Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Response to both gentlemen:

And with the need to go beyond looking at a chat window, comes extra effort.
D-Scan, which I agree with pointing out, is imperfect. Still, an excellent tool, and it is a shame that it's use is so often overshadowed by the list of pilots in chat.

Dotlan: if players are going to internet sites for data, that is research, which I applaud as effort.

I think this would be a major step in weaning low effort players from milking the chat window as the only source needed.

I have, it is not my fault didn't read it or unaware of the observatory array.

Better solutions have been come up with. Problem is we have people who view things largely from extremes, and therefore balanced ideas are typically shot down by both parties as they can only see how it hurts their own style of play.

So far what has been largely agreed upon:
Active camping = good
Active intel gathering = good
Altering gameplay while not actively participating = bad
Free intel = bad
Local = warning system used/abused by both sides
Map statistics = give valuable intel to both sides, tho typically abused by hunters who simply follow the shiny red ball
OA has the chance to stir the pot and allow for a new dynamic to emerge



In short, the most balanced situation will reward those who actively obtain their intel. Which does mean a signifigant nerf to the cloaking system as it perfectly hides information. At the same time we can expect a weakness to be introduced to Local chat to allow for hunters to fly under the radar if not actively sought after.


I suggested many pages back, which has had some support, that local chat be tied to the new OA. Hacking may occur on the structure to allow for multiple actions to be taken such as:
-view other systems locals and statistics also connected to the network
-introduce a delay/short loop to that system's local so forward scouting could allow for a larger party to follow undetected
-unclaimed/underdeveloped areas of null become blind with no active OA

Successful hacks gave no warning, however failed attempts created log entries. So an active scan of logs would show that something could have been tampered with requiring the OA owner to fly to that system and initiate a "reset" of the OA intel network. This allows for hostile players to set traps and use the inhabitant's intel network against them.


As for cloaks, I actually suggested they be left alone, but OA upgrades to be made available which allowed for multiple actions to be taken against cloaked ships such at:
-allows for of all ships, cloaked and non, within system to be probed and appear on dscan
-pulse feature which forces cloaked ships to appear on overview but not lockable until decloaked. This pulse feature fully disables local for a set duration (exposed for 1 minute but incurs a 10 minute cooldown in which all of local is disabled)





These are rough ideas, but ones that have typically found approval from both sides as they allow for new areas of gameplay to occur on both sides of the isle. With a new double bladed defense which allows for active hunting of the hunters or the presumed afk which also blinds them to a possible ambush. And for the attackers who can take advantage of this system and now have a new way to move larger numbers relatively undetected through hostile space assuming successful hacks and a non vigilant eye on logs if one should fail along the way.

I guess then you would have no problems if cloaks also locked your ship motionless in space and made it impossible to see the overview or grid? If you want to be as safe as in a station, then it should carry the same drawbacks.

I really prefer doing PvE stuff. I am not afraid of PvP, just find it very annoying. It's not that I don't want to deal with cloaked ships... I do. There just aren't any tools to do so that do not depend 100% on the cloaked ship himself decloaking, which he won't so if the situation is dangerous. All of the counters involve tieing up the resources and time of multiple active players to deal with an ongoing passive threat. Ridding a system of atk cloaked ships enables those who took that initiative to do what they want with a system, if the ship wasn't atk now you have a game of cat and mouse and content exists for both parties on a level playing field. Both versions of that are positive changes for everyone involved.

Yes, cloaked ships die, usually while traveling. That's an entirely seperate situation and bringing it up in the context of afk camping is stupid.

That was just stupid. Amazingly stupid.



You are once again confirming you just don't like uncertainty.

And spare me the content on a level playing field nonsense. You'll be out there trying to find that cloaked ship in a ship you know will have a damn good chance of winning.

Like I said, you want to change the game so that uncertainty becomes risk...which you can manage.



No it is not because you keep spouting off out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand you point out that a guy who is AFK can cloaked can somehow make your ship explode, and also the very same cloaked ship is perfectly safe while hunting--i.e. moving between systems.

Pretty much this.

You want to have the possibility of hunting a cloaked ship...fine. Give players a chance to take down or subvert your intel system. If you don't like people who can be perfectly safe via a cloak...fine. But apply the same logic and thinking to your intel system (local).

These concepts Nasar mentions have been brought up for the last 10-20 pages, but yet the same band of bozos are here simply wanting to nerf cloaks as opposed to finding a solution that addresses concerns from both sides.

That said, I am fine with local being put on a structure. I don't mind the idea that fences need maintenance, just that there is no way to hunt the wolves in the pasture.

Local is infallible.
Local is invulnerable.
Local provides a distinct advantage to the person(s) already in system.

This is not balanced...except that cloaking ships can make local the enemy of ratters and miners. Turns things on their head.

Admittedly while balanced this is sub-optimal and leads to boring game play.

But, it is quite clear that changing just one side of this problem will result in imbalance, which is worse that balance that is sub-optimal, IMO.

That has always been my stance.

Cloaks are not balanced. They are in fact terribly, hilariously overpowered.

There is no point in owning space if you can't control it. Making it safe for 'civilians' is one use you might put such space to. Doing things to maintain it is fine, in fact probably something I would enjoy. Allowing people to come murder my citizens because they think that is content is just not fun, hopefully for anyone.

It is a misconception that killing PvE boats is the point of the game, or even good for the game. PvE is supposed to drive conflict. You get defence fleets protecting vs. Aggressors, that's good gameplay. Just hunting PvE boats to rack up grief kills has always been bad for EvE. Great as the game is, it's also infamous for the sheer level of toxic douche baggery of its playerbase. EvE can be so much more than a haven for malcontents and sadistic mouth breathers.

Plenty of cyno ships die once they decloak to light the cyno. They are only invulnerable so long as the cloak is active which also prevents the use of the cyno. Now if you could light the cyno while cloaked...you might have a point.



Actually, if they are cloaked and trash talking for N hours, then they are not AFK and are off topic for this thread. See, here is the title:

"AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals"

I highlighted the pertinent part for you.