Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1073
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:46:52 -
[31] - Quote
Sharing an idea I heard on the Fanfest pub crawl
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.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1496
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:50:10 -
[32] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Sharing an idea I heard on the Fanfest pub crawl 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. This is a pretty good idea, especially if it's available on smaller-sized structures that are more viable for attackers to use (and discard.)
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
287
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:51:26 -
[33] - Quote
Will observation arrays be allowed to block cynosural fields? |
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
86
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:53:15 -
[34] - Quote
Querns wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Sharing an idea I heard on the Fanfest pub crawl 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. This is a pretty good idea, especially if it's available on smaller-sized structures that are more viable for attackers to use (and discard.)
That's a pretty cool idea.
With regards to player built gates and potentially replacing JB's, will they generate jump fatigue? |
Greygal
Redemption Road Affirmative.
409
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:56:03 -
[35] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Sharing an idea I heard on the Fanfest pub crawl 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 would have SO MUCH FUN using something like that for our NewBro roams and public roams! Back-dooring into random areas of deep nullsec... the gambling aspect of it - will we land split by a gate camp? ... sense of the unknown ...
Make this so, pretty please
GG
What you do for yourself dies with you, what you do for others is immortal.
Free weekly public roams & monthly NewBro new player roams!
Visit Redemption Road or join mailing list REDEMPTION ROAMS for information
|
Awulf
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:04:28 -
[36] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Sharing an idea I heard on the Fanfest pub crawl 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. That is an awesome idea.
I may have missed something somewheres but on the idea of gates are we talking about jump bridges and/or actual player built gates which have been alluded to in the past? Would/could these be used in w-space in any fashion? Would enhance game-play imho if w-space entities could perma-connect 2 w-space systems via special jump bridges/gates. |
Edward Olmops
DUST Expeditionary Team Good Sax
290
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:05:04 -
[37] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: A one way directional jump bridge module.
...
7. You have to slow boat / pod express back
Could be an interesting day tripping mechanic.
Assuming you don't carry a second of those thingies in your cargo... I am not sure whether such tools are a good idea since teleportation was recently identified as a source of trouble.
Altering the map including jump connections might be interesting. But this should require a something on both ends AND maybe also these gates should be public only. If we have gates that are only usable by some people or can suddenly appear out of nowhere then we instantly have another hotdrop mechanism with a large threat radius that keeps people from colonizing nullsec properly.
And the scattering mechanism won't amend it. After seeing the famous "Clarion Call 4" by Rooks and Kings, I would immediately think of this device as a gigantic shotgun shooting 100 Interceptors across the cluster before the FC screams "BELT BINGO!" I expect that miners and ratters will love this. :-D
|
Jason Dunham
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
16
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:10:25 -
[38] - Quote
I'm a big fan of allowing players more control over their space with tools like an observatory array and gate fittings.
I'd be cautious of making things binary though, removing local completely will just add a structure everyone puts in to get it back. I think we'd prefer meaningful choice, where there might be reasons to set up different systems differently, depending on your needs. (i.e. industrial/ratting systems vs. main or boundary space).
I despise afk cloaking. It is a broken mechanic that relies on someone not playing the game for a period of time, then using that advantage to jump on the occupants. Someone shouldn't be able to log in after downtime, cloak, then go to work, etc. come back eight hours later and then be a scout/cloaky cyno for a fleet. However, cloaky gameplay is perfectly legitimate as long as the pilot is actively playing. So if a structure is allowed to affect cloakies in system I suggest it operate by putting a timer on cloaks. The structure would emit interference that would build up, eventually breaking the cloak of any ship in system. Once that occurs, an active pilot can simply re-cloak, while those not actively playing would be vulnerable to probing down like they should be. This effect should show up as soon as you enter in system, letting any pilots know that they will have to pay attention to their cloak. I'd suggest that the timer be set to occupancy bonuses, with values of 60/30/15 minutes possible. This timer would start on cloak activation for each individual ship.
|
Alundil
Isogen 5
892
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:15:19 -
[39] - Quote
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.
Obviously, this is tough to do without clearer ideas of what CCP is planning for these structures. In the absence of any official function information this will likely appear more of a "Want list" than a discussion on proposed function
Thoughts on the OA: -- The OA should negate the reliance on Local Channel as a means of intelligence gathering. -- It should allow for owning player/corporation/alliance (hereafter referred to as entity) to control granularity of information available to others by standing -- The entity should be able to control the length of delay to pilots appearing in local. Note: this needs to be a "Double-edged sword" and force the entity to make a choice between options each with their own set of pros and cons. (ie: lengthen delay but applies to all parties) -- Tampering with star map filters is an interesting idea and I could see the usefulness of introducing a certain level of error into various statistics (pilots in space, NPC killed, cynos, etc). -- Dscan disruption is a very tricky proposal simply due to lack of information on how far this could be extended. Is it only dscan results in regards to pilot ships? Does it tamper with appearance of deployable structures, wrecks, etc? There's a very large group of players who rely on dscan for information gathering purposes (and that extends well beyond just wormholers). I would suggest being very careful with regard to this. Some options could include reducing the amount of information that returns in results such as no ship names or types. Just a line item entry denoting ship and possibly hull size. Or possibly causing degradation of result reliability based on distance and angle of scan. This would cause pilots using dscan to use more narrow degree dscans to improve accuracy of results. However, if this path is taken then there ought to be some visual improvements to dscan in order to better pinpoint and "mark" results for re-positioning and further dscanning. (e.g. You find a pocket of dscan result signatures at 11.4 AU away and you've narrowed the band to 5 degrees. You then "mark" that spot in your 3D view in space, similar to bookmarks in the 3d view. This allows you to change position and get closer to the possible results to and begin to pinpoint the location further. Much like triangulating a position. Eventually you get sufficiently accurate results to allow your ships warp drive to lock that location as a warpable grid. -- Pinpointing cloaky ships is, of course, the mother of all difficult topics for a large number of people. This tool, if not implemented very carefully, has the risk of negating stealth gameplay in systems it is deployed in. This would be very bad and a net loss in terms of gameplay methods to disrupt a sovereign entity. If implemented, this tool should be result in imperfect information and require a modest time investment. Something such that a player "actively" cloaked and moving has very little chance of being "pinpointed" in space. Perhaps the tool may detect a faint area of signal distortion and might localize it to the closest celestial. This provides the entity with a general idea of where a cloaked-something is currently located without identifying a cloaked ship's precise location rendering the cloak useless. The faster the ship is moving under cloak the less precise that information becomes. The slower the ship is moving the more accurate it becomes.
Thoughts on the "Gates": -- Not sure how you could legitimately alter system-wide agility and mass and ship capabilities like warp based on standings to the owning entity of the gate so these would likely apply globally to anyone in system. -- The ability to alter agility and mass in a system is an interesting thought. There are multiple scenarios in combat where agility and mass are important. Most of these scenarios fall into the "small gang" meta though so I'm not certain how this would benefit the typical 00 system and 1000v1000 slugfests that those fights can escalate to. There's generally not a lot of "manual pilot maneuvering" in those fights and almost always rely on following declared anchor who is typically an FC. -- Changing warp speeds could be neat too especially in large systems with huge warp distances. This could be a nice QOL enhancement to the entity calling that system home. -- Wormhole altering could also be seen as a boon to the entity residing in the system allowing them to potentially augment the logistical options open to them by spawning more frequent large mass connections either to C5 and C6 class wormholes or other direct 00, low sec or HS connections. This, however, also is not without increased potential risk since you might connect to a system either occupied by or connected to another active PvP group in w- or k-space.
Ultimately, I think that these proposed systems offer some intriguing new options, but additional information about plans/goals would be needed to have a full discussion.
I'm right behind you
|
Milton Middleson
Scrap Metal Squadron
563
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:18:51 -
[40] - Quote
Are you supposed to be able to use these offensively? I.e. can I use them to blind/spoof the locals' intel network? |
|
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
120
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:27:24 -
[41] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Sharing an idea I heard on the Fanfest pub crawl 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
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
165
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:37:16 -
[42] - Quote
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
Mindstar Technology Get Off My Lawn
45
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:40:00 -
[43] - Quote
Will any of the new structures have racial variants with different bonuses based on race?
|
Madeleine Lemmont
Divide et Impera DE
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:49:57 -
[44] - Quote
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
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:50:02 -
[45] - Quote
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 The Kadeshi
184
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:04:23 -
[46] - Quote
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.
11 years and counting. Eve Defence Force is recruiting.
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1108
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:09:29 -
[47] - Quote
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.
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic, nerf sentries.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
|
Onslaughtor
Occult National Security Phoenix Naval Systems
112
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:09:56 -
[48] - Quote
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
1108
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:10:39 -
[49] - Quote
i thought the gates were to give access to new space?
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic, nerf sentries.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
949
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:13:28 -
[50] - Quote
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
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1500
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:16:17 -
[51] - Quote
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
949
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:24:16 -
[52] - Quote
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 moredafety out there, is that what you're all telling me? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1502
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:31:58 -
[53] - Quote
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
Tandokuno
286
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:32:11 -
[54] - Quote
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.
Gate campers are just Carebears with anger issues.
|
Faimmoni
Tactical Stables Nulli Tertius
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:34:29 -
[55] - Quote
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
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1503
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:36:50 -
[56] - Quote
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 GÇö-áanti-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
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1751
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:40:10 -
[57] - Quote
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 ?
Akrasjel Lanate
General Director(CEO) of Naquatech Conglomerate
Executor of Naquatech Syndicate
Citizen of Solitude
|
Kopaka Newton
Space Rocks Industries Solyaris Chtonium
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:44:16 -
[58] - Quote
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
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1506
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:46:38 -
[59] - Quote
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
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
726
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:46:50 -
[60] - Quote
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 |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |