Proposal - null local changes

Communications Center General Discussion
1

Ok, this may have been address before, if so I’m sorry.

First off, while local chat is a powerful intel tool in null. I think it needs to be adjusted in use.

I don’t want to completely remove it though.

My thoughts are for local chat in null to be linked to a new structure.

-should be small enough that a group of 5-10 non-capital fleet can reasonably expect to take it down.
(note: I believe no weapons should be allowed on the structure, the take down requirement is strictly for the dps needed to destroy the beacon - if the holder musters an omgwtf defense fleet, your loss.)

-limit anchor rights to Sov holder.

-have a monthly isk cost for use. fee not applied, local goes down.

-limit 1 per system, with a cost increase per extra the Sov holder places. (Expectation: cost of 1 should be reasonable to maintain for a small Sov holder, while growing to larger numbers should pose a considerale isk cost to maintain for even a larger Sov holder.)

-anchoring restrictions should place it far enough away from other structures that defenses cannot directly defend local beacon.(Note: I see this as meaning that ships directly attacking the beacon need not worry about being attacked by another space structure. This is not to say leading up to, or near yet outside of range.)

-anchoring time - from placement to online should be around 24hrs.

-no change to how local behaves when a beacon is online.

-local linked to lore, being operated by corp/faction in npc space/low/high.(note: this should mean local is always alive in npc null.)

The overall goal to this idea is, While I done think null should lose its intel stream, I do think it should have to work for it considering the isk stream available vs the safety a properly run intel network can provide.

It can provide a way for a smaller guild/alliance to effect a larger one. loss of local in a system for 24hrs can effect income streams or force a temp blind spot for staging purposes. Or to simply annoy a neighbor.
Adding a need for a Sov holder tto actively defend its intel network. having systems unpopulated and far from the main systems can become harder to maintain as a small group can hinder your network. while creating natural blind spots in non-sov or undersupported sov space.

With a monthly isk cost adding another way in which ccp can manage isk supply.
My expectation is to see this structure, if undefended, to be taken down reasonably quickly.
I would love to hear feedback. Especially concerning timers and the like.

2

I only read the first sentence but i am Sure thst it had been address before once or more before

3

It’s been suggested since 2005.

4

didn’t I hear/read something somewhere that its already in the works?

5

It was originally signalled over 2 years ago in this devblog:

The observatory arrays, coming after drilling platforms.

However, it’s also important to read the part that says:

Before we move forward, we would like to make it clear the changes listed below are ideas and highly theoretical. Those are not set in stone or fixed, we are telling our plans to you, our players, months in advance to initiate feedback and spark interest. Also please remember that concept art is just that, concept.

3 Likes
6

There are gonna be changes to local and AFK Cloaking™ around the time observatories™ hit the market.

Personally I’d wait with local changes until gates™ hit the market as well.
Simply removing it at current state of the game (and out-of-game tools) would shift the balance even more towards the defenders. They would not anchor this small structure you are talking about to provide local intel for attackers, no, they would place a camera on gate (like wormholers do to secure holes).

7

We don’t know that for certain.

Most recently, only a week ago CCP Fozzie said nothing would be done about AFK cloaking as a whole, unless local as a whole, also changes.

So there might be localised changes as a result of observatory arrays (with the big disclaimer CCP have made), but there are no plans to make general changes to either of those.

8

All I could find on OA’s, stated they would be an intel tool for the holder. Allowing intel gathering/disruption, plus the ability to track cloaks. Nothing from CCP has been addressed towards local changes that I can find.

9

I think it unlikely local in null will change.

The outcry from NS would he deafening.

1 Like
10

They gonna release observatories next winter-ish so I guess at least cloaking will change. Those structures could also provide more/different Intel, offsetting local nerf.

11

Well I’ll be damned, I’ve never seen any such topic or subject until now. My goodness.

12

You do understand that the entire game has been designed to cater to the null sec cartels?
Anything that does not enhance their longterm ISK printing capabilities will never, ever, be considered.

Now, AFK cloaking, that will most certainly be eliminated in the near future, as that has always been a thorn in the side of the semi-afk null ratters.

2 Likes
13

I highly doubt it. AFK cloaking comes up all the time, and it’s never been touched. Especially given that CCP is trying to reduce afk game play, it would not make sense for them to make afk ratting safer

2 Likes
14

AFK cloaking and local in nullsec was a thing players whined about even six years ago or longer. What makes you think whining about it now would change anything when it didn’t change anything back then?

If you want no local, move into a WH space. Simple as that.

15

AFK ratting LMAO at the stupidity of that, it is low attention ratting, even with a VNI in Forsaken Hubs you have to make sure that you apply aggression to rats that only yellow box. In most other anomalies your drones get real aggro, so calling it AFK ratting is a bit wide of the mark. I for example am writing this while running several different VNI’s. And I had to apply aggro multiple times manually.

I found that AFK cloaky camping was a damn good way to force people who wanted to actually play the game out of the game, even more interestingly it pushes people towards the major cartels and their renting empires.

I repeat, AFK cloaky camping allows lazy rich old players in the cartel alliances to farm poorer active players in small alliances and drive them into their own alliances or into their rental empires and often out of the game.

CCP can keep ignoring it, but that is their problem…

As for the OP yes they have the intention to do this and they plan an un-cloaking wave too.

1 Like
16

CCP - plz do another change so ppl can leave the game this time pernamently.

Do nothing about AFK Cloackers, and remove local in null sec -
So then I can see number of active players droped;

1 Like
17

This is not going to happen. Was stated by CCP Fozzie just a couple of weeks ago.

1 Like
18

More specifically it was said that they wouldn’t be touching cloaking unless they also reworked local entirely.

19

I think that if you’re going to make a proposal, you should start by stating the problem you intend it to solve.

1 Like
20

Free intel at a guess…