These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Give Cloaking the ASB / AAR treatment

Author
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#161 - 2013-02-06 14:43:50 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Quite a few people play in WH space despite the lack of local and the player skill necessary to play there at all.

Do I really have to remind you that there are several relevant mechanics that are different between WH space and null that makes the lack of local viable in one and not the other?

Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Frankly, the local chat member display is an impediment to people playing in nullsec in general.

And yet that doesn't seem to stop us.

Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Nobody likes trying to look like they are sneaking around when they have a great big spotlight on them.

And yet that doesn't seem to stop us. Nor does it prevent us from getting kills.

Right now you can only kill ratters if they aren't paying attention to local.
If you remove local there won't be anybody ratting for you to kill.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#162 - 2013-02-06 15:11:56 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
No, it's not more stupid. It's not less stupid either.
As others have said in other threads, this is a solution looking for a problem. Local does not need to be fixed, and neither does cloaking. Neither of those are problems. AFK cloaking is a legitimate tactic to deny people the use of their space, and local is the only means by which someone can have any sort of safety when doing PVE in null for any extended period of time.

You think null is deserted now? Take local away and I guarantee you the population will drop drastically.

Who will miss those who leave?

You are describing pilots who avoid PvP to an absolute degree, and would go so far as to leave for high security space in the event they could not continue to do this.

Exactly how much PvP would be missed from pilots who refuse to PvP?
And how exactly is this any different from them being absent?

Of course, in high security space, they will not find local helping them nearly as much, forcing them to contend with suicide gankers, and war decs where out of corp alts scout them down for blitz attacks.
Significantly more risk for them, oddly enough, than being outside of high security space.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#163 - 2013-02-06 16:20:17 UTC  |  Edited by: TheGunslinger42
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
No, it's not more stupid. It's not less stupid either.
As others have said in other threads, this is a solution looking for a problem. Local does not need to be fixed, and neither does cloaking. Neither of those are problems. AFK cloaking is a legitimate tactic to deny people the use of their space, and local is the only means by which someone can have any sort of safety when doing PVE in null for any extended period of time.

You think null is deserted now? Take local away and I guarantee you the population will drop drastically.


All I'm saying is that local, as it currently is, is not a good system. I'm not saying removing it all together would be any better, but your statements about it being absolutely necessary for pve, and that populations will drastically drop without it are a bit exaggerated I feel. To be honest it's only a hairs breadth away from the highsec carebears and their cries of mass desolation and the death of eve if they can't keep things exactly as they are (or make them even more themeparky)

Edit: Additionally, the only reason why people would stop PVEing in null if there was no local is because of the almighty hot drop (that has to be the only reason, since it's the only thing that makes it massively different from wormholes, where stupid people pve their hearts out and get killed plenty)... but I don't see that as a reason why local must be kept the exactly the same.

Preserving crap systems purely because fixing them would mean some other systems would then need some reworking too is a bad approach, imo
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#164 - 2013-02-06 16:43:46 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
All I'm saying is that local, as it currently is, is not a good system. I'm not saying removing it all together would be any better, but your statements about it being absolutely necessary for pve, and that populations will drastically drop without it are a bit exaggerated I feel. To be honest it's only a hairs breadth away from the highsec carebears and their cries of mass desolation and the death of eve if they can't keep things exactly as they are (or make them even more themeparky)

Edit: Additionally, the only reason why people would stop PVEing in null if there was no local is because of the almighty hot drop (that has to be the only reason, since it's the only thing that makes it massively different from wormholes, where stupid people pve their hearts out and get killed plenty)... but I don't see that as a reason why local must be kept the exactly the same.

Preserving crap systems purely because fixing them would mean some other systems would then need some reworking too is a bad approach, imo

Without Local to create a need, hot dropping will become pointless.

It's effect is to bring the equivalent of a gate to a target, for the express purpose of denying the target a warning that only local provides in this manner. That being, a population spike that is obvious and whose meaning is instantly understood.

If there is no visible population spike, bringing the cyno boat into combat range of a craft that can either fire on it, or signal more combat craft to warp in, is simply a poor idea.
You create an instant gate camp consisting of the target ship(s) plus whoever shows up on grid as your forces arrive. having arriving ships land with client lag is an awful tactical situation.

Much better to have them warp in outside of scan range, then fleet warp to the target.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#165 - 2013-02-06 18:25:38 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Nikk Narrel wrote:
You are describing pilots who avoid PvP to an absolute degree

Because someone wants to be able to make some isk means they avoid PVP to an absolute degree?
That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

TheGunslinger42 wrote:
that has to be the only reason, since it's the only thing that makes it massively different from wormholes

No it isn't, but keep trying.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#166 - 2013-02-06 18:34:50 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
You are describing pilots who avoid PvP to an absolute degree

Because someone wants to be able to make some isk means they avoid PVP to an absolute degree?
That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Only when taken out of context, as you did.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Who will miss those who leave?

You are describing pilots who avoid PvP to an absolute degree, and would go so far as to leave for high security space in the event they could not continue to do this.


Takes on a whole new meaning, when you don't trim it down to remove the intent to leave if they can't avoid PvP.

There are a good many pilots who would stay, and accept the additional risk. They would not leave, obviously.
I believe they could also be described as wanting to make some ISK.

It is quite reasonable, to consider the likelihood that CCP will adjust the rewards indexes if the risk levels are nudged above daycare levels. They simply have no reason to do this, with PvE in null being comparable to high sec due to Local Chat.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#167 - 2013-02-06 19:25:38 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Why go through the effort of making isk in null at significant risk to my ship if I can make almost as much isk in highsec?
I mean seriously, you seem to think we're incapable of doing a risk-benefit analysis.

It is impossible to both defend yourself and make a decent profit in a nullsec that doesn't have the intel that local provides. It's not a question of how averse we are to risk, it's a question of how much risk actually makes sense to operate in.

You would have to increase the rewards of null by a lot to compensate, and it's rather questionable how much of a good idea that is, seeing as that would be taking an already quite substantial isk faucet and making it even worse.

You haven't demonstrated that there's a problem with local that needs fixing.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#168 - 2013-02-06 19:31:28 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Quite a few people play in WH space despite the lack of local and the player skill necessary to play there at all.

Do I really have to remind you that there are several relevant mechanics that are different between WH space and null that makes the lack of local viable in one and not the other?

Yes, you do, because I'm not seeing it.

In fact, now that you've got me thinking about it, I'm hard pressed to come up with anything that is actually relevant apart from the fact that doing away with the local member list in nullsec would be a change, and it's already that way in WH space.

Of course some people would flee from the change, where others would revel in it.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#169 - 2013-02-06 19:37:00 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Quite a few people play in WH space despite the lack of local and the player skill necessary to play there at all.

Do I really have to remind you that there are several relevant mechanics that are different between WH space and null that makes the lack of local viable in one and not the other?

Yes, you do, because I'm not seeing it.

In fact, now that you've got me thinking about it, I'm hard pressed to come up with anything that is actually relevant apart from the fact that doing away with the local member list in nullsec would be a change, and it's already that way in WH space.

Of course some people would flee from the change, where others would revel in it.

Maybe you're just ignorant then.
Because mass limitations, inability to cyno as you mentioned, group vs. solo pve content, both system entrances and PVE sites that require combat probes to locate, sleeper AI, and omni sleeper damage and tank all contribute to an environment where PVP is both easier to avoid and easier to deal with in cases where it isn't possible to avoid.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#170 - 2013-02-06 19:51:34 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Why go through the effort of making isk in null at significant risk to my ship if I can make almost as much isk in highsec?
I mean seriously, you seem to think we're incapable of doing a risk-benefit analysis.

Not at all. I am sure you can do a cost benefit analysis, but if you use flawed data you will get flawed results.

You are suggesting, that only with the absolute flawless and immediate intel awareness provided by local, can you operate.
In order for that to be true, those hunting you would need to be psychic, and aware of your every action and movement.
After all, you are insisting on knowing the moment a hostile enters a system in order to have a reasonable play experience.

James Amril-Kesh wrote:
It is impossible to both defend yourself and make a decent profit in a nullsec that doesn't have the intel that local provides. It's not a question of how averse we are to risk, it's a question of how much risk actually makes sense to operate in.

You would have to increase the rewards of null by a lot to compensate, and it's rather questionable how much of a good idea that is, seeing as that would be taking an already quite substantial isk faucet and making it even worse.

You haven't demonstrated that there's a problem with local that needs fixing.

Based on that last line, you are simply stating you do not wish any changes, keep the status-quo, etc.

Basing off previous lines, you seem to suggest players are limited strictly to personal responsibility, in the context that they need to operate solo. A player must only perform all roles when they have no allies present.
You either ignore or lose sight of the simple detail that risk in null is all or nothing. They can either take out the POS / outposts, or they can't hurt you at all.
Thanks to local, you can get safely to that POS or outpost with zero uncertainty. Your risk on a personal level simply doesn't exist in these circumstances.

While I grant the establishing of SOV, with POS's anchored and Outposts prepared, is most definitely a group effort...
The game does not end there. It is supposed to be a group effort consistently, with members effectively being on call as needed.
Do they need pagers or to be able to be online 23 / 7?
Of course not, but over an alliance expected to hold and defend it's space, having enough online as needed is a very real expectation.

It is simply the game mechanic currently that the PvE section needs no help, as they have no risk except as described above.

Where is the defense effort in that, after the POS is anchored?
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#171 - 2013-02-06 20:20:36 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Quite a few people play in WH space despite the lack of local and the player skill necessary to play there at all.

Do I really have to remind you that there are several relevant mechanics that are different between WH space and null that makes the lack of local viable in one and not the other?

Yes, you do, because I'm not seeing it.

In fact, now that you've got me thinking about it, I'm hard pressed to come up with anything that is actually relevant apart from the fact that doing away with the local member list in nullsec would be a change, and it's already that way in WH space.

Of course some people would flee from the change, where others would revel in it.

Maybe you're just ignorant then.
Because mass limitations, inability to cyno as you mentioned, group vs. solo pve content, both system entrances and PVE sites that require combat probes to locate, sleeper AI, and omni sleeper damage and tank all contribute to an environment where PVP is both easier to avoid and easier to deal with in cases where it isn't possible to avoid.

And removing the roster from local chat only removes one intel source from the defender, when there are several more relevant intel sources and methods available to deal with *all* of the threats you mentioned.

Maybe if the local roster wasn't available people would actually bother using them.

I mean, nothing actually stops anyone from using PvP fit ships for PvE in K-space, does it? There's not a rule or something?

I wouldn't bother with a point on a PvE ship, because they don't work on rats anyway, and that's another slot for ECM or other combat-effective modules.
The rats aren't guaranteed to stay on the PvE pilot's ship anymore, so that's one more way that nullsec is like WH space in making it easier to deal with an attack.

Nope, I'm just really not feeling your argument there, Mr. Amril-Kesh. Maybe you've got another?

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#172 - 2013-02-07 04:40:42 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Why go through the effort of making isk in null at significant risk to my ship if I can make almost as much isk in highsec?
I mean seriously, you seem to think we're incapable of doing a risk-benefit analysis.

Not at all. I am sure you can do a cost benefit analysis, but if you use flawed data you will get flawed results.

You are suggesting, that only with the absolute flawless and immediate intel awareness provided by local, can you operate.
In order for that to be true, those hunting you would need to be psychic, and aware of your every action and movement.
After all, you are insisting on knowing the moment a hostile enters a system in order to have a reasonable play experience.

And you're insisting that leaving me utterly unable to avoid getting pointed by a cloaky recon ship who drops 20 stealth bombers on me five seconds later is somehow conducive to me ratting in my own space.
Without local there's no way to tell that he's there, there's no way to defend against it before it happens, and once it happens it's too late to do anything about. It's as simple as that.

You know this and you're simply asking for CCP to feed you easy targets instead of doing the work yourself.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#173 - 2013-02-07 04:42:54 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
And removing the roster from local chat only removes one intel source from the defender, when there are several more relevant intel sources and methods available to deal with *all* of the threats you mentioned.

Yeah, come back to me when d-scan is able to detect cloaked ships.
But I'm guessing you're going to tell me that's not going to happen, because you want to have your cake and eat it too.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#174 - 2013-02-07 04:51:39 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Why go through the effort of making isk in null at significant risk to my ship if I can make almost as much isk in highsec?
I mean seriously, you seem to think we're incapable of doing a risk-benefit analysis.

Not at all. I am sure you can do a cost benefit analysis, but if you use flawed data you will get flawed results.

You are suggesting, that only with the absolute flawless and immediate intel awareness provided by local, can you operate.
In order for that to be true, those hunting you would need to be psychic, and aware of your every action and movement.
After all, you are insisting on knowing the moment a hostile enters a system in order to have a reasonable play experience.

And you're insisting that leaving me utterly unable to avoid getting pointed by a cloaky recon ship who drops 20 stealth bombers on me five seconds later is somehow conducive to me ratting in my own space.
Without local there's no way to tell that he's there, there's no way to defend against it before it happens, and once it happens it's too late to do anything about. It's as simple as that.

You know this and you're simply asking for CCP to feed you easy targets instead of doing the work yourself.

And yet somehow wormhole dwellers survive without local. (also recons have a targeting delay after decloaking so if it points you it's because you weren't paying attention)
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#175 - 2013-02-07 04:53:56 UTC
Astroniomix wrote:
And yet somehow wormhole dwellers survive without local. (also recons have a targeting delay after decloaking so if it points you it's because you weren't paying attention)

If you can't be bothered to read you should leave the thread.
Also that's true, in which case a stealth bomber would work better.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#176 - 2013-02-07 04:55:01 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
And removing the roster from local chat only removes one intel source from the defender, when there are several more relevant intel sources and methods available to deal with *all* of the threats you mentioned.

Yeah, come back to me when d-scan is able to detect cloaked ships.
But I'm guessing you're going to tell me that's not going to happen, because you want to have your cake and eat it too.

If you remove local being an infalable intell tool, then providing some means of hunting cloaked ships would not be unreasonable.
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#177 - 2013-02-07 04:58:25 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Astroniomix wrote:
And yet somehow wormhole dwellers survive without local. (also recons have a targeting delay after decloaking so if it points you it's because you weren't paying attention)

If you can't be bothered to read you should leave the thread.
Also that's true, in which case a stealth bomber would work better.

If you are referring to your argument that "wormholes are different because the atacker has to use probes to find you"
You fail to realize that assumes the atacker will always be entering the system after you and didn't already scan the site down.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#178 - 2013-02-07 05:07:02 UTC
Astroniomix wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Astroniomix wrote:
And yet somehow wormhole dwellers survive without local. (also recons have a targeting delay after decloaking so if it points you it's because you weren't paying attention)

If you can't be bothered to read you should leave the thread.
Also that's true, in which case a stealth bomber would work better.

If you are referring to your argument that "wormholes are different because the atacker has to use probes to find you"
You fail to realize that assumes the atacker will always be entering the system after you and didn't already scan the site down.

No, I realize that, but the added difficulty required on part of the attacker reduces the risk of this happening.

Astroniomix wrote:

If you remove local being an infalable intell tool, then providing some means of hunting cloaked ships would not be unreasonable.

I don't care about hunting cloaked ships. I just want to be able to know that someone who's cloaked is there.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#179 - 2013-02-07 05:12:25 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Astroniomix wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Astroniomix wrote:
And yet somehow wormhole dwellers survive without local. (also recons have a targeting delay after decloaking so if it points you it's because you weren't paying attention)

If you can't be bothered to read you should leave the thread.
Also that's true, in which case a stealth bomber would work better.

If you are referring to your argument that "wormholes are different because the atacker has to use probes to find you"
You fail to realize that assumes the atacker will always be entering the system after you and didn't already scan the site down.

No, I realize that, but the added difficulty required on part of the attacker reduces the risk of this happening.

Astroniomix wrote:

If you remove local being an infalable intell tool, then providing some means of hunting cloaked ships would not be unreasonable.

I don't care about hunting cloaked ships. I just want to be able to know that someone who's cloaked is there.

So I'll put you down for the "nothing needs to change" crowd. And I think you missunderstand the reason many of us started calling for the removal of local is because of all the cries to add a way to hunt cloaked vessels. Most of us find cloakes "balanced" (if tenativley) atm.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#180 - 2013-02-07 05:18:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Roime
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

Maybe you're just ignorant then.
Because mass limitations, inability to cyno as you mentioned, group vs. solo pve content, both system entrances and PVE sites that require combat probes to locate, sleeper AI, and omni sleeper damage and tank all contribute to an environment where PVP is both easier to avoid and easier to deal with in cases where it isn't possible to avoid.


It's you who is ignorant. First of all you assume that you are alone in you system. True, no-one in local!

Mass limitations only prevent supers from entering wormholes. If ratters in null are commonly dropped by supers, the problem is not related to local chat.
Half of wormhole PVE is solo content.
System entrances being scannable means nothing, you have thousands of people chain collapsing their static all the time so that they can open to your hole.
Most PVE sites are anomalies, no probes needed. Yes we have mags and radars, just like there are those and plexes in null.
Sleeper AI, omni damage and tank just makes the actual PVE part massively harder while doing nothing to protect you from ganking.

You have to realise that wormhole gankers are adapted to their environment as well. Unless you find a ton of T3s with logi, faction battleships and capital support "easy to deal with" in a bubble while being pounded by +7000 rat dps and their neuts.

Ganks are not easier to avoid in wormhole space, people just work harder to stay alive.

.