These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Prince Kobol
#8101 - 2016-12-09 16:04:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Prince Kobol
Teckos Pech wrote:
BTW I went to zkillboard and looked up the deaths for covert ops ships for Dec. 8. About 140-150 died in one day.

So much for Xcom's notion of risk free PvE. You'd think a person making such an argument would go look at some of the actual data, but nope. When you are intellectually dishonest and shift your arguments constantly to try and score points....looking at the data is just time consuming and could do violence to your preconceived notions.


Small problemon with your numbers.

140 - 150 of how many?

I always have a issue with anybody producing numbers without any context.

Are these 140 deaths in 140 single engaments or or some in a fleet fight?

In what space were these deaths in?

How many people were flying covert op ships during that day?

Numbers without context are useless.
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#8102 - 2016-12-09 16:10:18 UTC
Xcom wrote:
I'm glad I at least understand your logic with that standpoint Wander Prian. I just disagree strongly with it. Although it sounds fair that cloaks do nerf you to the point so that anyone could defend themself against a squishy target like bombers it does make sense to not give any pre warnings. The only problem with that analogy is that most fights never are one on one. There are hot drops and massive fleets followed up after the point.

The pointer just needs to survive the short time before a second point lands. In those situations its more logical to let anyone have some form of advanced warning to have the option to choose to engage or flee. Decloak timers to lock are supposed to be just that but in the case of Recon ships and faction cov-ops where you can tank to a moderate degree and you have ample time to land a point. Ballparks of 6 seconds is the aproximate locktime of more tanky cov-ops recons and SoE ships. If cloaks are supposed to always catch there target null will turn into WS where any fight is spearheaded by a cloaky pointer without local. I really don't know if that is the type of pvp that will even encourage satisfactory pvp for anyone other then the one who engages. At some point even the engage party will get board when noone uses belts any more.


Which is why (as I have said multiple times) rat and mine in groups when outside of HS. A dozen rattlesnakes ratting in PvP fits are going to be very hard to hot drop. How often do people actually do that in null?

Xcom wrote:
Not really. The problem is the free intel gathering. If you leave that out then you can justify cloaks yes. But free intel gathering is to valuable to not put a label on it and say its "intended" so we should just leave it as is.


So you're against local chat and killboards as well? If so, then we can talk. Those give more free intel than cloaks ever could.
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#8103 - 2016-12-09 16:14:25 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:


Again, you make my point. You don't have an issue with the cloaker, you have the issue with the drop. For the sake of argument, what if you couldn't light a cyno for 2 minutes after you drop a cloak? You have 120 seconds to break point, kill the cloaker, call in your friends, arrange a counter-drop, etc etc. Would that be enough? Or is that still too dangerous because they MIGHT be able to get the cyno off?

Cloaks are designed to be able to choose the moment of engagement. The whole point of them is to add uncertainty to the game. So you cannot just eliminate all the dangers out of the situation. It is a powerfull ability and that's why CCP made the ships who can use a covops-cloak weaker in tank and in DPS (just compare combat- and force-recons). Somehow magically the only time that cloaks are an issue, is when there is a cyno involved, yet somehow the cloaks are broken Roll


I have not proved anything, I have been quite clear what my issue is. I have an issue with the AFK cloak because he is affecting the game while not playing it because of the fear of hot drops, I also have an issue with the hot drop because it is over powered. The hot drop itself is the reason why removing local is not going to work.

Your suggestion of 2 minutes works for me because I am happy with risk and think that people need to do more than just use one character to get a kill, so I would go for that. Thank you for a more reasoned reply at least in that part befor ethe sarc at the end part. Roll

After that you get back into silly contempt mode, I unlike some others am happy with the cloak, I repeat, I do not like the AFK part which is using the fear of the powerful hot drop ability. I have no concerns with someone de-claoking and giving me a fight as I normally fit for PvP when doing PvE, again you put your prejudices on me. I have done that in the past where I have had some SB's decloak on me and every time they had to run away.

At a more top level view I would like to see AFK cloaking removed as an impact because I want to see more people in 0.0 fighting over space.

My objective with the AFK flag is to reduce the impact of AFK camping an dthe fear of hot drops, the AFK flag was designed as a way of not destroying cloaks, but at the end of the day I would accept a nerf to cloak if it removed this dreadful game destroying AFK cloaky camping.


Stop relying solely on local and work together and AFK-cloaker won't bother you any longer! Best lesson to come out of w-space is to always act like there is a guy cloaked next to you. We don't know for sure, so we just assume it. Somehow it hasn't stopped us from getting things done.


I don't rely solely on local as detailed above, and as you are not going to be hot dropped in w-space whatever you do is irrelevant and there are no lessons from W-space that apply to K-space in terms of this. You are going round in the same stupid circle again. Roll My block button finger is twitching at this point. Evil


There may not be cyno's in w-space, but that doesn't stop us from dropping on people who forgot to check for new signature while they are doing whatever it is they are doing.

The lesson of vigilance and not feeling entitled about your safety is a lesson that applies up every type of space. It's just hammered into w-space pilots more thoroughly then anywhere else. Nullbears are a good example of people who feel entitled to their safety.

Oh, if you are petty enough to block people who disagree with you, just so that you can get your echo-chamber complete and get that ego-boost that you do desperately crave, feel free to block me. You'll just end up making yourself even more of a joke than you already are.

Wormholer for life.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#8104 - 2016-12-09 16:57:42 UTC
Wander Prian wrote:
There may not be cyno's in w-space, but that doesn't stop us from dropping on people who forgot to check for new signature while they are doing whatever it is they are doing.

The lesson of vigilance and not feeling entitled about your safety is a lesson that applies up every type of space. It's just hammered into w-space pilots more thoroughly then anywhere else. Nullbears are a good example of people who feel entitled to their safety.

Oh, if you are petty enough to block people who disagree with you, just so that you can get your echo-chamber complete and get that ego-boost that you do desperately crave, feel free to block me. You'll just end up making yourself even more of a joke than you already are.


I block people who talk rubbish, you are trying to tell me that WH space is the same as K-space and that checking signatures is somehow the same as hot drops, for that complete stupidity on your part I am blocking you as a complete waste of time, you add nothing to this as you are in WH space and have no idea about the issue of hot drops. Au revoir.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#8105 - 2016-12-09 17:00:33 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
BTW I went to zkillboard and looked up the deaths for covert ops ships for Dec. 8. About 140-150 died in one day.

So much for Xcom's notion of risk free PvE. You'd think a person making such an argument would go look at some of the actual data, but nope. When you are intellectually dishonest and shift your arguments constantly to try and score points....looking at the data is just time consuming and could do violence to your preconceived notions.


Small problemon with your numbers.

140 - 150 of how many?

I always have a issue with anybody producing numbers without any context.

Are these 140 deaths in 140 single engaments or or some in a fleet fight?

In what space were these deaths in?

How many people were flying covert op ships during that day?

Numbers without context are useless.


The question is how many were AFK cloaky campers, most of them were doing exploration at a guess or going through gates, that is Teckos for you. Shocked

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#8106 - 2016-12-09 17:31:40 UTC
Wander Prian wrote:
Oh, if you are petty enough to block people who disagree with you, just so that you can get your echo-chamber complete and get that ego-boost that you do desperately crave, feel free to block me. You'll just end up making yourself even more of a joke than you already are.


No, he's posting with multiple characters in this thread and "blocking" people to try and **** us off enough that we start replying with alts ourselves. That way he gets more intel on the alts of people who proved him wrong.

It's a bit sad how transparent he is with this. And yes, Dracvlad (or whatever character you're currently posting with), I know you are still reading this.
Xcom
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#8107 - 2016-12-09 18:00:41 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Xcom wrote:
I'm glad I at least understand your logic with that standpoint Wander Prian. I just disagree strongly with it. Although it sounds fair that cloaks do nerf you to the point so that anyone could defend themself against a squishy target like bombers it does make sense to not give any pre warnings. The only problem with that analogy is that most fights never are one on one. There are hot drops and massive fleets followed up after the point.

The pointer just needs to survive the short time before a second point lands. In those situations its more logical to let anyone have some form of advanced warning to have the option to choose to engage or flee. Decloak timers to lock are supposed to be just that but in the case of Recon ships and faction cov-ops where you can tank to a moderate degree and you have ample time to land a point. Ballparks of 6 seconds is the aproximate locktime of more tanky cov-ops recons and SoE ships. If cloaks are supposed to always catch there target null will turn into WS where any fight is spearheaded by a cloaky pointer without local. I really don't know if that is the type of pvp that will even encourage satisfactory pvp for anyone other then the one who engages. At some point even the engage party will get board when noone uses belts any more.


Which is why (as I have said multiple times) rat and mine in groups when outside of HS. A dozen rattlesnakes ratting in PvP fits are going to be very hard to hot drop. How often do people actually do that in null?

Xcom wrote:
Not really. The problem is the free intel gathering. If you leave that out then you can justify cloaks yes. But free intel gathering is to valuable to not put a label on it and say its "intended" so we should just leave it as is.


So you're against local chat and killboards as well? If so, then we can talk. Those give more free intel than cloaks ever could.

This game gives way to much info out. The map even shows ship counts to accurate numbers throughout eve. Local broadcasts numbers of pilots that was promised to be replaced with a more overview alike mechanic. Killboards, other player made maps, websites and other external tools that turns this game into a spreadsheet rather then a game. I do agree that some tools help make life easier but at some point you start losing the immersion. Most battles are lopsided and way to planned out. Nothing in eve is encounter based rather then strategically planned and most times when you die your made fun of. If we had more unpredictable tools in eve players might have actually start to play the game rather then camp enemy systems to whore for killmails.
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#8108 - 2016-12-09 18:14:19 UTC
Xcom wrote:
This game gives way to much info out. The map even shows ship counts to accurate numbers throughout eve. Local broadcasts numbers of pilots that was promised to be replaced with a more overview alike mechanic. Killboards, other player made maps, websites and other external tools that turns this game into a spreadsheet rather then a game. I do agree that some tools help make life easier but at some point you start losing the immersion. Most battles are lopsided and way to planned out. Nothing in eve is encounter based rather then strategically planned and most times when you die your made fun of. If we had more unpredictable tools in eve players might have actually start to play the game rather then camp enemy systems to whore for killmails.


I agree with this. I've said from the start if they agree to nerf local, I'm OK with a way to scan down cloaked ships. In the current state of the game, you can't nerf one without nerfing the other, or it won't be balanced.

I want killboards to go away completely as well, as they just prevent fights from happening.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#8109 - 2016-12-09 18:20:01 UTC
Xcom wrote:
This game gives way to much info out. The map even shows ship counts to accurate numbers throughout eve. Local broadcasts numbers of pilots that was promised to be replaced with a more overview alike mechanic. Killboards, other player made maps, websites and other external tools that turns this game into a spreadsheet rather then a game. I do agree that some tools help make life easier but at some point you start losing the immersion. Most battles are lopsided and way to planned out. Nothing in eve is encounter based rather then strategically planned and most times when you die your made fun of. If we had more unpredictable tools in eve players might have actually start to play the game rather then camp enemy systems to whore for killmails.


I so much agree with this comment.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Prince Kobol
#8110 - 2016-12-09 18:31:29 UTC
Xcom wrote:
[
This game gives way to much info out. The map even shows ship counts to accurate numbers throughout eve. Local broadcasts numbers of pilots that was promised to be replaced with a more overview alike mechanic. Killboards, other player made maps, websites and other external tools that turns this game into a spreadsheet rather then a game. I do agree that some tools help make life easier but at some point you start losing the immersion. Most battles are lopsided and way to planned out. Nothing in eve is encounter based rather then strategically planned and most times when you die your made fun of. If we had more unpredictable tools in eve players might have actually start to play the game rather then camp enemy systems to whore for killmails.


Completely agree. The API kills so many aspects of this game.

If we do have to have it at the very least put in a delay of say 24 - 48 hours.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#8111 - 2016-12-09 18:36:31 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
BTW I went to zkillboard and looked up the deaths for covert ops ships for Dec. 8. About 140-150 died in one day.

So much for Xcom's notion of risk free PvE. You'd think a person making such an argument would go look at some of the actual data, but nope. When you are intellectually dishonest and shift your arguments constantly to try and score points....looking at the data is just time consuming and could do violence to your preconceived notions.


Small problemon with your numbers.

140 - 150 of how many?

I always have a issue with anybody producing numbers without any context.

Are these 140 deaths in 140 single engaments or or some in a fleet fight?

In what space were these deaths in?

How many people were flying covert op ships during that day?

Numbers without context are useless.


No, that was not the point I was rebutting. The claim was that cloaks allow for risk free PvE. Risk free means none would die. Zero. Zip. Zilch. The empty set.

However, there are plenty that do die, many of which are fit for exploration so the claim is clearly false.

Now if one were to ask, "Are they too safe?" or "Is there enough risk?" That is very different question and one that is really only capable of being answered by CCP. Xcom cannot answer it. Dracvlad cannot answer it. You cannot answer it. I cannot answer it.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#8112 - 2016-12-09 18:38:29 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:


The question is how many were AFK cloaky campers, most of them were doing exploration at a guess or going through gates, that is Teckos for you. Shocked


And here we see extreme intellectual dishonesty from Dracvlad, which of course is to be expected.

I was not responding to a claim about AFK cloaking because AFK cloakers do NOT engage in PvE.

Since I was responding to a claim about PvE and cloaks Dracvlad's response is his usual lying and distorting of the discussion.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Xcom
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#8113 - 2016-12-09 18:41:55 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Xcom wrote:
This game gives way to much info out. The map even shows ship counts to accurate numbers throughout eve. Local broadcasts numbers of pilots that was promised to be replaced with a more overview alike mechanic. Killboards, other player made maps, websites and other external tools that turns this game into a spreadsheet rather then a game. I do agree that some tools help make life easier but at some point you start losing the immersion. Most battles are lopsided and way to planned out. Nothing in eve is encounter based rather then strategically planned and most times when you die your made fun of. If we had more unpredictable tools in eve players might have actually start to play the game rather then camp enemy systems to whore for killmails.


I agree with this. I've said from the start if they agree to nerf local, I'm OK with a way to scan down cloaked ships. In the current state of the game, you can't nerf one without nerfing the other, or it won't be balanced.

I want killboards to go away completely as well, as they just prevent fights from happening.

The problem with local is how integrated it has become. I think CCP admittedly said it was an unintended feature that slipped into the game and now gets abused. Sadly by now it will alienate so many players that its removal will be a major major decision that will need some balls, sadly what CCP devs lack. I just want something minor like AFK camping to at least be removed. But apparently even that is resisted as it seams everything is entangled and every alteration is resisted by so many players. This game is old, it needs devs with some gusto to step in and start to shift mechanics around to stir the pot a little.

I guess threads like this one really puts the fear into the devs, probably less constructive when so many rage posts are clogged into one giant thread. I try and play the game as is but from time to time you really get riled up and frustrated that decisions are made at a snails pace and end up back here.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#8114 - 2016-12-09 19:16:29 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Xcom wrote:
This game gives way to much info out. The map even shows ship counts to accurate numbers throughout eve. Local broadcasts numbers of pilots that was promised to be replaced with a more overview alike mechanic. Killboards, other player made maps, websites and other external tools that turns this game into a spreadsheet rather then a game. I do agree that some tools help make life easier but at some point you start losing the immersion. Most battles are lopsided and way to planned out. Nothing in eve is encounter based rather then strategically planned and most times when you die your made fun of. If we had more unpredictable tools in eve players might have actually start to play the game rather then camp enemy systems to whore for killmails.


I agree with this. I've said from the start if they agree to nerf local, I'm OK with a way to scan down cloaked ships. In the current state of the game, you can't nerf one without nerfing the other, or it won't be balanced.

I want killboards to go away completely as well, as they just prevent fights from happening.

The problem with local is how integrated it has become. I think CCP admittedly said it was an unintended feature that slipped into the game and now gets abused. Sadly by now it will alienate so many players that its removal will be a major major decision that will need some balls, sadly what CCP devs lack. I just want something minor like AFK camping to at least be removed. But apparently even that is resisted as it seams everything is entangled and every alteration is resisted by so many players. This game is old, it needs devs with some gusto to step in and start to shift mechanics around to stir the pot a little.

I guess threads like this one really puts the fear into the devs, probably less constructive when so many rage posts are clogged into one giant thread. I try and play the game as is but from time to time you really get riled up and frustrated that decisions are made at a snails pace and end up back here.


I don't see the problem.

Remove local, give players an in-game means to get it back, continue playing.

Yes, it will likely mean new strategies and ways of doing things, but clearly the status quo is less than desirable. There was a very strong and positive reaction to OA, IIRC, when it was first talked about in a Dev Blog and the associated forum thread.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#8115 - 2016-12-09 19:42:32 UTC
Xcom
Removing local is not the issue. Removing access to real time information is however an issue.

I am happy with an EvE Lore perspective that Empire gates broadcast ship and pilot data.

I don't believe the broadcast data has to be "local". The point is that individual players have access to real time information system (tm) any ships that have used an Empire gate in x system within y range. Audio cues would be nice (6 reds entered ab-12 2 jumps away).

With no free information being provided from cynos, player owned gates, log-off traps etc.

This is where I see a role for OAs. They can tie in to the real time information system (tm) and give system specific updates similar to local today. With Empire run OAs in lowsec and highsec to give status quo with today.

Wormholes have to be fixed anyway, so I would look to that space for the introduction of the OAs

Or to put it another way - Lets turn portions of null-sec into the OA heaven some people desire. Its not as if anything is happening there anyway.

==========

It remains a side issue from afk cloaky camping of course. Which has to end. Why is afk anything still a thing in null-sec is the only question that begs that Devs end it.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#8116 - 2016-12-09 19:43:19 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Xcom wrote:
I'm glad I at least understand your logic with that standpoint Wander Prian. I just disagree strongly with it. Although it sounds fair that cloaks do nerf you to the point so that anyone could defend themself against a squishy target like bombers it does make sense to not give any pre warnings. The only problem with that analogy is that most fights never are one on one. There are hot drops and massive fleets followed up after the point.

The pointer just needs to survive the short time before a second point lands. In those situations its more logical to let anyone have some form of advanced warning to have the option to choose to engage or flee. Decloak timers to lock are supposed to be just that but in the case of Recon ships and faction cov-ops where you can tank to a moderate degree and you have ample time to land a point. Ballparks of 6 seconds is the aproximate locktime of more tanky cov-ops recons and SoE ships. If cloaks are supposed to always catch there target null will turn into WS where any fight is spearheaded by a cloaky pointer without local. I really don't know if that is the type of pvp that will even encourage satisfactory pvp for anyone other then the one who engages. At some point even the engage party will get board when noone uses belts any more.


Which is why (as I have said multiple times) rat and mine in groups when outside of HS. A dozen rattlesnakes ratting in PvP fits are going to be very hard to hot drop. How often do people actually do that in null?

Xcom wrote:
Not really. The problem is the free intel gathering. If you leave that out then you can justify cloaks yes. But free intel gathering is to valuable to not put a label on it and say its "intended" so we should just leave it as is.


So you're against local chat and killboards as well? If so, then we can talk. Those give more free intel than cloaks ever could.

This game gives way to much info out. The map even shows ship counts to accurate numbers throughout eve. Local broadcasts numbers of pilots that was promised to be replaced with a more overview alike mechanic. Killboards, other player made maps, websites and other external tools that turns this game into a spreadsheet rather then a game. I do agree that some tools help make life easier but at some point you start losing the immersion. Most battles are lopsided and way to planned out. Nothing in eve is encounter based rather then strategically planned and most times when you die your made fun of. If we had more unpredictable tools in eve players might have actually start to play the game rather then camp enemy systems to whore for killmails.


Love the energy here. Just one slight problem... All the map statistics and API-endpoints are already delayed. You aren't getting real-time information out of any of them.

Wormholer for life.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#8117 - 2016-12-09 19:51:25 UTC
Wander Prian wrote:
Xcom wrote:
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Xcom wrote:
I'm glad I at least understand your logic with that standpoint Wander Prian. I just disagree strongly with it. Although it sounds fair that cloaks do nerf you to the point so that anyone could defend themself against a squishy target like bombers it does make sense to not give any pre warnings. The only problem with that analogy is that most fights never are one on one. There are hot drops and massive fleets followed up after the point.

The pointer just needs to survive the short time before a second point lands. In those situations its more logical to let anyone have some form of advanced warning to have the option to choose to engage or flee. Decloak timers to lock are supposed to be just that but in the case of Recon ships and faction cov-ops where you can tank to a moderate degree and you have ample time to land a point. Ballparks of 6 seconds is the aproximate locktime of more tanky cov-ops recons and SoE ships. If cloaks are supposed to always catch there target null will turn into WS where any fight is spearheaded by a cloaky pointer without local. I really don't know if that is the type of pvp that will even encourage satisfactory pvp for anyone other then the one who engages. At some point even the engage party will get board when noone uses belts any more.


Which is why (as I have said multiple times) rat and mine in groups when outside of HS. A dozen rattlesnakes ratting in PvP fits are going to be very hard to hot drop. How often do people actually do that in null?

Xcom wrote:
Not really. The problem is the free intel gathering. If you leave that out then you can justify cloaks yes. But free intel gathering is to valuable to not put a label on it and say its "intended" so we should just leave it as is.


So you're against local chat and killboards as well? If so, then we can talk. Those give more free intel than cloaks ever could.

This game gives way to much info out. The map even shows ship counts to accurate numbers throughout eve. Local broadcasts numbers of pilots that was promised to be replaced with a more overview alike mechanic. Killboards, other player made maps, websites and other external tools that turns this game into a spreadsheet rather then a game. I do agree that some tools help make life easier but at some point you start losing the immersion. Most battles are lopsided and way to planned out. Nothing in eve is encounter based rather then strategically planned and most times when you die your made fun of. If we had more unpredictable tools in eve players might have actually start to play the game rather then camp enemy systems to whore for killmails.


Love the energy here. Just one slight problem... All the map statistics and API-endpoints are already delayed. You aren't getting real-time information out of any of them.


So, let me recap....

Local, which gives real time information...it even provides the resident of a system advanced warning when a hostile enters (you'll see him in local before he even loads grid, let alone does anything).

Supposedly this real time information is awesome sauce and removing it will Destroy the Game™.

But! But!! Killboards (which are delayed). Dotlan (which is delayed). The in game map (which is delayed).

These are all horrible and must go.

Sorry, I am just sitting here going wait...wut? How much kool aid did you drink to think that is a reasonable position? What that looks like to me is the following: I want to PvE in NS with as much safety as I can get. I don't want my ratting showing up, even if delayed, on Dotlan. I don't want my ratting fits that have died showing up on killboards, even if delayed, so that people can figure out how to blow my ratting ships up even more efficiently. I don't want the in game map, even if delayed, showing hostiles potentially good stalking grounds. I want the people who will do violence to my game time to be blind. But I don't want to be blind, don't you Goddamn dare touch local you bastards!

Somebody who holds this view is clearly pushing an agenda.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#8118 - 2016-12-10 01:45:39 UTC
Xcom wrote:
The problem with local is how integrated it has become. I think CCP admittedly said it was an unintended feature that slipped into the game and now gets abused. Sadly by now it will alienate so many players that its removal will be a major major decision that will need some balls, sadly what CCP devs lack. I just want something minor like AFK camping to at least be removed. But apparently even that is resisted as it seams everything is entangled and every alteration is resisted by so many players. This game is old, it needs devs with some gusto to step in and start to shift mechanics around to stir the pot a little.

I guess threads like this one really puts the fear into the devs, probably less constructive when so many rage posts are clogged into one giant thread. I try and play the game as is but from time to time you really get riled up and frustrated that decisions are made at a snails pace and end up back here.


We're coming full circle. I think we need to make local in sov null tied to a structure that can be destroyed. If I destroy or disable it, local stops existing, but you can't scan down cloaked ships either. Everything outside of sov null stays as it is today.

That beign said, you're right. Most players who live in sov null are so risk averse they would be terrified about not having local. Null is as safe as HS anymore....the only actually challenging parts of the game any more are LS and WHs.
Xcom
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#8119 - 2016-12-10 02:18:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Xcom
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Xcom wrote:
The problem with local is how integrated it has become. I think CCP admittedly said it was an unintended feature that slipped into the game and now gets abused. Sadly by now it will alienate so many players that its removal will be a major major decision that will need some balls, sadly what CCP devs lack. I just want something minor like AFK camping to at least be removed. But apparently even that is resisted as it seams everything is entangled and every alteration is resisted by so many players. This game is old, it needs devs with some gusto to step in and start to shift mechanics around to stir the pot a little.

I guess threads like this one really puts the fear into the devs, probably less constructive when so many rage posts are clogged into one giant thread. I try and play the game as is but from time to time you really get riled up and frustrated that decisions are made at a snails pace and end up back here.


We're coming full circle. I think we need to make local in sov null tied to a structure that can be destroyed. If I destroy or disable it, local stops existing, but you can't scan down cloaked ships either. Everything outside of sov null stays as it is today.

That beign said, you're right. Most players who live in sov null are so risk averse they would be terrified about not having local. Null is as safe as HS anymore....the only actually challenging parts of the game any more are LS and WHs.

Although I agree local needs altered I also believe that most features shouldn't be solidified in a thread of changes. Making local changes your also forced to look into D-scanner and other areas of the game simultaneously. The end result is a massive rewrite of the game core. That given its pointless arguing where to even start. That is why I think that cloaks should be isolated and fixed on there own and hopefully we might see local also changed before or at least soon after.

It really is pointless arguing what feature needs looked at first though. Its not like forum posts determine CCPs priority development. Thats why I do find local discussions pointless in a cloak thread, even if its connected it doesn't need to overshadow cloaking discussions.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#8120 - 2016-12-10 06:06:58 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Xcom wrote:
The problem with local is how integrated it has become. I think CCP admittedly said it was an unintended feature that slipped into the game and now gets abused. Sadly by now it will alienate so many players that its removal will be a major major decision that will need some balls, sadly what CCP devs lack. I just want something minor like AFK camping to at least be removed. But apparently even that is resisted as it seams everything is entangled and every alteration is resisted by so many players. This game is old, it needs devs with some gusto to step in and start to shift mechanics around to stir the pot a little.

I guess threads like this one really puts the fear into the devs, probably less constructive when so many rage posts are clogged into one giant thread. I try and play the game as is but from time to time you really get riled up and frustrated that decisions are made at a snails pace and end up back here.


We're coming full circle. I think we need to make local in sov null tied to a structure that can be destroyed. If I destroy or disable it, local stops existing, but you can't scan down cloaked ships either. Everything outside of sov null stays as it is today.

That beign said, you're right. Most players who live in sov null are so risk averse they would be terrified about not having local. Null is as safe as HS anymore....the only actually challenging parts of the game any more are LS and WHs.

Although I agree local needs altered I also believe that most features shouldn't be solidified in a thread of changes. Making local changes your also forced to look into D-scanner and other areas of the game simultaneously. The end result is a massive rewrite of the game core. That given its pointless arguing where to even start. That is why I think that cloaks should be isolated and fixed on there own and hopefully we might see local also changed before or at least soon after.

It really is pointless arguing what feature needs looked at first though. Its not like forum posts determine CCPs priority development. Thats why I do find local discussions pointless in a cloak thread, even if its connected it doesn't need to overshadow cloaking discussions.


I don't think there will need to be a huge issue with the code. Making local delayed should not be that hard. The code for the OA will be new code...again not that hard. It is not like somebody is asking for a rewrite of the POS code (my understanding that code is a complete mess and messing with it would be very bad).

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online