These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals

First post First post
Author
Rayzilla Zaraki
Yin Jian Enterprises
#101 - 2015-01-10 20:48:46 UTC
The only issues I have with regards to the cloaking debate have to do with general sci fi lore and logic.

In lore, Star Trek in particular, it is possible to hunt a cloaked ship. The method to do this was set out in the 1966 episode "Balance of Terror." In "The Undiscovered Country", however, they went too far and had Spock and McCoy re-rig a torpedo to home in on a Klingon ship.

Logically, when something is created, people will generally find a way to counter it. An example would be the technology race between police radar detectors and police radar systems.

Also, logically, we know that in-game, a ship decloaks when it comes within 2500m (2000?) of an object. The straightforward thought would be to create missiles that spew out mass over a large radius to force decloaking. See depth charges. Also, like submarine warfare, it should be possible to detect a "hole" or minor distortion in our sensor signals. I am not talking about something every ship from a shuttle to a titan can do, but something a specialized ship, with specialized equipment and a skill pilot can do. This would introduce a new style of game play as well as a possible cottage industry. And, of course, the equipment used in hunting cloaked ships should give the prey some sort of notice it is being hunted once the hunter is within a reasonable distance.

However, there is also Local that needs addressing. I can see the need for it in a social game, but I think Eve has progressed beyond that level. It makes no sense that there is a mechanic by which everyone is announced automatically upon entering a system. The way local works in wormholes makes much more sense.

Gate campers are just Carebears with anger issues.

Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#102 - 2015-01-10 22:07:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Ines Tegator
Operating on the principle that Local Is The Problem™, I thought I'd brainstorm some Dscan ideas.

Local in Null currently provides the following information:
1. Number of pilots in system.
2. Name, Corp, etc, of all pilots in system.

#1 is essential to pvp and pve in all forms. If you don't know whether there are targets in system or not, you can't roam for targets. So this is something we need to keep. #2 IMO goes too far, and makes identifying those targets trivially easy. However, identifying targets DOES need to be done, but it should take some effort. Keep in mind this goes both ways, for pvp and pvp avoidance; that's how the cat and mouse game works. It wouldn't be a game worth playing otherwise.

So on these principles, I suggest that a dscan overhaul include the following features:

1. A "ping" that identifies the number of active pilots in system.
-Lore: Ships with an active warp core have an easily identifiable scan signature. Shut down or unoccupied ships do not. Does not function in wormholes due to "interference" (yay technobabble)
-Required to preserve roaming small gang gameplay, and to separate Null from WH.

2. Range dependent intel gathering.
-At long range it only reports number of ships in radius, and number of those ships that are active.
-At medium range it also reports the name and type of ship. (this is what Dscan does now)
-At close range it also reports the Corp/Ticker, and exactly which ships are currently piloted.
-Identifying pilots by name is not possible until you see them on grid.

3. Alter range with the angle function.
-A 5 degree scan may have a max range of 64 AU; a 360 degree scan will be limited to more like 20 AU. "Medium Range" represents the current function of Dscan, so we can set that to match the current 14 AU at 360 degrees.
-This allows active scouts to quickly recon a system, but limits the value of sitting in one spot spamming the scan button.
-It makes dscan/recon a valuable RL skill, similar to probing.
-It makes scouting a more important fleet role and gameplay function.
-It gives a hunter an intel advantage vs prey, but still allows prey a margin of defense.

4. Cloaking: While on grid with a cloaker, allow Dscan to provide a vector to the cloaked target.
-This makes hunting cloakers possible under limited circumstances, but preserves the "safe while in deep space" function.
-It prevents cloakers/cyno droppers from sitting on grid waiting and forces them to move aggressively at the right moment.

5. Cloaking: At close range report the number of cloaked ships within radius.
-This would allow hunting cloakers that sit on celestials, but would also give more warning to prey that's using their dscan properly. You bloodthirsty types want to hunt cloakers? Give us some ground in exchange.
-It directly addresses the AFK Cloaking problem by giving you intel on when a cloaker is moving into a position to become a threat.


Lastly, integrate these new features into the UI somehow. Either on the new map or on the sensor overlay. Lists in windows are important, but they are very "Spreadsheets in Space"-ey. Showing the Dscan cone in space, or in the new map window would be awesome. Actually, this feature currently exists in a limited form on the f11 map, but the f11 map sucks, so yeah. Improve on that.

When responding to this post, remember this is just a brainstorm.

When all this, or something like it, is done, the cloak/afk problem will be mitigated. The hunter/prey gameplay will be redone and null will much more exciting. Then we can move Nullsec Local to the Delayed system. I suggest overhauling Dscan in one release, and removing "Always On" local in Nullsec in the following release. Lowsec can be unchanged to preserve current gameplay.

edit: Updated with some minor cloaking detection ideas, formatting.
Justa Hunni
State War Academy
Caldari State
#103 - 2015-01-10 22:16:50 UTC
Esmanpir wrote:


I think this myth has been thoroughly busted (see Bullet Therapist Posted: 2015.01.09 22:27 in this thread as an example) and is just used to misdirect the conversation. Indefinite cloaking is about being AFK and not having any risk to be holed up in the system.

Also, trying to tie indefinite cloaking to local chat is apples and oranges. Whether local should be changed or not, doesn't negate the immunity the cloaker has to sit indefinitely without threat in a hostile environment. Yes, both provide intel, but if you really wanted intel you could cycle your alliance members through the system each taking turns cloaking (or your alts) to offset whatever mechanic is put in place to limit indefinite cloaking.



Unn yeah not this hasn't been "busted". Show one killmail where the aggressor was cloaked. Show one instance where the aggressor managed to do an aggressive act such as put a siphon on a POS. That's ok I'll wait while you find one . . . .

Back? As has already been mentioned, the "harm" ia all in people's minds. When I was a highsec carebear I was terrified of lowsec but the dangers were laregly in my mind. When I lived in a WH, I didn't really "care" about afk cloakers because if I didn't see them at some point (i.e. they were uncloaked) I didn't know they were there. I protected myself as anyone would by assuming things were unsafe as soon as the hole was possibly open. I live in null. I rat when neuts or even hostiles are in system. Is it safe, meh I take precautions. I don't care if they are cloaked or afk or not. I put on my big girl pants and get on with space life. Big smile
Lienzo
Amanuensis
#104 - 2015-01-10 22:22:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Lienzo
The easiest way to understand something is to break it down into its component uses.

Cloaking..
-Removes us from d-scan.
-Allows us to be on the same grid as another player without their knowing.
-Does nothing for information from local or watchlists.


Separate or distinguish these function, and you narrow the problem.

For example, we could have a device which makes one invisible on the same grid, but visible on d-scan.

Alternately, we could have a device which obfuscates d-scan, but doesn't make one invisible on the same grid.

In the further extreme, we could have a device which neither removes one from d-scan, nor from being visible, but removes one from local chat.

Naturally, it would make sense that these systems not be able to be used simultaneously, and in most cases not be used perpetually.



In general, I am strongly in favor of a broad diminution of the capabilities of d-scan. It's a major impediment to other areas of game development. For a large number of players, it has no real abiding use except to hurl insults at one another. For some that may be as important as the ship spin counter, but we could get on fine without it. All d-scan signals should really be reduced to 1, 10, 100 or 1000MN signals, distinguished by the four main signal types. Only the ship/core scanner should distinguish these signals by an ID code. It should also lose precise range finding, eliminating the advantages of spamming it for targets on one's own grid. Instead, just round to the nearest AU, with "<1AU" as the smallest increment.

A further nerf could be to make d-scanning yield no valuable results within or towards any belt or within 1M km of any planetary system or major solar body. Perhaps even different groups of ships could have more restricted d-scan range, with pods and free ships having the most awful scanning capabilities and update frequencies.

Another area of consideration could be grid sizes. They don't seem to have changed more than once or twice in the past decade. Is it possible that the hardware is in a place where increasing their volume can be considered? Could greater engagement ranges come with new mechanics, like a cloak that only works based on signature ratios? Could we have dynamic signatures based on the current range between target and targeter? Is it possible to have a sufficiently compromised cloaking system that a "silent running" mode could be added to most hulls by default, and that stealth modules would simply amplify this innate ability?

What kind of modules and modes are needed is really shaped by the environments in which players are asked to operate. If you aren't pondering the implementation of new environments, such as perhaps asteroid fields whose only descriptors could include immensity or other superlatives, then perhaps we don't need very much in the way of new things. Most player engagement currently occur at chokepoints and load-in zones anyhow, and most solar systems tend to feel very small.
Esmanpir
Raccoon's with LightSabers
#105 - 2015-01-10 22:26:07 UTC
Justa Hunni wrote:
Esmanpir wrote:


I think this myth has been thoroughly busted (see Bullet Therapist Posted: 2015.01.09 22:27 in this thread as an example) and is just used to misdirect the conversation. Indefinite cloaking is about being AFK and not having any risk to be holed up in the system.

Also, trying to tie indefinite cloaking to local chat is apples and oranges. Whether local should be changed or not, doesn't negate the immunity the cloaker has to sit indefinitely without threat in a hostile environment. Yes, both provide intel, but if you really wanted intel you could cycle your alliance members through the system each taking turns cloaking (or your alts) to offset whatever mechanic is put in place to limit indefinite cloaking.



Unn yeah not this hasn't been "busted". Show one killmail where the aggressor was cloaked. Show one instance where the aggressor managed to do an aggressive act such as put a siphon on a POS. That's ok I'll wait while you find one . . . .

Back? As has already been mentioned, the "harm" ia all in people's minds. When I was a highsec carebear I was terrified of lowsec but the dangers were laregly in my mind. When I lived in a WH, I didn't really "care" about afk cloakers because if I didn't see them at some point (i.e. they were uncloaked) I didn't know they were there. I protected myself as anyone would by assuming things were unsafe as soon as the hole was possibly open. I live in null. I rat when neuts or even hostiles are in system. Is it safe, meh I take precautions. I don't care if they are cloaked or afk or not. I put on my big girl pants and get on with space life. Big smile


Really? Really? Wow. Stealth bomber with a cyno?
Justa Hunni
State War Academy
Caldari State
#106 - 2015-01-10 22:29:58 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Redundant thread is redundant?
Cloak have some disadvantages i would rather have a discuss about d-scan mechanics, sometimes i feel like playing "Push d-scan button online".



^ this

So lI live in a glorious future world with faster than light travel, weapons or awesome destructive capability and immortaily (so long as you pay your subscription Big smile ). All of this and I can't get a computer system that knows to restart a scan cycle wihtout me pushing a button? What?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#107 - 2015-01-10 22:32:05 UTC
Esmanpir wrote:

Really? Really? Wow. Stealth bomber with a cyno?


Can you activate a cyno while cloaked? Or activate anything while cloaked, for that matter?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Justa Hunni
State War Academy
Caldari State
#108 - 2015-01-10 22:46:37 UTC
Ines Tegator wrote:
Operating on the principle that Local Is The Problem™, I thought I'd brainstorm some Dscan ideas.

Local in Null currently provides the following information:
1. Number of pilots in system.
2. Name, Corp, etc, of all pilots in system.

#1 is essential to pvp and pve in all forms. If you don't know whether there are targets in system or not, you can't roam for targets. So this is something we need to keep. #2 IMO goes too far, and makes identifying those targets trivially easy. However, identifying targets DOES need to be done, but it should take some effort. Keep in mind this goes both ways, for pvp and pvp avoidance; that's how the cat and mouse game works. It wouldn't be a game worth playing otherwise.

So on these principles, I suggest that a dscan overhaul include the following features:
1. A "ping" that identifies the number of active pilots in system. (Lore: Ships with an active warp core have an easily identifiable scan signature. Shut down or unoccupied ships do not.) Does not function in wormholes due to "interference" (yay technobabble)
2. Range dependent intel gathering.
-At long range it only reports number of ships in radius, and number of those ships that are active.
-At medium range it also reports the name and type of ship. (this is the current level of Dscan info)
-At close range it also reports the Corp/Ticker.
-Identifying pilots by name is not possible until you see them on grid.
3. Alter range with the angle function.
-A 5 degree scan may have a max range of 64 AU; a 360 degree scan will be limited to more like 20 AU. "Medium Range" represents the current function of Dscan, so we can set that at the current 14 AU.
-This allows active scouts to quickly recon a system; it makes dscan/recon a valuable RL skill, similar to probing; it makes scouting a more important fleet role and gameplay function. It gives a hunter an intel advantage vs prey, but still allows prey a margin of defense.
4. Cloaking: While on grid with a cloaker, allow Dscan to provide a vector to the cloaked target. This make hunting cloakers possible, but preserves the "safe while in deep space" function.

Lastly, integrate these new features into the UI somehow. Either on the new map or on the sensor overlay. Lists in windows are important, but they are very "Spreadsheets in Space"-ey. Showing the Dscan cone in space, or in the map window would be awesome. Actually, this feature currently exists in a limited form on the f11 map, but the f11 map sucks, so yeah. Improve on that.

When responding to this post, remember this is just a brainstorm.

When all this, or something like it, is done, the cloak/afk problem will be mitigated. The hunter/prey gameplay will be redone and null will much more exciting. Then we can move Nullsec Local to the Delayed system.


Support this idea but only if combined with the elimination of local at the same time. Nice work on the dscan overhaul btw Big smile
Justa Hunni
State War Academy
Caldari State
#109 - 2015-01-10 22:50:35 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Esmanpir wrote:

Really? Really? Wow. Stealth bomber with a cyno?


Can you activate a cyno while cloaked? Or activate anything while cloaked, for that matter?


Thank you saves me the problem of saying this. Lol
Master Sergeant MacRobert
Space-Brewery-Association
Local Is Primary
#110 - 2015-01-10 23:15:48 UTC
So let's make some obvious statements (give me a minute hey?)

1. We are playing a game. This is to be fun otherwise you are no longer playing a game.
2. Different players find fun in different ways
3. In the forum "features and Ideas discussion" the primary and ultimate factor for any post is logical gameplay design.
4. The gameplay design must create more fun in an equal embrace of all (or as many possible) gameplay styles (balance)
Removing annoyances = more fun. Removing bad design, altering factors that are not working as intended and rebalancing elements of gameplay are done to increase fun.

Eve has been designed with some founding principles that include:

1. The loss of your ship has a consequence (sometimes large) and this means all players have to make a risk assessment upon each and every undock
2. Travel to far off places takes an investment of proportional time
3. Harvesting of resources, in game, is directly proportional to the amount of risk you take (well perhaps not always but am I wrong that this should be?)
3a. Resources include: anything that can be manufactured, anything that results in an increase to your wallet balance, anything that improves (in your own eyes) your reputation (apparently some players have ego's), anything that can be used to an advantage over your opponent (eg: intel) and anything that rewards the players game style choice (fun again).
4. By joining with like minded players you can increase your effectiveness by a degree greater than 1 (MMO)

Ask yourself when posting what your motivations are and be honest with yourself before you just blurt out a bunch of frustrations without consideration of these factors.

So AFK Cloaking in null sec:

Part of the reason cyno bridge jumping was brought into game was because it is too easy to lock down a system at the jump gate entry points.

Because of the ship loss consequence (loss of isk and time), choke points had to be implemented into the game as drivers of conflict. The working of Jump gates could be considered to be a conflict driver but could also be considered antiquated and outdated in design (Something that could be changed for all or a portion of ship types but at the risk of possible far reaching unwelcome changes - why do we enter at 20km from the out gate? ).

Eve is constantly in need of conflict drivers because of the risk of loss. Not everyone is risk averse but, because of this cost of loss and allowance of non consensual PvP there needs to be means to generate fights when one party does not necessarily agree. Particularly when they are trying to harvest a lucrative resource to their advantage (over another).

Cloak parking in a null sec or low sec system could be considered (it's arguable) no worse than a null sec insta-lock multi-bubble gate camp. They are both mechanisms of "the Gank" not often creating interactive PVP.

Yet, it is easy to understand the frustration of members of a massive organisation that has taken efforts to secure up the systems they "control" when they find they cannot actively attempt to make their home safe (by removing a threat), because they are cloaked and effectively invulnerable.

However, suggestions to nerf cloak parking without other measures are totally unbalanced, as there must be a greater risk in null sec to match the greater reward of null sec. Where is the conflict driver? Where is the risk?

There must be means on which an active force has a chance to intercept an unwilling target in a system located behind a system or number of systems that are covered by the same collective force with intelligence on tap (local & standings).

Therefore in conclusion:
There can be no quick fix to this problem without also taking action on the ability of a collective to secure (region wide) intel and system control

"Remedy this situation or you shall live out the rest of your life in a pain amplifier"

Old Man Parmala
Doomheim
#111 - 2015-01-10 23:17:09 UTC
Isn't the entire issue Cynos and at keyboard cloakies? Not AFK cloakers, AFK cloakers are AFK they may be taking a leak, browsing forums, or looking at adult entertainment. but you know that they aren't doing?

Playing EVE

these are two separate things

A person who is AFK and cloaked (Covert Ops Cloaks) is for all intents and purposes not there, sure they still show up in local but, get over it...

I think you guys just want to make this unnecessarily complicated and difficult for some reason insinuating this is of vital importance for some reason. Where I'd imagine Small tweaks in some places could make many folks very happy (Sentries/Ishtars, 250MM Rails, T3s come to mind)
Master Sergeant MacRobert
Space-Brewery-Association
Local Is Primary
#112 - 2015-01-10 23:17:58 UTC
LOL

Is it deliberate that this thread was started by ISD "Loss of Faith"? (my bad)

"Remedy this situation or you shall live out the rest of your life in a pain amplifier"

Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#113 - 2015-01-10 23:37:21 UTC
Justa Hunni wrote:

Support this idea but only if combined with the elimination of local at the same time. Nice work on the dscan overhaul btw Big smile


Thanks. Removing local is the ultimate goal of the suggestion. It's intended to make removing local from nullsec possible, while still allowing roaming gameplay.
Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
#114 - 2015-01-11 00:14:55 UTC
Thank you for this containment sticky.
Undeadenemy
The Riot Formation
DARKNESS.
#115 - 2015-01-11 02:05:08 UTC
Since this is THE thread for this topic now, I'll weigh in on my meditations on the issue, having posted a few ideas of my own in times past.

The solution to the "problem" must be multi-pronged. Most of you probably won't like my solutions, but if you want to fix the problem then you're going to have to take your medicine.



  1. Local. High-Sec and Low-Sec keep local as it is now. (Lore can say it's "The Law") Null sec should be changed to the same type of local that exists in wormholes, with 1 caveat:

  2. Sov Null holders should be able to construct an object (that should be fairly easy to destroy as well as replace) that generates the "normal" local we are all used to. This structure should burn fuel and increase the sov costs of the system. Gotta pay to play.

  3. NPC local should be just like wormholes. The caveat there is that a cheaper version of the above structure can be anchored to generate "normal" local. This structure should expire after a day or so. The structure would function in sov null as well regardless of whether you own the sov. (Yes that would mean the sov holder would have multiple options for creating "normal" local.) The structure should be highly visible (like an ESS, hell it could even BE the ESS), have a warp disruption field around it, and be fairly easy to destroy.

  4. Neither module should work in a wormhole.



  1. Active sonar / Cloak Hunters. Specialized Tech 2 Recon Destroyer.

  2. Should not be able to warp cloaked itself.

  3. Uses a module that functions like a depth charge that TEMPORARILY disrupts ALL cloaks (yes even yours) ON GRID. When I say "temporarily" I mean that EVEN IF THE CLOAKER IS AFK, the cloak will automatically reactivate after a period of time. Think Marco Polo.

  4. Deploys a module that acts like a sonobuoy. We'll call it a "Cloak Buoy." The buoys have the life of a Warp Disrupt Probe and have a multi-AU range (I'll let CCP decide how far is far enough). The cloak buoys are used to hone in on a cloaked ship, but they require the other module would be required to actually locate the cloaker. The accuracy of the deployable should be consistent with how far you actually are from the cloaker, with nearly 100% accuracy within the grid.

  5. The "depth charge" and the "Cloak Buoy" should both emit an audible PING that would be immediately obvious to anyone that can hear the client. If the cloaker is at work, they're screwed, but if they're at the computer, even if they're alt tabbed, they'll know they are being hunted.

  6. Either module should be able to be fitted to any ship in the game, though they should take a significant amount of fitting requirements to such a degree that choosing to fit that module would have significant drawbacks.

  7. The specialty ship should be able to fit both modules with ease, but should be a fairly crappy combat ship in and of itself.


  • The Covert Ops Cloak should immediately remove the user from local chat unless they speak. High-Sec, Low-Sec, Null-Sec, everywhere. For all intents and purposes, the Covert Ops cloak should act exactly like a person is in a wormhole. Someone paying attention would see a brief entry in local chat (assuming they have local), and then nothing. You weren't looking at local when they came in? Too bad, I guess you better run 24/7 scouting with Recon Destroyers.


  • No doubt my suggestions have pissed just about everyone off. Good. That means they might actually work and be fair to everyone involved. You want your Local Chat safety blanket? Fine, pay for it. You want to sit AFK in a system all day just to terrorize people? Fine, but you might get hunted down and killed. Why should anyone know a cloaked person is coming? Why should a cloaked person be allowed to broadcast (for free) just enough of themselves to have a stifling effect on the population?


    Also, I would like to address some of the (stupid) argumentation that goes back and forth in these threads.

  • AFK people are AFK, AFK people can't hurt you.

  • This argument is patently dishonest. Everyone knows damn well that the threat of a hostile in local has an effect. You never know whether they are active or not, and the fact that they can spend the majority of their time completely inactive only to come hotdrop at any given time is stupid. AFK cloakers have a disproportionate effect for the level of effort they maintain. It needs to end, or at the very least, the people who are affected by this (the ones who chose to install local in their sov space) need to bring it on themselves.

  • People who are cloaked need to be able to use the bathroom / if theres a cloak detection module, it should have really asinine drawbacks.

  • This is really two arguments that usually come from different sides of the coin. The first is from people advocating the status quo, the second from people who want to change the status quo by trying to get the first group to agree with them (nerfing their solution into the ground to the point of uselessness in the process).

    1) Nobody cares if you need to go AFK for any reason. If you do, you run the risk of being destroyed. If you need a bio/your wife is mad/kids need attention/the dog needs to be let out/you want a sandwich the game does not pause. If any of those happen in a fleet fight, you're probably dead. Go get another ship and come back later, log off, or hold it.

    2) Advocating a solution and then tearing that solution to shreds is self-defeating. Let CCP determine numbers, that's what they get paid for, and they have all the statistics and research to back it up.

    And before I'm accused of being a carebear/whiner, keep in mind that I also advocate moving all L4 missions to low-sec, and believe that all Incursion systems should be treated as 0.0 for the duration of the incursion. You want to keep the spirit of EVE alive? Fine. Let's do that.
    Anhenka
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #116 - 2015-01-11 02:16:07 UTC
    Undeadenemy wrote:
    ~Stuff~


    Contrary to your opinion, everyone disagreeing with you does not make your idea good.

    If one group says "paint the wall blue" and another group says "paint the wall green" then "Burn the house down" does not magically become a good idea, even though everyone disagrees with it.

    As I mentioned in the last thread involving sound feedback, it is a terrible idea because the majority of players, and the vast vast majority of social players play with the sound off in order to play with friends, or watch movies, or listen to music, etc etc.


    No to any proposal involving forced use of in game sound as a central game mechanic.
    Daichi Yamato
    Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
    #117 - 2015-01-11 02:16:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
    Undeadenemy
    The Riot Formation
    DARKNESS.
    #118 - 2015-01-11 02:33:21 UTC
    Anhenka wrote:
    Undeadenemy wrote:
    ~Stuff~


    Contrary to your opinion, everyone disagreeing with you does not make your idea good.

    If one group says "paint the wall blue" and another group says "paint the wall green" then "Burn the house down" does not magically become a good idea, even though everyone disagrees with it.

    As I mentioned in the last thread involving sound feedback, it is a terrible idea because the majority of players, and the vast vast majority of social players play with the sound off in order to play with friends, or watch movies, or listen to music, etc etc.


    No to any proposal involving forced use of in game sound as a central game mechanic.


    No the ideas themselves are pretty good, not just because people don't like them. Generally when you have an impasse, suggestions that irritate both sides are the ones that will work.

    As for your problem with sound feedback, you get tons of sound feedback from the game. If you turn it off, that's your business, but it might get you killed. Nobody is forcing you to hear your free warning, go ahead, stick your head in the sand.
    Anhenka
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #119 - 2015-01-11 02:41:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
    Undeadenemy wrote:
    Anhenka wrote:
    Undeadenemy wrote:
    ~Stuff~


    Contrary to your opinion, everyone disagreeing with you does not make your idea good.

    If one group says "paint the wall blue" and another group says "paint the wall green" then "Burn the house down" does not magically become a good idea, even though everyone disagrees with it.

    As I mentioned in the last thread involving sound feedback, it is a terrible idea because the majority of players, and the vast vast majority of social players play with the sound off in order to play with friends, or watch movies, or listen to music, etc etc.


    No to any proposal involving forced use of in game sound as a central game mechanic.


    No the ideas themselves are pretty good, not just because people don't like them. Generally when you have an impasse, suggestions that irritate both sides are the ones that will work.

    As for your problem with sound feedback, you get tons of sound feedback from the game. If you turn it off, that's your business, but it might get you killed. Nobody is forcing you to hear your free warning, go ahead, stick your head in the sand.


    There is no mechanic in the game that has an audio effect but does not have a corresponding visual. Shield/Armor/Hull levels are displayed by my HUD, as well as module cycles, incoming damage, landed damage, docking/warping status. Autopilot makes soundwhen turned on, but also has a light up icon.

    Even WH's have visual wobbles to go with their audio sounds, although it is subtle. Gates have gate flashes when someone jumps, as well as sound effects.

    There is NO reason I HAVE to have audio on in order to receive ALL the information my client has to offer. It is 100%, completely optional.

    It's not "sticking my head in the ground" when it is you proposing an entire new mechanic linked only to the people who use the sound, which has up to this point been entirely optional. Why should your one mechanic out of all in the game be the one that people HAVE to use sound for?
    Undeadenemy
    The Riot Formation
    DARKNESS.
    #120 - 2015-01-11 03:19:50 UTC
    Anhenka wrote:


    There is no mechanic in the game that has an audio effect but does not have a corresponding visual. Shield/Armor/Hull levels are displayed by my HUD, as well as module cycles, incoming damage, landed damage, docking/warping status. Autopilot makes soundwhen turned on, but also has a light up icon.

    Even WH's have visual wobbles to go with their audio sounds, although it is subtle. Gates have gate flashes when someone jumps, as well as sound effects.

    There is NO reason I HAVE to have audio on in order to receive ALL the information my client has to offer. It is 100%, completely optional.

    It's not "sticking my head in the ground" when it is you proposing an entire new mechanic linked only to the people who use the sound, which has up to this point been entirely optional. Why should your one mechanic out of all in the game be the one that people HAVE to use sound for?


    Simple solution, add a visual as well. I never said anything about it being entirely auditory. Certainly you should be able to see something. For example, that the applicable ship is on scan, or that the applicable probes are on scan. Maybe a pulse of light. Could be a lot of things.

    I think you jumped to conclusions about what I've said. I never took any stand on an entirely auditory mechanic. There could certainly be a visual to go with the effect and indeed there should be. Now, that said, if you are alt-tabbed you won't see the visuals, and if you also choose to have the sound turned off, that's your business, but it might get you killed.