These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Replacing Local

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#81 - 2013-12-23 15:31:08 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
For many PvE aspects, it starts to have gaps. Null and high sec rewards are comparable, and while it is popular to claim null is dangerous, much of it is illusion behind the gate camps of the larger alliances.
No roam is likely to penetrate deep enough to reach sensitive targets, and even if they did, the warnings would have long been in place allowing all personnel to evacuate into the nearest POS or Outpost till the danger passed.


I would agree with this if it wasn't for the fact that you overlook the point that sov isn't free. You say this like all there is to it is turning up in null and grinding for isk. That's not the case. Null is only as safe as it is because we work day in day out to maintain it. Null is not inherently safe. A combination of the ownership of the systems, the intel infrastructure and well laid out strategic planning allows us to maintain a high level of safety, sure, but the same could be said anywhere, and could still be said if most of the local changes proposed were put in place.

SOV grants the following rewards, which can only be challenged by a blob.

1: moon mining rewards

2: PI activity, and rewards. (Yes, if a hostile can't bring that industrial, their PI installations are for nothing)

3: The ability to safely anchor structures, and upgrades.

Mining and ratting, on the other hand, can use the leverage offered by a POS / Outpost for safety, while denying this shelter and convenience to hostiles.

Accepting that:
SOV does not give you control over the gates, which still allow hostiles passage into and through sov space.

Mining and ratting, like any such exposed activity in EVE, is always done at your own risk.
Benefits and rewards are of more immediate concern, and the benefits of sov are far more limited in this context.

Pilots not present won't protect you.
A POS not on grid won't be of use.
An Outpost not on grid is also useless.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#82 - 2013-12-23 15:36:44 UTC
Electrique Wizard wrote:
Teckos Pech, Nikk Narrel, Lucas Kell,

Is this the new Kill AFK Cloaking and Local thread now the other one got locked? Because it sure seems that way.

Same 3 characters, spewing the same redundant arguments over and over again.

FYI: that thread got locked for a reason.

What a bizarre notion.

I have no idea what you are talking about.
I am "spewing" new arguments here, so I would ask to not be accused of something by base association, as I suspect you would also expect.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#83 - 2013-12-23 15:44:46 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
You realize how out of touch you are? No one will sit by your mining ship for 3 reasons. Extremely Boring, they are gaining nothing, and it will not prevent you from dying (because a pair of tornados can always come by and insta pop you and get the **** out).


In null, those tornados deserve to march over the entire region if they aren't stopped by even a basic gate camp. Sure, in high sec they are a suicide gank of choice, but this is not high sec for context.

Seriously, one bubble, competent pilots in fitted PvP ships. These are in the game already, so suggesting something that already fails as a weakness seems confused.
Sorry if this seems rude to point out, but you missed the obvious here.

I think you totally missed the point here. The point is it's a game. Who is going to want to spend all day watching you mine or rat all day long?

Thank you...
THAT IS MY POINT.
Why would I mine, or rat, or stand guard over players doing this on my behalf?

It is tedious, and has no challenge / reward index comparable to the PvP side of things.

This should be looked at!

How would YOU make PvE more challenging / rewarding for play?
You already made it clear you find it boring, as quoted above.
It IS a consideration, that changes to local COULD become a part of such an improvement.

Lucas Kell wrote:
And what is to stop someone coming along and alphaing you in a volley? A wormhole could open in system for example bypassing all gate camps. So you could spend all day watching someone mine or rat for a portion of their already terrible income, only to watch them get vapourised before you can land a blow. It pretty much sounds like the opposite of fun from moment 1.

If you are simply going to suggest ludicrous examples like wormholes being used as staging areas against sov space, I question whether you have the best interests of this topic in mind.

Seriously, you must recognize how unlikely that is for serious consideration here.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#84 - 2013-12-23 15:46:48 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
As of now local ensures that there is no STEALTH in the game, that smaller fleets have NO advantage over large fleets, and that a lot of fights do not happen because one side knows the other have 1 more ship than they do, so they will not take risk .


All these sympthoms must be attacked. And removal of local as PERFECT INTEL TOOL woudl solve it.
I disagree. Force projection means that any fleet could have a backup fleet ready to bridge in from hundreds of secondary staging systems. That would never change. We don't use local to figure out if there's a secondary fleet, we simply spy on the opposing alliance. When we do use in game intel we use the map system and look for a massive blob of ships sitting in space within jump range.
The removal of local would in fact result in less fights, since you would be less likely to have the spur of the moment escalation battles, and with PVE being under increased pressure, you'd like have less renters, less internal PVE funding and so less of a war chest.

Oh and I just want to point out that a small fleet shouldn't have a mechanical advantage over a large fleet. Why should it be "less people > more people"?

Kagura Nikon wrote:
Making local delayed woudl grant that. Allowign alliances to invest in a system to reduce the delay would create sensor networks, that coudl protect miners, but that could be ravaged by attacker. This would also create somethign we NEED, targets of opportunity for smaller gagns when they get to a region and no one undocks to fight them.
Really think about what you are saying here.

Imagine this scenario: You are in a small group and I am in a larger one. You come to our space. We have intel structures in place. We can see you on our intel but you can't see us, since you are just a small group in hostile space. So you come flying in to shoot our intel structures and we blob the ever living hell out of you.

Then conversely, we fly into your space, you have intel strucutres. You can see we have twice as many people as you can field, so we blob the ever living hell out of your stuff while you don't engage.

And you still won't get targets of opportunity, because whatever system replaces local, we'd still be able to see that a hostile is somewhere about. They aren't going to make cloakers completely invisible AND be able to fight.


You fail so much on purpose? Or you do it by accident?

Its incredibly easy to run into a 0.0 system and kill a structure that has as much EHP as a battleship with 3-4 ships undetected . Wormholes, Cloaky ships, Interceptors DIFFERENT TIMEZONES, at same time the local forces are fightign in a TIDI blob elseqhere.

There a Dozens of way to do that EASILY!!

And no whewre I said those structures should give compelte Full local power back, just reduced delay.

On my first point, Huge 0.0 war blocs are not ALL eve. The ffect I mentioned happens all over eve, high sec, low sec, ANYWHERE!!!

Stop looking at your own belly and thinking its the whole world.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#85 - 2013-12-23 15:46:48 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
For many PvE aspects, it starts to have gaps. Null and high sec rewards are comparable, and while it is popular to claim null is dangerous, much of it is illusion behind the gate camps of the larger alliances.
No roam is likely to penetrate deep enough to reach sensitive targets, and even if they did, the warnings would have long been in place allowing all personnel to evacuate into the nearest POS or Outpost till the danger passed.


I would agree with this if it wasn't for the fact that you overlook the point that sov isn't free. You say this like all there is to it is turning up in null and grinding for isk. That's not the case. Null is only as safe as it is because we work day in day out to maintain it. Null is not inherently safe. A combination of the ownership of the systems, the intel infrastructure and well laid out strategic planning allows us to maintain a high level of safety, sure, but the same could be said anywhere, and could still be said if most of the local changes proposed were put in place.

SOV grants the following rewards, which can only be challenged by a blob.

1: moon mining rewards

2: PI activity, and rewards. (Yes, if a hostile can't bring that industrial, their PI installations are for nothing)

3: The ability to safely anchor structures, and upgrades.

Mining and ratting, on the other hand, can use the leverage offered by a POS / Outpost for safety, while denying this shelter and convenience to hostiles.

Accepting that:
SOV does not give you control over the gates, which still allow hostiles passage into and through sov space.

Mining and ratting, like any such exposed activity in EVE, is always done at your own risk.
Benefits and rewards are of more immediate concern, and the benefits of sov are far more limited in this context.

Pilots not present won't protect you.
A POS not on grid won't be of use.
An Outpost not on grid is also useless.
I don't really get what you are saying here. The point is that null is not safe by default. It's only as safe at it is because we work to make it safe.
I'm not saying that paying sov grants you safety during PVE and I'm not saying it should. What I'm saying is that the thousands of man hours than go into maintaining the structures, patrolling the space and fighting with hostiles is what makes null PVE appears easy to someone not involved in any part except the end of line PVE activity. That doesn't mean that as a whole it's easy.

And FYI, PI is easy in hostile space. Blockade runners and planetary launches make it super easy to do.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Tryaz
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#86 - 2013-12-23 15:49:26 UTC
Okay new questions:

  • how often does the current Local provably save people from a gank (I don't count docking up as soon as any non-blue enters system as proof)?
  • how central is Local to the ganker's art?

Narrator of Chronicles of New Eden, the EVE audiobook series. Listen at www.soundcloud.com/chroniclesofneweden
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#87 - 2013-12-23 15:50:55 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Tryaz wrote:
Taking in to account the proposed impact of the relative sensor strengths and scan ranges of the different hulls upon the fidelity of information returned I think yes it would be much less automatic. You could only turn your speakers up and pay much less attention if you had correctly filtered the current scan results and were confident that your scan range and strength were sufficient to give you ENOUGH warning of hostile attention.
A well set up alt in a location designed to give the fastest response will be all that is needed. EVE is a game very much about perfecting the use of the meta. If a solution can be too easily perfected, then all it does is add a time or isk sink to those who haven't.

Tryaz wrote:
I don't presume to speak for anyone else but I would tentatively suggest the problem to be that, for both the agressor and agressed in EVE, the current system of Local provides too much information too easily and that a change in the mechanic, if carefully implemented, would make the gameplay more interesting for all.
More interesting for who?
People who engage in consensual PVP would find it harder to find each other. People who engage in PVE would get ganked more. People who engage in blob warfare would have less blobs (since FCs will be less eager to leap a group into battle without being able to effectively cout their surroundings).

It would seem to me that the only people that are likely to gain from any mechanic changes would be people who want to kill the ships of players who don't want to PVP, so gankers basically. And even their gain would be minimal, since ganking would just push more people into safer areas. Is more ganking really what you would consider "interesting" gameplay?

Tryaz wrote:
This is this article that originally inspired me to start this thread. In it CCP Fozzie says what he sees the problem with Local to be.
Even Fozzie doesn't really state what the problem is. He says "too powerful" but what is that? Too powerful for what or compared to what?

A lot of the people arguing for the changes it sounds like they just don't like local. They aren't able to articulate a problem it is causing, and they can't highlight who it is that is being disadvantaged by it, they just don't like that it's "automatic". But that's nto a reason for change. If anything things are getting MORE automatic.

For example, you used to have to fly between safes, plonking down scan probes to scan people out, as you couldn't drag them on the system map. They then changed that to the new dragging mechanic. They then changed it so you can preset their formation, and that they return automatically to your cargohold when docking or jumping. Essentially they realised that all this flying about and button clicking was annoying and streamlined it down to the new, automatic system.

A new local mechanic would be the direct opposite. They would be adding clicks and sinks to the existing system. Now if that had some profound benefit, I'd be well on board, but it doesn't. At most it helps gankers and makes other forms of PVP harder to find. And I'd be pretty pissed off if CCP wastes a whole bunch of time developing things like this while SOV mechanics themselves are still shite, POS permissions are a true nightmare (especially in wormholes where a POS is mandatory) and the research and manufacturing clickfest is still in full swing.


As of now local ensures that there is no STEALTH in the game, that smaller fleets have NO advantage over large fleets, and that a lot of fights do not happen because one side knows the other have 1 more ship than they do, so they will not take risk .


All these sympthoms must be attacked. And removal of local as PERFECT INTEL TOOL woudl solve it.


Making local delayed woudl grant that. Allowign alliances to invest in a system to reduce the delay would create sensor networks, that coudl protect miners, but that could be ravaged by attacker. This would also create somethign we NEED, targets of opportunity for smaller gagns when they get to a region and no one undocks to fight them.


While Kagura Nikon is a bit...strong with the above statements (standing down because hostiles have +1 ship) there is quite a bit of validity to the above reply. Nobody likes risk or uncertainty. We do what we can to minimize/mitigate it. In that sense local is "too good".

Of course it is something that many in the game depend on in the game from fleet level combat down to individuals ratting/mining away. Even people doing gate camps will use local to see when a new potential target enters system. If you have somebody flying around in "your" space, you'll use local to keep track of him, possibly try to hunt him down.

So something will be necessary to fill the void should local be changed so it is no longer a source of intel.

One part I like about the delay options noted above with the structures to decrease the delay time and making them vulnerable gives a roaming gang something to shoot at to possibly draw out a response. Right now if you turtle up when a hostile gang comes into "your" space that is a great way to get rid of them...out wait them and have them leave of boredom. Now if you do that they might run around and tear down your intel system leaving you blind until you fix it.

But would it be sufficient to get rid of things like AFK cloaking? Or should AFK cloaking be allowed to remain in game?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#88 - 2013-12-23 15:53:16 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Thank you...
THAT IS MY POINT.
Why would I mine, or rat, or stand guard over players doing this on my behalf?

It is tedious, and has no challenge / reward index comparable to the PvP side of things.

This should be looked at!

How would YOU make PvE more challenging / rewarding for play?
You already made it clear you find it boring, as quoted above.
It IS a consideration, that changes to local COULD become a part of such an improvement.
I think PVE is fine as is. A PVP player should not have to sit staring at a PVE player all day long. I stated that the act of watching a miner or ratter all day is boring, nto the actual PVE activity. You are really trying to stretch words to make it seem like we're on the same page, but we are not. Essentially what you want is PVE and PVP combined. You can get that, go mine in hostile space.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
If you are simply going to suggest ludicrous examples like wormholes being used as staging areas against sov space, I question whether you have the best interests of this topic in mind.

Seriously, you must recognize how unlikely that is for serious consideration here.
Because nobody has ever come out of a wormhole into null space and attacked someone right? Are you mental?
I'm not saying they are going to stage an attack on sov, but you stated that for a single ship to gt in he MUST have gone through several gatecamps. I'm just pointing out that's not true, not even a little bit. Wormholes serve up hostiles all the time.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Tryaz
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#89 - 2013-12-23 15:55:39 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
But would it be sufficient to get rid of things like AFK cloaking? Or should AFK cloaking be allowed to remain in game?

On the topic of AFK cloaking, seeing as it seems to be a huge hurdle in any attempted change of Local, can I say two things?

  1. AFK Cloaking is only as big a threat as you PERCEIVE it to be
  2. Removing Local removes the threat of AFK Cloaking

Narrator of Chronicles of New Eden, the EVE audiobook series. Listen at www.soundcloud.com/chroniclesofneweden
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#90 - 2013-12-23 16:03:17 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
You fail so much on purpose? Or you do it by accident?

Its incredibly easy to run into a 0.0 system and kill a structure that has as much EHP as a battleship with 3-4 ships undetected . Wormholes, Cloaky ships, Interceptors DIFFERENT TIMEZONES, at same time the local forces are fightign in a TIDI blob elseqhere.

There a Dozens of way to do that EASILY!!

And no whewre I said those structures should give compelte Full local power back, just reduced delay.

On my first point, Huge 0.0 war blocs are not ALL eve. The ffect I mentioned happens all over eve, high sec, low sec, ANYWHERE!!!

Stop looking at your own belly and thinking its the whole world.
So in your dream world this structure is the size of a personal structure, and it can't get put next to a POS? So literally a couple of people can just show up an shoot it? I doubt it mate, that would be beyond useless, and would STILL be harder for a small group to replace. To be honest if that happened I'd dedicate 2 alts to fly around small alliance space ninja-nuking those to death so they were spending trillions a month on replacing them, just for fun.

I never said huge blobs are all of EVE, I'm just pointing out how sticking in these ideas isn't going to suddenly make you better at PVP. If you are failing to kill people now, having a paid for intel system is not going to make you any better. You stated yourself "smaller fleets have NO advantage over large fleets". That's not going to change. larger fleets, null blocs or not, will still be stronger than smaller fleets. The only thing that makes a small fleet better is funding and skill. Changing local won't give you either of those things.

Now the real point is that if you add a structure that can be used to give more or faster intel, then defending fleets will benefit more that attacking ones. But if the attacking fleet is big enough then the advantage won't mean anything since you'll just be able to see the enormous fleet destroying your stuff.

And glad to see that it only takes a single post for you to resort to personal attacks though.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Tryaz
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#91 - 2013-12-23 16:04:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Tryaz
Lucas, please don't use arguments for the sake of pure leverage. If this
Lucas Kell wrote:
A new local mechanic would be [...] adding clicks and sinks to the existing system. Now if that had some profound benefit, I'd be well on board, but it doesn't. At most it helps gankers and makes other forms of PVP harder to find. And I'd be pretty pissed off if CCP wastes a whole bunch of time developing things like this while SOV mechanics themselves are still shite, POS permissions are a true nightmare (especially in wormholes where a POS is mandatory) and the research and manufacturing clickfest is still in full swing.

was really your view you'd have stated it once and gone elsewhere. I value your contribution to this thread but I'd much rather that you come out and state YOUR interest in the discussion instead of just detracting from the perspectives of others who are suggesting the changes to Local that would suit their EVE.

Narrator of Chronicles of New Eden, the EVE audiobook series. Listen at www.soundcloud.com/chroniclesofneweden
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#92 - 2013-12-23 16:06:00 UTC
Tryaz wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
But would it be sufficient to get rid of things like AFK cloaking? Or should AFK cloaking be allowed to remain in game?

On the topic of AFK cloaking, seeing as it seems to be a huge hurdle in any attempted change of Local, can I say two things?

  1. AFK Cloaking is only as big a threat as you PERCEIVE it to be
  2. Removing Local removes the threat of AFK Cloaking


I agree with both of these, but at the same time we have to be careful not to make life in null "too risky". If local is no longer providing intel, then cloaking becomes very powerful. Currently the powerful nature of cloaking is countered by the powerful nature of local.

And don't get me wrong, I agree with you that there is no true stealth in the game for ships that are supposedly designed to be stealthy (stealth bombers, black ops, force recons, etc.). I would love to see some degree of stealth for these ships, but at the same time we need to keep null a viable place for people to do stuff besides mine moons, build supers, and do reactions.

What is the point of having stealth is there is nobody to try and sneak up on?

And lets please keep the discussion civil.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Electrique Wizard
Mutually Lucrative Business Proposals
#93 - 2013-12-23 16:11:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Electrique Wizard
Teckos Pech wrote:
Tryaz wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
But would it be sufficient to get rid of things like AFK cloaking? Or should AFK cloaking be allowed to remain in game?

On the topic of AFK cloaking, seeing as it seems to be a huge hurdle in any attempted change of Local, can I say two things?

  1. AFK Cloaking is only as big a threat as you PERCEIVE it to be
  2. Removing Local removes the threat of AFK Cloaking


I agree with both of these, but at the same time we have to be careful not to make life in null "too risky". If local is no longer providing intel, then cloaking becomes very powerful. Currently the powerful nature of cloaking is countered by the powerful nature of local.

And don't get me wrong, I agree with you that there is no true stealth in the game for ships that are supposedly designed to be stealthy (stealth bombers, black ops, force recons, etc.). I would love to see some degree of stealth for these ships, but at the same time we need to keep null a viable place for people to do stuff besides mine moons, build supers, and do reactions.

What is the point of having stealth is there is nobody to try and sneak up on?

And lets please keep the discussion civil.


I thought you just replied to me saying you didnt know what I was talking about when I pointed out you're turning this into the new "Stop AFK cloaking" topic?

::EDIT:: my bad, wrong one of the 3

Also if local is removed AFK cloaking isnt an issue, since you dont know anyone is there. Solving 2 issues that arent even there at once!

I am the Zodiac, I am the stars, You are the sorceress, my priestess of Mars, Queen of the night, swathed in satin black, Your ivory flesh upon my torture rack.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#94 - 2013-12-23 16:17:01 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
You fail so much on purpose? Or you do it by accident?

Its incredibly easy to run into a 0.0 system and kill a structure that has as much EHP as a battleship with 3-4 ships undetected . Wormholes, Cloaky ships, Interceptors DIFFERENT TIMEZONES, at same time the local forces are fightign in a TIDI blob elseqhere.

There a Dozens of way to do that EASILY!!

And no whewre I said those structures should give compelte Full local power back, just reduced delay.

On my first point, Huge 0.0 war blocs are not ALL eve. The ffect I mentioned happens all over eve, high sec, low sec, ANYWHERE!!!

Stop looking at your own belly and thinking its the whole world.
So in your dream world this structure is the size of a personal structure, and it can't get put next to a POS? So literally a couple of people can just show up an shoot it? I doubt it mate, that would be beyond useless, and would STILL be harder for a small group to replace. To be honest if that happened I'd dedicate 2 alts to fly around small alliance space ninja-nuking those to death so they were spending trillions a month on replacing them, just for fun.

I never said huge blobs are all of EVE, I'm just pointing out how sticking in these ideas isn't going to suddenly make you better at PVP. If you are failing to kill people now, having a paid for intel system is not going to make you any better. You stated yourself "smaller fleets have NO advantage over large fleets". That's not going to change. larger fleets, null blocs or not, will still be stronger than smaller fleets. The only thing that makes a small fleet better is funding and skill. Changing local won't give you either of those things.

Now the real point is that if you add a structure that can be used to give more or faster intel, then defending fleets will benefit more that attacking ones. But if the attacking fleet is big enough then the advantage won't mean anything since you'll just be able to see the enormous fleet destroying your stuff.

And glad to see that it only takes a single post for you to resort to personal attacks though.


Lucas has a point here, although he could have stated it in a more civil and constructive manner, IMO.

If there are intel structures and they are so flimsy that a small group (3-4) people can easily take them down, then it is not much better than simply making local like local in W-space. And while that works in W-space keep in mind that there is much less of a force projection issue in W-space vs. K-space.

And, if these structures simply speed up the delayed local, then we could end up with the kind of situation we have now: people AFK cloaking, PvE pilots scurrying for safety as soon as a non-hostile shows up, and players resorting to AWOXing.

Please, keep things civil and don't resort to personal attacks. Make posts constructive, even if you are criticizing another's suggestion.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#95 - 2013-12-23 16:20:25 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
While Kagura Nikon is a bit...strong with the above statements (standing down because hostiles have +1 ship) there is quite a bit of validity to the above reply. Nobody likes risk or uncertainty. We do what we can to minimize/mitigate it. In that sense local is "too good".

Of course it is something that many in the game depend on in the game from fleet level combat down to individuals ratting/mining away. Even people doing gate camps will use local to see when a new potential target enters system. If you have somebody flying around in "your" space, you'll use local to keep track of him, possibly try to hunt him down.

So something will be necessary to fill the void should local be changed so it is no longer a source of intel.

One part I like about the delay options noted above with the structures to decrease the delay time and making them vulnerable gives a roaming gang something to shoot at to possibly draw out a response. Right now if you turtle up when a hostile gang comes into "your" space that is a great way to get rid of them...out wait them and have them leave of boredom. Now if you do that they might run around and tear down your intel system leaving you blind until you fix it.

But would it be sufficient to get rid of things like AFK cloaking? Or should AFK cloaking be allowed to remain in game?
The structures would need to be away from a POS and cheap enough for smaller alliances to afford to replace though wouldn't they? So groups like ours would just fly around small alliance space in roaming gangs blowing them up, knowing it's going to cost more relatively to replace them. It would be more of a way for us to harass them than they other way around. If this were to be in, they would need to be POS structures, well EHPed (like a jump bridge, in the millions). I'd just have a personal structure that suppresses the intel, so an attacking group chucks down an intel suppressor, blocking off the functions of the POS module. The suppressor itself would have a couple of million EHP but be timed for say 24 hours and unable to be unanchored.
But even then, I'm really not sure what the use would be. Like I say the only people that would really gain from a lack of local is gankers. Everyone else would just have more to do for nowt.

And the whole turtle up thing, only PVE ships will generally dock up. If the ships flying around are worth fighting, there is almost always a fleet up to get them. Most people roaming null though, they come flying down in their cloaked, nullified Tengu, then they rage out that nobody is coming to fight them. It's because we can;t be bothered to waste hours chasing around a ship that's uncatchable.

Seriously, fly a cynabal into hostile space and you'll get a scrap or two. Fly a Tengu in and everyone will disappear. If it's encouraging a fight you want, it's about showing that you want to fight and not play cloaky games. I have literally seen roaming groups say the words "Gah, it's a cloaky T3, don't bother".

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#96 - 2013-12-23 16:21:11 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas has a point here, although he could have stated it in a more civil and constructive manner, IMO.

If there are intel structures and they are so flimsy that a small group (3-4) people can easily take them down, then it is not much better than simply making local like local in W-space. And while that works in W-space keep in mind that there is much less of a force projection issue in W-space vs. K-space.

And, if these structures simply speed up the delayed local, then we could end up with the kind of situation we have now: people AFK cloaking, PvE pilots scurrying for safety as soon as a non-hostile shows up, and players resorting to AWOXing.

Please, keep things civil and don't resort to personal attacks. Make posts constructive, even if you are criticizing another's suggestion.
He started it. :D

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#97 - 2013-12-23 16:25:05 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
I would agree with this if it wasn't for the fact that you overlook the point that sov isn't free. You say this like all there is to it is turning up in null and grinding for isk. That's not the case. Null is only as safe as it is because we work day in day out to maintain it. Null is not inherently safe. A combination of the ownership of the systems, the intel infrastructure and well laid out strategic planning allows us to maintain a high level of safety, sure, but the same could be said anywhere, and could still be said if most of the local changes proposed were put in place.


Followed by:

Lucas Kell wrote:
I don't really get what you are saying here. The point is that null is not safe by default. It's only as safe at it is because we work to make it safe.
I'm not saying that paying sov grants you safety during PVE and I'm not saying it should. What I'm saying is that the thousands of man hours than go into maintaining the structures, patrolling the space and fighting with hostiles is what makes null PVE appears easy to someone not involved in any part except the end of line PVE activity. That doesn't mean that as a whole it's easy

And FYI, PI is easy in hostile space. Blockade runners and planetary launches make it super easy to do.


I appreciate your backhanded agreement with me.

As you point out, SOV brings with it certain rewards, threatened primarily only by loss of sov,
while PvE is rewarded by current and more immediate efforts.
We are in agreement here.

The concept of a BR being used to harvest PI rewards, by the way, is a tactic often employed in wormholes.

I salute you for your clever cross reference of aspects from that area which find use and value in null, but I can't say we want WH space to be duplicated here.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Tryaz
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#98 - 2013-12-23 16:32:10 UTC
These new intel structures we all seem to be talking about: why couldn't they simply be reinforceable (not destructable) by a small group? That way you still receive the information black-out (which is alarm in itself) then it would be as easy as scooping, reanchoring and bringing them back online to get your interval delayed local back

Narrator of Chronicles of New Eden, the EVE audiobook series. Listen at www.soundcloud.com/chroniclesofneweden
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#99 - 2013-12-23 16:32:27 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
You fail so much on purpose? Or you do it by accident?

Its incredibly easy to run into a 0.0 system and kill a structure that has as much EHP as a battleship with 3-4 ships undetected . Wormholes, Cloaky ships, Interceptors DIFFERENT TIMEZONES, at same time the local forces are fightign in a TIDI blob elseqhere.

There a Dozens of way to do that EASILY!!

And no whewre I said those structures should give compelte Full local power back, just reduced delay.

On my first point, Huge 0.0 war blocs are not ALL eve. The ffect I mentioned happens all over eve, high sec, low sec, ANYWHERE!!!

Stop looking at your own belly and thinking its the whole world.
So in your dream world this structure is the size of a personal structure, and it can't get put next to a POS? So literally a couple of people can just show up an shoot it? I doubt it mate, that would be beyond useless, and would STILL be harder for a small group to replace. To be honest if that happened I'd dedicate 2 alts to fly around small alliance space ninja-nuking those to death so they were spending trillions a month on replacing them, just for fun.

I never said huge blobs are all of EVE, I'm just pointing out how sticking in these ideas isn't going to suddenly make you better at PVP. If you are failing to kill people now, having a paid for intel system is not going to make you any better. You stated yourself "smaller fleets have NO advantage over large fleets". That's not going to change. larger fleets, null blocs or not, will still be stronger than smaller fleets. The only thing that makes a small fleet better is funding and skill. Changing local won't give you either of those things.

Now the real point is that if you add a structure that can be used to give more or faster intel, then defending fleets will benefit more that attacking ones. But if the attacking fleet is big enough then the advantage won't mean anything since you'll just be able to see the enormous fleet destroying your stuff.

And glad to see that it only takes a single post for you to resort to personal attacks though.



Ok You are stupid by accident I can see. If you cannot understand simple mechanics of scouting and force projection trough military history and the elements that match perfeclty in eve and what the perfect local cause sof didfference. Then I have nothign to discuss with you because you are so stubornly glued to the idea that eve must remain as it is because you never experienced anything different.

YES Logistic tools need to be easy to attack. The first thing ANY country do in modern warfare when they attack is destroy communication and detection infrastructure.

Want to deny the effectivenes sof that? Then go post your shity ideas to all REAL strategist in world.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#100 - 2013-12-23 16:34:19 UTC
Tryaz wrote:
These new intel structures we all seem to be talking about: why couldn't they simply be reinforceable (not destructable) by a small group? That way you still receive the information black-out (which is alarm in itself) then it would be as easy as scooping, reanchoring and bringing them back online to get your interval delayed local back



Taht would Deny completely their use. THey must be easy to deactivate. They mustbe valid targets that can be disabled by smaller gagns while the local main force is busy in a huge fight.

THey must create this dicotomy where the froups have to save reserve fast response forces to patrol and cover their infrastructure isntead of commiting the kitchen sink to the TIDI fight of the week.

The less Reinforced timers and the more fast sweep targets, the better for smaller size engagements.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"