Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Vas, he did.

Neither the proposed mobile jammer nor the current system jammer affect the covert cyno.

Added: I do agree that the current covert cyno mechanics bring very similar issues as regular cynos, though on a smaller dps scale. Something needs to be done to increase the risk to the other side of the cyno and to increase the power of the locals to fight back. Two way wormholes and mass limits for covert cyno whs sounds good in addition to the need to require bridging outside of force fields. The stealth bomber insta-lock seems a bit OP, tbph honest.

We could probably effectively address all cloaky cyno issues including the afk cloaky issue by simply increasing the stealth bomber lock time and cyno time delay by 30s after decloak when a cyno or covert cyno is fitted. Let him warp in uncloaked after 30s if he wants the instant lock, point and hotdrop blob, or else make him hold out for 30 s. This for all cyno or covert cyno fitted ships with cloaks also fitted. Without a cyno or covert cyno fitted, let him insta lock and point. Let this only affect ships with BOTH cyno/covert cyno and cloak fitted and online at the SAME time.

I'm sorry, I can't respect a bad idea, an idea that is unbalancing, that does not even mention the root cause of the problem they are trying to "fix". Ideas that have been proposed not just 1, 2 or even 3 times before, but dozens of times before for years.

That is why I say these ideas have been ignored by CCP. It isn't like somebody at CCP says, "Cloaks using cap!?!?! ZOMG, why I never!!!!"

They have seen it many, many, many times. How do we know this? Go to the thread on the first page called: "Commonly Proposed Ideas". Guess what, the ideas we've seen that "fix" AFK cloaking, and also nerf active cloaks and leave local in place...they are all there. And some of them go back to ******* 2007.



They don't care about AFK cloaking because there is no local. No local means AFK cloaking does not work. There are active cloaking, but surprisingly the WH people are fine with it. Yes, lack of cynos is probably a big deal, but if you are going to ruin cloaks look at WHs and think about the impact there.

A sov based solution would have minimal impact on WHs, especially if any new scanner probes also only worked if the appropriate system upgrades are present.



Read what I asked you again. Or here I'll be more explicit, to benefit from local must you:

1. Fit any special modules?
2. Train any special skills?
3. Fly a specific type of ship?
4. Gimp any fits you might want to use?
5. Anchor anything at all?
6. Pay any isk at all?

The answers, BTW, are no, no, no, no, no, and no.

Now, to get the benefit of a cloak does the cloaking ship have to fit a specific module? Why yes. Does it require specific skills? Why yes. A specific ship? Well, a specific subset, yes. Are these ships gimped compared to other ships? Aside from the strategic cruisers, yes. Anchor anything? No. Pay an isk? No.



You don't have to do any of this to get the benefit. The benefit is: hostile in system, GTFO to a safe. Then you have the luxury of doing all that other stuff while POSed up, in station, etc. If you are waiting to warp while doing all that; you are doing it wrong.

As for the information regarding character age, corp, and alliance, that is handed to you on a platter as well. All you have to do when safe is double click on the pilots name. You could even do it while in warp, or drag it to a chat channel for later use.

Vas,



Well, I'm sorry, but if you are going to nerf active cloakers and do nothing about the free benefits local provides...then yes, its is unbalanced.

How many times have the anti-AFK cloaking people typed, "Well, they should be at their keyboards." Then they propose an idea that would nerf people using cloaks who are at their keyboards.

I'm sorry, that is stupid. Very stupid. Or at least be Goddamn honest and write, "I don't like cloaks, they interfere with my play style, so nerf them." Yes, they'd get horribly flamed for that given the nature of this game, but at least they'd be honest.

Or lets think of it this way:

Suppose a player could start shooting you, before you were even aware of it. Suddenly at 75% shields you see the hostile, you see the damage to your shields and that you are scrammed and webbed. Prior to that you were completely unaware any of this was happening. Would that be balanced? I don't think so.

Local does the same thing in its own way. The resident of a system has at least a second to see the hostile before that hostile can do much of anything. You get this benefit for free. You get it mechanically/automatically. You don't have to do anything in game to get it.

Sounds great, where do I sign?

Who says you have to bling bling in your bling?
Bout time, ISK is TOO EASILY made in nullsec, cutting income would do well for the game IMO.

Are you living on the same planet as we do?

Because i though that we was talking about the afk cloakers, not the active cloakers?

Maybe you should start to actually read what peoples are saying and what they mean before you scream like a baby that it's that and that.

Oh, you never do say your are against active cloaks. In fact, you never support any idea. You hint at supporting all the anti-AFK cloaking ideas, but then back away. The closest you've ever come to an idea is here.

I look at that and think, WTF? Sov based mechanic...okay, that is what I'm suggesting. That can be taken down or corrupted by a small gang, okay I'm for that.

I've linked this article several times,

http://interstellarprivateer.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/unbreaking-local/

It has all the requirements you are after. It does change local, but puts in place an alternate method of gathering intel. Without local, there would be no more AFK cloaking. Adding on the probes that can find AFK cloakers (even active cloakers would have to take some steps to mitigate the probes) would completely discourage AFK cloaking except by sov holders and maybe a guy who really needs to take a whizz. Since it is sov based, it would leave WHs untouched.



You know you spent alot your earlier time ITT whining about how I was being unfair to you and not quoting you correctly. Then you write this kind of....drivel. I'm not even going to respond to this crap as it is only part of one idea I've suggested.

Have we killed local yet?

A tiny fraction?

D-Scan shows all ships, which must be pointed out includes inactive vessels sitting at a POS, not just AFK.

Decoy ships using cheap hulls would be an effective tactic used, if they actually were to need d-scan.

And, at what point would dscan list docked pilots in an outpost? Never.

And, as some pointed out, d-scan has limits. Many systems cannot be completely scanned at once, especially from a gate.

As to the lot more benefits?
They will be blinded, only having d-scan and the hopes that recent map intel still is accurate.
They won't have an intel channel, because forces friendly to them won't be available to fill it.
They can be detected. Sure, the locals need to make an effort here, but they might decide it needs to be done.
Thinking and being clever picks up more options for realistic use, on both sides.

CCP prioritizes according to their own interests. They may have seen something that concerned them but had bigger concerns on their minds at the time, at least as far as their own interests are concerned. I don't like the cap idea either, but it is the start of good thinking which may lead to other ideas if proper feedback and analysis are given. I know it is frustrating to see the same things a million times, but the fact that we see it so much shows that it is a big deal to people and therefore merits proper consideration and feedback.



I have proposed a scanner based solution against afk which I think adequately allows active players to continue without any adverse affects. I think you would like it. It is the cloak residual build-up idea.


Take a look at fleets. The answers to benefit from fleets are also "no, no, no, no, no, and no." Even small fleets do not need fleet skills. I am sure there are many mechanics including the market which follow similar answer patterns.


Getting to a safe is still a cost; operations cease. That limited information is not very useful, which is why we MUST cease operations. Local does not tell us enough to properly assess the situation. We have to do research. All successful pvp operations also apply the principle of assess first, then engage. Local only provides a name and standings. To be used after getting safe, more must be done with that info. The only thing "free" is the SILENT warning of a name listing addition in local indicating that you could see a threat appear in a matter of seconds and have absolutely no power to fight the waves of ships which may come through a cyno. That "free" warning actually requires substantial focus on a single box AND proper alignment already setup. Such warning is critical to continued operations in the face of the cyno threat and the unlimited mass stargate system. Every effort to limit intel encourages blobbing, which is not limited in known space. Said the other way, the current blobbing and supercap mechanics of cynos and stargates in known space DEMAND that more intel (than is currently available) be made easily available to the player.

Added: Nick, sorry for the delayed response. I actually do like your idea. Can't really see any way to improve it, either. I guess my only question is, Have you considered the effect it will have on interdictors? Killing the ship does not kill the bubble, so the ships in the bubble would be stuck for several minutes or whatever the time is unless they are fast.

Andy,

Please read my responses below carefully. Every now and then I get the feeling we aren’t that far apart. I will endeavor to do the same with your responses as well. And please, I’m being sincere when I say I’m concerned about game balance. These claims of, “you just want easy kills,” don’t help, just as statements of, “You just want to make this game Hello Kitty Online,” don’t help. Basically, let us try not to assume bad intentions. I don't want to ruin your game. I don't want to push industrialists out of null. I don't want less PvE, and I don't look down on people who do PvE or do industry (the latter cause I'd have to look down on myself which would be weird).



Of course they do. They’d be foolish not too. I don’t dispute the claim of prioritizing. What I am saying is CCP is aware of the issues of AFK cloaking. They are also aware of the issue of local. I’d even be willing to bet that they see the two issues as linked.

With the AFK cloaking issue, it is a topic that has been discussed here for at least 6 years. As long as I have been in game (this is my main, the age you see is my time in game). They’ve put these things into the commonly proposed ideas thread. We have a dev commenting in this thread. We know that same dev has discussed part of this issue on twitter.

So I think it is fair to say CCP is aware of these issues. They aren’t stupid.

I think CCP is being very conservative on these issues, and I can understand why. Local conveys an inherent benefit via mechanistic means to the system residents (in null and low sec, high sec nobody seems to have these issues). By itself it would likely be considered unbalanced. However, AFK cloaking is a way of diluting the benefit local provides. In a perverse way, the two balance each other out. I would not be surprised if this current state of affairs was completely unintended either.

Now, as for the capacitor idea, I don’t think it is a good idea. I don’t like it because it gimps many active cloaking fits. If I want to do resource denial, I can minimally fit a ship and get it into system and get the desired effect. I don’t even need guns, when you get right down to it.

And I want to be clear here. If we change local and intel gathering, I’m quite fine with nerfing cloaks. My preference is to make them capable of being scanned out, at the moment. This would not nerf active cloaking and not lead to secondary and tertiary tweaks to ships and modules to try and fix the problems caused by the cap use suggestion.



To be quite honest I don’t care about the lore/backstory of why cloaks get nerfed, well so long as it isn’t completely goofy that is. And no offense by that. My feeling is we have to nerf not only cloaks, but the mechanism that is causing AFK cloaking. Heck, a case could be made that simply removing a cloaked ship from local removes the incentive to AFK cloak—i.e. it is a nerf to that aspect of cloaking.

I agree with yours and other objections that it would be huge buff for active cloaking and it could have serious negative consequences for null sec. I think this is why CCP doesn’t implement this change. I would not advocate this kind of change all by itself. Even adding in probes or a ship that could find a cloaked ship would likely not be sufficient because it would require considerable effort from those trying to hunt cloaks. Which is fine if you knew a cloaked ship is there with a high probability, but probably asking a bit much for people who don’t have that high probability that a cloaked ship is there. And if not done right could cause problems for W-space.

This is why I advocate for a more comprehensive change. One that is tied to Sov and one that players have to work at, but could also be somewhat automated in some ways, such as with the constellation gate recorders possibly with an in-game interface that both PvEers and PvPers could use (and note by PvPers, I’m talking about those players that are doing “defensive” PvP—i.e. looking for hostiles in the systems they hold sov in). And for those who are in hostile territory…no more local and no access to the intel network (unless there is some sort of hacking option).

I haven’t responded to the rest of your post yet, because this post is turning into a freaking wall of text. I’m not ignoring it, but hoping we can find some common ground and get past the common misconceptions about each other’s positions and also the standard rote style responses of “u mad bro?”