Player Features and Ideas Discussion

If there are going to be a new mechanic one thing that should be done in this thread is look at how one could "abuse" the new mechanic.

Lucas' point that if there are structures and they are flimsy and not near a POS then a large group might simply run through hostile space and shoot them down every day just because they can and it makes life in null for others harder.

That last one is pretty much a constant in Eve. There is very little "honorable space combat" in Eve. Whenever possible people prefer to the brutal, one side, "unfair" approach. If they can gain an advantage they will use it to the utmost (e.g. using sentry drones deployed outside a POS then having the ships that deployed them burn inside the POS shields exploit).

So keep that in mind whenever proposing an idea. And if somebody points out how it could be abused, it isn't personal either.

I think the idea is in reinforced mode the structures would stop working (--i.e. local would stop updating). You'd then have to come back later to destroy them. The defender would also have to rep them or destroy them (and then deploy new ones).

Still, isn't the point of these structures to basically get us back to local as it is now? Aren't we trying to change that?

I apologize for the misunderstanding.

I was taking as a given that blob tactics were accepted to be non threatening to PvE, so were no longer being considered relevant to Local considerations.
(Extremely easy to spot, and consequently avoid, far easier than smaller groups of cloaking ships)

Long ago my proposed idea for this was an 'intelligence network' that basically aggregated the information received by all members. In this way, you'd only know what you (or a friend) had eyes on. Those eyes could be direct on-grid, in-station guest lists, results of scans (directional, probe, or system scanning array). Level of detail would be varied by the information known. i should try to dig up my old thread (we're talking YEARS ago).

Dang that is kinda old....

This is a sensible direction, and would improve quality of play, in my opinion.

I think a change to Local mechanics, at least in these new areas of space they keep hinting are coming, is on the horizon. Let's hope our discussion can help inform design

You make an interesting point, which many of us have stated in various ways in the past.

I myself have threads on changes, and tools, which meet the needs in my own opinion.

But the player base itself, is used to and familiar with Local Chat, in it's current form.
Gameplay has emerged surrounding it, and that has resulted in many aspects of play now relying on it to varying degrees.

In other words, the thing is now embedded so far into the game, that simply yanking it is not the best option.
We need to introduce options for intel which work better for everyone, before we can remove this version which has the flaws so many object to.

That means, in all likelihood, that both versions need to coexist for a period, and allow players to adapt over time.
I say the new method needs to be preferred intuitively, so it needs to give better results on one or more levels, while avoiding the stigma chat has.

The reason none of these changes will happen is purely because it's a black to white 'replace everything' change, which will never happen for such an essential part of the game.

Separating out the intel element of local while making that intel available in a different place is hardly a change that people would complain about, especially if you added features such as filtering and sorting by sec status, standings etc.- something that's suitable to an intel tool, makes less sense for chat channels.

Fundamentally, it plays to the 'keep local the same' crowd by not changing the amount of intel available at the moment (if anything, improving the ability to leverage that intel), but also to the 'anti-local' crowd by shifting the discussion towards pro/against 'free-intel'. Any further iteration is purely on the intel aspect of things, where it belongs.

After all, you could just dock the intel window with local chat and have practically the same experience (maybe that should be the default).

Thought I'd toss this into the mix too (note this is not my idea).

Unbreaking Local – An EVE Intel System Proposal

Some of the suggestions are:

Constellation Gate Recorders: Player-buildable, destructable static beacon that could only be built at a constellation or region gate. This recorder would capture any ships that passed it that were not part of the specified roster, generally Corps and Alliances set as blue or self. This log would only retain data for a specified period of time, no more than 24 hours. It could include pilot, corp and/or alliance name, but would definitely include ship type, standing to owning corp and timestamp. Time length and quality of data captured would improve as sovereignty/ownership levels improved.

Type: Border Security
Geographies:

• Highsec: Not available (empire-owned space)
• General Lowsec: Not available (empire-owned space)
• Faction War Lowsec: Available only to Faction War pilots and only usable in Faction War systems. Capability tied to system ownership mechanics.
• NPC Nullsec: Not available (NPC faction space)
• Sovereign Nullsec: Available for corp and alliance builds. Capability tied to system sovereignty and upgrade mechanics.
• Wormholes: Not available (no gates)

Notes: Today, constellations (and other space geography concepts) have little or no real relevance. Sov null folks talk about regions, but my perception is that they are treated as arbitrary designations by which to divide spoils more so than hard geographic features. This recorder would give the capability for a pocket to truly be managed as a geographic safety point, and gives a capability for expanded intel that can also be a fight target.

System IFF Beacon As with RL aircraft identification, a transponder (already in lore in your pod) talks to a local “Identify Friend or Foe” (IFF) beacon to allow compilation of local pilots. Today, this is combined with Local Chat. I propose that we simply split them, and add some feature changes to the beacon. The beacon itself will be an actual object but with different properties and capabilities dependent on geography.

Type: System Security
Geographies:

• Highsec: Near-perfect info. Capsuleers have a window with all pilots, icons, etc. that they have today in Local, updated in realtime. The only thing missing is chat. Non-destructible (NPC owned).
General Lowsec: Same near-perfect info as Highsec, but delayed. New contacts would appear in the beacon list upon dropping gate/jump cloak, but disappear from the list immediately upon leaving the system. Yes, this gives an advantage to a group with a scout in a neighboring system. Non-destructible (NPC owned). EDIT: Upon reading other entries, I’ve become convinced that 60 seconds is too long, and have adopted suggestions of others that upon gatecloak drop is a better choice, especially for the roaming community to know there are gankable targets.

• Faction War Lowsec: If you are Militia members in upgraded systems their faction owns get Highsec-like behavior. Everyone else gets Lowsec-like behavior. Non-destructible (NPC owned).
• NPC Nullsec: Acts like Highsec in a station system, and Lowsec one jump out from a station system. Anything two or more jumps from a station has no beacon, and thus no beacon data only a total count of active capsuleers in system, with no further information. Addition to and removal from the counter would be handled as in Lowsec. Non-destructible (NPC owned). EDIT: Based on feedback read in other posts, I think roaming parties need something to hang onto – thus the counter.
• Sovereign Nullsec: New or augmented capability to build a beacon and upgrade as part of sovereignty mechanics. If a nullsec alliance wants a beacon, they can build it. Default is counter only, like NPC null and wormholes. Capability level and info provided tied to system sovereignty, costs and upgrade mechanics. Destructible. EDIT: Changed “empty” space to match NPC null edits above. Mynna wrote a great piece on TheMittani.com with some suggestions on this one in particular. As I mentioned in the comments there, I have left this intentionally vague for the sov null folks, CCP and CSM to fill in. That said my vision of it would be that the sov holder would get some advantage, but it would not be overwhelming – e.g. sov could be upgraded and the beacon would act like Highsec for sov party and blues, but like Lowsec for everyone else. Mynna also suggested that the EHP for this beacon be set to make it a viable small gang target. I love that idea.
• Wormholes: Not anchorable in w-space.

Notes: This gives a variety of gameplay options that based on my experience should play well to the ideals of the people that live in those geographies. Highsec wants perfect info. Lowsec wants to know people are around, but want that little advantage that a bit of extra work brings. NPC null wants the same, but won’t mind a bit of extra challenge thrown in. Sov wants to make its own decisions on configuration, and wormholers like it dark and secret (Local kind of freaks us out, TBH). EDIT: A mobile module version of this for use only on CovOps ships could be pretty cool as well as suggested by commenter “Z” below. I would see that kind as giving a static snapshot rather than a “live” feed like the anchorable.

Edit: The article at theMittani.com also suggests making these structures hackable as well. This could solve some of the issues Lucas raises. Hacking could be more involved than simply blowing them up, but still leave them vulnerable...and they could be parked near a POS to provide additional security with hacking done via a cloaked ship.