Player Features and Ideas Discussion

i might have an idea on how to distinguish between a player who is afk and who's not.

Simply have the names of afk players in local faded out to a noticeable degree . AFK would be defined as a player who hasn't inputted a command into the game (ranging from moving the camera around the ship, typing in a chat, using Dscan, clicking on something in space, etc.) in say 10 mins. It's true that it's possible to fool the system into thinking you're afk, but they would locked out of key intel sources from within the game. Meanwhile people in local can tell at a glance if someone is active or not.

I'd use the intel to tell whether or not I can go through the system without someone trying to find me to blow me up. It only alerts you to people who are active, it doesn't give you a significant advantage.

i would assume the faded names would be there if the player has been afk for 10mins regardless if you just entered the system. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, just being in the same system can yield useful intel.

That would be so easy to fool with a simple keyboard macro.

I underlined a key detail above.

This is null sec we are talking about.

While it is often possible to operate solo, or in groups that are under-strength for anything beyond their limited purpose, it is neither promised nor implied to be reliably an option.

The expectation that solo or under-strength play should define the requirements for null PvE, I believe are most likely not intended by CCP.
I do not believe they ever intended exceptions to the group play dynamic which inspired the null regions.

I appreciate that Haywoud linked multiple kills from null sec.
But, the striking flaw of this alleged evidence is that we cannot know the underlying circumstances.
It is not reasonable to assume all, or even a majority, are meaningful to this AFK Cloaking™ context.
In fact, it is even possible that none of them lost their ships due to relevant events, in this context.

What we DO know, is that enough players are logged in at any given time, and that human beings can be careless.
Ship losses from those two details alone, potentially account for all the described kills.

To Haywoud: It is not being denied that kills happen in null sec.
It is being denied that non-consensual risk exists for PvE ships.
Specifically, that they currently have open opportunity to perfectly avoid hostiles, assuming they neither are careless or make mistakes.

The concept that, (under camped circumstances), might need to rely on group play aspects, does not show a flaw in the system.
It shows that the intended group play model for null can be applied to even PvE aspects.

We dont live in a perfect world Nikk. You can not discount pilot error as it happens all the time. I can provide more links if you need them. Ones that I personnally witnessed.

No one will deny that team play is important in null. Ironically it is the team play that you so hate in the use of intel channels to forward post intel information.

My only complaint with this line of thinking is that even with group play there is nothing the group can do against a camper, other than properly defend against it. I am advocating a change in this to create, what I feel is more balanced game play. I feel that it is possible to create a balance where you dont have to just defend against a cloaky. You can go on the offensive.

I kind of wish CCP would man up and say something about this topic. Though we might not 100% agree with each other, the general view is that things need to change to make the game more enjoyable.

A bit of focus from CCP would go a long way.

BTW I do agree with There needs to be more involved with risk than simple pilot error.

Well unfortunate for that, even CCP has expressed unhappiness with how things are.

Disappointing, yes, but most likely true.

If I had to guess at refining CCP's likely perspective, I would say they don't know what to change, or even if they did, how to deploy such changes in a manner that would not risk sparking outrage.

As an engineer, I can give a fairly educated guess as to what might work for this, but I respect that CCP has to deal with the perception of players, players who too often only see the edges of an issue.

From a risk perspective, it must seem like the path of least risk to the game involves avoiding any change.
Players on both sides have apparently accepted the status quo for now, and since they obviously know they will upset someone no matter how they change it, they avoid any change.

What exactly is the information that people who dislike cloaky camping want? The activity of the camper, or their ship type? Or their location?

I mean we can replace this with 10mn AB Confessors that can't be caught by the time they're combat probed down.