New Idea: Warp Traces

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
21

Think about how it would be if this applied to a jungle.

A jungle filled with predators and prey.
Think about it step by step and the implications along every step on the way.

EVE’s not much different from a jungle filled with predators and prey.
Everyone’s either one or the other, sometimes one can be both,
but here is no opting out of that.

There’s a good reason why the tigers and lions of the world don’t all have noses capable of the same feats dogs can pull off. That’s a rough equivalent of what you’re proposing here and you try to add things to make it less problematic and more tame. Those things change nothing about how bad this would end up in practise.

You will not ever be able to hide. Ever. It’ll be mandatory for every predator to be thoroughly equipped to trace warps and follow people. It would be horribly imbalanced towards predators.

The scenarios of people baiting others are valid, but no counter-point to that.
That, again, is just predators vs. prey. The prey loses, otherwise it wouldn’t be prey.

Making movement a risk decision should not depend on the movement itself.

How do you think a society can work like this?
People would be scared to move.

You can not instill paranoia around something as essential as movement.

This is bad and you should feel bad.

1 Like
22

in a game like ours where you can be exploded the moment you undock or not far from it , movement as itself is already a risk decision.

it is true that you are introducing a new predator into the ecosystem , and you should think very well about this and the impact of it on said ecosystem.

23

If ‘each ship has a unique warp signature’ that would look more like:

‘small plasma warp trace 33592625’
Where the warp trace scerial number is associated with a specific assembled ship. That’s a possibility too.

24

Considering that you’re not actually addressing my points …
… maybe because you don’t know how, idk …
… and also don’t actually think about all the implications …

… I wish you good luck with that ■■■■■■■■■■■ of an idea …
… and mute the thread.

Stay healthy! o/

1 Like
25

Another one not open to change and new content opportunities.

You too . o/

Edit: I do not have to think of the implications , CCP should think , that’s why I am paying them .

You are as strong as a medusa bone.

26

I’m not saying your points aren’t worth addressing but that attitude is worth blocking. Have fun raging on another thread.

27

He can’t read that the place where your thread is open it’s called: Player Features & Ideas .
This is not called: Risk Assessment and Impact Studies On Eve Ecosystem.

That is CCPs job ! It’s why we pay them.

2 Likes
28

Just to be clear,

I am under no obligation to respond to anyone’s posts on this thread. Trolls will be trolls and most things explain themselves to someone with just a little bit of critical thinking skills.

I am under no obligation to further refine this idea. That’s because I’m not going to be the one doing that! If this idea actually reaches the ear of someone that can make a gameplay change decision at CCP, THEY are the one that will be forming meetings to discuss the implications of this (hopefully with the CSM), and they will only be doing so if the coding structure makes this kind of change easy.

If you are a CCP employee that is reading this and you can’t make a gameplay change decision, this is something that you should try to see is even possible to change. You should make a copy of the associated code, change it as how you would change it, and then present it to your superior saying: “hey, look at what is possible. Wouldn’t this be neat?”. That shows initiative and also proves that the change would be easy to implement. Otherwise this is just a fruitless fourms discussion and we are all wasting our time.

29

This is the kicker. Even if ccp could work the kinks out of the idea, it would be years before you would see anything like it in the game. And by then, (with ccp’s track record) after ccp convolutes it into whatever, it would be borked somehow.

I think it’s an interesting concept and enjoyed thinking about the pros and cons. But I don’t think it will go anywhere.

30

I know you to be a troll here , but this time you do have a valid point !

31

The person tracing would need to have a module, just giving the functionality as part of DScan is too much.

However realistically this idea is not feasible, it would scale up to a few dozen ships and then become a laggy mess.

32

If you didn’t want your idea discussed, including responses you don’t like, why post? This is a DISCUSSION forum.

Also “Everyone who doesn’t agree with me is a troll”. You don’t think we havn’t heard that before?

33

Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy to discuss implications. It’s just that what is more important is talking about the idea. I’m not going to change for instance, warp traces lasting 10 mins vs 5 mins. That’s not for you or I to decide, and some features you just have to try out and see how they work in practice.

34

If there is any ship that shouldn’t leave a warp trace it’s covert capable ships and recons.

Or…and bear with me on this, if you are on grid with the trace you can ‘enter warp’ on such traces and you take the same warp tunnel as the ship that made them.

Entering warp on an ‘entry signature’ means you take the same warp as the ship that made it. Entering warp on an ‘exit signature’ means take the same warp tunnel but in reverse, so you warp to where they traveled from.

But realistically, as interesting as this idea is, it’s not really workable. The spam in high traffic areas would cripple the game.

Lots of extra lag during fleet fights.

1 Like
35

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.