Player Features and Ideas Discussion

They screwed up.

Pilot error, it's the only way to nail a target that otherwise has no interest in PvP.

The ratters feeling safe, or not seeing the names, clearly was a mistake.

I wish stories like that happened more often, but we all know they don't happen often enough.

Yes, inflation is a potential issue. However, I think you're taking it a bit far. If nullsec ratting were to become a "more" significant isk faucet, it is not the nullsec ratters that would be hurt the most, it would be the "lesser" isk faucets that get hurt. Realistically though, it would then be the resource gatherers (miners) that win, as mining becomes more profitable.

You can already make 50m isk/hr mining in nullsec, you can make 20-50m isk/hr ratting in nullsec. The issue is people are running anomalies in 500-1b isk ships, instead of ships more "reasonable' for the suggested loss rate.

And I agree, the local ratter should have a "reasonable" chance of getting away. I think the best solution is to make local into an intel system where you are instantly informed when a new pilot comes into local, but you don't get to know who they are unless they are in fleet with you, or unless they are within "scan range of your ships scanners".

well true, but the main loser is the entire economy because more isk in without more isk out means more inflation meaning less buying power for all isk everywhere.


Its true, but I routinely make 20-40m isk/hr running missions in high sec with a dominix and one faction module. Im sure I can not do much better than that in 0.0 and I would consider that a fairly reasonable fit. The point being if you make 0.0 riskier, people will be flying economy fits that they can afford to lose over and over again (which they should already be doing) but being forced into those ships/fits will drop their isk/hr below what they can get in high sec running level 4s with a slightly twinked out fit.


I would add "or they talk in local" to that list. That is an interesting idea but it does not solve the semi AFK cloaker issue, nor does it prevent cloaked ships from being 100% safe both of which are problems.

Ive been thinking of a local replacement but its tough to keep balanced . . . hmmmm

What's more no one would have to worry about the person they don't know is cloaked and happens to be in the restroom. The truth is the best solution is to leave local and remove only the cloaked from local.

I think there is potential for a system where the more effort you put in the closer to infallible you get. The less effort you put in the results are more fallible. More effort = less, up to potentially zero, mistakes, less effort = higher likelihood of a mistake appearing. No guarantee of perfection, but the more effort you put in, to a limit, will result in higher.

You know... intel networks fit the bill. The more effort you put in to watching the gate the closer to perfect your results as to who is in the space will be. Combo that with watchlists and locator agents and you can know with near infallibility who is in the space.

Aside from seeing a cloaked ship jump through a gate you really shouldn't be able to tell it is there. That is kind of the purpose of a cloak. The AFK cloaky "problem" is exactly this. The ship is cloaked and unless local told you it was there you would never know. Good luck getting a mechanic that will tell you a cloaked ship is there without the game straight up telling you or you visually seeing them jump through a gate.

You are missing watchlists. Watchlists show online/offline status. Granted this is game given intel and should probably be removed... But still if they know you are there through their intel network and locator agents and their watchlist shows you as online then guess what: the space isn't safe.

The system shouldn't be infallible. Simple as that. You can't have a system that is effort based, but gives infallible results no matter how much effort you put in. Things just don't work like that. At a certain point a lack of effort needs to yield fallible results. And without the game telling you there are cloaked ships in system you will never know they are there. You won't get effort and infallibility. As long as cloaks exist you won't get infallibility. If you want infallibility you will need to go back to highesc to get it.

That simply isnt true; imagine a system (please note I am NOT suggesting this as a good system) where you drop probes with a 10 AU radius that puts everyone in range into local as it is now but expire every half hour. This would be a system that can provide infallible results but is still based on effort.

The key is to make it a pain to do the work so that most people dont even though they can, but those who are willing to put in the work should reap the rewards.

Instead or removing local how about just having an update delay.
For example have it update the list every 60 seconds for low-sec and possibly more for null. Each 'ping' checks who is in system and puts them on the local list, when the next ping arrives, of said person is no longer in local then they are removed.

It still gives people the opportunity to scan someone down before they know they are there, and if the system is camped for any length of time then people can tell.

2 things.

#1, you have not one shred of proof that it "doesn't happen enough". You could , if you parsed a kill board for null sec kills in which one of the damage dealers was an npc (suggesting the intended victim was engaged in pve at some point before being killed). you can go to zkillboard or EVE-kill and find dozens, perhaps hundered of such kills from sov null sec per day.

#2. What you posted demonstrates a disregard for and misunderstanding of human nature. Currently people doing PVE in null tend to not die if they do things right. Cooperate with others, fit to survive, pay attention ect. Even awoxxing can be survived if the player knows what he is doing.

but you're suggesting a situation where a player couyld still "do everything right" and yet still get killed fairly often....

Exactly who wants to play a video game like that? I sure don't. And like me, many people simply would not screw with null sec pve under those circumstances when there's 40 to 80 mil per hour to be made in high level high sec missions or the 80 to 180 mil per hour to be made in high sec incursions, all under the protection of CONCORD.

The end result of no local without massive mechanics changes to nulll and similarly massive nerfs to high, low and WH income (giving the pve player NO CHOICE but to risk null sec to make decent isk) is a totally empty null sec along with an even more stuff high sec. It's already the case that many in null have high sec alts for isk making, it's the null players with only one account who tend to do null pve for isk.

As it is right now, some targets in null is soo much better than none at all. Why do you think CCP "re-iterated" on the military upgrades system and anomalies themselves so many times after the original anom nerf that sent null pve players running to empire?

Sorry, what you want is just unworkable nonsense Nikk Narrel.

You do know that they did that everywhere, not just null right. You're trying to pull reasons out of thin air instead of maturely critiquing your own idea.

This is a mistake, because if you did look at why your idea wouldn't work, you'd understand that CCp's compormise (which is what local is and has always been" works.

People don't like loss, but some of us will accept some manageable risk if the reward is high enough (whereas most people find little or no risk much more acceptable). Changing the way things work in null for some pie in the sky idea would be enough to push even those of us who do accept the rsik out of null 9as has happened before).

This is bad for the game. The game NEEDs ships (inclduing null pve ships) to die sometimes, and this doesn't happen if everyone is running missions and incursions in empire because null sec is too risky to make a decent in-game profit in.

You think i'd risk my machariel in a null sec with even delayed local? Like hell, and if I didn't THIS DEATH would have never happened (my fault for not fitting correctly, I warped into an unfinished haven and got scrammed). While I drove me crazy, that death was good for the eve online economy.



And where exactly did i contest this? try reading what i write perhaps.

You suggest that it's not enough for a pilot to have to make a mistake, that null is too safe because of local. I'm telling you that if null risk wasn't manageable, many null pve pilots wouldn't screw with it and would go elsewhere to make isk, and that this is bad because EVE needs those ships to die sometimes. You think null pve ships don't die often enough, go do high sec incursions where blingy ship deaths are more rare.

At least pve ship deaths in null somewhat balance out the isk faucet effect of all that ratting, the ships in empire that make isk and never die balance out nothing.


To me it doesn't seem as if you're as interested in the truth as you are your own agenda, and I think that's pretty bad