These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[New structures] Observatory Arrays and Gates

First post First post First post
Author
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#41 - 2015-03-23 15:27:24 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Sharing an idea I heard on the Fanfest pub crawl Bear

A one way directional jump bridge module.

1. You fuel it up and get everyone within range
2. Pick a rough destination on the map, no cyno required
3. Click the button and launch the fleet into the unknown
4. Based on the distance travelling the fleet does not necessarily land in the system they were aiming for
5. The fleet itself may also be scattered out over a system or even constellation
6. Everyone gets some amount of jump fatigue of course
7. You have to slow boat / pod express back

Could be an interesting day tripping mechanic.


I proposed something like this once as capsuleers using poorly-understood stolen Sansha wormhole-control technology. I still think it's a really really good idea.
Hairpins Blueprint
The Northerners
Northern Coalition.
#42 - 2015-03-23 15:37:16 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Hello people,

We would like your feedback on the various new structure lines presented during Fanfest and on our latest structure blog.

This particular thread is going to focus on Observatory Arrays and Gates.


  • Observatory Arrays focus on intelligence gathering and disruption tools, like tampering with Star Map filters, D-scan disruption, ship intelligence disruption, player tracking capabilities or being able to pinpoint cloak users

  • Gates focus on movement, like warp speeds, agility and mass in the system they're deployed, affect jump capabilities, alter ship movement inside a solar system, allow vessels to travel to other solar system and modify wormhole behaviors.



Extended Jump Range for caps in system :DD Cooooooolll +1 All this sounds super cool



I was afraid you would remove local in null sec, but pin pointing cloked duders /o\ awwww yissss

+1
Dirk Morbho
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#43 - 2015-03-23 15:40:00 UTC
Will any of the new structures have racial variants with different bonuses based on race?

Madeleine Lemmont
Ars Vivendi
#44 - 2015-03-23 15:49:57 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
This particular thread is going to focus on Observatory Arrays and Gates.

Gates focus on movement, like warp speeds, agility and mass in the system they're deployed, affect jump capabilities, alter ship movement inside a solar system, allow vessels to travel to other solar system and modify wormhole behaviors.
What about usage fee of gates? Or any bilateral standing dependancies?
How can I get reward of structures fuel usage, if no fees are planned. Will NPCs claim tax for gate usage?

Which NPC corp will claim sovereignity in highsec systems and get control of gates?

What about different size and costs depending on jump range of gates?

Acceleration gates for everyone?

Are there plans for medium (constellation-), large (regional) and extra-large (interregional) jumpgates? Or anything else size depending on inter-system jump ranges of gates? You know... size matters!

What about gate count limits in highsec systems?

What about corp security status and/or corp faction standing related limits for structures/gates?

If anybody can deny the use of gate in case of bad standing, how can I reach a destination if the system is not chained elswhere? HighSec usable jumpdrives or covered jumdrives for small ships?

I think a lot of quwstions will come up, if structures become destructable in general in highsec space.
Awulf
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#45 - 2015-03-23 15:50:02 UTC
Removing local in null is a good thing so long as there is a way to get some of it back via the OA or other structures.
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force
Get Off My Lawn
#46 - 2015-03-23 16:04:23 UTC  |  Edited by: John McCreedy
Observatory array's ability to pinpoint cloaked ships should be a timed ping forcing active cloakers, such as bomber fleets, to move location immediately after the ping. Or simply add a forced idle log out like every other MMO in the market has which will solve the issue of afk cloaky campers. I honestly don't see the point in this structure. You're adding a layer of complexity for the sake of it. You should be streamlining the information we have on screen, not adding to it.

13 years and counting. Eve Defence Force is recruiting.

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#47 - 2015-03-23 16:09:29 UTC
on observatory structures, im assuming there for 0.0, but perhaps having NPC versions in high sec too take over from stations in regard for locator agents, thus in a war (assuming an alt isn't used) would involve some risk being in space too use them.
also it would be nice too see more structures in high sec space in general especially as 0.0 will have the vast majority of them.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Onslaughtor
Phoenix Naval Operations
Phoenix Naval Systems
#48 - 2015-03-23 16:09:56 UTC
Ok so a few small ideas off my head before I run around and forget.

Counter Mind Link Radar
Super accurate system scans that can only pinpoint warpins on active fleet boosting ships. If a mind link comes on in system with it, ships withing a small range of the structure can warp to it as if it was combat probed out.

Decoy Scan Counter Measures
Simple deployable or maybe a bit larger. Creates false Dscan results with the real ones if ships use Dscan in its area of effect (system wide or like 20aus maybe).

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#49 - 2015-03-23 16:10:39 UTC
i thought the gates were to give access to new space?

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#50 - 2015-03-23 16:13:28 UTC
xttz wrote:
afkalt wrote:
You see, what with the quite literally ENDLESS TEARS about "afk cloaking" and the utter hate that cynoceptors make hiding behing walls of bubbles tougher (you actually need to not fall asleep in your afktar) I'd rather believed ratting was ... something done quite a lot. As was hunting them.

I also do not believe that it is a stretch to think that if any combination of events is made possible to make ratting safer, the nullbears will be on that like flies on shite. Can't have any risk cluttering up the reward now, can we?

But by all means, try and convince me that null ratting needs to be SAFER than it already is. This should be hilarious.


The cognitive dissonance here is absolutely staggering. We're talking about removing local intel by default and introducing game mechanics that require effort and investment to restore that information. Your argument against it is that it's a ploy to remove all risk from ratting. Incredible.

Still, this utter shambles of a post does a great job of highlighting your personal bias and an agenda to shoot down ideas based on who they come from rather addressing actual issues. By all means please keep anonymously making points built entirely around hyperbole and stereotypes. That will really stick it to those darn nullbears.



If you actually read the thread you'll notice that my first post was that it should not be possible to be safer than TODAY.

At this point, your compatriots jumped all over me. So tell me, who has the agenda?
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#51 - 2015-03-23 16:16:17 UTC
afkalt wrote:

If you actually read the thread you'll notice that my first post was that it should not be possible to be safer than TODAY.

At this point, your compatriots jumped all over me. So tell me, who has the agenda?

No -- you opined that it was imperative that the new system be necessarily less "safe" than today.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#52 - 2015-03-23 16:24:16 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
Less safe, not more was what I said.

And as I said, was promptly jumped on. Who did the jumping and as to their reasons is nothing I can influence however so I'll kindly ask for the removal of the conspiracy/bias/"agenda" tinfoil hattery you all have got going in here.

We do not need MORE safety out in null.

I mean just look at the ideas on this PAGE alone (or prior page, if this wraps). Find cloakers, easy scanning, fake dscan results. All conducive to a nice, safe blanket with which to sit in almost complete safety. None of these promote conflict, none of these are conflict drivers. These are ALL designed to make space SAFER.

So do we really need more safety out there, is that what you're all telling me?
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#53 - 2015-03-23 16:31:58 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Less safe, not more was what I said.

And as I said, was promptly jumped on. Who did the jumping and as to their reasons is nothing I can influence however so I'll kindly ask for the removal of the conspiracy/bias/"agenda" tinfoil hattery you all have got going in here.

We do not need MORE safety out in null.

I mean just look at the ideas on this PAGE alone (or prior page, if this wraps). Find cloakers, easy scanning, fake dscan results. All conducive to a nice, safe blanket with which to sit in almost complete safety. None of these promote conflict, none of these are conflict drivers. These are ALL designed to make space SAFER.

So do we really need more safety out there, is that what you're all telling me?

As long as the countermeasures are meaningfully interdictable, I see little problem with allowing more tools to protect one's space. I see no problem with requiring it to take slightly more effort to attack one's holdings than it does today.

You seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that we are predicating this entire vignette on the removal of local in 0.0, and that we aren't even implying that a replacement for perfect local chat's system occupancy readout is necessary.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Rayzilla Zaraki
Yin Jian Enterprises
#54 - 2015-03-23 16:32:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Rayzilla Zaraki
The "I h8s teh claockey camperz" portion of the player base must be creaming their sweat pants over this.

Having a large structure that is able to facilitate locating cloaked ships in system does make sense; see submarine warfare.

I could see these structures at their base level being able to detect the presence of a cloaked ship in-system, but not be able to show where they are. By adding service modules, rigs and/or modules this ability gets more precise or powerful.

A moderately equipped OA could give enough intel to friendlies on its own to get a general area for a cloaked ship then facilitate an active friendly player in tracking it down. The simple way for the cloaked player to avoid this would be to change position. Hence, AFK campers would be the most vulnerable.

A very specialized OA with all slots dedicated to locating cloaked ships could go so far as to make a cloaked ship "shimmer" for a couple seconds when it the OA "pings".

The OAs could also be used like scan probes. Deploy a main OA then smaller ones around the given solar system like one would deploy probes. If players wanted to protect the space directly surrounding something important, like an asteroid field or an Admin structure, then the smaller OAs could be anchored close by and offer the highest resolution/effectiveness for that area. If players want to secure a wider area, then the resolution wouldn't be as good. Sure, some players might go hog wild and anchor dozens of OAs in a system, but its their ISK and their choice. I see this as an extreme example.

To be fair, however, there should be a way through rigs, skills, specialized ships, modules or a combination of all of them for a cloaking player to decrease the effect an OA (or group of OAs) has on the given ship. If an OA's strength is less than the cloak strength, the cloaked ship is harder to find. If it is more, then the cloaked ship is easier to find.

But timers, forced decloaking, activity sensors are all a resounding NO. Those are all non-active mechanics. It just takes what is perceived as unbalanced and puts it on the other side.

Gate campers are just Carebears with anger issues.

Faimmoni
Perkone
Caldari State
#55 - 2015-03-23 16:34:29 UTC
Thoughts on Gates (if existing gates become destructible)

- Are existing gates going to be destructible? If so then sov nul becomes very interesting as holders destroy gates they do not want and build strategic gates to systems they want access to.
- Would allow sov holders to design system connection that benefit defense.
- If all gates are destructible there exist the possibility (likely) that all of sov nul will become a collection of choke points.
- Wormholes will always create ways to back door in to isolated systems / constellations.
- Destructible gates will re-write the maps creating a very dynamic space that will change over time.
- Logistics will be much tougher for deep nul if the connecting gates between systems changes often.

I am not sure how it would play out but it could make sov nul far more dynamic requiring different travel paths.

Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#56 - 2015-03-23 16:36:50 UTC
Rayzilla Zaraki wrote:
The "I h8s teh claockey camperz" portion of the player base must be creaming their sweat pants over this.

Having a large structure that is able to facilitate locating cloaked ships in system does make sense; see submarine warfare.

I could see these structures at their base level being able to detect the presence of a cloaked ship in-system, but not be able to show where they are. By adding service modules, rigs and/or modules this ability gets more precise or powerful.

A moderately equipped OA could give enough intel to friendlies on its own to get a general area for a cloaked ship then facilitate an active friendly player in tracking it down. The simple way for the cloaked player to avoid this would be to change position. Hence, AFK campers would be the most vulnerable.

A very specialized OA with all slots dedicated to locating cloaked ships could go so far as to make a cloaked ship "shimmer" for a couple seconds when it the OA "pings".

The OAs could also be used like scan probes. Deploy a main OA then smaller ones around the given solar system like one would deploy probes. If players wanted to protect the space directly surrounding something important, like an asteroid field or an Admin structure, then the smaller OAs could be anchored close by and offer the highest resolution/effectiveness for that area. If players want to secure a wider area, then the resolution wouldn't be as good. Sure, some players might go hog wild and anchor dozens of OAs in a system, but its their ISK and their choice. I see this as an extreme example.

But timers, forced decloaking, activity sensors are all a resounding NO. Those are all non-active mechanics. It just takes what is perceived as unbalanced and puts it on the other side.

Agreed — anti-cloaking measures should absolutely require active players (potentially multiple) to operate, and an active cloaker should be able to evade the measures, perhaps trivially.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Akrasjel Lanate
Lanate Industries
#57 - 2015-03-23 16:40:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Akrasjel Lanate
Quote:
Observatory Arrays focus on intelligence gathering and disruption tools, like tampering with Star Map filters, D-scan disruption, ship intelligence disruption, player tracking capabilities or being able to pinpoint cloak users

Does this mean nerf of actual map intel that we have now and to see stuff in the galaxymap people will have put up Observatory Arrays like everywhere ?
Will Observatory Arrays hav a galaxy wide range then or limited to X LY ?
Observatory Arrays will be able to pinpoint cloak users only in system it's located in ?
Will it be system wide or only affect a grid that the owner choses s target ?


Quote:
Gates focus on movement, like warp speeds, agility and mass in the system they're deployed, affect jump capabilities, alter ship movement inside a solar system, allow vessels to travel to other solar system and modify wormhole behaviors.


What kind of type of sec space limitation, in low sec to for example ?

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude

Kopaka Newton
Sanctuary of Shadows
Lasagna Appreciation Society
#58 - 2015-03-23 16:44:16 UTC
Being able to affect wormholes with a structure would be really awesome. Like extending the mass limit by reducing the lifetime and vice-versa, for example, or having a structure capable of reading the remaining time and mass.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#59 - 2015-03-23 16:46:38 UTC
Kopaka Newton wrote:
Being able to affect wormholes with a structure would be really awesome. Like extending the mass limit by reducing the lifetime and vice-versa, for example, or having a structure capable of reading the remaining time and mass.

I've long lobbied for a device to help force wormholes open.

Perhaps they'd be deployed in pairs on either side of the wormhole, with a ring on one of the structures (to indicate polarity.)

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#60 - 2015-03-23 16:46:50 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Less safe, not more was what I said.

And as I said, was promptly jumped on. Who did the jumping and as to their reasons is nothing I can influence however so I'll kindly ask for the removal of the conspiracy/bias/"agenda" tinfoil hattery you all have got going in here

it is not a good idea to use the number of how many people pointed out the obvious flaws in your reasoning as support for that reasoning