Player Features and Ideas Discussion

d-scan and starmap intel come to mind

Only sort of. In order to PvP you need to be able to find something to PvP.

Also note that messing with Starmap filters was one of the things they talked about for the OA and even now Starmap info isn't perfect.

There is some PvP in WH space, but it's still the least active and least populated area of the game by far. The thing about WH PvP is it's often fleet vs fleet in an intended and "seen coming" engagement, often with expensive ships, and therefore results in very impressive and visible losses on KBs.

Most of the WH people I know do roaming PvP in Null because it's far far easier to find a fight.

You know I find it amazing. People are very, very quick to point to the differences in w-space vs. k-space when somebody suggests that local in null shift to local in w-space. But then completely forget those differences all other times....like now.

Could w-space be sparsely populated because of those differences and not local? I know I don't want to live in w-space, not because of local there, but because I don't want to devote that much time and effort that goes with living in w-space.

I think of w-space guys as being like guys in the wild west to some extent and they'll look for a fight in whatever opportunities present....be in w-space, null, low or even hi (war decs). So it doesn't surprise me we'll see them fighting all over the place.

As for a mechanism to encourage player interaction? Sure, of course. Problem is local is a double edged source in that regard. Sometimes information can be too good, IMO. For example, who would play poker if they had perfect information? Maybe in some instances a healthy dash of ignorance can spur player interaction more than complete or perfect information.

Heh...ok...I have to admit that I kind of like that. I imagine the dedicated PvE pilot might soon go, "Puck it, I'm heading for empire." Which I'm personally fine with as well.

Not to derail, but your use of vignette in every post makes you look like one of those 'try too hard' types. I can't decide on funny or annoying.

It would please me if you swapped from over using that and began injecting idiom into every other sentence. It's just a cooler word.


That being said, no array or whatever should ever be allowed to remove the ability to cloak a ship. You nullbears need to let go of your irrational fears. A cloacked ship never hurt anyone Cloaked ships are weak, plagued with penalties (locking delay upon uncloaking, standard cloak is the best web in the game) or both weak and penalized. At the end of the day an interceptor w/ a cyno is just as cynodeadly as a cloaky w/ a cyno - just man up. This epic afk cloaky whine (though fun to poke at) makes you hard core sov null guys just look bad. Could we get some corp/alliance leadership of the null blocks to step up and tell your guys to man up??? Take charge of these whiney cry babies for crying out loud.

TL/DR Querns has issues with his vocabulary choices, afk cloaky will always be a thing, null bears went soft (blame Querns and his ilk - really) around 2011 and it doesn't look like they will ever make it back (blame the owners of rainbow-fairy-super safe and sparkly-renterville) due to said leadership worrying about all the wrong things in a space pvp game.

Up until you made this statement - I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and allowing you to slowly erode your credibility on your own. Now... you've gone too far.

This sweeping generalization of something you obviously know little about AND the matter of fact way you toss this garbage out as a fact is revolting.

Give me a few fact checks for your statement or stfu.

1. Give your numbers on arranged vs not arranged pvp in wh space (just to fill out the data, give us a source other than 'this wh guy I know' said so.

2. Put some numbers on the wh dweller and null dwellers - compare and contrast those numbers w/ the pvp losses in both spaces (see, I'm spotting null all the null bears we come out and kill - I'm gifting those numbers into your null numbers).

3. "often with expensive ships"... did you get that off a wh borchure or something??

So, numbers and sources:

Here's DotLan's kill stats for the various areas of the game for 2014. The individual months don't include Wormhole Space but the year summaries do, and since this matches up with the stats from back when they did show WH map stats on the API I'm inclined to believe they're fully accurate.

These stats show a significantly lower proportion of players dying in Wormholes than elsewhere in the game, including Low and Null.

Then compare to these handy graphs of players living in each area of space over time. Note that Wormhole Space is, at best, about 2/5ths the population of Null, but accounts for no where near the same number of player ship or pod deaths.

This flat out proves that it's the least active area of the game by far (excluding NPC Null as a separate region) and while it's in no way definitive regarding where Wormhole players go to find their PvP it certainly suggests that it can't all be happening in Wormhole Space, or if it is the nature of W-Space severely limits the ability of wormholers to PvP each other or visitors. Since I know from anecdotal evidence that Wormhole players venture into other areas of space routinely for PvP we can rule out the latter case where Wormhole space is insular.

As for the "often with expensive ships" and "arranged" comments. By "arranged" I meant hole invasions, where logistics and planning are required and both sides generally see the fight coming. Sometimes because they spot the people moving and other times because a POS gets reinforced and they need to defend the timer. This also accounts for the "expensive ships" comment.

If you'll note in the above data for space populations there's a graph of the populations of different wormhole classes. The two most popular by far are C2 and C5 holes. C5s means capitals and capital escalations, so expensive ships in the form of Dreads there. In addition both hole types can fit T3 Cruisers which, as several others have pointed out, are the backbone of Wormhole PvP. These are also intrinsically expensive hulls (compared to, say, a T1 Cruiser fleet in Null or Low) and often have expensive mods fitted to them (see: 100MN Tengu fit) because Wormhole players tend to be pretty wealthy and can afford nice ships.

Thanks for your concern, but I do actually know what I'm talking about here and I have the numbers to back it up.

If it were up to me I would solve the problems in null by looking to real world comparisons.
I would use a wagon wheel approach to null sov level of defenses and intelligence gathering abilities. Most real world static defenses designed to protect nation states employ outer defenses ie.. walls or surveillance gathering outposts and checkpoints. Typically a capital or other strategically valuable area is heavily defended which ideally tends to be in the middle area of the territory controlled.

I would base the level of defensive strength on the actual use of the system. For example an alliance gains their initial sov in 0DD-MH this system already has a Minmatar Service Outpost. Which should be thought of as a fort in the system increasing its defensive capabilities to the highest level. In systems with sov but no stations increases can come from actual use by industrial activity to include mining and manufacturing as well as infrastructure. If belt contents, re spawns and anomalies were limited to allow for depletion by a set number of players requiring the need to then move to the next systems in order to sustain the needs of the alliance the need for additional systems would follow. Adjacent systems as they are utilized and infrastructure built would see their defensive abilities rise.

OA's would act as outer perimeter checkpoints they should have the ability to broadcast detection warnings of incoming threats and they should be able to both be jammed or destroyed. These would be used in sov holders outer systems of influence. Not necessarily systems they hold sov in but cost should increase and effectiveness decrease with distance from systems they hold sov in.

The way I would handle local would be that systems that are unclaimed would behave like WH space so no local, systems with OA's but not claimed would have delayed local, systems with sov claims and OA's would see shorter delayed local and systems with sov and a station would see local behave as it does today.

To solve the cloaking issue I would again look to real world examples. Surveillance aircraft tend to be so packed with equipment that they lack offensive capabilities and they are designed to loiter for very long periods but not indefinitely and the longer they remain on station the greater the risk they could fall victim to counter measures or detection. Covert Ops missions are mostly limited by two prevailing factors being detected and the amount of food and water, or fuel that can be carried. Spec Ops forces do not penetrate opposition territories and remain indefinitely.

I would either change or add a new ship type that is optimized for intelligence gathering it would have no offensive capabilities to include cyno's. I would limit their ability to stay on station by adding a strontium fuel requirement and separate fuel bay. I would do the same to all covert ops ships that are already in game and have their fuel bays be smaller than the surveillance ships. With the exception of the transports the rest are designed to penetrate enemy territories and make quick disruptive strikes and then retreat to friendly space.

In summary you end up with a wagon wheel like sov system that as both usage and infrastructure are built up the defenses rise also limiting those resources causing further outward expansion thus increasing risk until the systems are improved to again enhance defensive abilities. Conversely if usage drops the defensive capabilities should degrade and sov should be lost by failing to maintain the systems infrastructure by neglect of use.

Claiming sov and investing in infrastructure and actually using the space should come with benefits and the defenses should increase commensurate with the level of usage and improvements. The argument that mining ships would just be nullbears protected in their warm and cozy center is a specious one that always fails to account for two factors. Mining ships have virtually no offensive capabilities and poor defensive abilities. No real world companies would send such defenseless assets into such an environment without either escorts or the ability to defend themselves from hostile threats. In Eve no pvp players are going to spend hours at a time babysitting miners. They will and should however actively engage incoming threats in outer systems being penetrated by enemies. By limiting belt re spawns and anomalies it does cause the mining fleets to move out into systems that don't offer the level of protection that well improved systems offer. The same should apply to ratting.

Alliances claiming sov are building themselves an Empire of their own making and an Empire should have benefits to go along with that. In Hi-Sec the empires have Concord to act as a deterrent to disrupting their manufacturing and trade enterprises in null there are no police so there should be some level of defenses to allow reasonable activities to be undertaken while still leaving the risk vs reward idea intact. That door swings both ways however so seriously disrupting an alliances industry should entail great risk for the attacker while lessor disruptions can still occur when mining activities are moved outward by increasing resource demands of growing alliances.