Unbreaking Local – An EVE Intel System Proposal (Blog Banter 44)

EDIT: My thanks to Seismic Stan at Freebooted, who took up the cause and turned this topic into Blog Banter 44 a couple weeks after I published this post. It has turned into a great discussion across the EVE blogging community with some very diverse opinions and great ideas. I’ve left most of the post as-is with a couple of retroactive minor edits noted in text. Thanks Stan!

Courtesy TurAmarth ElRandir

Image courtesy TurAmarth ElRandir

It’s been a common thread for as long as I’ve been in EVE – “Local is broken.” Depending on who you ask, it has too much / not enough / too soon / just right info for system intel and scouting use. Mostly, this argument occurs in Lowsec and Nullsec, where people either want a little extra time to find prey, or are horrified at “AFK Cloakers” that make the residents of null twitch, fearing a gank or a cyno. Please see the end of this post for a list of relevant articles I found while researching (and point me at others please).

CCP Explorer (@Erlendur) said something interesting to Poetic Stanziel on Twitter over the holidays – the closest I’ve seen to CCP guidance on this in three years. You can read the whole thread here, but the important bits are:

Erlendur-Poe Twitter

What they are talking about is Poetic’s “Local Cloaking” post, in which Poe proposes a module that could hide your name from being seen in Local. In short, Erlendur suggests that it needs a more comprehensive plan, and that de-emphasizing Local chat all together should be part of the answer.

So, in the spirit of “solid and focused ideas from the community”, I thought I’d lay some things out to spark discussion and debate. Across EVE, there are a lot of different space types, uses and approaches to game play. I’ve lived in highsec, lowsec, wormholes and NPC nullsec, so have a fairly broad view (although weak on sov null (where I have no experience other than shooting ratters)).  I fully expect that I have missed some gaps and my suggestions will need polishing – so I welcome constructive (it wouldn’t work and here’s why, along with a better way to do it) responses (aka not “Your a id10t!” [sic])).  Consider this post a constructive conversation starter.

TLDR: I agree with Erlendur, and lay out some specific ideas based on an intel typology, including turning Local to pure chat and creating a variably-configurable structure (or existing structure add-on) I call the IFF Beacon that does different things for pilot ID in different systems. There are a couple of other new ideas too, including probes, a bit about AFK cloaking covert cynos, and constellation-level intel. And of course the common plea for a better Dscan UI.

The Core of the Local Problem

First of all, I am not entirely certain that “Local is broken”.  The primary source of the discussion is driven by the fact that Local is fast, easy, has perfect information, and is uniform everywhere except for wormhole space. But wormholes don’t have Local at all, which generates wailing and gnashing of teeth when people suggest that all of space be that way. So … to fix it we need to do a few things.

  1. Decouple chat from system content listing
  2. Introduce variability in ease of use
  3. Introduce variability in quality and quantity of data
  4. Polish some of the existing tools
  5. Fill in the gaps left over in various intel roles

People tend to start from the top of that list and get mired in Local itself. Instead, let’s start as Erlendur suggests, by looking at the last first – the broad intel types within EVE, as well as two key current approach attributes – level of difficulty and quality of information.

Current Intel Types and Approach

Not all intel is the same. No one would confuse spying with Dscan, but there is an entire spectrum between them, some more nuanced (say, Local vs. Dscan) than others. Different kinds of intel in the real world require different tools.

Strategic Intel – planning for how to manage intel overall, generally managing a specific opposing entity or defending a set of systems or objectives over a longer time period of weeks or months. Today this comes from scouts and spies.

  • Ease of use: Hard.
  • Level of detail: Varies by quality of scout/spy.

Reconnaissance – tactical “eyes” for a roaming or travelling gang to mitigate threats or find targets for a current gang but outside their specific system (except in wormholes, where this may also be in-system – more on that below). Today this comes from scouts and pickets.

  • Ease of use: Medium (generally an extension of system security, see below).
  • Level of detail: High (some dependency on scout’s ability to collate information quickly and communicate it well).

Border Security – triggers that tell you an invasion or intrusion is inbound to a secured location. Today this is spotty at best, often in fact done by scouts or Local-watching intel channels. That works OK, but I propose a mechanical approach as well, that would provide utility on a constellation or region basis.

  • Ease of use: Variable (many corps have no concept of a “border”, especially a constellation or region one. Null, wormhole and FW have some concept of a border but it is rarely constellation or region, more often extended contiguous system list).
  • Level of detail: Variable.

System Security – Information on who is in system. Today this is Local, and the source of most of the debate.

  • Ease of use: Easy (outside wormholes).
  • Level of Detail: Very High – Near perfect given time.

Fleet Security – Information on what is nearby of immediate operational impact. Today this is handled by Dscan and/or probes.

  • Ease of use: Medium to difficult.
  • Level of detail: Variable based on pilot skill.

A Proposed Redesign

So, based upon that typology, how might we address these areas with appropriate intel tools, with key differentiation for different environments? Here are the set of tools I’m thinking about and how I’d envision them addressing the specific intel types and geographic areas of space. Some are new, others exist but are updated from current state, and a few are largely unchanged.

spy-iconSpying, Research and Observation: Pilots embedded into systems and corps to uncover enemy methods, capabilities and plans.

  • Type: Strategic Intel
  • Geographies: Same for all.
  • Notes: This should stay exactly as is. In effect, this is the metagame. Let the spies and watchers make their own stories and tools.

Cheetah iconFleet Scout/Recon/Picket Pilots: Pilots dispatched to go look and see what they can find. Generally in support of a current active fleet.

  • Types: Reconnaissance, Border Security, System Security
  • Geographies: Same for all, but this will be significantly affected by the changes to information available as noted below, particularly Local Transponder and Security Probe.
  • Notes: Given below changes, I would expect scouts within system (much like are required in wormholes today), or no more than one jump out, would become more common.

Recorder*NEW* Constellation Gate Recorders: Player-buildable, destructable static beacon that could only be built at a constellation or region gate. This recorder would capture any ships that passed it that were not part of the specified roster, generally Corps and Alliances set as blue or self. This log would only retain data for a specified period of time, no more than 24 hours. It could include pilot, corp and/or alliance name, but would definitely include ship type, standing to owning corp and timestamp. Time length and quality of data captured would improve as sovereignty/ownership levels improved.

  • Type: Border Security
  • Geographies:
    • Highsec: Not available (empire-owned space)
    • General Lowsec: Not available (empire-owned space)
    • Faction War Lowsec: Available only to Faction War pilots and only usable in Faction War systems. Capability tied to system ownership mechanics.
    • NPC Nullsec: Not available (NPC faction space)
    • Sovereign Nullsec: Available for corp and alliance builds. Capability tied to system sovereignty and upgrade mechanics.
    • Wormholes: Not available (no gates)
  • Notes: Today, constellations (and other space geography concepts) have little or no real relevance. Sov null folks talk about regions, but my perception is that they are treated as arbitrary designations by which to divide spoils more so than hard geographic features. This recorder would give the capability for a pocket to truly be managed as a geographic safety point, and gives a capability for expanded intel that can also be a fight target.

chat_icon_3*CHANGED* Local Chat: Shared channel that allows groups in the same system to talk with one another via text-based chat. User only appears in chat if they say something. This would be handled in effect much like the Incursion Constellation channels are today. The intel features of Local get moved to “System IFF Beacon” (see below).

  • Type: Communication.
  • Geographies: Same for all.
  • Notes: Local is chat. No intel function unless you want to mouth off in Local, but then you’re giving yourself up. This achieves the decoupling Erlendur suggests.

beacon*NEW* System IFF Beacon As with RL aircraft identification, a transponder (already in lore in your pod) talks to a local “Identify Friend or Foe” (IFF) beacon to allow compilation of local pilots. Today, this is combined with Local Chat. I propose that we simply split them, and add some feature changes to the beacon. The beacon itself will be an actual object but with different properties and capabilities dependent on geography.

  • Type: System Security
  • Geographies:
    • Highsec: Near-perfect info. Capsuleers have a window with all pilots, icons, etc. that they have today in Local, updated in realtime. The only thing missing is chat. Non-destructible (NPC owned).
    • General Lowsec: Same near-perfect info as Highsec, but delayed. New contacts take 60 seconds to appear would appear in the beacon list upon dropping gate/jump cloak, but disappear from the list immediately upon leaving the system. Yes, this gives an advantage to a group with a scout in a neighboring system. Non-destructible (NPC owned). EDIT: Upon reading other entries, I’ve become convinced that 60 seconds is too long, and have adopted suggestions of others that upon gatecloak drop is a better choice, especially for the roaming community to know there are gankable targets.
    • Faction War Lowsec: If you are Militia members in upgraded systems their faction owns get Highsec-like behavior. Everyone else gets Lowsec-like behavior. Non-destructible (NPC owned).
    • NPC Nullsec: Acts like Highsec in a station system, and Lowsec one jump out from a station system. Anything two or more jumps from a station has no beacon, and thus no beacon data only a total count of active capsuleers in system, with no further information. Addition to and removal from the counter would be handled as in Lowsec. Non-destructible (NPC owned). EDIT: Based on feedback read in other posts, I think roaming parties need something to hang onto – thus the counter.
    • Sovereign Nullsec: New or augmented capability to build a beacon and upgrade as part of sovereignty mechanics. If a nullsec alliance wants a beacon, they can build it. Default is no beacon, no data counter only, like NPC null and wormholes. Capability level and info provided tied to system sovereignty, costs and upgrade mechanics. Destructible. EDIT: Changed “empty” space to match NPC null edits above. Mynna wrote a great piece on TheMittani.com with some suggestions on this one in particular. As I mentioned in the comments there, I have left this intentionally vague for the sov null folks, CCP and CSM to fill in. That said my vision of it would be that the sov holder would get some advantage, but it would not be overwhelming – e.g. sov could be upgraded and the beacon would act like Highsec for sov party and blues, but like Lowsec for everyone else. Mynna also suggested that the EHP for this beacon be set to make it a viable small gang target. I love that idea.
    • Wormholes: Not anchorable in w-space.
  • Notes: This gives a variety of gameplay options that based on my experience should play well to the ideals of the people that live in those geographies. Highsec wants perfect info. Lowsec wants to know people are around, but want that little advantage that a bit of extra work brings. NPC null wants the same, but won’t mind a bit of extra challenge thrown in. Sov wants to make its own decisions on configuration, and wormholers like it dark and secret (Local kind of freaks us out, TBH). EDIT: A mobile module version of this for use only on CovOps ships could be pretty cool as well as suggested by commenter “Z” below. I would see that kind as giving a static snapshot rather than a “live” feed like the anchorable.

cynojammer*CHANGED* Cynosural System Jammer: This nullsec POS module blocks normal cynos from being lit in system. This proposal is that it should also create an intel capability to deal with covert cynos (which it cannot block).

  • Key changes:
    • At high levels of sovereignty, the cyno jammer gains a “black ops pulse” capability.
    • Black Ops Pulse has a one-hour spool-up time and a two-hour refresh time. This means that from the time an appropriately-skilled POS gunner clicks the “go” button until the pulse occurs is one hour, and a minimum of two hours is required between pulses. This timer is visible in system to everyone, along with the standard aggression timers.
    • Black Ops Pulse only affects ships that have both a cloak and a Covert Cyno. Ships with standard Cynos or no Cyno are unaffected.
    • Any affectable ship hit by the Black Ops Pulse is decloaked and cannot re-engage cloak for five minutes.
  • Type: System security
  • Geographies: Only works in Sovereign Nullsec.
  • Notes: As I mention above, the one place I have little real experience is sovereign nullsec. Therefore, this idea is based heavily on one proposed by A Scientist’s Life in Eve and promoted in TurAmarth’s great piece, which convinced me that in that one type of space there is an actual need for a very specific anti-cloaking capability – namely AFK covert cyno cloakers who stay in system for surprise hotdrops that are unaffected by a cyno jammer. My whole null knowledge about the AFK cloaker issue comes from this post, so I’m taking his facts at their word. This is my shot at what I think is an appropriate fix – I believe that it lets the foolhardy get ganked as they deserve but protects from AFK threats to sovereignty (since the cyno jammer protects against other drops).

probe*NEW* System Security Probe: This is a new probe type that acts as a systemwide scanner, with better general placement of items (compared to the IFF Beacon) but worse specific placement than D-Scan.

  • Detail:
    • Number required: 1 (except in very large systems)
    • Skill requirements: Astrometrics V at minimum and potentially additional skills
    • Displayed targets: Similar to Combat Probes, or focused only on ships, wrecks, drones and POS modules/shields
    • Range: 64 AU
    • Methodology: Uses normal scanning interface. Pings are never strong enough to be warpable unless combined with traditional probes. Data provided shows what planetary mass (including moons/belts) a given ship is at, or if caught in warp shows its trajectory and rough location. Data presented is ship (or POS) class, or at higher skill levels specific ship (or POS) type. In short, it’s a “real” radar.
  • Types: System security, Fleet security
  • Geographies: Same for all.
  • Notes: The primary reason for this is to give a straightforward option for the systems in which there is no IFF beacon. My suspicion is that these would see extensive use in wormholes, regular use in nullsec and occasional use in lowsec (mostly outside of Faction War).

radar*CHANGED* Directional Scanner: Immediate information within 14 AU. Can determine specific direction along with additional ship data.

  • Key changes:
    • Interface improved to make angular changes more intuitive
    • Interface improved to make distances more intuitive
    • Gathers all info it does today plus pilot name and/or corp name
  • Types: Fleet security
  • Geographies: Same for all.
  • Notes: The addition of pilot/corp is to give it additional value beyond the scan probe. My biggest beefs with D-Scan are not around its function, but around its ease of use.

What do you think?

So that’s my first shot at an answer to CCP Explorer/Erlendur. I look forward to seeing what the community thinks.

Here are a number of other thoughts from the community around the definition of the problem I attempt to solve above.

  • Mary Titor – A Question of Intent. This one kicked it off most recently. She brings up the Local issue, but also lays out that the core of the problem is that gankable ships do not see the risk/reward balance.
  • Poetic Stanziel – AFK Cloaking. Poetic raised the banner back in October to point out fear of AFK cloakers was stupid. I agreed until I read another post below.
  • Poetic Stanziel – Local Cloaking. A direct reply to Mary’s post above, it is a suggestion to how to address her question.
  • A Scientist’s Life in Eve – The Unseen Untouchables. Again on AFK Cloaking. Honestly, this one cemented Poetic’s argument. Those ratters are there to be ganked.
  • TurAmarth ElRandir – Marco? Polo!. This is the one that finally made me think a bit on AFK cloakers. The operative word: Hotdrop. For purposes of ratter protection, my response is: Tough bounce. However, in Sov Null space, I can see that a cloaked cyno boat for long periods of time is an unacceptable security risk to the sov space. So … literally minutes from pushing the “Publish” button I rewrote huge pieces of this to deal with AFK cyno ships in sovereign nullsec specifically.

Followup Posts: Since I posted this, several others have posted in response, much to my pleasure. They have some great ideas as well and I encourage you to read them. Please let me know if I missed yours and I will add it!

This is my 100th post on Interstellar Privateer. Please help me celebrate with a (constructive) comment!

This entry was posted in Blog Banters, Commentary, Mechanics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Unbreaking Local – An EVE Intel System Proposal (Blog Banter 44)

  1. I have a post/idea in the works on how to remove local as an intel source. Basicaly local operates as it does in WHs, but everywhere. Rather than come up with entirely new mechanics, as you do here, I’m going to take a “what can we do with existing mechanics and UI, and a few modifications, to make a workable system.”

    I like a number of your ideas though. I’ll link back to you, when I post … so that people can read and compare.

  2. Serpentine Logic says:

    Saw this on reddit. Nice work.

  3. l0rd carlos says:

    So one 32 AU probe will tell you the shiptype and rough location? Sounds a bit too good. With the combination of other probes you can scan down everything with just 2 cycles.

    • Rhavas says:

      Right – I live in w-space these days so certainly appreciate that. What I was looking for was a couple of things this could give you since there is no local – in particular in places like Great Wildlands where there are no stations for many systems. Thinking of roaming gangs, you don’t want to spend as much time for a “quick check”. In a GW gang, you throw out one probe, scan from the sun, make a decision to stay or go (remember there is no Local there in this vision). Also in any space (but especially wspace) what this would give is a capability that would allow you to “get to the right place for a dscan hunt” quicker while being able to keep the probe itself out of Dscan range for added paranoia.

      Certainly this may be OP (thus the need for high skills – maybe perfect 5s in all four scan skills?), but it was what I came up with for a fun way to get something halfway between Local and Dscan when there is no Local.

  4. Mary C. Titor says:

    You can’t leave ‘local as chat’ and still keep a list of participants in it, as a side note. Otherwise, one can bring back it’s intel function with something like that: https://adashboard.info/local

    My best idea so far was to get rid of system-local and replace it with grid-local for cases when you do actually need to talk to people in the direct vicinity. People instinctively use it like that anyway, they assume people on grid with them can hear, so they skip on the address forms, and confuse everyone else who’s sitting docked many AU from them.

    The rest, I would replace with the early warning IFF that tells you automatically there is someone else in the system, always, if there is anyone out in space, but only tells you whether they’re friendly or hostile and what they might be flying depending on how far you are, what skills you have, what sensor strength your ship has, what sig radius theirs has, etc — and, with a little randomness involved. To find where they actually are, you’d have to use directional scanner instead, and turning it on would make you more likely to be detected by the automatic listening system.

    • Serpentine Logic says:

      Hmm, I like the idea that using D-scan shows more info on someone than the base IFF, but also reveals intel to everyone within the range you d-scanned. There’s lots of scope for skills and modules to affect what you see and what you reveal.

    • Rhavas says:

      I do like the idea of removing the participant list at some level but (as I suspect CCP is) struggle with how to do that without making the chat itself less functional as chat (how do I know who is there to talk to?). I like the idea of grid local as well except that in practice it won’t work. How do you “gf” someone or post-fight smack a bit when the pods have all warped away?

      As far as IFF, I definitely do NOT intend that it would show you anything more than Local does today – no direction, shiptype etc (that’s for Fleet security i.e. Dscan and Probe). Just people names in system to click on and “get info” and look up in 3rd-party tools.

      • Mary C. Titor says:

        Delayed channel switching. You switch grid channels slower than you switch grids by a few minutes, for example. 🙂 It can be done, might be a pain to code though.

      • Maybe, you stay in one grid chat until you load another grid. As long as you give your ‘gf’ as you warp off, the people you warped away from will see it.

    • TurAmarth says:

      Not bad… I really like the idea of “Grid Local”… makes a LOT of common sense, as in “in range” of comms… very good, should develop… I may steal (with attribute…) =]

      But system wide IFF, not so much… Dscan with the new Tracking Cam (TM) is more than enough and requires active participation, but I would like to see a counter (taken directly from modern day existing tech) when someone Dscans your ship, you get a “Scan Warning”… Spock turns, “Captain, we are being scanned.”

      And, (off main topic but…) a Target Lock buzzer was worth it to the worlds current militaries to research and develop… we could use one too.

  5. Z says:

    I would frankly want a much simpler approach to the local issue, that wouldn’t involve solving the cloakie issue as well.

    local: same as before, just no list of anyone that didn’t say anything.

    new POS module:
    Intel Array. Gives a list of present pilots in system, to those who have the standing to plug into its transmissions. Basically acts as the warning system local used to be, but only in settled systems.
    may require a certain degree of sov, or perhaps a station.
    This service should be available in npc null and in lowsec, to those with sufficient standing with the residing faction. In Highsec it is available to everyone.

    new ship module: System Intel Scanner.
    A scanner that can tap into the system stargates knowledge of who is present. Gives the same info as local does today. Only equippable on scout class ships. either covops or a new t2 type.
    Possibly sharing its info with pilots in the same fleet.

    This should ensure that nullsec alliances stay reasonably able to keep a check on who roams their space, while making unsettled null a bit more risky. I would let small gangs roam more freely, and strike unwary targets easier, as long as they don’t attack the core systems of an alliance.

    It would give lowsec and npc null an increased feeling of belonging vs not belonging in that space, possibly even tapping into faction warfare mechanics.

    • Rhavas says:

      I think a lot of our ideas actually tie together pretty nicely. I admit I’ve got a fair bit of complexity in the above (it’s one of my weaknesses) but the more I dug into the issue of “Local as Intel” and “Look at it as a system”, the more I couldn’t disentangle the two. I literally had planned to leave the AFK Cloak issue out of it until I found TurAmarth’s post, and realized I couldn’t really separate the two in my head any more once I did.

      I actually really like the Intel Scanner idea too. It’s a mobile version of the IFF Scanner, maybe that would do only a snapshot in time rather than a persistent display. I will add that to the IFF Scanner notes above.

  6. chiralityeve says:

    Very interesting ideas! Especially the part on constellation intel. Need to think about that one. I would like to suggest that the mechanical forms of intel gathering, especially d-scan should get some small risk attached to them. Like a submarine sonar ping a dscanning ship could become visible (but not warpable) in the overview for a second to anybody in the scanned range. Skills and modules might modify range and duration of visibility. If this seems to penalize hunters too much make it a chance event with a well defined probability.
    I very much like the IFF beacon idea. Maybe one could even allow pilots to switch off their transponder. This would be an illegal act of course and it would also cut the access of the pilot to the beacon information.

    Fly smart! Chira.

    • Rhavas says:

      Some interesting thoughts there. The Dscan visibility effect I’m not sure about, but if you did some sort of speedscaling (i.e. 50% chance of being noticed at Skill 0, 0% chance of being noticed at Skill 5) I could get behind it. However, as someone who has spent most of his time in wormholes, NPC null and Lowsec, I ALWAYS assume that EVERYONE is Dscanning and hunting me down unless I’m in a 10-man gang in an 11-man Local. 🙂 But like the new ECM Compensation skills, maybe a “Scanning” or better yet “Scan Evasion” skill (you don’t show up on Dscan at a certain level per skill) could be pretty cool. The potential bad downstream effect of the evasion idea is that it kills PVP, and in Lowsec and Nullsec there is little enough of that at the gang level already.

      The “turn off transponder” idea occurred to me also, but in the end I rejected it as causing too many other potential gameplay issues. I’d be very interested in CCP’s take on that particular idea as I think it has potential to be a very cool device if it doesn’t have boatloads of bad downstream impacts.

  7. TurAmarth says:

    Rhavas, flettered I am to be reffed in your post… thanx and GP! (good post) LOL
    Will follow and comment as required…

    • Rhavas says:

      Your post really changed some of this at the last second, honestly. I was firmly in the “people who bitch about AFK cloakers are pathetic whiners who want easy mode” camp until I read your writeup. Key piece of ignorance on my part: I did not know cynojammers didn’t affect covert cynos. Thanks for the education.

  8. 17Silben says:

    Very good post. The System Security Probe seems a bit too good tough, just making the skill req high doesn’t really help. Maybe if it had a downside – much like radar or active sonar it could give away you being in system by placing you in the “ex-local” intel list. Even in systems w/o IFF-Beacon.
    You could even tie it into lore by saying the probe mimics an IFF-Beacon and pings all transponders in system. Making its use flag you as suspect would make a lot of sense too in that respect – not that it would matter in the places the probe is most usefull in.

    • Rhavas says:

      I can buy that as well. The probe is probably the most “out there” part of the plan, but I think it or something like it (with appropriate downsides) could work well. Good thoughts!

  9. modex says:

    Some good stuff here. Really like the idea of “Grid-Local”. Also, your points regarding the lack of any real borders. The addition of the new nebulae has made a big difference to the feeling of travelling throughout New Eden. However, there still is minimal consequence when travelling between Empires, Regions, and Constellations. As you’ve pointed out, there aren’t really any meaningful borders. A revamp of Local and intelligence gathering could go a long way to changing this.

    I’m glad to see that CCP is thinking of this in terms of the big picture and not just quick fixes. A revamped intel mechanic could potentially tie into many other aspects of EVE. What’s more, if the system security status, region, constellation, faction, also have an impact on how intel gathering works, then it potentially creates a much more layered tactical environment. It could also be the framework which eventually leads to additional gameplay (smuggling comes to mind).

    As far as Dscan is concerned, I disagree with having more information than is currently available. Otherwise it just seems to be another version of local, but with range limitations, and you have to push a button to access it. And, along those same lines, perhaps cloaking should dramatically reduce your Dscan range? There really should be some sort of intel penalty associated with being invisible.

  10. Serpentine Logic says:

    Reblogged this on Serpentine's Eve and commented:
    Not bad. I’m not sold on the anti-cloaking features, but it’s a solid set of enhancements.

  11. Foo says:

    Instead of a Cynosural System Jammer, Combat scanners should have a *very poor* chance of finding a cloaked ship. By very poor, I mean sister combat scanning probes, level 5 skills, sister launchers etc, to even find you on the map; but probably cant lock you.

    This scanning could be supplemented by sovereignty control units; maybe pos modules etc.
    However, flying around, prototype cloaks, having a cyno on board merely makes you hard to find rather than near impossible.

    Playing devil’s advocate however; What makes you think you have the right to safety even in your own system? Safe enough- sure; but safe?

    • Rhavas says:

      That could work too, but as above, I would stick to showing cloakers with a COVERT cyno only. Outside that, I agree with your final sentiment. I also wanted it to be quite easy to evade, but requiring attention on the hours scale rather than the days scale.

    • ry says:

      just training a cloak on a brand new alt takes, what, a week? cloak off gate in an ibis fit with proto cloak, set clone nearby, give zero fucks if – against all odds – your’re killed by a particularly lucky & dedicated prober.

      Personally i think a cloak should consume cap when it’s active – with specialised ships receiving varying degrees of role bonus to cap use. If you cloak up in an ibis you’ll cap yourself out in minutes, if you cloak up in a battery fit panther it lasts forever but you’re in a freaking battery panther of all things and if you get caught moving it or get uncloaked you’ve lost a non-trivial asset.

  12. Pingback: I’m not a local « Evehermit

  13. Pingback: The Seeds of Doom « Out of Cake

  14. Pingback: BB44 – Nullsec Revamp Part I: Intel Gathering | Structure Damage

  15. Pingback: BB44 Local at a distance | A Missioneer in Eve

  16. Pingback: BB44 Transponders – More than meets the eye « Aggressive Logistics

  17. Pingback: Tiger Ears » Blog Archive » This is a local channel, for local people

  18. I’m coming to this late, I know.

    Great suggestion. I like.

    How about this though: For things which are small gang destroyable, have them hackable too. So you can, for a time, switch them on for yourself, in full form. The ‘For a time’ is the system resetting and booting you out.

  19. Pingback: The Fourth Estate (Blog Banter 45) | Interstellar Privateer

  20. Pingback: Removing Local Wouldn’t Work | The Third N

  21. Pingback: The Local Nexus | Mabrick's Mumblings

  22. Pingback: Blog Banter 44: Is There Anybody Out There? – Westhorpe.net

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s