These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#301 - 2013-10-16 17:24:41 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
5. Hearing what another person expects of the future is often pointless, unless you both agree on the foundation by which this future will emerge.


The point of the arguing I was trying to make was to address how the ideas you listed would affect null space. Will they make the space safer or more difficult to defend? Will null space be desirable to live in even knowing there are more lucrative options in W-space or in safety of empire? How will these changes make it easier to find targets in null space to pew pew?

Instead of asking all these underlying questions I just have two questions that I didn't really get an answer to.

Wont these changes make null space less inhabited or not?
and if these changes will generate more rewarding and interactive pvp or less rewarding and more lopsided pvp?

Good questions.

From an average perspective, this is difficult to forecast, simply because certain variables exist.

Will it make null space less inhabited?
To break this down into parts that are meaningful, it really becomes two questions.
1A. Will players leave, who felt safe using direct game mechanics to avoid being shot at?
Answer: Yes. The moment you forced them to either rely on themselves or others, rather than a perfect system. These players are not interested in playing, so much as socializing with those who do play. They are the fans of the real players.
Perception suggests Null sec is the exciting place to be, and if you live there, you must be doing something right. The cool part of town, as it were.

1B. Will those making an effort already, choose to leave?
Answer: Absolutely not. Most of these players are not heard from on forums either, since they are not social types like the ones above.
This actually makes their game easier in null, as they had their hands tied by both game aspects. They could not use superior effort to thwart enemy intel, and they could not use superior effort to protect their own assets and allies from harm as a result. (based on the intel aspect)

Do we want the fans, or non full time PvP minded to leave null?
That is a decision for individual alliances to make. It will fall upon them if they want to compensate in exchange for non-combat support.

Oh, and the rewards will go up progressively as a result. Dumbing down intel, as a discontinued effect, will justify levels more comparable to a wormhole moving forward.

As to PvP, you must first understand that PvP had an enforced structure restraining it, with the current system.
Intel gathering is limited, as is stealth capability.
Neither can truly excel beyond preset limits, since the system forces intel to exist currently.

The game will be unlocked, in a manner of speaking. At first people will learn tricks to get an advantage, then others will learn to counter these tricks.
Exactly the way it has always been, except in new areas.
Will it become lopsided?
Nothing suggested will cause this to happen, although other aspects using FOTM ships and tactics may appear that also consider intel and intel evasion.
The recons will definitely be worth watching again.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#302 - 2013-10-16 22:34:53 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
1. I really can't take the time to look up a quote, but I can assure I have heard video and read this. Others may step up to provide it here.
It actually was not half as useful as an intel tool originally. The names were always present, as opposed to that straw man you implied.
But they had NO standings.
You had to right click on each name, if you did not recognize them. Now, consider a system with 30 names. Now add in names that resemble each other, deliberately.
Add into this, people sometimes changed corps, effectively switching sides, so the name you thought you recognized was really not friendly the way you expected.

2. And yet it still remains that the basis was the difficulty in reaching and establishing a presence, due to the nature of wormhole connections.
All other factors contribute to the experience, yes, but it is wormhole space, not "Local Free" space.
But if you like, feel free to ask if they want local to be like in the rest of the game. They invariably say no, and they also don't want the means to hunt cloaked vessels introduced, or any limits to cloaking.
I am amused by the reaction some have to their attitude, assuming it is because of the other isolated aspects that they feel this way. They simply adapted, and moved on, really. They are not hung up over an issue they don't need to deal with.

3. I am a miner. I already roll around in a cloaked ship whenever i want, but I do not use it for PvP.
CCP will ultimately do whatever they feel results in money for them.
My idea is based around what will balance the game and make it more interesting.
Perception determines if the two sides can ever meet. Perception and reality are not hard wired together.
Who knows?

1. So unsurprisingly you can't back up your claims. Seems I've hear that same claim a few times no and noone has ever been able to provide evidence of it. Yet we're supposed to just accept that?
And what straw man? The names did not get added by mistake. The standing then didn't get added by mistake. The ability to change the colourtags, again not a mistake. This is all BY DESIGN. You are stating "it was not designed to be a source of intel", but it didn't accidental get all of the intel features added to it. They were designed into it. Just because you now disagree with that design doesn't mean it wasn't designed like it in the first place.

2. Of course the wormholers adapt but that has nothing to do with what I am saying. What I am saying is that the rest of wormhole mechanics were designed alongside delayed local. You can't just assume that plopping that feature into the rest of EVE will just work, as the rest of EVE is vastly different. I at no point stated that wormhole dwellers want anything different. But go ask them if they would be so happy if they couldn't collapse their space, and wormholes were fixed in postion, were not size restricted and cynos worked. I can tell you right now they would not like that at all. But that's what you want null to become.

3. Well your idea of balance vastly differs from mine. What you suggest would destroy several aspects of null gameplay and make cloaking a necessity. No thanks.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
The Ironfist
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#303 - 2013-10-17 00:24:23 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:

B. And D-Scan is the infallible... no, even I can't make that joke. It has range limits, and hardly tells enough about all contacts to know things with certainty. Only a fool would assume a hostile checks d-scan first, when entering a system currently. After all, those pilots not listed in local might still be there, somehow...
(HINT: If local has no targets, D-Scan is not used. Hunting things that are not present has a flawed approach)



Are you really saying that seriously have you ever been on a roam or part of blackops (hunting targets)? I'm not sure if you are trolling of if you simply have no clue what you are talking about. But I guess I should not be surprise given that you are in a alliance that is simply freaking useless. ASH being **** who would have guessed.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#304 - 2013-10-17 01:35:32 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
1. So unsurprisingly you can't back up your claims. Seems I've hear that same claim a few times no and noone has ever been able to provide evidence of it. Yet we're supposed to just accept that?
And what straw man? The names did not get added by mistake. The standing then didn't get added by mistake. The ability to change the colourtags, again not a mistake. This is all BY DESIGN. You are stating "it was not designed to be a source of intel", but it didn't accidental get all of the intel features added to it. They were designed into it. Just because you now disagree with that design doesn't mean it wasn't designed like it in the first place.

2. Of course the wormholers adapt but that has nothing to do with what I am saying. What I am saying is that the rest of wormhole mechanics were designed alongside delayed local. You can't just assume that plopping that feature into the rest of EVE will just work, as the rest of EVE is vastly different. I at no point stated that wormhole dwellers want anything different. But go ask them if they would be so happy if they couldn't collapse their space, and wormholes were fixed in postion, were not size restricted and cynos worked. I can tell you right now they would not like that at all. But that's what you want null to become.

3. Well your idea of balance vastly differs from mine. What you suggest would destroy several aspects of null gameplay and make cloaking a necessity. No thanks.

1. couldn't care less. The quote is out there, but if logic could not sway you I doubt hearing or seeing text will change your views.
The names were, as I pointed out, always present.
The standings came from an alliance that developed a third party app, which gave them this benefit.
For reasons unspecified, rather than try to suppress this intel, they instead added it so everyone had free awareness of standings as well.
If I had to guess, I would think CCP did not have a practical option to block this, so they balanced it by giving everyone this benefit.
Designed? Not by CCP's intention. But I can understand them trying to balance the game, even if that meant dumbing down intel moving forward.

2. Delayed local is ONE aspect of wormhole existence. To assume it is entirely dependent on the other aspects of a wormhole, in some all or nothing configuration, simply assumes more than can be logically supported.
They wish to reject any means of hunting cloaked vessels, which I can see as being related to other wormhole effects.
You have a definite interest in either hunting or otherwise diminishing cloaks, and keeping local.
They don't even want your version in a wormhole... and you think mine would ruin null gameplay?

3. Cloaking as a necessity... that is unsupported by anything I see you have written.
Destroying aspects of null gameplay, despite having it explained how this makes no sense.
Repeating the sky is falling doesn't make it true.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#305 - 2013-10-17 01:39:09 UTC
The Ironfist wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:

B. And D-Scan is the infallible... no, even I can't make that joke. It has range limits, and hardly tells enough about all contacts to know things with certainty. Only a fool would assume a hostile checks d-scan first, when entering a system currently. After all, those pilots not listed in local might still be there, somehow...
(HINT: If local has no targets, D-Scan is not used. Hunting things that are not present has a flawed approach)



Are you really saying that seriously have you ever been on a roam or part of blackops (hunting targets)? I'm not sure if you are trolling of if you simply have no clue what you are talking about. But I guess I should not be surprise given that you are in a alliance that is simply freaking useless. ASH being **** who would have guessed.

Let me guess.

You want me to believe you hit d-scan and search with it, and then look to see if anyone is actually in the system to be found.

Your name calling has decimated the logic used by everyone. You have won at EVE, and can now proudly go forth to conquer your next game.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#306 - 2013-10-17 08:20:56 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
1. couldn't care less. The quote is out there, but if logic could not sway you I doubt hearing or seeing text will change your views.
The names were, as I pointed out, always present.
The standings came from an alliance that developed a third party app, which gave them this benefit.
For reasons unspecified, rather than try to suppress this intel, they instead added it so everyone had free awareness of standings as well.
If I had to guess, I would think CCP did not have a practical option to block this, so they balanced it by giving everyone this benefit.
Designed? Not by CCP's intention. But I can understand them trying to balance the game, even if that meant dumbing down intel moving forward.
Now these claims are getting wilder! Are you just making this stuff up on the spot or have you pre-planned it? It's utter nonsense. Like CCP would have the inability to disable copy-pasting the local list.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
2. Delayed local is ONE aspect of wormhole existence. To assume it is entirely dependent on the other aspects of a wormhole, in some all or nothing configuration, simply assumes more than can be logically supported.
They wish to reject any means of hunting cloaked vessels, which I can see as being related to other wormhole effects.
You have a definite interest in either hunting or otherwise diminishing cloaks, and keeping local.
They don't even want your version in a wormhole... and you think mine would ruin null gameplay?
Right, go back, reread my posts, and try again. I never said delayed local is entirely dependent on anything. I said that the mechanics were designed with each other in mind, the same as null being designed with immediate local in mind. To simply transplant one to the other does not work.
I and others have given you plenty of reasons it will break null, not least of which being fleet combat, and making non covops ships redundant for solo/small gang. Just because you brush them off as "meh, they'll adapt" doesn't mean you've addressed them.
And no, I have no desire to do ANYTHING to cloaks. I want to target the AFK element of players, not the cloaking element. the fact that you still don't get that is further proof you refuse to read and are simply posting the same thing over and over with no regard to what we are saying.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
3. Cloaking as a necessity... that is unsupported by anything I see you have written.
Destroying aspects of null gameplay, despite having it explained how this makes no sense.
Repeating the sky is falling doesn't make it true.
How is it? You want to make cloaks so powerful by having them the only class positively affected by the local changes. That makes them a necessity, since any other ship would have a serious disadvantage.
I've explained several times how fleet combat would be swayed to the defender. I and others have repeatedly raised concerns which you just ignore.

Simply put, your design is flawed. You may think you're some genius engineer with the super power of instantly recognising every aspect of a problem, but buddy you are seriously short sighted if you think you've covered everything with your idea. Don't switch into a career in game design any time soon.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#307 - 2013-10-17 08:31:16 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
The Ironfist wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:

B. And D-Scan is the infallible... no, even I can't make that joke. It has range limits, and hardly tells enough about all contacts to know things with certainty. Only a fool would assume a hostile checks d-scan first, when entering a system currently. After all, those pilots not listed in local might still be there, somehow...
(HINT: If local has no targets, D-Scan is not used. Hunting things that are not present has a flawed approach)



Are you really saying that seriously have you ever been on a roam or part of blackops (hunting targets)? I'm not sure if you are trolling of if you simply have no clue what you are talking about. But I guess I should not be surprise given that you are in a alliance that is simply freaking useless. ASH being **** who would have guessed.

Let me guess.

You want me to believe you hit d-scan and search with it, and then look to see if anyone is actually in the system to be found.

Your name calling has decimated the logic used by everyone. You have won at EVE, and can now proudly go forth to conquer your next game.
I think what he's pointing out is that people are found in local all the time, most of them AFK in stations. D-Scan is used to identify any in space targets. d-scan is the most used tool of a scout. Any competent scout will check d-scan. Your original response was a reductio ad absurdum response to Xcom. Xcom was correct it what he stated, that a cloaking gang does not rely on local anywhere close to as much as they rely on d-scan. Targets are usually found through the map, or through a spies intel. D-scan is then used to quickly locate a target once arriving in system to bridge the rest of the fleet in. This would not change. Cloakers would still be able to locate targets but now would be more easily hidden en route to the target.
You realise cloakers don't generally jump system to system staring at local to find targets right? Maybe you should understand how the current mechanics are used before you go making up ways to "fix" them.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#308 - 2013-10-17 13:43:04 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
1. How is it? You want to make cloaks so powerful by having them the only class positively affected by the local changes. That makes them a necessity, since any other ship would have a serious disadvantage.
I've explained several times how fleet combat would be swayed to the defender. I and others have repeatedly raised concerns which you just ignore.

2. Simply put, your design is flawed. You may think you're some genius engineer with the super power of instantly recognising every aspect of a problem, but buddy you are seriously short sighted if you think you've covered everything with your idea. Don't switch into a career in game design any time soon.


1. Any ship in a POS, suddenly becomes an unknown.
Any ship in an Outpost, suddenly becomes an unknown.
The moment a cloaking ship enables its cloak, it stops getting the free intel, and exclusively relies on it's own resources.
The moment a ship in a POS or an outpost begins that status, they STILL have their local intel channel, which will include updates from local pilots relaying intel to them specifically.

Fleet combat, between existing logoff tactics and simple one system out strategies, avoids the problem you imply.
Local is already fatally flawed as something they rely on, this does not make that any worse than it already is.
Your claim on this is broken, having made it and having established it are not the same thing.

2. The design remains to be proven flawed. Your objections have been met, and countered, in a way that reveals how you simply did not consider aspects that would be affected.
You may not realize it, but you make a lot of assumptions, and all I have been doing is pointing this out to you.

Keep it simple. Raise one point that you want addressed, so we don't end up with a blithering wall of text, and I will do so.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#309 - 2013-10-17 13:53:49 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
I think what he's pointing out is that people are found in local all the time, most of them AFK in stations. D-Scan is used to identify any in space targets. d-scan is the most used tool of a scout. Any competent scout will check d-scan. Your original response was a reductio ad absurdum response to Xcom. Xcom was correct it what he stated, that a cloaking gang does not rely on local anywhere close to as much as they rely on d-scan. Targets are usually found through the map, or through a spies intel. D-scan is then used to quickly locate a target once arriving in system to bridge the rest of the fleet in. This would not change. Cloakers would still be able to locate targets but now would be more easily hidden en route to the target.
You realise cloakers don't generally jump system to system staring at local to find targets right? Maybe you should understand how the current mechanics are used before you go making up ways to "fix" them.

His argument followed a statement that could not be argued against with any logic. The way he made the statement implied that he was above the use of local as intel, despite the obvious need for everyone to use it on some level.
Assuming, of course, that they wish to compete against other players who will use it in addition to the obvious tools he mentioned.

I pointed out that local, as a basic flaw most are so accepting of they cannot see it, is the primary source of intel on a basic level.

Noone hunts for a target with d-scan, unless local first shows them as present to even BE hunted.
That's like saying you swim before you even check to see if you are in the water. It is a given, being so obvious, but he still made the statement.

And seriously, my overview upgrade thread is based around d-scan, and making it cycle, and creating a more detailed cause and effect relationship between ships using it to track each other.
Suggesting I might not be aware d-scan is used in EVE, after having discussed such, seems foolish.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#310 - 2013-10-17 14:26:47 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
1. Any ship in a POS, suddenly becomes an unknown.
Any ship in an Outpost, suddenly becomes an unknown.
The moment a cloaking ship enables its cloak, it stops getting the free intel, and exclusively relies on it's own resources.
The moment a ship in a POS or an outpost begins that status, they STILL have their local intel channel, which will include updates from local pilots relaying intel to them specifically.
Except by the time a ship outside of a POS realises it needs to be in a POS it will already be dead. And while it's in a POS, it has a restricted view while the cloaker does not. The hunter also can't use its module from inside a POS, meaning the cloaker is totally unthreatened by a player in a POS. That's still a benefit to a cloaker with no benefit to everyone else.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Fleet combat, between existing logoff tactics and simple one system out strategies, avoids the problem you imply.
Local is already fatally flawed as something they rely on, this does not make that any worse than it already is.
Your claim on this is broken, having made it and having established it are not the same thing.
At the moment, both sides are able to easily determine who is in each side of the battle. If your idea were put forward, only the defender would know this while the attacker would not be able to see players in a POS or station. This is a big intel advantage for the defender. The battle is already on the defenders side as timers ensure the defender know exactly when the attacker has to strike and can be set up to guard. Adding an intel advantage on top of this is way too much.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
2. The design remains to be proven flawed. Your objections have been met, and countered, in a way that reveals how you simply did not consider aspects that would be affected.
You may not realize it, but you make a lot of assumptions, and all I have been doing is pointing this out to you.

Keep it simple. Raise one point that you want addressed, so we don't end up with a blithering wall of text, and I will do so.
How does it remain to be proven flawed? You don't address the concerns put to you because your are unable to. It provides too much of a one sided benefit.
Honestly this discussion is not going to get anywhere since all your do is tell everyone else they are assuming. Have you realised that perhaps the reason everyone appears to be against you is because you are missing some pretty fundamental balancing issues?
I get it, you like cloaks. That doesn't mean they need to be the be all and end all of the game.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#311 - 2013-10-17 14:33:26 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I pointed out that local, as a basic flaw most are so accepting of they cannot see it, is the primary source of intel on a basic level.

Noone hunts for a target with d-scan, unless local first shows them as present to even BE hunted.
That's like saying you swim before you even check to see if you are in the water. It is a given, being so obvious, but he still made the statement.

And seriously, my overview upgrade thread is based around d-scan, and making it cycle, and creating a more detailed cause and effect relationship between ships using it to track each other.
Suggesting I might not be aware d-scan is used in EVE, after having discussed such, seems foolish.
Ah, except you are saying they are more reliant on local. They aren't they are more reliant on d-scan. Cloakers work just as well in WH as they do in null. Without d-scan they'd find it hard to work in either. So suggesting the removal of local is going to negatively affect cloakers as much as everyone else is ridiculous.

Oh and local is not a flaw, it's a designed mechanic. Until you can provide evidence from CCP that it was not designed. I know it's a lot easier for you to just say these things and not back them up with evidence, but you've got some nerve doing that then telling everyone else they are just assuming.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Xcom
Eclipse Strike Unit
Jump On Contact..
#312 - 2013-10-17 14:46:11 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
His argument followed a statement that could not be argued against with any logic. The way he made the statement implied that he was above the use of local as intel, despite the obvious need for everyone to use it on some level.
Assuming, of course, that they wish to compete against other players who will use it in addition to the obvious tools he mentioned.

I pointed out that local, as a basic flaw most are so accepting of they cannot see it, is the primary source of intel on a basic level.

Noone hunts for a target with d-scan, unless local first shows them as present to even BE hunted.
That's like saying you swim before you even check to see if you are in the water. It is a given, being so obvious, but he still made the statement.

And seriously, my overview upgrade thread is based around d-scan, and making it cycle, and creating a more detailed cause and effect relationship between ships using it to track each other.
Suggesting I might not be aware d-scan is used in EVE, after having discussed such, seems foolish.


You assume these cloaked attackers are completely inept in knowing where to find targets. Most often they know where to hit to find someone mining or ratting. Most often it is the capital of an alliance or a system with the lowest security level. If they cant find a target in these systems then they move on after a few days. But they know from either experience or by using other tools. People are even smart enough to know exactly where to camp to strike the biggest blow to there enemy's so they most often camp the systems there enemy's usually earn there biggest income. People that spend there subscription fee to camp a system aren't inept idiots who are clueless about what system to camp or how to take advantage of a broken game mechanic. They are two steps ahead of you and probably twice as resourceful as you.

You also are unaware or just ignore the fact that d-scanner is the way to find activity in a system. Just to make things clear. If you removed local altogether you could find activity in a system in less then 5 minutes using d-scan. Wrecks left behind by ratting or jet cans left behind when mining are clear indicators of activity and are the signs attacker looks for when trying to find a target.

By ignoring these facts you assume people would have a harder time by having there local info tool be taken away from them when using cloaked ships. They wouldn't give a rats ass. Right now most cloakers ignore local as it can give false intel about the activity level of the system they camp. What they most often do is to sit in a SS in range of 14UA of the majority of belts in that system. Then by using d-scan they check for wrecks or cans. If they find them then they know there is a pray to be had with a single click of a button.

If you removed there ability to see local they would seriously lose nothing. Quite the opposite they would benefit greatly from being able to operate in complete stealth. All local would do from that point on would be to relay info to roming gangs about the activity of the system they would enter. This change would serve no benefit to anyone except help benefit aggressive attackers who want to take advantage of cheep and easy kills.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#313 - 2013-10-17 14:47:28 UTC
Your charity inspires me. Thank you for your replies.

Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
1. Any ship in a POS, suddenly becomes an unknown.
Any ship in an Outpost, suddenly becomes an unknown.
The moment a cloaking ship enables its cloak, it stops getting the free intel, and exclusively relies on it's own resources.
The moment a ship in a POS or an outpost begins that status, they STILL have their local intel channel, which will include updates from local pilots relaying intel to them specifically.

1> Except by the time a ship outside of a POS realises it needs to be in a POS it will already be dead. And while it's in a POS, it has a restricted view while the cloaker does not. The hunter also can't use its module from inside a POS, meaning the cloaker is totally unthreatened by a player in a POS. That's still a benefit to a cloaker with no benefit to everyone else.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Fleet combat, between existing logoff tactics and simple one system out strategies, avoids the problem you imply.
Local is already fatally flawed as something they rely on, this does not make that any worse than it already is.
Your claim on this is broken, having made it and having established it are not the same thing.

2> At the moment, both sides are able to easily determine who is in each side of the battle. If your idea were put forward, only the defender would know this while the attacker would not be able to see players in a POS or station. This is a big intel advantage for the defender. The battle is already on the defenders side as timers ensure the defender know exactly when the attacker has to strike and can be set up to guard. Adding an intel advantage on top of this is way too much.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
2. The design remains to be proven flawed. Your objections have been met, and countered, in a way that reveals how you simply did not consider aspects that would be affected.
You may not realize it, but you make a lot of assumptions, and all I have been doing is pointing this out to you.

Keep it simple. Raise one point that you want addressed, so we don't end up with a blithering wall of text, and I will do so.

3> How does it remain to be proven flawed? You don't address the concerns put to you because your are unable to. It provides too much of a one sided benefit.
Honestly this discussion is not going to get anywhere since all your do is tell everyone else they are assuming. Have you realised that perhaps the reason everyone appears to be against you is because you are missing some pretty fundamental balancing issues?
I get it, you like cloaks. That doesn't mean they need to be the be all and end all of the game.

1. Ahh, context, how it needs an occasional boost to be considered.
Ok, Unlike the hunter, the cloaked pilot cannot perform any aggressive actions. Locking the cloaked ship and consequently exposing them is undeniably aggressive.
Unlike the hunter in the POS, the cloaked pilot cannot even get into the POS.
The hunter can still see the cloaked pilot, if they are on grid. They cannot lock the pilot, inside a POS, however.
The cloaked pilot has no idea who is equipping a hunting module either.

2. Currently only the defender knows who they have logged off, or in nearby systems ready to cross over and initiate violence.
In the previously referred to examples where maximum system population has been reached, local was unlikely to be the source of intel. Both sides are already going all in, and if the GMs were given a heads up, more system resources were brought online to balance it.
The defender knows exactly when those timers will end, so requesting such is not difficult if they know both sides are bringing numbers.
This fleet fight was already intel compromised against the defender. Ships hidden in a POS or outpost are simply logged out or one system over currently.

3. If you read the points above, it gives examples of how your concerns hold no genuine risk to the game, as you defined them. If you would like to focus on one item, for a more detailed explanation, feel free.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#314 - 2013-10-17 15:07:49 UTC
Your first assumption, was that I made assumptions.
Xcom wrote:
1> You assume these cloaked attackers are completely inept in knowing where to find targets. Most often they know where to hit to find someone mining or ratting. Most often it is the capital of an alliance or a system with the lowest security level. If they cant find a target in these systems then they move on after a few days. But they know from either experience or by using other tools. People are even smart enough to know exactly where to camp to strike the biggest blow to there enemy's so they most often camp the systems there enemy's usually earn there biggest income. People that spend there subscription fee to camp a system aren't inept idiots who are clueless about what system to camp or how to take advantage of a broken game mechanic. They are two steps ahead of you and probably twice as resourceful as you.

2> You also are unaware or just ignore the fact that d-scanner is the way to find activity in a system. Just to make things clear. If you removed local altogether you could find activity in a system in less then 5 minutes using d-scan. Wrecks left behind by ratting or jet cans left behind when mining are clear indicators of activity and are the signs attacker looks for when trying to find a target.

3> By ignoring these facts you assume people would have a harder time by having there local info tool be taken away from them when using cloaked ships. They wouldn't give a rats ass. Right now most cloakers ignore local as it can give false intel about the activity level of the system they camp. What they most often do is to sit in a SS in range of 14UA of the majority of belts in that system. Then by using d-scan they check for wrecks or cans. If they find them then they know there is a pray to be had with a single click of a button.

4> If you removed there ability to see local they would seriously lose nothing. Quite the opposite they would benefit greatly from being able to operate in complete stealth. All local would do from that point on would be to relay info to roming gangs about the activity of the system they would enter. This change would serve no benefit to anyone except help benefit aggressive attackers who want to take advantage of cheep and easy kills.

1. Not at all.
I detest the map function that exposes activity, because it is a crutch for those unable or unwilling to make the effort. It undermines the value of real intel gathering players, by doing their job for them.
Of course they know where their targets are, on that level. But they should need to work for this, not be handed it on a silver platter.
For those that do work for the intel, they deserve it, and the chance to put it to use on behalf of their allies.
Would you consider denying them this, merely for your own convenience?

2. Careless players leave behind clues. Wrecks and cans are among them. You can also find abandoned drones too, and surprisingly often at that.
If you are earning your intel, you deserve it. If you are given reliable information for free, you use that.
Therefore, you may be able to use d-scan to know where players have been, but you only expect to find actual players if they are also listed in local chat first.
D-scan is not the first go-to item. You may think I am ignoring it, but in truth I am it's leading advocate.

3. And yet if noone but the hunter is listed in local, they know noone will be found. Noone is saying that local defines target presence.
I am saying it defines target absence.
How many empty systems in null might be searched, if it were not known to be empty by glancing at local?
None? For every hunter thinking this, they have defined a location for use by their would-be targets, at least until the map exposes their activity.

4. If I removed their ability to see local, I would make them need to actually check each system. This removes time from them, and assuming a limit to what time they have available, it creates a needle in a haystack effect.
Sure, the targets are there. They have friends watching the gates, reporting activity for them into an intel channel.
The hunter has d-scan, and maybe a cloak.
Without negative target confirmation, he has to use these in every system, or his targets will use his omissions against him.

I'll take my chances mining under those conditions any day.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#315 - 2013-10-17 15:29:35 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
1. Ahh, context, how it needs an occasional boost to be considered.
Ok, Unlike the hunter, the cloaked pilot cannot perform any aggressive actions. Locking the cloaked ship and consequently exposing them is undeniably aggressive.
Unlike the hunter in the POS, the cloaked pilot cannot even get into the POS.
The hunter can still see the cloaked pilot, if they are on grid. They cannot lock the pilot, inside a POS, however.
The cloaked pilot has no idea who is equipping a hunting module either.
Except modules can't be used in a POS. So the hunter has to be outside the POS to do anything. The cloaker is still free to move around on and off grid completely undetected, except in intel enabled systems where they will be the same as now.
The hunter on the other hand has to move out of the POS to hunt, thus they appear in the cloakers intel.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
2. Currently only the defender knows who they have logged off, or in nearby systems ready to cross over and initiate violence.
In the previously referred to examples where maximum system population has been reached, local was unlikely to be the source of intel. Both sides are already going all in, and if the GMs were given a heads up, more system resources were brought online to balance it.
The defender knows exactly when those timers will end, so requesting such is not difficult if they know both sides are bringing numbers.
This fleet fight was already intel compromised against the defender. Ships hidden in a POS or outpost are simply logged out or one system over currently.
There is an enormous difference between having a fleet system on a titan in range (which itself is easy to find) and having a bunch of completely hidden people in a station. The group already has to be online and fleeted, ready to bridge in. Generally this means sitting on a titan. This give the aggressor the ability to send a scout to see what they have ready, or even send a bomber fleet to hit the fleet pre-bridge if they are sitting on the titan.

Logging off in prep for a fleet fight is pretty much suicide. Upon logging in nobody is in fleet, everyone is in warp to the spot they were logged off at. I don't know if you've ever tried this on a group of more than about 40 people, but it's an absolute suicide mission. Between disconnects, delayed login times, lack of logi and the time it takes to organise the fleet, you are better off just bridging in.

With your idea, the defender could have ships in that station, or in a station in bridge range, completely hidden from the aggressor until they are ready to bridge in. The defender would have full intel on the aggressor while the aggressor couldn't hazard a guess at what will engage them until they've already moved in.

By the way, no matter how much heads up you give the GMs a reinforced node supports ~4k players.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
3. If you read the points above, it gives examples of how your concerns hold no genuine risk to the game, as you defined them. If you would like to focus on one item, for a more detailed explanation, feel free.
Again, the fact that you simply dismiss concerns as "not a problem" doesn't mean they are not genuine. Honestly I don't think you have enough experience in the subjects you are discussing.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#316 - 2013-10-17 18:24:54 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
1. Ahh, context, how it needs an occasional boost to be considered.
Ok, Unlike the hunter, the cloaked pilot cannot perform any aggressive actions. Locking the cloaked ship and consequently exposing them is undeniably aggressive.
Unlike the hunter in the POS, the cloaked pilot cannot even get into the POS.
The hunter can still see the cloaked pilot, if they are on grid. They cannot lock the pilot, inside a POS, however.
The cloaked pilot has no idea who is equipping a hunting module either.

1> Except modules can't be used in a POS. So the hunter has to be outside the POS to do anything. The cloaker is still free to move around on and off grid completely undetected, except in intel enabled systems where they will be the same as now.
The hunter on the other hand has to move out of the POS to hunt, thus they appear in the cloakers intel.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
2. Currently only the defender knows who they have logged off, or in nearby systems ready to cross over and initiate violence.
In the previously referred to examples where maximum system population has been reached, local was unlikely to be the source of intel. Both sides are already going all in, and if the GMs were given a heads up, more system resources were brought online to balance it.
The defender knows exactly when those timers will end, so requesting such is not difficult if they know both sides are bringing numbers.
This fleet fight was already intel compromised against the defender. Ships hidden in a POS or outpost are simply logged out or one system over currently.

2> There is an enormous difference between having a fleet system on a titan in range (which itself is easy to find) and having a bunch of completely hidden people in a station. The group already has to be online and fleeted, ready to bridge in. Generally this means sitting on a titan. This give the aggressor the ability to send a scout to see what they have ready, or even send a bomber fleet to hit the fleet pre-bridge if they are sitting on the titan.

Logging off in prep for a fleet fight is pretty much suicide. Upon logging in nobody is in fleet, everyone is in warp to the spot they were logged off at. I don't know if you've ever tried this on a group of more than about 40 people, but it's an absolute suicide mission. Between disconnects, delayed login times, lack of logi and the time it takes to organise the fleet, you are better off just bridging in.

With your idea, the defender could have ships in that station, or in a station in bridge range, completely hidden from the aggressor until they are ready to bridge in. The defender would have full intel on the aggressor while the aggressor couldn't hazard a guess at what will engage them until they've already moved in.

By the way, no matter how much heads up you give the GMs a reinforced node supports ~4k players.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
3. If you read the points above, it gives examples of how your concerns hold no genuine risk to the game, as you defined them. If you would like to focus on one item, for a more detailed explanation, feel free.

3> Again, the fact that you simply dismiss concerns as "not a problem" doesn't mean they are not genuine. Honestly I don't think you have enough experience in the subjects you are discussing.

1. Offensive modules cannot b used. Many others seem to work just fine. The hunting module itself has no direct offensive component, it just enables the ability to see things. The ability to lock a target is another issue.

2. No, the difference is not that significant. You are dismissing a fleet with a titan standing by, as "easy to locate and consider". All they need to do is sit in a POS. Can't touch em with bombers there either.
A logged out group DOES NOT NEED to already be in a direct fleet, since out of game comms can let them organize and coordinate, and the fleet tool can let them join a prepared fleet shell in seconds, which they have to wait in regardless due to the log in warp.
Again, both positives and negatives will exist, and the assumption that fleet warfare will be irreparably harmed has yet to be demonstrated.
You are nitpicking at details which will still be resolved afterwards the same way they are now. Effort.
And at what point are you ignoring the value of the common spai? Do you seriously expect an engagement with 4k players to not be cross connected a dozen times over with informants?

3. Again, simply because you ignore an explanation, does not mean it did not cover the problem as you defined it. Repeating points that have been repeatedly explained does not diminish the argument that repeatedly answers them.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Black Canary Jnr
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#317 - 2013-10-17 23:24:01 UTC
This would be amazing, but needs a few changes.

1. buff null sec income.

because those nullbears have to work together to defend against hotdrops they need incentived. I've seen drops of 40 ish people so a, say, 45X increase in pirate bounties would be in order.

2. Introduce the 'space ship boombox' module.

Have you seen those 80's cheesy romance movies where the boy gets the girl by standing outside their house with a boom box? Same principle. Now if you are in station and someone outside uses this mod you have 3 seconds till you undock, don't ask why, IT'S SCIENCE! Now those pesky agk dockers will be forced to fight, just as intended.
CCP will also need to secure the rights for some cruddy romant8c songs but that's a small price TO SAVE NULL SEC!

As you can see, these are very balanced changes and in the spirit of this thread. I hope the wise OP agrees.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#318 - 2013-10-18 09:15:10 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
1. Offensive modules cannot b used. Many others seem to work just fine. The hunting module itself has no direct offensive component, it just enables the ability to see things. The ability to lock a target is another issue.
Have you tried launching probes in a pos? So now your idea hinges on you also being able to use a hunter module in a POS. I guess that's a small bonus, since it will allow me to hunt from complete safety on an alt right? If I have no issue using my hunter modules in a pos, then I can just hunt him down and dump bookmarks into a can for a combat ship to use. I give that 10 minutes on the test server before there are mass complaints to get it disabled inside a POS.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
2. No, the difference is not that significant. You are dismissing a fleet with a titan standing by, as "easy to locate and consider". All they need to do is sit in a POS. Can't touch em with bombers there either.
A logged out group DOES NOT NEED to already be in a direct fleet, since out of game comms can let them organize and coordinate, and the fleet tool can let them join a prepared fleet shell in seconds, which they have to wait in regardless due to the log in warp.
Again, both positives and negatives will exist, and the assumption that fleet warfare will be irreparably harmed has yet to be demonstrated.
You are nitpicking at details which will still be resolved afterwards the same way they are now. Effort.
And at what point are you ignoring the value of the common spai? Do you seriously expect an engagement with 4k players to not be cross connected a dozen times over with informants?
LOL! Ok, go ahead and try to get that fleet set up while you are warping. You clearly have no experience with fleet combat. The simple fact that you think being logged off is a sufficient counter to your flawed ideas shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. Please please please go learn about the things you are trying to change. And yes, I'm nitpicking. That's what you do in game design. You nitpick, and you look into every scenario and you ensure you aren't leaving a gaping hole like your suggestions do. This is still just discussing fleet mechanics. We haven't even begun to look at how your changes would shift the desirability of ships heavily towards covops cloaks and making several combat ships pointless to use.
And while there will be spies, they should never be a requirement. Your idea would force players to have to use spies. Why should an out of game mechanic be enforced by removing in game mechanics?

Nikk Narrel wrote:
3. Again, simply because you ignore an explanation, does not mean it did not cover the problem as you defined it. Repeating points that have been repeatedly explained does not diminish the argument that repeatedly answers them.
But you haven't explained anything. You are simply suggesting people will figure out a way to use effort to get around it, while you have absolutely no clue what actually goes on during these situation. Honestly, are you simple?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Sylphy
TSOE Po1ice
TSOE Consortium
#319 - 2013-10-18 10:20:08 UTC
So, this is where Narrel is continuing his war against AFK Cloakies after he got effectively shut down with logic in Assembly Hall.

Give it a rest dude. There's nothing wrong and nothing to be fixed with Cloaking.

The character does not represent the views/opinions of its Corporation or Alliance.
Lfod Shi
Lfod's Ratting and Salvage
#320 - 2013-10-18 12:39:39 UTC
This thread reeks of fear.

♪ They'll always be bloodclaws to me ♫