Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Noted, I have friends from there, and the context of this was missing. Text is chancey for experessions like that.


The sheer difference in reward is fitting for the difference in effort. The cloaked ship is not expected to represent a force intending to reinforce your towers, or put the entire system under siege.
If people expected this from a cloaked vessel, they would react differently.
The lack of other responses, however, is telling players that the pilots here are unwilling to play at all if they can't be completely safe.

This sends an awful message, and hits one of two reactions:

Frustration at no combat
OR
Awesome, I can make these guys into muppets by just being here!


Wormhole space is a different experience, and only cloaked vessel anonymity has significance there, since the responses have much in common.
As you point out, cyno potential exists, so responses need to be modified to account for this, and lean towards evasion.
Evasion does NOT mean don't undock with hostiles, but it does mean plan your activities and fittings to stop them from stopping you.



In this context, saying local has worked well assumes knowledge and rejection of other possible options.
Too many refuse to even consider other options, under the war cry of "all change is bad", and they close their minds to the possibilities.

We have dumbed down play in null, thanks to the use of a chat channel as default intel. We need to grow past this, into ways we can use the game to compete.
Not remove the competition, and by so doing, the joy of the game.

Yeah, cos Teckos hasn't scream LOCAL BAD 4 millions times or so.
Maybe the fact that so many people post about it being a problem should serve as an indicator to you.

It's not about being completely safe. But a cloaker is an unknown, that can appear anywhere with no notice and potentially has a 254 man fleet behind him. Anyone that just carries on as normal is stupid, or really doesn't care about their ship. Since I am usually looking for isk efficiency during my op downtime, I'm not going to mess around with a cloaker for hours just to get a fleet dropped on my head. That will never change. But being able to exhibit that threat 23/7 without having to actually play the game is not at all balanced.

You've never experienced a hot drop I assume, from either side. Generally if it's performed right, there's no chance to escape. The droppers all have target names set, they strike at the same time, and with a force big enough to ensure victory. This is fine, but would utterly destroy wormhole space. Go make a thread suggesting they add cyno ability to wormholes and watch the reaction.

It's not about all change is bad, local has been discussed ever since wormhole space came our with delayed local. It's simply too big an issue to deal with in a single sweeping statement, and honestly, I don't think will ever change in null. Too many other systems would be thrown out of balance if it was changed. It's worked fine this long, and it's not like local makes null impossible to kill in, kills happen all the time. a lot of the people that want null changed or removed are the same guys running around in cloaky T3s saying "I wish I could damage whole alliances solo". If that ever happens, null dies for good. It's income is barely above high sec income as it is.

Ow, Lucas, I expect better than this failed logic.

Popularity of a concept, and whether it is valid or a fact, has never been a firm association.

Public Relation firms and advertisers shamelessly exploit people's perceptions for profit on a daily basis, and to assume they all have our best interests at heart would provoke hysterical laughter from anyone having done research on them.
And that leaves out religion and politics, don't go there if you value your sanity.

To use a popular example, it was claimed by many that the earth was flat, the center of the universe, and magic was present and usable by wizards.
Sure, we laugh at this now, (well, most of us), but that was once the best level of awareness we had, and was popular to believe.

Why not just add a cycle timer to cloaking devices... one that is, I don't know 30 minutes, and a person must turn it back on after this time. This isn't simply a matter of removing local, and this Isn't simply a matter of removing the ability to afk cloak. Adding a cycle timer to a cloaking device with a cool down would be a perfect solution to this problem, making it both fair to the people who use it reguarly, and those who currently use it to sit in an industry system and prevent any and all activities for over 24 hours.

I will admit that I do hate afk cloak camping with a cyno fit Tengu or Loki. You cannot use that system for much of anything after that point. It is an annoying risk that you cannot do a single thing about.

I'm not saying you should have to risk your ship. You're perfectly within your rights to say "hm, this poses a level of threat I am not comfortable with, so I'm going to safe up". That is one of the many options you have. What I will not let you do, however, is claim that it is the ONLY option you have, and that the game should be changed to provide you a nice safe little zone where no such decisions even have to be made. The presence of someone in system represents an unknown level of risk. You can react however you want to it. Demanding the game be changed so that the uncertainty and risk is removed is an invalid response.



These paragraphs are just a huge fallacy. You make an incorrect statement (that no one would die except to cloakers) to demonstrate a point (that prolonged cloaking isn't necessary). I believe this is called begging the question. Let me explain why you're so wrong. The reason plenty of people die in null currently is not because local isn't overpowered (it is, it provides near perfect safety), but because the majority of the people who currently die in null willingly engaged in the first place - they thought they had the upper hand, or just wanted some fun, or willingly took a risk. What you're saying here is nothing but a huge fallacy followed by baseless smears. I have never ONCE said I want easy kills, or that I don't want industrialists, miners, or even other PVPers to be left with "no chance" to escape. I do want them to have that chance, but I dont want it to be 100% guaranteed, and I want them to have to work for it.




They won because the mechanics of local are broken. It is not fair or reasonable that they can be in warp into a pos/station before I even load the system. That is not them being better at the game, or outwitting an opponent, or anything you expect as part of a "game". They have an unfair advantage. And again you are deliberately lying and smearing me. I do not want to instantly land on them and win without them having a chance to escape. What I want is for both sides to have a reasonable chance at succeeding. At the moment, I have zero chance of catching someone in system unless they do something wrong. A game in which you are guaranteed success if you follow the simple, basic rules is not a fun or fair game. There needs to be the possibility of losing. I hope you don't continue the desperate smears and ad hominem, it isn't helping your argument.



You misunderstand. They are using the channel as it works, but not for the purpose it was intended. It was supposed to be a chat channel, not a "look at me and you can now reliably escape and evade all danger". It is being used for a different purpose, thats what I mean by misuse. It saddens me to see you rely so heavily on smears and ad hominem.

The rest of your post is snipped due to character constraints, but here is the response:
You are not entitled to perfect safety, you have sov which gives you some benefits, but that does not entail perfect safety and zero uncertainty or risk.

And, for the fiftieth time, please please stop lying and misrepresenting our points. We are not asking for easy kills, we are merely asking for chances, uncertainty and balance to be maintained for BOTH sides, while the other side of the argument seems hellbent on removing all risk, all uncertainty, and all possibilities for something to happen that they don't want. Half of the people arguing against you aren't even PVPers, so your desperate ad hominem and smears aren't even appropriate. You can't handwave counterarguments by creating strawmen and using other fallacies.

What? No one liked my idea of free ships?

Come on. Let's PVP. I will go after you all, long as I can get my ship back. That's balanced right? 0 risk and 0 reward.

Why make the game a challenge. It's meant to be played to have fun.

This isn't WoW.

Actually, this fails to address the reason AFK Cloaking exists. It takes that base reason, and removes what has evolved as the only counter.

Ok, let's clarify a detail: Myself and many others do not want to limit EVE to consensual PvP only. We do not want to ask your permission before shooting you, and consider it absurd to consider asking first.
We also do not want a default effort, which blocks any opposing effort automatically. That is a single player game, and the opposing player gets a turn ONLY if and when the first player makes a mistake and fails.

We DO want opposed effort. We do want to know, that winning a fight, or avoiding a fight, happens because someone was more clever, or more dedicated to making a better effort.

We do NOT have that right now.

As a miner, using direct example, I can use faster vessels than an exhumer, with stopped to warp time of 4.0 seconds, and get safe BEFORE a hostile can stop me. All I need to do is watch local, and hit warp the moment a non blue name appears.
And this assumes they know exactly where to find me, to the point they had my location even bookmarked.
(Which is HIGHLY unlikely, normally)

That is OP that I can do this. I should at LEAST need to make an effort, on some level, to even know the hostile is entering the system, not just be told openly like that.

Add to this, I cannot HIDE from the hostile. They know I am in the system and present. I cannot make them wonder if I am in the next system, or logged out, since my name is plastered brightly in local for them to see.

This is the problem.

Limiting the cloaked vessel is not the solution, unless you kill my ability to avoid hostiles like this at the same time.

Actually we do have devs on record discussing local, and they pretty bluntly stated they want a better means of replacing the intel with effort based results, BEFORE changing it.