[Devblog] The Future of Force Projection Feedback Thread

EVE Information Portal Dev Blogs
569

But here is the same issue in the reverse.

If you make everything “inescapable” or tie up/slow down people to allow very bad PVP players “catch” people. Alot of people will not risk activities. While the problem is the EVE playerbase devalues the happenstance run in of PVP [IE the “Shakes”] and it just becomes a “already replace…meh…I have a replacement”…PVP becomes no different than PVE…or just a slight inconvenience…and PVP interactions now become plain and not interesting.

I think retuning alot of the mobile support deployables…would be nice. Some counter plays so you can counter fight cloaked ships [including the recons with the cynos.]

As Syzgium noted…there needs to be some delay on the cynos. Hot dropping can be kind of frustating, because at the moment there isn’t alot of options of counterplay. Just in the spirit of fairness…but you know its a deep ecology…that probably needs a discussion in depth. Because there are alot of weakpoints and problems inherent in EVE, due to “traditions” of gameplay surrounding Cynos…from a time before my entering the game.

570

They still seem to be selling these in Jita etc.

"Mobile Cynosural Inhibitor

Volume: 50 m3

This structure, once deployed and having completed its automatic activation process, will prevent nearly all cynosural fields being activated within its range. Covert fields can still be used, which is why it is up to the intrepid capsuleer to maintain a relaxed situational awareness, go about their daily duties, and mercilessly shoot out of the sky any black ops infiltrators who might have made it through.

100km effective range
One minute activation time.

May not be deployed within 200km of another Mobile Cynosural Inhibitor, within 75km of Stargates, Stations or Upwell Structures, or within 40km of a Starbase. Cannot be retrieved once deployed.
Self-destructs after one hour of operation."

Maybe we just need a covert one.

571

yeah totally useless for a roaming gang. And almost useless for anyone else.

The game needs a HIC script/module for a cyno supression field (incl. Covert Cynos) and Cyno supression bubbles for dictors.

572

I’ve seen em used, so they’re not totally useless.

The don’t take long to deploy, so I don’t see how roaming gangs would find them useless.

Maybe we need an anti-covert one, but power creep on Hics and Dics doesn’t seem to be the way to me.

573

A couple years ago…I did suggest the concept of Cyno Jammer module.

20241006_111047
20241006_1110471920×1166 273 KB

the Watchdog Interdictor Cyno Jammer.

I can see a HIC Script. But alot of the pushback, number one was from the Hotdrop crew…who don’t want something that could add some squiggles to their gameplay. And some people have voiced that HICs would become primaried in big fleet fights. Which they probably already are…because they are a threat to capital ships tackle wise.

Mobile Cyno Jammer is also one of the most frustrating modules/object to emplace. Its current radius of effect is so…tiny…and ironically with the distance buffer from stations or other objects. 75km…but only 100km anti-cyno radius. So depending on the station model…you can have gaps in the anti-cyno coverage of a structure. [Incoming by the way…nothing to stop…jump outs sadly.] So Cynos have a huge advantage in the game…because they are not limited or restricted as much. Most Cynos are point to point…undock to dock…perfect. Or hotdrop to 0 on someone. Perfection combat application/tackle etc.

Hopefully as EVE modernizes to a more mobile, and more active in movement in 3D space for fights. The impact and tactical/strategic value of cynos will be enhanced…but the counter plays and denial or moment of placement for a cyno becomes the make or break of a fight.

574

Or maybe the question is…should there be ship class that has anti (cyno or mobility or fleet-boost) capabilities.

Widescale capacities…or like wide range EWAR…that passively lowers those capacities.

The reason I bring that up…is my experiences in SINS [And the Vasari had a special support ship that could slow down incoming warp forces.]

To me, fleet boosts are overused…and they also self-buff the fleet booster. [Battlecruisers and Command Destroyers especially. T3C some combinations fitting wise.] And there is no way to counter attack or degrade a fleets blob bonuses. (Needs a counter action option.)

There isn’t really as much wide scale mobility degradation…other than interdictor web probes…but that gets a player primaried if part of a fleet. You can’t pull an enemy towards you. [The combat tractor beam concept I have also forwarded.] There isn’t many ways to break a fleet blob ball down.

And cynos are also another issue here. They give alot of huge economic and combat bonuses…without downsides and ways to counter act their usage. So any logical working of honest balance and counterplay…is going to get HUGE pushback from the “Establishment” in this game. Regardless of the actual necessary for the health of the game balancing considerations.

[With the caveat of fatigue…but for most players on the receiving end…they don’t see that vulnerability…especially when they have been turned into a meat-popsicle by the time cyno is lit]

And its a problem…that there options and concepts to solve the problem. The issue is the current metas and traditions of gameplay in nullsec and elsewhere are going to be very problematic to counter attack. Or will have political ramifications, or leverage pushed on it.

1 Like
575

Out of sheere curiosity and naivitee again: Since Ansis are now gutted and useless for coalitions, has CCP at all worked on fixing and making useful the SHUB upgrade to attract wormholes to a constellation? More effort driven mobility for coalitions with added risk of creating unwanted connections to hostile space.

Is CCP at all doing ANYTHING to fix this upgrade?

576

The CCP dude that came up with these Ansiblex mechanics, do this game a huge favor, get a new job, you are clearly in a wrong field!!!

If you wanted to nerf FORCE projection why not at least let transport ships pass through allied gates? You made logistics a goddamn nightmare !!!

577

Sell your stuff at their borders, let them handle the transport to their core systems.

Economic shortcuts are part of force projection just like combat ship travel. There is absolutely no need that big coalitions have an instratravel network throughout whole regions. Geography has to mean something. Every skipped gate via some “jumping mechanic” is one opportunity less to catch a hauler, catch a ratter, create a conflict, escalate, spark a war.

Safety and convenience are the arch-enemies of any combat related game.

6 Likes
578

you think you said something smart?

579

Absolutely. And I already got two likes!

From you, so far, only complaints came. A hint: large alliances and coalitions existed and managed their logistic long before ansiblex gates existed. I’ve heard that was doable quite well back then.

Nobody hinders you to bring a cynoship and a Jumpfreighter. Nobody hinders you to leave a scanner in your target system and find yourself a convienent wormhole-shortcut for DSTs/BRs. Nobody hinders both of your groups to establish a trading-outpost directly at your border where you can easily ship to and they can easily take over.

All the issues you see are easily solvable for large groups. I know that because it has been done before.

5 Likes
580

No, they just made it less easy. Stop being lazy or simply let that space go.. intended effect.

1 Like
581

If I remember correctly years ago, someone talked about how they placed one of these upgrades in a system. And the Alliance basically sealed off that system, because it became nearly impossible to control. IE the wormhole spawning there, was so broken it made it nearly impossible to do any activity or control. But yeah, its a bit of a less usable item.

The same problem happened with a system that had SHUB-for combat sites. I remember doing a long tour in Null duing one event, and came across one system that had been rigged up for the combat site generator. It was generating tons scan down combat sites, but not much else…the Event was a data/relic site. It is a very interesting problem on how those mechanics are designed. Because it seems like lower level ones + system activity…seem okay. But once the highest and highest system activiity are achieved it feels completely broken or uncontrollable.

On the flip side native nullsec cosmic site levels outside of alliance controlled areas (IE capitals) always felt very sparse in scan down content signature. Only a slight uptick during events…especially like the Winter Nexus.

It might be interesting to see if the SHUB for the wormhole generation…could be used as a way to link up various systems. And if the potential for a “perma-link” worm hole that would could be collapsed…but for a short time then respawns…connecting two systems with SHUB in your territory might be interesting. But wouldn’t that basically be the Ansiblex concept but with extra steps?

582

Both of you have points.

Logistics in this game has been overdue for an upgrade to ships hauling the m3 Mountain of goods in this game. For the non-jump equipped ships, he does have a point. And everything has been kind of concentrated now into the jump ships…or using capital ships [Carrier and Titan] as cargo ships instead of in PVP. But also consider if hauling ships can use these new ansi…it means a strategic flaw. One miss-timed transport jump could mean the capacitor can go offline at a critical moment in the game. Now granted most players would just ban people who move transports for supplies from the ansi. Which would just inconvenience the alliances resupply line no?

But yes, the catch 22 of this system, is that ansi became a catch all…for all content to bypass long supply lines. And people dislike the idea of teleporting around this game. [This is why the fatigue system is in play…but even then you can get around that via “Pony Express” methods.] Ideally various groups would move to their nullsec to lowsec border systems. And would basically set up a Border Crossing system, but that would start some interesting problems. Most of Nullsec doesn’t want to be within range of lowsec activity.

So the argument needs to be this, what really is the problem in EVE Online. As I see it, the issue of too much control on content denial of gameplay, is the bigger problem. Its easy for nullgroups to shutdown and shutout any potential counterplay in nullsec. Where as lowsec, wormhole space, and Pochven requires a couple more layers of considerations and interactions. Where as nullsec, you don’t like-don’t want to deal with it…you can set up systems and actively deny content both directly in game…or 3rd Party/Institutional response to content.

Some groups have rules against streaming content in EVE, within their turf. Opsec [Logical Consideration] but mostly for recording against the “Ministry of Truth” narratives of the Propaganda sort of gameplay. [Slightly Illogical…but understandable] So the power of content denial in this situation…has huge negative incentive…if not punitive punishments on streamers in nullsec space.

Now when it comes down to direct content denial levers. Timers for timezones for stations. [You want to kill our station…hah try staying up for hours on end in TIDI to bring down our stations just before down time!] ← most obvious issue in game currently. You want to moon mine…slaps a metanox down. You want to steal from my skyhooks…timers again…after the nerf. Crab Beacon…rules and diplomats (third party-manager players get involved…bureaucracy.) Speaking of which…why has EVE Online in some cases become a Bureaucracy simulator instead of a spaceship fighting game? Want to start a fight with your ships…nope you must adhere to the stated alliance fleet/fitting doctrine. Many times again…a bureaucratic bean counter third party player…determines which ships and metas can be flown...which leads into the SRP [Ship Replacement Program] of many alliances…which then leads to overuse of hulls and balancing passes because of said over use. [player boredom etc.] And the SRP Program feeds into the Propaganda Warfare, look see we won the ISK war! After losing Keepstar number 3.

And much of this content denial leverage…is third party…and hasn’t even been touched. Yes the Ansi change might have been a good “on surface” change, but I think we have handed the third party players…a massive content denial lever, that they can exercise stronger control over their nullsec line members and groups. Especially if they don’t want people moving around easily…in their own space. If you think on it…we kind of made EVE Online into Space Soviet Union in a way…papers please…where are you going…oh you want to rat…denied.

Both of you have points…but I think the bigger test of this change is going to need time to filter out. If the ansi change ends up being abused to increase control “squeeze” in nullsec by third party players. I think it will be changed, or some other method of activity like the shipcaster will be substituted. Or the HUB upgrade for wormhole link generation. [Which itself is a form of ansi in a way.]

583

I don’t care how broken the thing is. It’s in the game, it’s supposed to be useable. It’s CCP’s duty and responsiblity to fix it. Especially now that they curtailed content mobility.

584

Good luck trying to solve that.

Almost every major design decision in the last 10-15 years was plain wrong. Beginning with a limitless amount of Alphas per player, the whole design of Upwell Structures and all related mechanics and last but not least an ever-growing proliferation of often third-party tools used for surveillance, analysis, alerts, group- and asset-management and more, using API/ESI data live from the game, often without significant delay.

But now go ask the big blocks: They love all that stuff. Because it gives them power. And a re-design / removal would trigger a huge shitstorm. See the Ansiblex changes (which should only be the very first very small step). Imagine the reaction once Fenris wants to touch the real stuff…

3 Likes
585

I agree with you on this point.

I found out there is a 3rd Party App currently available, that allows people to upload their Dscan windows for targeting information for a group intel function.

Even though that has a delay…I can completely and logically assume that someone has their version of a digital “Panopticon” app…with live feeds from API/ESI allowing them to see what players are doing.

image
image1500×812 151 KB

Its been kind of disturbing to realize that some people can even park…alts and characters in safes…log off…and then as soon as a non-3rd Party tech user pops in system…get a notification someone is in system. And then log drop on someone. Many times…its a bit annoying to consider that some systems in game…are just “camped” with station sitting alts…that give intel on potential targets moving through.

But, yes. I think about 75% of all balancing problems are probably related to the 3rd Party aspect of the game. Versus the fairly mirrored 25% of the game. And even of that its influenced by 3rd Party assets and things ongoing.

Yeah…I get the point. When the individual character story was subsumed in alt deployment, the social aspect of EVE was eroded. And I do have a little annoyance with some players who were MB runners against rules…before it was “legalized.” And also the gaps in game intelligence gathering…like a player actually going to search for targets for his buddies. Was eroded by 3rd Party systems and alt networks. Same on the defensive side as well.

586

On further consideration…we talk about “force projection” and have alot of screeching about “groups, corps, and alliances.”

But not a peep, about how a single player now in this game. Can offensively and defensively through alts…project absolutely insane amounts of force by themselves.

And how many players by using such 3rd Party assets, can multiply this force projection by factors that are probably never going to be honestly discussed.

It would be funny to later back track some of the old BRs and Fenris could even backtrack IP and character clusters to see which players are involved. Although that would make some people nervous because that would shatter some of the aura around EVE Online…thousands of players in massive battles. [Oh its Steve, Bob, and Jerry and their alts at it again…Oh little solo Timmy is over here in his Venture mining in the middle of the battle.] Sometimes its better to leave the truth of the matter alone, but I think going forward honest discussions on the games health, and not false front numbers being waved around. And the impacts of changes to that reality.

587

What a wonderful vignette of something which never happened.

I’ve been in some of those big battles, on comms with dozens of real breathing geeks, and we were only one small fleet in the hugga mugga.

The thing with ESI and automation is there’s 2 options.

  1. Make everything anyone ever wants to do which you decide is legit in game, which given the tastes of EvE players is going to be a lot of work, and given the capacity of FCCP to write quality code is unlikely to work well.
  2. Provide an api, so third parties can make all the market compare tools, contract finding tools, wormhole mapping tools, jump route planners, intel tools and even crew simulators they like, but that does open the game up to what some of your players are going to consider abuse.

Personally I think EvE is a better game because they chose 2, and you lot need to quit whinging about how alts ruined the game and git gud.

588

Or they chose option 3., allow API/ESI access but at a limited rate, especially when it comes to PvP relevant data. So you can have a mapper, a market tool, a crew simulator, but they aren’t working instantly, allowing people or groups to basically track an area, a market or whatever in close to real-time.

It goes like with everything else: the dose makes the difference between medicine and poison.

2 Likes