These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Restrict Watchlist
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#21 - 2014-06-18 16:54:58 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

People willingly post on these services. Why can't the watchlist also be limited to only those willingly sharing the info?


Why should it? By logging in you agree to be seen by people, ie. you are willing to use these services. Similar to the policy "You undock and agree that other people shoot at you."


As long as they are in the same system as me sure I have no problem with that because we currently can't really get rid of local. Not half way across the universe just because I was once seen so people could log my character name.


Why not half-way across the universe? That's the point of secret surveillance. Bugs and wire-taps work in the same fashion. And you are also not asked for permission.


If you want something like that in game, make it so it's detectable/purgeable like should be. Not completely effective with no way to counter it beside training a new pilot from scratch in hiding never using a cap before you really really need it so it was not watch listed before. I'm pretty sure people scan the character bazar for cap capable pilots and add them to WL just in case. If not well, sorry for putting the idea here I guess...
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#22 - 2014-06-18 17:00:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
No counter? I think that versatility is a very good counter. People are probably not putting others on WL for dreads/carriers anymore, but if I was on a WL, these people had a very hard time to figure out what I do. I am practically always online and spend random amounts of time in my caps. Yep, I think that's a good counter. If you have a specialized char only for big guns, it's obviously not going to work. Roll

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Madbuster73
State War Academy
Caldari State
#23 - 2014-06-18 18:21:09 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
No counter? I think that versatility is a very good counter. People are probably not putting others on WL for dreads/carriers anymore, but if I was on a WL, these people had a very hard time to figure out what I do. I am practically always online and spend random amounts of time in my caps. Yep, I think that's a good counter. If you have a specialized char only for big guns, it's obviously not going to work. Roll


This change would benefit especially Super and Titan pilots since they dont switch ships all the time.
Who cares about dreads anyway.
Madbuster73
State War Academy
Caldari State
#24 - 2014-06-19 10:24:06 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Even though you are from TRI, but could you please employ the Search Function of the forum Google Search before posting things that have been posted here countless times before?

--

Dally Lama wrote:
Supported. There is no logical reasons why someone should know you've woken up in a station halfway across the cluster. Instant intel is lazy. If the person is important enough use locator agents and scout the systems yourself.

+1

EDIT: Perhaps locator agents could tell you if the person is awake or not. We can attach a bunch of rules and timers to it in order to keep it balanced (i.e. not instant intel once again).


Why is that? We live in a social age and as much as I despise Facebook and Twitter for what it shows us (I don't use that bullshit), as long as people use these services, there is no logical reason not to see if someone wakes up.


People willingly post on these services. Why can't the watchlist also be limited to only those willingly sharing the info?



A lot of people seem to want this, the topic has been brought up many times, but because of the sheer number of new ideas in this Forum it always kinda sinks away and gets forgotten.
I really hope CCP will pick this idea up and do something about it.
Luna McCoy
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#25 - 2014-06-19 11:38:05 UTC
Madbuster73 wrote:
People just have to put you on watchlist and provide free and easy instant intel.
There are alliances that have every single capital-pilot watchlisted and it makes it almost impossible nowadays to log in a capital fleet without the enemy instantly knowing it.
[snip]
This way people will actually have to do more active scouting and less metagaming in station.

Just sitting in station won't give you the names. It's only after the work is done to gather the intelligence that the name is known to add to the watchlist.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#26 - 2014-06-19 12:09:49 UTC
Madbuster73 wrote:

A lot of people seem to want this, the topic has been brought up many times, but because of the sheer number of new ideas in this Forum it always kinda sinks away and gets forgotten.
I really hope CCP will pick this idea up and do something about it.


Well, I paid in several cases with my ships or other things to get names of cap pilots. Does this count as effort? Blink

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Rumtin
Imperium Technologies
Sigma Grindset
#27 - 2014-06-19 12:42:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Rumtin
This is a terrible idea that (if it were made true) would really only benefit the largest organizations that have the man power to deploy many people/alts to watch PoS's where supers stage out of.

Also, making the WL have to be approved?? WTF, the NSA never asked for your approval before they snatched your emails, phone numbers, and contact information, why would anyone give consent? That's just stupid. They can tap a phone on the otherside of the planet, why wouldn't they be able to have the same capacity across the universe?

Ill admit that the WL system is Overpowered, however on that same note its also equally balanced between all players in its current form.

If there is going to be a change to the WL, this isn't it.
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#28 - 2014-06-19 13:00:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Fer'isam K'ahn
-1

If the watchlist would be with consent, then it would be menaingless, you can already create channels for friends only, no need for watchlist if some of those log on. Out of game even more options with mumble, TS, private forums etc ...
The sole pourpose of the watchlsit is to spy on others (foe or friend) foir whatever reason, take the secrecy away and you have a feature with no purpose (that can't be achieved otherwise).

And no watchlist (unconsensual) only means an advantage towards the aggressor in most cases. In war decs and or other griefing mechanisms all the power goes to the attacker. And the 'safe' fleet fights would stagnate even more if you ahd to use npc intel all the time. And then a gain, numbers win, biger corp, more alts, more intel. As it is a one-man-corp can have the same intel as the 200 man war-dec-for-lols corp or sov ower (not comparign thsoe two).
Bohneik Itohn
10.K
#29 - 2014-06-19 13:04:14 UTC
Rumtin wrote:
This is a terrible idea that (if it were made true) would really only benefit the largest organizations that have the man power to deploy many people/alts to watch PoS's where supers stage out of.

Also, making the WL have to be approved?? WTF, the NSA never asked for your approval before they snatched your emails, phone numbers, and contact information, why would anyone give consent? That's just stupid. They can tap a phone on the otherside of the planet, wby wouldn't they be able to have the same capacity across the universe?

Ill admit that the WL system is Overpowered, however on that same note its also equally balanced between all players in its current form.

If there is going to be a change to the WL, this isn't it.



That's actually not true. All of the talk has been that if WL was changed the larger alliances would have the advantage over intel.

Well, to begin with, they already have the advantage, because they have more people.

Secondly, they should have an advantage, they are larger and are devoting more resources to intel.

Thirdly, every one of these statements highlights the fact that watchlists work in favor of giving smaller alliances more intel than they legitimately work for, providing more value to them than they do the larger alliances. That is not an equal balance across all playing fields.

If you want an equal balance, get rid of easy meta-intel like the watch list, and then it'll be down to the individuals to provide that balance. Smaller alliances can still easily hold an edge on larger alliances because one savvy vet can gain better intel than 10 scrubs watching the doors because everyone else is too busy being important.

It's very simple. Non-Consensual Watch-listing stifles gameplay for the intel players, and reduces confrontations between capital pilots through arbitrary means.

Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!  - Freyya

Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help.
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#30 - 2014-06-19 13:16:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Fer'isam K'ahn
Bohneik Itohn wrote:

That's actually not true. All of the talk has been that if WL was changed the larger alliances would have the advantage over intel.

Well, to begin with, they already have the advantage, because they have more people.

Secondly, they should have an advantage, they are larger and are devoting more resources to intel.

Thirdly, every one of these statements highlights the fact that watchlists work in favor of giving smaller alliances more intel than they legitimately work for, providing more value to them than they do the larger alliances. That is not an equal balance across all playing fields.

If you want an equal balance, get rid of easy meta-intel like the watch list, and then it'll be down to the individuals to provide that balance. Smaller alliances can still easily hold an edge on larger alliances because one savvy vet can gain better intel than 10 scrubs watching the doors because everyone else is too busy being important.

It's very simple. Non-Consensual Watch-listing stifles gameplay for the intel players, and reduces confrontations between capital pilots through arbitrary means.


I am not going into refuting all this, fact is, not all bigger alliances play with intel, some just go with being big and the only defense of the small guy is easier intel and avoiding the big ones, it just balances out a huge inconsistancy. And that not even to any benefit of the smaller group, they usually don't DO anything then.

And I don't get your crying about capital pilots being on watchlists anyway.. are those pilots incapable of doing anything else then sit in capitals - that they are marked for it - FOR LIFE ? There is no way 30 capital pilots logging in and hopping in bombers and disrupt or diffuse intel ? Way to play your one man - one job game. 'I either hot-blob-to-victory or I log out' °°

LOL
Bohneik Itohn
10.K
#31 - 2014-06-19 13:54:38 UTC
Preaching to the wrong person K'ahn. It's because people have gotten so ******* lazy relying on the watchlist that that never happens.

Big alliances relying on being big? Yep, that means that you have monkeys everywhere who, if they do nothing else, can say "Who the hell is this guy in local?" But if the immediate response is "Well, nobody important is online, so he isn't important." then it really dumbs down the whole process doesn't it? It's because some aspects of intel are so easy that big alliances don't have to do sh*t to maintain enough reliable information that they are never under threat.

I remember a day when I realized all of the potential that Eve had for running intel, counter intel, and spec-ops. I was so giddy I may have been bouncing in my seat a little. Not long after that, by watching the way other people play, I realized that watch lists and neutral alts were so easy and reliable that no one bothered doing anything else.

Pretty ******* disappointing, that was.

Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!  - Freyya

Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help.
Rumtin
Imperium Technologies
Sigma Grindset
#32 - 2014-06-19 14:54:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Rumtin
Bohneik Itohn wrote:

That's actually not true. All of the talk has been that if WL was changed the larger alliances would have the advantage over intel.

Well, to begin with, they already have the advantage, because they have more people.


That's exactly what i was saying. Given their size they do have more people/resources at their disposal. So how is changing the WL going to change that?

Bohneik Itohn wrote:

Secondly, they should have an advantage, they are larger and are devoting more resources to intel.


You've got no arguments from me. Changing the WL would only mean that the bigger entities would start using their numbers to do what the WL already does. They have that advantage given their size.

Bohneik Itohn wrote:

Thirdly, every one of these statements highlights the fact that watchlists work in favor of giving smaller alliances more intel than they legitimately work for, providing more value to them than they do the larger alliances. That is not an equal balance across all playing fields.


How is that even possible? No one works anymore harder or less to add someone to a WL. Taking ONLY the WL into account and not any other form of intel meta, the WL is completely balanced. The only thing you get from a WL is that A is either 1 (on) or 0 (off), THATS IT. It doesnt tell you what ship they are in, where they are, what they are doing, or anything else, and EVERYONE can do it.

Bohneik Itohn wrote:

If you want an equal balance, get rid of easy meta-intel like the watch list, and then it'll be down to the individuals to provide that balance. Smaller alliances can still easily hold an edge on larger alliances because one savvy vet can gain better intel than 10 scrubs watching the doors because everyone else is too busy being important.

It's very simple. Non-Consensual Watch-listing stifles gameplay for the intel players, and reduces confrontations between capital pilots through arbitrary means.


The WL is the only in-game passive Intel that people have at their disposal. Other intel such as fleet movements, ship types, numbers involved, intended targets, all that has to come from someone either actively spying on that fleet or physically watching the fleet move from point A to point B. Everyone is capable of doing this, regardless of if they are rather new or old to the game.

How would Consensual WLing make things any better than what we already have? So, in order to add someone to a WL, you must first have their permission to do so? That's completely ludicrous, NO ONE would agree to be WL if it was turned into Consensual. Spying in general would fall off the map of being a valid play style if you knew WHO the spy was from the get go. It would completely destroy Counter-Espionage which is another play style.

I would rather have what you claim is stifle gameplay than no gameplay at all.
Cannibal Kane
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#33 - 2014-06-19 15:19:54 UTC
This will actually make it even worse for my targets since now they wont be able to see when I log on.

All this request tells me is that somebody is upset that he can;t do anything with his cap ship since people know he is logged on.

"Kane is the End Boss of Highsec." -Psychotic Monk
Evei Shard
Shard Industries
#34 - 2014-06-19 18:01:27 UTC
+1 for this idea.

In my experience, which has been limited to small alliances, the watchlist is used like a version of local. If we decced someone, or got wardecced, the call would go out to "add everyone in that corp to your watchlist" so we had ongoing intell about how many of the enemy were online.

This is an advantage for both sides, but, also lessens the PvP aspect of things. "WT in local" "let him go, there's another 10 of them online right now". Especially in low/null where said "WT in local" could be a cyno equipped ship.

Not knowing how many of a target corps people are online allows for better trap setting, as well as the use of other strategies.

On another subject, the watch list also allows for intel in regards to multiple accounts. It took time, but I was able to, at one point, determine which WT account was owned by the same person running an NPC alt. Without watchlisting, this would be impossible, which, in my opinion, is how it should be.

Profit favors the prepared
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#35 - 2014-06-19 18:32:24 UTC
Cannibal Kane wrote:
This will actually make it even worse for my targets since now they wont be able to see when I log on.

All this request tells me is that somebody is upset that he can;t do anything with his cap ship since people know he is logged on.


You cannot do anything to your target until you are online in the same system as him. He would still have local and D-scan as his intel tool unless he has spy/spotter alts elsewhere to help him. Everybody would be on a level playing field.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#36 - 2014-06-19 18:36:51 UTC
Rumtin wrote:


The WL is the only in-game passive Intel that people have at their disposal. Other intel such as fleet movements, ship types, numbers involved, intended targets, all that has to come from someone either actively spying on that fleet or physically watching the fleet move from point A to point B. Everyone is capable of doing this, regardless of if they are rather new or old to the game.

How would Consensual WLing make things any better than what we already have? So, in order to add someone to a WL, you must first have their permission to do so? That's completely ludicrous, NO ONE would agree to be WL if it was turned into Consensual. Spying in general would fall off the map of being a valid play style if you knew WHO the spy was from the get go. It would completely destroy Counter-Espionage which is another play style.

I would rather have what you claim is stifle gameplay than no gameplay at all.


If you have a spy where it matter, watchlist should not be needed as you would be able to use regular coms from the entity you are spying on to get the intel you need/want.

It would make intel gathering harder but that's pretty much the whole point of the suggestion. Intel should not just be given to you because you made a list of character...
Xaldafax Caerleon
Veritas Theory
#37 - 2014-06-19 20:52:19 UTC
I am just surprised so many people are this lazy and want easy stuff like a watchlist we have now.

How much more fun would it be to have tracking gear and bugs and who knows what other types of technology to hunt people down in a more spy like way.
Rumtin
Imperium Technologies
Sigma Grindset
#38 - 2014-06-20 08:01:57 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:

If you have a spy where it matter, watchlist should not be needed as you would be able to use regular coms from the entity you are spying on to get the intel you need/want.

It would make intel gathering harder but that's pretty much the whole point of the suggestion. Intel should not just be given to you because you made a list of character...


Oh trust me, i completely agree that intel gathering should be something that is transformed into an active (rather than passive) thing that people need to actually work towards. However, i'm not going to agree to a change that would make the situation worse rather than better.
Maz Ngomo
#39 - 2014-06-20 08:20:14 UTC
You're aware the watchlist only tells you that someone is online, not where they are right? It's a useful game feature, not a game-breaking intel source.
Dig Mangeiri
#40 - 2014-06-20 09:48:34 UTC
Maz Ngomo wrote:
You're aware the watchlist only tells you that someone is online, not where they are right? It's a useful game feature, not a game-breaking intel source.



That's local, right? lol...

Couldn't resist.