These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

[IDEA] Removing Local and In-System Intel
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rynnik
Evasion Gaming
The Ancients.
#1 - 2011-11-01 20:26:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Rynnik
A possible solution to D-Scan, local channel and in-system intel.

Currently in game you have a number of elements which provide you with information on your current solar system.

These are:

  • Local
  • Directional Scanner
  • Overview
  • System Scanner which is really two elements with the On-Board Scanner and then probes when equipped
  • Star Map/Solar System Map
  • Moon Analysis


CCP has recently buffed the System Scanner and the probe system. They have also indicated that they are, or are at least interested in, looking at the local channel mechanic and the role it plays in gathering intelligence.

Here is one possible approach, hoping to incorporate and address the majority of obvious issues revising in-system intel will cause. For the purposes of this idea the Moon Analysis and the Star Map/Solar System Mapwill NOT be addressed as I don't believe current mechanics need to effect or be effected by this concept.


The On and Off Grid Overview

  1. Change local in all systems in EVE to delayed local as per current WHs local mechanics. (Option 1: change the 'scope' of local chat to constellation chat, a scaling number of systems depending on number of pilots around, or something else CCP can figure out).

    2. The reason I say all systems in EVE rather then just nullsec or lowsec is that this proposal completely changes in-system intel. The endstate is to have the Local channel become what it should have been in the beginning: a chat channel.

    Due to requiring a new way of thinking about in-system intel it is important to make this change EVE wide so that highsec only people are also using the new system, new players are learning and getting familiar with the new system, and there is no longer a 'intel works one way in this type of space but another way here' situation.

  2. Remove the current Directional Scanner from the game. Remove the On-Board scanner from the game.

    3. The intent is to completely steal or transfer the capabilities of these intel tools into the new Off-Grid overview (see point 4).

  3. Change the current overview to only display on grid information.

    4. Keep the current functionality of the overview the same but remove any and all Off-Grid information from this mechanic - it will be covered in the new system. That Off-Grid information will be the realm of the new Off-Grid Overview. (see point 4)

    Overhaul the UI of the overview. Essentially the pilot can choose to have as few or as many overview tabs open and configured as they like (it may require a cap for lag or some other artificial concerns). The adressing of this as two separate overviews is a bit of a misnomer as the intent would be that the UI for the overview be much more customizable then it is now. You could 'simulate' the output of the current D-Scan and Overview exactly if that was your preference. Alternatively you could have 5 different overviews windows open so you could watch five 'tabs' simultaneously. Additionally there would be no restrictions saying that this tab can only contain On-Grid or Off-Grid overview data. Even better would be CCP adding bookmarks as previously discussed.


  4. Create a new overview category. The Off-Grid Overview.



Continued in next post...
Rynnik
Evasion Gaming
The Ancients.
#2 - 2011-11-01 20:27:44 UTC
Create a new overview category. The Off-Grid Overview.

This is the meat of the idea.

Take the combined information currently in local, the overview, the directional scanner, and the system scanner and combine it into your off-grid intel tool: the Off-Grid Overview.

At first glance it will look very similar to the current overview. It will have a number of configurable tabs, a range and angle adjustment and display (as per the current D-Scan), and a variety of configurable columns (exactly like the current overview).

The On-Grid Overview remains exactly as the overview is today. Instant, invulnerable, omnipotent (with the exception of cloaks). The new Off-Grid Overview will be delayed, vulnerable, scalable, and limited.

See point 3 above for ideas about the overview UI.

The Off-Grid Overview will display all off grid items that the overview currently displays. Gates, celestials, stations, cynos, static complexes etc. all either have an electronic broadcast or is detectable by ship sensors. This information is all displayed on the Off-Grid in exactly the same way it is today on the current overview. Tabs can be configured to sort or adjust this information exactly like they can be today. So more or less no change at all other then being in a new window if you want.

Off-grid items that are displayed on the D-Scan are shown by the Off-Grid Overview. Tabs can be configured to sort and display this information exactly like the D-Scanner does today when using the "use current oversettings" option. There is NO LONGER A D-SCAN BUTTON. The system is automatically being scanned by your ship at all times in accordance with the settings you have chosen for range and angle. The frequency of scans can be determined by CCP depending on balance. (I would suggest between 'EVE tick' and the current D-Scan spam limit - but that is of course out of my hands. This is also scalable as in seeking information from further and further away or on a wider angle could decrease the frequency of ticks.)

The information you get from D-Scan while much like today will also incorporate the data you can get from local. At max range 360 degrees you may only be able to tell that is a ship there. (Option 2: you could have it so the new overview has a much greater range then the current D-Scan and scale information, like at 20 AU have it report an "Unidentified Object" while at 14 AU it reports a ship type like today, at 10 AU report ship type and name, at 8 AU display standings, at 5 AU display Pilot corp or alliance, at 2 AU display pilot name etc. It can either be more or less restrictive then today. You can also change how restrictive it is in what situation. To make empire space 'easier' for intel you can have all ships in space displayed up to 500 AU away or something in order to allow business to carry on with the ease it is now.) The amount of information gained is scaled with both range and angle (It may be actual worth while to go down to a 5 degree scan in order to get more information rather then figuring out the 'celestial' on a 30 degree scan and never going lower). CCP can figure out exactly how it scales but all of the 'skill' in current d-scanning should transfer to the new system and being fast and agile with the tool should result in a more informed pilot then a someone who is not good with current D-Scan. The only 'skill' removed from the current system is actually pressing the button.

In the theme of data and information being collected by ships as they move through space rather then a 'magic' local channel, friendly ships would be in communication with each other. All this means is that the scalable information recieved should be much greater for 'friendly' ships (dependant on corp/alliance/standings etc. as variables is possible). Therefore with the ships 'talking' to each other you have friendly information on where they are at potentially an increased scope from today. (Option 3: Triangulation. It is possible for CCP to decide in the realm of scaling information to also add 'triangulation' and have ship sensors work together to provide a more complete picture of a system and ENEMY information. Overlapping ship sensor ranges and well coordinated angles could result in additional data or data recieved at a much greater scalability when combining multiple ship inputs. This could be limited to fleet or some other 'working together' mechanic and could result in a group of three Covops being more effective for scouting an entire system then a lone ship. As an anti-blobbing limitation the scalability could degrade as well. Up to CCP to adjust.)

The On-Board scanner information (scanning down complexes for example) is incorporated into the new Off-Grid overview. After a certain amount of subwarp time the information gained by clicking the current system scanner button is displayed (same scanning time as currently or can be adjusted, can even function as a variable of what is being scanned). (Option 4: CCP can choose to have your ship scanner take longer to 'lock onto' certain items like lower complexes come up faster then currently, while 10/10s take longer. Additionally this could be expanded to 'nerf' current overview functionality like have enemy Outposts have a delay before your ship locks onto them while friendly outposts are immediately visable, Nullsec stargates take longer to show up then Empire ones, on and on - effectively CCP could tweak this however they wanted to adjust off-grid information and use it as a factor to tweak various 'types' of space).

None of this Off-Grid Overview system affects scanning with probes. That system remains the same as it currently is. Nothing that currently requires probes to find is able to be found 'automatically' by the Off-Grid Overview.
Rynnik
Evasion Gaming
The Ancients.
#3 - 2011-11-01 20:29:02 UTC
Result:


  • A local chat which is only that. If you decide to smack it up you get 'penalized' by giving away information currently found in local.

  • A new way of processing information based off an intel tool used by every EVE player everyday anyways: the Overview.

  • A nerf to all-knowing local and its undefeatable intel.

  • A buff to D-Scan by it being 'automated'. Same skill to use it well - less button spamming.

  • A change of format for the On-Board scanner with the same capability but less button spamming.

  • A whole host of new ways for CCP to tweak types of space and the amount of information pilots recieve in it to suit any purpose.




Options: (consolidated from text)

Option 1: change the 'scope' of local chat to constellation chat, a scaling number of systems depending on number of pilots around, or something else CCP can figure out.

Option 2: you could have it so the new overview has a much greater range then the current D-Scan and scale information, like at 20 AU have it report an "Unidentified Object" while at 14 AU it reports a ship type like today, at 10 AU report ship type and name, at 8 AU display standings, at 5 AU display Pilot corp or alliance, at 2 AU display pilot name etc. It can either be more or less restrictive then today. You can also change how restrictive it is in what situation. To make empire space 'easier' for intel you can have all ships in space displayed up to 500 AU away or something in order to allow business to carry on with the ease it is now.

Option 3: Triangulation. It is possible for CCP to decide in the realm of scaling information to also add 'triangulation' and have ship sensors work together to provide a more complete picture of a system and ENEMY information. Overlapping ship sensor ranges and well coordinated angles could result in additional data or data recieved at a much greater scalability when combining multiple ship inputs. This could be limited to fleet or some other 'working together' mechanic and could result in a group of three Covops being more effective for scouting an entire system then a lone ship. As an anti-blobbing limitation the scalability could degrade as well. Up to CCP to adjust.

Option 4: CCP can choose to have your ship scanner take longer to 'lock onto' certain items like lower complexes come up faster then currently, while 10/10s take longer. Additionally this could be expanded to 'nerf' current overview functionality like have enemy Outposts have a delay before your ship locks onto them while friendly outposts are immediately visable, Nullsec stargates take longer to show up then Empire ones, on and on - effectively CCP could tweak this however they wanted to adjust off-grid information and use it as a factor to tweak various 'types' of space.

Option 5: (not included in main text) There is an ability to tweak EWAR and allow offensive adjustment of what a Pilot can see. What if ECM no longer affect ship locking but instead shuts down all information systems on the Off-Grid overview? The possibilities are endless. I hope to get lots more discussion on this point.

Option 6: (not included in main text) Sensor Strength related to intel. The sensor strength of a ship could potentially have an impact on the scalable data. Race sensor strengths are generally Caldari > Gallente > Amarr > Minmatar. This could be an interest racial balance mechanic. It would provide the often desired postive side effect to ECCM in the way that sensor boosters/sigamps, tracking computers/TEs counter Damps and TDs but still provide nice bonuses to the ship usefull for the rest of the time
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#4 - 2011-11-01 20:56:52 UTC
I prefer my local.

Go live in wh space.

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
killorbekilled TBE
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2011-11-01 21:18:23 UTC
0.0 space should be like wh local, low sec delayed, and empire always there

:)
Rynnik
Evasion Gaming
The Ancients.
#6 - 2011-11-02 10:30:38 UTC
CCP may be considering changes to local regardless of whether we think it is a good idea overall. My idea was to try and replace a chat channel as the intel tool with an amalgamation and upgrade of current tools.

Maybe scaled versions of local would be enough. But I would personally rather see local replaced as an in-system intel tool completely.
Rynnik
Evasion Gaming
The Ancients.
#7 - 2011-11-04 12:36:55 UTC
Bump.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#8 - 2011-11-04 12:41:59 UTC
no

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#9 - 2011-11-04 12:55:27 UTC
Simply removed cloaked vessels from local, remove local from cloaked vessels and put a time delay on most ships being able to lite a cyno when decloaking. There's a thread on this already I believe. Blink

DScan may not be elegant, but it works perfectly fine. I don't want it automated, I want full control of it. I want to be responsible on my own. You set the system up to favor bots grotesquely... this is a bad thing.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#10 - 2011-11-04 12:58:13 UTC
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Simply removed cloaked vessels from local, remove local from cloaked vessels and put a time delay on most ships being able to lite a cyno when decloaking. There's a thread on this already I believe. Blink


god no

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Anshio Tamark
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#11 - 2011-11-04 13:28:15 UTC
Andski wrote:
no

For once, I agree with someone from Goonswarm. Local is fine the way it is. If you don't want people to know you're in a certain system, go jump into a wormhole. Don't make CCP **** up what actually works the way it's meant to.
Rina Asanari
CitadeI
#12 - 2011-11-04 13:29:36 UTC
Yet another "remove local" thread. Search is your friend, there are enough of them already around. And adding yet more to the pile doesn't make what you say any more plausible, just the opposite is the case.
Miss CEO
Universal Excavation Services
#13 - 2011-11-04 13:52:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Miss CEO
Anshio Tamark wrote:
Andski wrote:
no

For once, I agree with someone from Goonswarm. Local is fine the way it is. If you don't want people to know you're in a certain system, go jump into a wormhole. Don't make CCP **** up what actually works the way it's meant to.


Made me cry a little inside Shocked

Personally I do support revamping local big time.... it's only been on the table for... eh... 5 years (or more) afterall. Not sure there needs to be any complex mechanic to replace todays local though.

The whole problem with local is that it gives instant intel about the state of entire system. Replacing local with another mechanic that does the exact same thing just doesn't make sense to me (not saying this idea is just about that). The ability to view your surroundings should be tied to your ships sensor capabilities and in turn active high power sensors should be easier to detect than low powered or passive systems. In any case no ordinary ship should be able to "see" the whole system from one spot. This role should be reserved for some special ship and info distributed through fleet.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#14 - 2011-11-04 14:07:59 UTC
Delayed local in nullsec would turn the whole place into a ghost town, especially NPC 0.0. Seriously, if you like delayed local, move to a wormhole.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Miss CEO
Universal Excavation Services
#15 - 2011-11-04 20:29:40 UTC
heh, I like W-Space, I simply don't like using wormholes to get there.
Rynnik
Evasion Gaming
The Ancients.
#16 - 2011-11-04 21:01:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Rynnik
Ingvar Angst wrote:
You set the system up to favor bots grotesquely... this is a bad thing.


I hadn't considered bots when drafting this idea, but thinking about it now I don't see how this is the case. Current local mechanics certainly provide a way for bots to operate with impunity but if a system like I presented was adopted it would be almost impossible for bots to react to a cloaky bot hunter who enters a system outside of max ship sensor range.

I would love to hear why you think bots would be better off though as this is definitely something important to consider.

Anshio Tamark wrote:
For once, I agree with someone from Goonswarm. Local is fine the way it is. If you don't want people to know you're in a certain system, go jump into a wormhole. Don't make CCP **** up what actually works the way it's meant to.


From CSM Meeting Minutes:
Quote:
Conversation then took a bit of a tangent, and Arnar mentioned that local as we know it is going to change in a Winter expansion. The CSM was taken aback by this and let fly a torrent of questions about this new “no local”. Local, as it was explained, had to change because of changes to EVE’s infrastructure needed for future Incarna development. However, it would be replaced by a new, yet-to-be-designed intelligence gathering tool. Local would not simply just “turn off” and turn into delayed mode, such as in wormhole space. It is worth a repeat – local will NOT be simply turned off and/or turned into delayed mode. Arnar and Torfi both emphasized the importance of not feeling alone in space; they reasoned that the game has fifty thousand players and that it shouldn’t feel as though you’re alone. The CSM will be kept in the loop regarding this design when more is known.

From Nullsec DevBlog:
Quote:

Intel
•Reward time, localism, thought, investment, teamwork
◦Time - gathering intelligence should not be quick. People who take the time to really do their homework should be rewarded.
◦Localism - there should be a clear advantage to specializing in a particular area, allowing players to build up local knowledge and use it against their enemies.
◦Thought - intel-gathering should not be a rote activity, it should require people to make plans and then adjust them as they go.
◦Investment - those who are willing to make investments in intel-gathering, either in static or mobile tools, should be rewarded, as this further encourages specialization.
◦Teamwork - working together should be more efficient than working separately, because getting people to interact always brings value of one sort or another.

•Pervasive concern
◦Intel should not be a thing that you think about occasionally, or that can be worked on a bit and then checked off on a list as "done". Decision-makers should always be thinking about their intel and how up-to-date it is. This ensures that intel-gathering is a useful specialization, and further implies that there are lots of decisions that other players could be making that will disrupt your plans. A game that requires constantly updating intelligence for optimal gameplay is a game where there's a lot going on and a lot of interesting decisions to be made.

•Strong tools for collecting and sharing
◦To support the other goals here, tools should be available for collecting and sharing intel that minimize the amount of rote work, particularly documentation, that players need to engage in. This frees up their attention for collaboration, analysis and decision-making.

•Moving target
◦New information should become old information on the shortest delay sensible for a given thing. This serves to make intel an ongoing concern and a regular occupation, gives people space to take action before their opponents are ready for it, and adds an edge of urgency to decision-making. People should not be asking if their intel is up-to-date, they should be asking how out-of-date it is.

•Active components
◦Intelligence-gathering should not be a purely passive occupation. There should be plenty of opportunities for gatherers to take a more active stance, either to take shortcuts in gathering the intel, or to act on it right away and sabotage or otherwise mess with the enemy's stuff. There should though always be the risk of getting caught, and having your patrol cut short on top of the usual drawbacks of eg getting shot. This serves to make intel-gathering a little more interesting and engaging.
(Apoligies for bad formating but I am not THAT bored.)

These statements from CCP are the premise I am working from.

Miss CEO wrote:

Personally I do support revamping local big time.... it's only been on the table for... eh... 5 years (or more) afterall. Not sure there needs to be any complex mechanic to replace todays local though.

The whole problem with local is that it gives instant intel about the state of entire system. Replacing local with another mechanic that does the exact same thing just doesn't make sense to me (not saying this idea is just about that). The ability to view your surroundings should be tied to your ships sensor capabilities and in turn active high power sensors should be easier to detect than low powered or passive systems. In any case no ordinary ship should be able to "see" the whole system from one spot. This role should be reserved for some special ship and info distributed through fleet.


I think we agree on what we want to accomplish. The intent is to replace the current and 'all-knowing' intel of local chat with a system that has exploitable weaknesses, can be scalable and applicable to ALL types of space, is easy to use for new players and simpler folks, but also has huge benefits and increased results for those who can use all of the tools in the best way.
Rynnik
Evasion Gaming
The Ancients.
#17 - 2011-11-04 21:04:14 UTC
Andski wrote:
Delayed local in nullsec would turn the whole place into a ghost town, especially NPC 0.0. Seriously, if you like delayed local, move to a wormhole.


Why do you think this?

I am actually from an NPC 0.0 small gang PvP corp. I don't see any way implementing a system like this would encourage us to move out of NPC nullsec. Can you expand on your concerns a bit?
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#18 - 2011-11-04 22:39:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
Because local is an amazing double-edged sword. I can park a cloaked alt in a system, go AFK and essentially shut down their ratting, mining (if they're that miserable) and logistics (few people would dare jump a lone capital into a system with a hostile in local.) Local has worked fine in its existing implementation - I really don't see a reason to screw with it.

edit: I also haven't seen anything regarding local in any devblog more recent than the one you referred to.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Rynnik
Evasion Gaming
The Ancients.
#19 - 2011-11-05 00:20:19 UTC
Andski wrote:
Because local is an amazing double-edged sword. I can park a cloaked alt in a system, go AFK and essentially shut down their ratting, mining (if they're that miserable) and logistics (few people would dare jump a lone capital into a system with a hostile in local.) Local has worked fine in its existing implementation - I really don't see a reason to screw with it.

edit: I also haven't seen anything regarding local in any devblog more recent than the one you referred to.


I believe the references I quoted were the last mention about local from the devs. Maybe this does mean they have scrapped their stated plans, maybe it means they realised it will be a much more programming intensive project then they guessed and will take longer, or maybe they think it won't be a popular project and they have shelved it for more requested changes. I personally hope this is something they are still thinking about or planning for with the 'reinvestment' in FiS.

The current system is comfortable in some ways and I understand a reluctance to change it up. No matter what route is taken, a change like this will have a lot of unforseen consequences. I personally see that as a good thing and an opportunity but I also understand why some people may be hesitant to consider it.

As for the double edged sword you mention you would still be able to have all the same consequences on a system, with the change that you wouldn't be able to do it AFK. Frankly I think that is a fair trade for an increased ability to get the drop on unwary folks who don't have a good picket system or aren't lucky enough to catch a brief uncloak when entering through a WH or something.

I really liked the dev post about the goals for an intel system. Comparing them to the in-system intel we have now with local, none of the objectives are met. I think my proposal meets quite a few of them. There may be other better suggestions as well, but I am hoping to get some discussion on the particular elements of an idea, or implementation concerns, or maybe unintended consequences as I don't think there is a 'right' answer to whether or not local needs to change. I am just looking at the problem from the assumption that it WILL.
Wu Phat
InsufficientFunds LLC.
#20 - 2011-11-10 14:37:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Wu Phat
Outside of empire & low sec concord has no power. In NPC Null sec, it's the NPC faction that run their own star gates and what makes you think they want to share information with people they don't like (even docking rights for that matter). Same with sovereignty space, you guys pay to keep your gates up so you should be able to get a new Ihub mode that allows you to see local similar to what it is now but a roaming or invading fleet will be blind. Like someone else said, you should not be picked up by local if you entered a system from a wormhole.
123Next pageLast page