Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Because mining sucks. It sucks even more to watch someone else mine.

Its not so bad to play Concord, forming up on a Titan and ready to bridge to a combat zone.

I don't mine, but from the other side's perspective...

Babysitting miners is boring. I mean, mining itself isn't any fun, but at least they are doing something to make isk. "Escorting" miners is even less interesting and pays nothing. If the miners have to share their revenue, they might as well go to highsec where Concord will protect them for free.

I'd much rather go on a roam.


It really isn't that hard to imagine. After all, you yourself come in here and talk about how awesome it is to hunt stuff. You aren't here to purpose changes to the game to make miner escorting more fun.

If you like combat so much, and miners attract fights, why aren't you escorting miners?

No, It would not.

It's not exactly about the rate of income, but about the value you stand to lose. If I am making 1 ISK per hour, or 1 million, I lose only further production for as long as a hostile is present. That hostile has no interest in denying the space long term, they are there for a kill. If I dock up and come back later, I lose nothing. If I fight and lose I not only lose the productivity I would have lost anyway, but also the value of my ship---in general a much more expensive ship than my killer risked.

If there was something about that space that could be destroyed, degraded, or taken elsewhere that can not be easily replaced then, and only then, have you given someone who does not care for combat for it's own sake a reason to fight. This is what is missing in EVE- A reason to fight beyond the simple Neanderthal pleasure of seeing your enemy squished. Humans in general admire killers and find predation beautiful... but that does not mean we want to experience it. It's not that the Carebear is risk adverse, it's simply that there is nothing about the space you are denying him that's worth also losing a ship to defend.

He can move, he can wait a while till you get bored. He can wait for an alliance patrol to drive you off... all of that loses him what he wanted---time exploiting the environment--- but does not also cost him his ship. Unlike career PvP combat pilots, most PvE pilots do not have stacks of prefit ships waiting in a hanger in case they die. They are not generally in combat clones to limit their losses when podded. A ship loss is more than waking up wet and jumping back in the game---it's a significant amount of time spent shopping, reshipping and usually a ruined night and wasted time at the next log on.

By comparison that hunter usually only lost the time needed to buy another clone and jump in a new ship, having lost nothing he valued in the first place, nor wasted time doing anything that wasn't part of his normal routine.

+1

I lived in null sec for 3 years.

Null Sec is helping the botters and 23/7 ratters.

the only counter to the extreme Null Bearing is afk cloakers which in my opinion is also a broken mechanic tbh.

but no reason to get off topic here.

I totally agree...

remove local from null sec to make 0sec living more exciting again and help elimate all the ******* botting

Because the security blanket of local in a supposedly 0.0 security part of space seems awfully secure

You seem confused there. 0.0 security only applies to CONCORD and empire forces, and they do not respond in those areas or apply security status adjustments for what you do there.

0.0 is owned by player factions, and is as secure or not as they choose to make it.

So don't do it then.



Believe it or not, in null co-operative play is rewarded too. For example, the time between you seeing someone in local, if you do see them and all your stuff warping out can be 10 seconds depending on what you're flying (nano Mackinaws take 7 if you're mining). So having local is only one part of the intel jigsaw. Having an intel channel reporting red movements is far more important.

Put it this way: If you're waiting for someone in local before you take any action, it's a huge risk and quite frequently will already be too late.



You're confusing risk and reward as many people do in Eve, as if you can take 30% of the risk to get 30% of the reward. Once you're pointed and dropped, you're going to take a 100% hit. They won't kill only 30% of your stuff, will they.



Covert cynos, cloaky campers, logoffskis, Titan bridges, awoxing, very fast interceptor gangs, you name it.

(a) As mentioned, I do it as a last resort when there is no-one else around. I wasn't intending this to be a dig. I suppose I mention it because I hope for something more engaging in a game, for all of us.

(b) Point taken. We do the same in w-space, although it requires one toon per 'gate' rather than one per system.

(c) I don't think I am confusing risk/reward. For any PVE activity in eve the eventual reward is ISK/time-period. The risk is the cost of replacing hardware plus the opportunity cost during replacement, multiplied by the probability of a catastrophic event. In a HiSec mission hub, the opportunity cost is a few minutes (purchase modules, click 'FIT SHIP', reload ammo, go) multiplied by basically zero (as long as you don't over-bling your ship). In null sec and w-space it's considerably more hassle to replace a ship and the missed opportunity while refitting is greater.

So I think my argument still holds. If you really want maximal ISK reward for time spent at the computer screen, and you can stand the boredom you are probably better off in Apanake, blapping the enemies of Sisters of Eve while delegating your salvaging to Pro Synergy, since that's more time-efficient than doing it yourself.

In 0-sec you will be interrupted by cloak scouts/campers plus you have the opportunity cost of ship replacement if you get it wrong.

(d) point taken with covert cynos, although there is a parallel in w-space - the sudden appearance of a new incoming wormhole (usually with hostiles behind it). Cloaky campers and logofskis happen in w-space too but we counter them with diligence, team play and group PVE in PVP fit. Interceptors are used in w-space; scouts counter these as they do in 0-sec.

In short, w-space folk on the whole have adapted to the lack of local. It does not stop us using compromised ships like sieged dreads and triaged carriers in high-end PVE, even through there is a real risk of being jumped and losing *billions* (a well executed C5/C6 bank will cost the loser something like 15Bn ISK).

In fairness, marauders are rare in w-space because it's not economically viable to position enough scouts to give them sufficient warning of incoming trouble, and the ISK uplift when using one is minimal. The loss of local in unimproved 0-sec would make it difficult for these ships to operate safely, but I think that's about the only downside.

But WH is a dynamic system. Holes open and close (you can close them yourself if you're so minded to). In null there's a fixed set of gates, fixed stations, a fixed true-sec rating. As a red you know where people are going to be. It's totally different to wormhole space. In null you need the tool of local to secure your space otherwise you just can't use it.

I am noticing many of your responses are comparable to someone saying: "Because that's how it is".
While you may truly feel this way, it is not particularly useful in a discussion.

The status quo you effectively defend is what created this thread, thus your argument endorses the threads existence without resolving any of the issues it tries to address.

---

It is common knowledge that the kill boards can only confirm the endings of ships and pods having happened, not the details or circumstances involved.

A person can assume many things.
As is often seen in many places, you assume that which is convenient to your view.

I would suggest, rather, that this proves nothing beyond what it claims to prove.
Certain ships and pods ended. The details are known only to the direct participants, with all others left to do as you have already done.

---

Do you really consider it good game play, to incentivize avoidance of other players, even if it has been demonstrated to result in player frustrating stalemates?



You did not really answer the question. You only pointed out what was most practical inside the current system.

I asked if the system itself was good for gameplay, considering the negatives.
This entire thread exists because of those same negatives, frustrated players seeking to resolve an issue it created.

---

Would it not make more sense, to adjust the scenario so that both sides positively anticipated encountering each other, so they could shoot spaceship weapons and see the explosions?




Again, you point out the obvious current system.
Adjusting the scenario means to change the motivations, which include the fact that ships should not be balanced to avoid interaction.

---

Try to remember, the real goal of this is to make as many people happy as possible. The real ones who are sitting in front of computers, not the pretend ones in the pods.



A pointless attempt to deflect, with a hint of ad hominem suggested.
(Do you really suggest I am writing this out of selfish self interest?)

No. The way to make the game better, is to improve it for everyone, not just one person or group.
When you have one person trying to catch another, and that other effectively loses if they are caught, this is not sustainable.

It resolves one of three ways.
1. The pursuer catches the target, boom, encounter ends.
2. The target evades the pursuer, silence, encounter ends.
3. The target evades the pursuer, waiting begins, as a stalemate grows from the lack of results.

I suggest the system be changed for this:
The pursuer catches the target, and a fight ensues. Results are determined based on pilot skill and preparation.