiction field generator. This module could be made to require fuel, have a sensor recalibration penalty, and or a speed penalty.


This would break cloaks.... Add one or two of these to a gate camp, so it'll decloak or prevent a ship from cloaking that's trying to break through the camp. I'm sorry, this just doesn't fly for me... I wrote my opinion out in more detail in this thread: Guildelines for Anti-cloaking Mechanics

I definitely was not considering gates in my previous comment on this. I am of a mind that cloaks in a bottleneck do not need any more help being hunted, they are already at a questionable level of disadvantage.

I know a lot of people like gates, but they really are an exploited game mechanic. We seriously need more interesting ways to hunt and attack each other. Ganking is not the form of PvP we should be helping or respecting, and gates are being used too much like this already.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Noitserri
Zervas Aeronautics
#53 - 2012-02-08 02:25:00 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
So you want players with high faction standings (ex: mission runners) to be removed from hi-sec local, so they are harder to find. I see a lot of ways to abuse this. I just bring in my high-standings alt into corp whenever I wardec someone... their high standings means they don't appear in local, and I can then get the drop on a completely unsuspecting enemy... I'm not sure this is a good thing...


1. The character would still appear at gates and stations.
2. Your suggesting that theres something wrong with someone getting caught off guard? Isn't that something you should be aiming for and that they should be preventing?
3. Say your group warp in and starts attacking only to realize that the "unsuspecting" was bait

What I'm trying to get at is there needs to be more emphasis on intel gathering. If targets aren't guaranteed to show up in local people would have to work on making sure people aren't hunting them or trying to set them up.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#54 - 2012-02-08 16:20:10 UTC
Noitserri wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
So you want players with high faction standings (ex: mission runners) to be removed from hi-sec local, so they are harder to find. I see a lot of ways to abuse this. I just bring in my high-standings alt into corp whenever I wardec someone... their high standings means they don't appear in local, and I can then get the drop on a completely unsuspecting enemy... I'm not sure this is a good thing...


1. The character would still appear at gates and stations.
2. Your suggesting that theres something wrong with someone getting caught off guard? Isn't that something you should be aiming for and that they should be preventing?
3. Say your group warp in and starts attacking only to realize that the "unsuspecting" was bait

What I'm trying to get at is there needs to be more emphasis on intel gathering. If targets aren't guaranteed to show up in local people would have to work on making sure people aren't hunting them or trying to set them up.


I agree with your founding principles there.... and I really do like the idea of faction standings mattering, especially in terms of hi-sec warfare. I don't necessarily think they should be completely removed from local, but, in terms of the intel system I was suggesting, left as just "unknowns" in local until someone actually "gathered intel" on them.

I believe people should always easily ascertain whether a potential threat is in system... but it is up to them to discern potential threats from real threats.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#55 - 2012-02-08 18:53:22 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Noitserri wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
So you want players with high faction standings (ex: mission runners) to be removed from hi-sec local, so they are harder to find. I see a lot of ways to abuse this. I just bring in my high-standings alt into corp whenever I wardec someone... their high standings means they don't appear in local, and I can then get the drop on a completely unsuspecting enemy... I'm not sure this is a good thing...


1. The character would still appear at gates and stations.
2. Your suggesting that theres something wrong with someone getting caught off guard? Isn't that something you should be aiming for and that they should be preventing?
3. Say your group warp in and starts attacking only to realize that the "unsuspecting" was bait

What I'm trying to get at is there needs to be more emphasis on intel gathering. If targets aren't guaranteed to show up in local people would have to work on making sure people aren't hunting them or trying to set them up.


I agree with your founding principles there.... and I really do like the idea of faction standings mattering, especially in terms of hi-sec warfare. I don't necessarily think they should be completely removed from local, but, in terms of the intel system I was suggesting, left as just "unknowns" in local until someone actually "gathered intel" on them.

I believe people should always easily ascertain whether a potential threat is in system... but it is up to them to discern potential threats from real threats.

Here is a thought.

Have the gates maintain the following counts:
Ships entering system in last 30/60 minutes
Ships leaving system in last 30/60 minutes

It won't say who cloaked, got killed, logged, or whatever.
Just the people using the gates, and what direction they went, in or out.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Noitserri
Zervas Aeronautics
#56 - 2012-02-08 22:19:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Noitserri
So to revise the idea

Local channel would still reflect the number of people in system.

High sec, local chat would be mandatory except for those with high enough standing with the sovereign faction. Those with standing high enough could choose to not be listed in local. Also in systems with security .1 or higher(the security rating could be different .1 is just a suggestion, though for faction based it sounds reasonable) players who incur aggression timers (or if something more is needed anyone with low security status) will automatically be forced to local...


I also had another idea involving the scanner idea how about as you narrow the direction of the d-scan down on the suspested threat you get more information instead say at like 60 or lower it would show more information than it would currently do now. Since that would be more realistic as you focusing in a direction it would realistic make the scan stronger.
Previous page123