Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Your bias is so evident, that it is ironic you claim awareness of the motivations present on the cloaking side.

If the cloaking side wanted to merely shoot at targets, they could have simply formed a roam, and done the usual dash through hostile territory.
Suggesting they would somehow manage to show up in the PvE system, and be happy just trading blows with ships you consented to use, is numbingly oblivious to their true nature.

What is worse, you seem entrenched in your view that PvP in EVE is consensual, and PvE ships in other areas of the game are apparently at risk because they have not moved to sov null, where they would be safe.

You seem to think the reward index in null is related to the difficulty of the NPC threats, and player controlled hostiles threatening PvE ships is clearly unintended, as evidenced by the obvious path to safety.
1. Prepare for escape, emphasis particularly if intel warns of hostiles in area
2. Watch local carefully, for addition of names not green or blue
3. If non-friendly name appears, immediately get safe before they can travel to your location

That so called noob in high sec, plays more courageously than a docked up sov null resident, because they actually go out and take the risks. Taking risks is the primary quality of the virtue we call courage.

Sound impassioned? Only if you read it like that.

Quite honestly, I just stated observations and facts here, which can be verified by play.

Wait... That is exactly how it works in null. The positive or negitive rating of a system is in direct relation to the NPCs in that area and their value. Same with mining benifits. That's why people fight over certain space. Because of its reward. Living in Null, I would of guessed you would know this.

And there you have it, folks.

The expectation that PvE in sov null, is expected to be the only area in the game, where ship to ship combat between players, is consensual.

I have to admit, the proven reliable ability to avoid hostile players DOES seem like compelling evidence.
They cannot do this in NPC null, wormholes, low sec or high sec, as they effectively have no warning system to alert them prior to the arrival of a hostile.
That hostile is either known to be present in the system as a neutral, or totally unknown as in a WH.

I find it ironic, that the expectation of necessary avoidance, is being blamed on the hostile here.
If you were flying in any other space, you would accept the presence of neutrals in the system, even possibly prepared to counter ganking attempts.

QUESTIONS:
Do people really expect that the use of this absolute avoidance tactic has no cost?

Do people really expect operating in sov null is intended to be the safest place to PvE in the game, context specific to hostile players?
Particularly when the teamwork options are being protested as being too heavy a burden to maintain?

This seems less a case of design flaw, and more a case of conflicting expectations.

Perhaps CCP, (or a player relaying from past statements), could clarify which expectations are best aligned with the game philosophy?

EDIT: I am referring to the general rewards index of null as a whole, not the differences which may exist between individual systems because of system specific details. It just dawned on me we may have been referring to wholly different aspects here.
I refer to Null vs High sec, low sec, WH space, etc... Not system A vs system B.

Point one, I welcome you to provide me evidence from CCP that the rewards index in null is specific exclusively to NPC threat.
Should player threat be dismissed?

As to pointing out an expectation, that is derived from overall statements, not a direct quote.
It is supported by testimony from multiple sources who defend not changing local here, which enables the process to be quite effectively consensual.
It is a fact, that if you properly prepare and react, you CAN get safe every time a hostile name is added to local, before they can stop you.

Drawing conclusions only requires the supporting statements to be known. Whether such conclusions are accepted by all is the point of debate.

I reject the premise of your argument at this point.

There are also many who claim mining and ratting are boring and unfun, but I happen to enjoy them.

The only reason I do not engage in AFK Cloaking, is that I prefer resolution to happen within a gamin session, especially for such solo or small group activities.

Please do not assume we all share your values regarding fun, and as such, respect that we may enjoy different things.

I already answered all your "Point one" in the original statement. Positive to negative rating covers all sections of eve. High to null. The rewards go up as the security rating goes down. Any ore chart, moon listing, planet PI chart, rat isk output chart will show you this. Player threat in null is constant but has no contributing factor to the reward of a section of space. People fight over assets in space, not over the right to go fighting in that space.

Player threat should never be discounted but how you are tying them into the reward system of null, I dont completely understand.

Though as a side point. CCP has never stated that any section of space is suppose to be safe or dangerous. They have limited the player control in areas and in null the area is completely player controlled. They never said it had to be dangerous. The danger is completely dictated by the players themselves, so using the argument than a game mechanic shouldnt be changed cause a section of space is too danger or safe, is simply wrong. The two have no direct relationship to one another. You can not fault players for working together.

LOL what??? So you CAN fault them for working together??



This is just a lie. A group is a great way to defend against an AFK cloaker when they choose to act but it is not a counter. As it has been pointed out and you keep ignoring. If a cloak camper is presented with a group, they just go back to being afk and wait for that group to leave. This is not a counter. This is just delaying things.

no this is not exactly how it works.

- The payouts of NPC ratting in null are not high because the NPC's pose a threat.
- The payouts of null moon mining is not high because NPC's are going to come along and take your POS. (yet)
- The payouts of null mining belts are not high because the NPC belt rats are an obstacle.
- The anchoring of an intensive refining array only allowable outside of hi-sec has nothing to do with any NPC behavior.
- The tax of NPC stations for industry has nothing to do with any lack of threat from NPC's.

The only area (that i can think of) where NPC difficulty and threat is the exact cause of higher rewards in any area of space is burner missions. Not even the rewards incursions give out can be said to be exactly because of NPC danger.

They payout of null (or any area of space) has so much more to do with being balanced by the expected competition between and threat of other players than any NPC activity.



By putting things that are rare, bountiful and powerful in space where PvP is most unrestricted (to avoid using the term dangerous space)

competition, supply and demand then does the rest. Officer this or that would be worthless if they spawned from every high sec belt rat.



So the group prevents the AFK cloaker from doing his job...that is a counter. It only ceases to become a counter when you cease to work together. A shield is a counter to a bow and arrow, but we dont discount it as a counter because the person carrying it may put it down at some point.

And your also assuming the cloaker knows about the group, but anyone can carry a cyno.

I insist that working as a group counters afk cloaking quite effectively. But it may be a rare occurrence for null ratters to work together because afk cloaking is far from rife and the expectation to rat safely alone and make billions is really quite high.

I can't say I run into this often enough, where the response is able to be countered by what it responded to...



And I just copy and paste, and:

Quite to the contrary, I am pointing out that players working together is a proven method to counter AFK Cloaking threats.
The expectation that neither group effort or personal risk should be needed, this I pointedly question.



How is it a lie?

Think of having your friends present like an umbrella.
An umbrella counters the effects of rain, WHEN YOU USE IT.
Should you decide the umbrella is too much hassle, and put it away while the rain persists, you get wet.

I fail to see how this seems complicated.

To further the analogy, have your friends park PvP hulls in a POS nearby. (The ships being logged in and visibly sitting ready has more impact than a docked player, I believe)
Feel free to announce your readiness in local, and point out your friends presence in the POS.
Now, tell them to leave their systems logged in, should they go AFK, so the names stay in local, and the cloaked player can see the threat plainly.

Now you COULD still have a cyno, just like the cloaked player.
BUT, you raised the bet, by having friends parked visibly nearby... the cloaked player has to bet you are unprepared as well as ALL of your buddies being AFK, before acting against you would seem safe.

Just for fun, have an alt say things in local, like: Come out come out, wherever you are...
(Just to emphasize the presence of your support being ready)

Your buddies can totally be AFK, or not. Just like the cloaked player.

Your analogy is just wrong. If rain is the cloaker then your analogy would assume that he is going to strike regardless of if there is an umbrella or not. However a more accurate dipiction of what you are saying is....

Carry an umbrella with you, even when its sunny, cause you might get caught in a cloud burst.

Rather impractical. And baiting someout out using local? Cant say I have ever seen that work. EVER. How obvious is it if you start talking trash in local.

Like I said. The camper will look, see its not worth his time and go back to being AFK.