Player Features and Ideas Discussion

You don't see it as OP, but CCP does.

Edit:

I don't know what changes, if any, CCP has for this issue, but if you have to open a window and periodically refresh it that is a significant increase in effort, from near zero to not near zero. If we say the current mechanic has an effort level of (arbitrary number pulled from my posterior) of 1 and the new method has effort level of 2, you have increased the effort requirement by 100%...yet, the new mechanic is still low effort.

See how that works, what we are talking about are relative changes. The new mechanic could still be low on the "effort index" but could represent a significant increase in effort.

Also, if the new mechanic is not beyond attack by hostile parties that would also entail effort similar to the effort in maintaining one's sov, POS systems, etc. Maybe it has an isk component (the more you spend the better the system, maybe effort and isk are inversely related...no individual alliances can choose the level of coverage or effort*).

And maybe CCP is going to automate/improve some aspects of d-scanning. Like I said, d-scan has been pretty horrible. Improvements there could be really helpful. In other threads, people have put forward ideas on improving d-scan related to possible up-coming changes.** Some better filtering on d-scan could be hugely helpful.

Maybe the upcoming changes will be localized to low sec or NPC null or both to provide to test any proposed changes, thus the impact to null could be minimized and low...well for low sec even if bad how much worse could it make low sec (joking). And if it is horrible, revert it back to the old system.

*Those are just some possibilities. Again, I don't know what, if anything, CCP has planned.

**Let me also add, I'm not saying "improve d-scan then remove local" I'm just pointing out that such a change COULD be PART of the whatever CCP has planned.

Note: Caps for emphasis for Lucas, IIRC he has his browser settings such that he can't see bold, italics, etc.

Specifically, you would introduce to the system the flaws and frailties of a human being.

If the player does everything perfectly, then yes, they still get the same intel as before, but with more details in exchange for the risk of not doing everything perfectly. They would get availability of details on cloaked ships.

It is OP if the server does it for you automatically.

It is gameplay if you do it for yourself.

But this is the point. You claim it has a near zero effort. I disagree. How is starting at a box, constantly, looking away for no longer than 10 seconds classed as zero effort? Basically you class it as no effort if it requires no clicking, but that's a load of rubbish. If I had to click a scan button every X seconds, I'd consider that at most a 1% increase in effort, since the main thing being done is the constant monitoring. The click is nothing.
So basically you yourself have an objection to clicking once every 30 minutes, yet you think PVE players in null should have to click near constantly? Am I getting that right? That's double standards mate.
Basically you have a stick up your ass because you think that null PVE players have it "too easy" while you AFK mine, which is blatantly the easiest isk making task going, and for some reason we are in the wrong?
I tell you what, I'm fine with having to click every X seconds. It's nothing to me, I'll be staring at the screen anyway. But you also should have to. So no more AFK mining, to mine you should have to click constantly too. Sound fair?

If the new mechanic is like sov, it means blobs gain a huge advantage. I'd consider that a step in the wrong direction for EVE since we blobs already have it pretty easy.

This would require cloakers to show on d-scan or declawing cloakers to stop them overtaking all other PVP ships as a gank ship.

We can but hope. The real issue though is that until it is deployed to sov, it won;t be tested out in a live sov environment. By the time it is, if it all goes wrong it'll be way too late to undo the damage.

And indeed :p Me and my silly browser. Looks normal when I'm at home, just not when I'm remote.

It requires only slightly more effort than AFK cloaking. If AFK cloaking is zero effort, or so your side keeps insisting, then the current mechanic is near zero.

Pretty simple...or would you like to change the classification of AFK cloaking as "no effort"?



If one is going to opt for the enhanced security of high sec then yeah, they should not have to put forth the same effort as those do in null. We see this practically every where in null vs. high sec. Stations in high sec are ubiquitous, in null they are rare and most are the result of considerable effort...vast effort in fact. All the stuff that goes in the egg had to be made, shipped to null, and the egg deployed. If you want the moon minerals you have to put up a POS, fuel it, and empty is and so forth. Effort...lots of effort. Want to make your space better you ship IHUBs out to null, get the appropriate upgrades, work the system, etc. Effort. Same with the markets. Most markets are well stocked all the time in high sec. You wont have to go far to get what you need and doing so is very safe. In null, you could have to actually leave the region to get what you need, or bring it in yourself via either a JB network in something like a transport ship or a JF. Again, considering the effort you expend, and the effort of the people who maintain jump bridges, cyno beacons, the towers, the people doing the PI to keep the towers fueled, etc. Huge amounts of effort when you think about it.

High sec has none of that, it is low effort and has enhanced security (e.g. Concord).

So yeah, I think intel should be the same in null.

That is, one thing (high sec) is not like the other (null sec). If you don't want to work for your intel (assuming local does indeed change), then high sec-----> that away.



Blobs already have a huge advantage and this will do nothing either way. Trying to fix blobs by keeping local is just silly.



That is one possibility. It depends on ALL the changes CCP may make. If d-scan does not report cloaked ships, but they become detectable via probes as an example.

Edit: Regarding stations and their frequency in high vs. null:

Sing Laison high sec (i.e. excluding low sec) has 204.

To get approximately the same number in null you'd have to include the following regions (including NPC stations):

Deklein,
Fade,
Pure Blind,
Cloud Ring,
Fountain,
Delve.

Even an NPC region like Syndicate will have 120 stations or about 60% of what you find in high sec.

Who says the attacker will have no intel. Again, you are making an assumption that favors the outcome you desire. Maybe that will be the case, maybe not. If the defender only having intel is unbalanced, then balancing it out would be allowing attackers the ability to gather intel.

Example: Andy's idea of a mobile intel structure. Anchor it and it reports intel back to your side.

What you do Lucas is make unwarranted assumptions:

"Oh it is going to work this way and make blobbing worse!!"

Why must it work the way you assume?

"If cloaked ships don't show on d-scan, cloaked ships are OP!"

Why must d-scan be the only mechanic for detecting cloaked ships. Andy's idea of having various structures designated as "intel structures" and reporting information would also allow you to learn that information. And the new mechanic might give you enhanced information in some situations--e.g. maybe it will report ship type. I don't know.

"With increased effort people will flee to null en masse."

Depends on the amount of increased effort doesn't it? And why can't people adapt? Yes, maybe the old play style wont work or work as well, but does that necessarily mean the new play style is going to be less rewarding? And if risk does go up, there is nothing stipping CCP from boosting the rewards from living in null. Maybe that is part of their plan. I don't know, and you don't know.

The assumptions you make always are of the same nature: I'll assume X because then X will let me argue "Don't change local."

That's not horrible. After all, if we just removed people from showing in local (i.e. like WH space) and simply modified d-scan could be a bad way to go. But assuming that is the only change that is coming and saying that local should not change, even if there are other things that could be done is just not constructive.

Lets assume away all the problems and everything works just fine.

You sound like Doc Brown.



Well, so long as your FC gets a POS in the system before hand (and the enemy lets him) and leaves the anchored bubbles and we can get a cyno ship in there, and we light the cyno close to the POS and you immediately burn into the POS shields...why everything should be fine.

The idea of:

Quick the enemy is hitting a critical [insert something important here] we are going to drop on them!

Nope. Now you land and can't warp. Your tackle can't work. They have 30 seconds to bugger off once the cyno goes up.

To be honest I don't get why this discussion keeps going.

All recent changes CCP performed (warp speed changes for tacklers, bubble immunity for interceptors, easier probing mechanics, blops buff) were aimed at making the Carebear life harder while they are at the same time making highsec safer.

Given these changes why do you think they are even thinking about changing the cloaking mechanics?

Ok, let's draw a line in the sand.

We will call it required effort, as a defining point of good vs bad, in this context.

The required effort to mine, is to set your mining gear up, and activate it. If this means sitting in a barge with lasers targeted on a piece of rock, so be it.
Your character will mine, as intended, until the hold is filled. The lasers will cut off automatically, indicating this is something CCP expects to happen unmonitored.
You need to make an effort to unload this ore, and transport it to the next stage for sales.

Because this is a direct form of income acquisition, your ship is exposed in space. Because your ship is exposed in space, it can be attacked.
Possibility 1: Your effort requirement here is zero. It is quite possible your ship is not a desirable target, in that it would cost more to destroy than it returned to an attacker. Unless someone sees a worthwhile benefit to destroying your ship, you are safe.
Possibility 2: In the event your ship IS at risk, because it benefits someone by seeing it as wreckage, then your required effort is whatever it takes to survive, as dictated by circumstances.

The required effort to cloak a ship, is to set your gear up, and activate it. If this means sitting in a remote location, or on a perch for observation for extended periods, so be it.
Your character will remain in position, listed in local, indefinitely. Local is a free service for everyone that way, like a "Greg's list" from purgatory.
If you are observing, then you must remain constantly present with your eyeballs locked onto the screen, or risk missing something important by being AFK at the wrong moment.

This is not a direct form of income acquisition, so there is no requirement for exposure to create risk.
Your effort threshold consists of maintaining vigilance, and not shutting down your equipment.

In the event a player fails to maintain vigilance, they are at risk of missing opportunities to attack hostile targets of opportunity, and generally being considered more of a non-threat as time goes on.
Thank goodness they can count on a devoted following, who faithfully refuse to violate the unwritten agreement that they will not PvE so long as the cloaked player is willing to sacrifice their time as well... leading by selfless example.

And important point on why AFK cloakers have remained "invulnerable to attack" for so long and why CCP has not done much to curb it...that and the powerful nature of local as an intel tool. Remove AFK cloaking and it has no counter.

Null PvErs are ratters. They just happen to do their ratting in anoms instead of belts.

By your own definition, you are scum of the earth and should purposely be given a penalty.

This whole thread has turned into middle-school slapfights, macho posturing and ad hominem nonsense. I think you all need to take three days in your respective corners and think about what you've done.

And think up some new arguments. These old ones smell a bit rancid.