Player Features and Ideas Discussion

You know that'll just result in a lot of ctrl-a ctrl-c -> clipboard read by a program which polls the api for character's corporations and reports neutrals (I could write such a program in 20 minutes or so and it's completely allowed by the EULA), right? Enforcing more use of out of game tools is not positive.

Ok here's my first question on this... How much of a delay on local are we talking?
If you delay local so that ratters/miners don't see people coming in right away, this would give "bear hunters" an edge, but how much of a delay are we talking about here?
If someone is using entosis on a station or sov structure and you go to scout it, do they show up 5 minutes later when they are almost done? Or are we talking about a 5-10 second delay (which is more than plenty for most gank fleets)

So with this in mind, this lovely little Observatory Array that is, in my opinion, a really cool idea, should have some ugradable nature to it. Stick the upgrade into the IHUB to have the array, the array shouldn't be cheap, but there should indeed be a way to benefit from holding sov and holding it in "relative" safety... that being said... make it based on system index.
We have system indexes right now that their ALMOST only function is, more anoms, more mining sites, better sov upgrades to the ihub. Yes I know the overall system index is now essential to the vulnerability time to have your stuff captured via entosis, but what if this mighty Observatory Array was based on index? I would say strategic since it seems fitting as it's a stratgic structure, but that index never wanes. Military index... now you have reason to *HAVE* to rat the system to keep the index up. If you have a military 5 ratting system, local shows up instantly (via the Observatory structure), if you have an industry 5 system with 0 military, you have a whole bunch of killmails. From 1-5 military dictates the amount of delay on the local.
Lets use small quick numbers here... say the local delay is 5 seconds, this is beyond plenty of time for the hyperceptor to be spread out and grabbing targets... but for the sake of this thread hear me out.

Military 0 = 5 seconds, Military 1 = 4, Military 2 = 3 seconds, Military 3 = 2 seconds, Military 4 = 1 second, Military 5 = instant local

This forces the SOV holder to have to dedicate the time needed to upkeep the system they love so dearly to help protect their people, and if they become lazy they have to suffer the wrath of the rapid gank fleets. Something like this should appeal to both sides, the gankers because they get a window of opportunity to harvest tears ( we all love tears ), and it gives the SOV holder oppotunity to upgrade and better defend the space they are busting their asses for.


Now the topic of cloaky afk...
this seems to be a love for the gankers hate for the gankees
Me: I love tears, harvesting tears from people who weren't expecting the unexpected allows you to say "welcome to EVE" or "welcome to the sandbox"
But the afk cloaking camper... is cowardly to me, you sit cloaked and wait for 1 or 2 easy targets that can't defend themselves, you murder them in cold blood (yes I know this is what ganking means) and call yourself pro and go home laughing about it. So lets take the very commonly used phrase by every ganking troll and entity out there.. "risk vs. reward"... what's the risk of 1 guy sitting in styem for a week or two, 23/7 waiting for that one guy to get complacent and the incomes the cyno. The reward is being able to gank that one complacent idiot... but the risk? There is the risk of a possibl bait counter gank, but most carebears (i'm a carebear and a tear harvester, I've seen and been on both sides of this) don't think about that or have that capability. Hell most (i said most, not all) afk cloaky gankers don't pick targets that can do that... so the risk is... almost none.
The defender should have a chance at finding you, and this Observatory Array is that chance. Now i see the original post says pinpointing the cloaked afk... ok make this index based as well?

Here's the pitch... give the guy cloaked a chance as well...
-the prototype cloaking device has in it's description "the fact that the module creates high sensor disruption while fitted and can not operate unless at minimum velocity."
Ok, lets use this. Activate the Observatory Array, do your scanner sweep, get a ping for a a spacial diruption (since cloaks technically don't make you invisible they bend light around the ship to hide it with the background), a prototype cloak = easier to ping, T2 cloak more difficult, and covert ops the most difficult (but all still able to be found eventually). If you do a scan, make it act like a sonar. You send a ping, and the target ship (or ships) recieve the same ping and alerts them to a "sonar like activity" which... essentially this would be the best comparison. If you are NOT afk, you get a chance to move before a second sweep perfectly finds you, if you are afk, you get a free chance to wake up out of the clone bay and try again.
This should again appeal to both sides, the gankers get a chance to stay alive and watch for targets of opportunity, the SOV holders a chance to defend themselves and their space from the would be assailants

As for the 1 way jump gates? I love it. Essentially a titan bridge without the titan and with risk of being scattered, as I read before, the sudden gank potential would be amusing to say the least. Though I say make the gates so they decay. Since for a titan bridge you have the fuel cost of briding a bunch of people out, it should also cost a little bit (not a lot) to replace/rebuild/redeploy the gate to jump again, otherwise... pretty cool and fun idea.

Uh no, in my opinion if you take away functionality that can be easily replaced by an external program at the cost of being ever so slightly more inconvenient, everyone will use that program and nothing will change except that you made people's lives worse.



Under a second after you press ctrl-c. It would not automatically update, you click on local and press ctrl-a, ctrl-c.

To clarify I do think local in nullsec needs changes, but your suggested change is ineffectual.

This please. Otherwise we might as well let the standard gates be lockable too.

The above is a rather nice and concise summary of the issues surrounding local. It is used both defensively and even offensively. I would also add that unlike many other things in game it is completely invulnerable except by AFK cloaking. Take that away and leave local unchanged, then you are in effect buffing the home field advantage and all that that entails (e.g. even more ISK entering the economy and that will almost surely translate into higher PLEX prices).

With these changes the default needs and in fact must be that there is no more intel from local. At least in sov space. Further, any new intel system absolutely must be vulnerable. I'd even argue that to some extent it should vulnerable outside of the vulnerable window for sov structures.

In fact, I'll toss this out again. Something like the OA should NOT be considered a sov structure--i.e. it does not grant one sovereignty, or in other words things like the TCU, IHUB and outposts should be considered sov structures in terms of the vulnerability window. Maybe the OA can't be destroyed except in the vulnerability window, but it should be disabled (i.e. no intel or minimal intel) and it could be returned to operating condition if it is entosis'd by the sov holding alliance, or something like that.

This is a nice solution. Would be nice if all this was also applied to standard gates without the random system mechanic. Spawning 14km from a gate is I think a big factor discouraging players jumping into hostile space especially now bubbles and tackle cover many times the radius of the spawn area around gates.

This notion of easy kills has been debunked.

The fact is you are mentally lazy and refuse to look for solutions given the current mechanics that have been outlined many, many times before. For example, if there are 5 of you ratting in a fleet in PvP ships you'll have nothing to fear of that cloaky camper. Nothing.

I know next you will whine, "Cyno!!!" Yeah, they can always bring more numbers....but depending on the system so can you. Get people all in the same fleet that are in your system or even nearby systems. Try using a mobile cyno inhibitor. Yes, yes, I know covert ops cyno (is there no end to your whine?). If 4-5 guys in PvE ships can't handle some bombers...good lord. Oh, and you can use things like intel channels. A 25 man bomber gang should be noticed by somebody...and if not, for crying out loud go out and look around. Securing your space should take more than complaining to CCP.

And spare us about risk...you wont even undock when there is a very high probability the guy is AFK. Talk about not liking risk!

Observation Arrays

For Observation Arrays, I have to work under a pair of assumptions; each assumption changes some fundamental characteristics of the OA. The first assumption is that null-sec Local will be removed as a baseline feature. Under that assumption,

• Observational Arrays should, to some degree, return some version of Local Chat to their system. Keep in mind that doing so would burn fuel continuously; CCP has also stated that players will be able to anchor more than one OA in a system, so I think it would be fair to state that multiple OAs should return Local to its current state of operation, at the cost of all that fuel constantly running.
• Other options for Local, should an alliance not have enough OAs for "Full Local" functionality (or if they're not turned on at a given time) could be: No local at all; a 'Doorbell' that provides a soft inbound/outbound noise played system-wide when a ship enters or leaves (but with no counter); or a 'Local Counter' as mentioned elsewhere that shows the number of ships, but not who.

Now, if we work under the assumption that null-sec local will remain as a baseline feature, then they obviously won't influence the Local Chat window since it wouldn't be going anywhere in the first place. Anyway, moving on.

If we envision OAs in the fitting window shown for stations, a multitude of different functionality options appear before us. For instance,

If an OA can be sat in, we'll assume it has a host of scanning equipment (because duh). We could tie OA scanning into the Beta Map and allow it to visually show us where D-scan pings come up; it could be equipped/rigged to scan down any signatures in its range; it could be equipped with specialized scanners that can penetrate cloaks.

After all, remember: the problem isn't cloaky campers, the problem is afk cloaky campers. If a dude has the day off and decides to spend it cloak-burning safes, bouncing around your system, ganking your Retrievers and then disappearing again- he deserves to do this. That player is active, and that's the key; he or she could dodge an OA scan by moving. An afk cloaky camper would get caught, which is good because that gameplay is totally lame.

Disabling Observational Arrays

Obviously shooting it or entosising it would turn it off, but here's a thought: Ships that entosis it or shoot it cause an alarm to go off, much like an ESS does today. "Ulthanon is attacking the OA!", and then everyone warps in and dumpsters me. Sadness reigns.

BUT, I have another option. I can fly a CovOps! And if I come in with my Data Module*, I can hack the OA into submission without triggering a system-wide warning. Maybe upon successful hack, I can chose one or more of its intelligence streams to turn off. Maybe I shut down local. Maybe I make all of the anoms in the system go to 0%, needing them to be scanned down like signatures. The what can be debated but it adds an interesting dynamic that exploration ships have never had before.

Obviously, if I fail the hack, I get locked out of the system and the warning is broadcast. Now everyone knows to scan for my Buzzard and I am once again hunted down like the dog I am. Maybe failure disables my cloak for a time!

As for the OA's module slots, maybe these would be more toward anti-hacking defenses than actual launchers or turrets. Perhaps certain rigs/mods increase the system core's strength, while others have an increased chance to spawn Restoration Nodes. In this way, we keep the OA's theme intact (lightly defended but highly advanced), we encourage active gameplay (discouraging afk campers and passive OA boosts), we add a new and interesting dimension to a previously PvE-only skillset and we balance risk with reward for both sov-holders and hunting gangs.

No to the docking part. Changing systems or decloaking and then cloaking should be sufficient. The idea is to render AFK cloaking an unsustainable tactic. Not make using a cloak increasingly difficult. There isn't a problem with cloaked ships. The issue people don't like is AFK cloaking. In exchange, local and intel gathering becomes vulnerable.

Not even necessarily unsustainable.

The key point is that it no longer forms a perceived obstacle to play.
Noone should care about whether a player is AFK cloaked or AFK docked, until they are ready to stop being AFK.
That includes any fears over being unable to predict such a return to play.