Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Yes, I was purposefully trying to show that BOTH sides of this debate abuse the relevant mechanics. Both the PvE pilots (i.e. those who spend most of their game time ratting, mining, etc. in null) want to and do use local chat and its infallibility to minimize any risk of operating in null. The PvP pilots realizing how cloaks and local work use cloaks and the very same mechanic PvE pilots rely on against said PvE pilots. And that while the two abuses balance out in the end we are left with sub-optimal play. No CCP Dev has the sack to show up and agree with this, IMO. But I'd be willing to bet that if they could comment anonymously they'd probably agree with this position.

The PvE pilots hate that local is a double edged sword and want to change just that. They want local to work for them, but not for the AFK cloaker. The supporting evidence can be found here, as was referenced in the very first post in this thread by ISD LackOfFaith. Those threads show idea after idea to simply nerf cloaks. Cloak fuel, cloaks using cap so that the cap runs dry and the cloak shuts off, POS modules to decloak cloaked ships, special scan probes to find cloaked ships, cloaking field decay, etc. I think only one discussed nerfing local...all the rest were summarized by this simple sentence, "Please, CCP, nerf cloaks so I can rat with even more security than I already have in null sec."

I would contend that many, if not most, PvP pilots would accept a nerf to cloaks with a nerf to local and implementation of a new intel mechanic, although I'm sure you can find those who would change nothing.

My position has been, for quite awhile, nerf local/nerf cloaks => a better game if only marginally.

So...we've been in violent agreement on the first part. And while I think local == afk camping/cloaking, lets let that go in the interest of maybe having a discussion that somebody important might find constructive....hey, I'm a glass is half full kind of guy.

Honestly not a huge fan of the spool up idea. Personally I have never had an issue with hotdropping. I have always consider this the cornerstone of CovOps. What has always bothered me, and is why I dislike AFK cloaking is that I cant return the favor, so to speak.

If I get dropped on, and I get podded, I can reship quickly and get back. But once the attackers cloak is engaged its game over. Nothing anyone can do. This is my frustration with AFK campers as well. I am tired of living on the defensive. I wish to take the fight back to the cloak in a more offensive manner.

Which in itself is kind of funny cause I keep getting called a carebear but my stance on AFK cloaking has always been that I want to PVP against them.

Forgot to add. I feel the spool up makes the cyno ship far more vulnerable than it already is when attacking.

The root discussion point is that we first should all agree that no-one should be able to exert a meta force in game without actively playing.

In this regard a cloaked player that goes AFK is still exerting a meta force on game play, influencing other players actions (or inaction) with his perceived presence in system, even though he is actually not present. So 'something' must be done, this is bad and CCP is bad for not doing something sooner TBH.

The resolution plan to the issue is so simple and balanced in fact, I question why it has not already been applied. After 10-15 minutes of no keyboard/mouse activity in the EvE client, a player is given a popup window saying "Inactivity Logoff Imminent...Press 'OK' to stay logged in'. If they don't click 'OK', they are then automatically logged off from EvE.

Done, issue is solved and in a balanced way. The actual timeout value is tunable to CCP's tastes, so someone can still step away briefly to answer a phone, go to the washroom, pay the pizza delivery dude..whatever.

Again, the real question is why hasn't CCP implemented this obvious fix already, or provided compelling rationale as to why a player should still be allowed to exert meta forces on game play without actually being there...

F

Your kinda flipping things on its head to say that the remedy to fixing an error condition when applied equally to all sides is somehow unjust? That's quite the spin...

Why wouldn't the inactivity timer equally apply to 'sov holders' also? Regardless of being AFK docked in station, AFK Ishtar ratting, AFK mining or doing AFK cloaky asshattery it would all apply to everyone equally.

You also would need to provide specifics on how people would 'figure out a way to bypass the timer' beyond hyperbole red-herring. I am confident CCP could detect auto-OK bots and the like, hell just use captcha on the popup if your so worried about that...

Back to my original point though, if people don't fundamentally agree to the underlying premise that no-one should exert a force in-game without actually being active in game, then this discussion is over before it begins, because people like you will always just raise red-herrings to justify support of a broken mechanic, or to do nothing to address it 'because'.

F

heh its almost like you didnt even read what i had written you just saw a few choice stand out terms and were compelled to re-parrot what keeps repeating in your head.

i would have more clearly defined and explained what a misnomer is for you to fully understand what the term means but unfortunately ISD Ezwal deemed that post to be trolling, whether he thought that i was in some way inferring a demeaning tone or something of that description.
Honestly i was just gauging the potential that you were familiar with the term and actually educating you on the term with examples.

its just unfortunate that the post was cut out. ohh well.

Just stop trying to equivocate here. We both agree that AFK "play" is not good game "play". Yes?

Would you also agree that local, as it works now, and cloaks, as they work now, are balanced? You can agree to this EVEN IF THIS BALANCE IS SUB-OPTIMAL.*

For me, I'd say yes to both. Aside from maybe AFK auto-piloting (which CODE. is rendering less and less of a play style) most forms of AFK "play" are not very desirable. I would also argue that local as an intel tool is also not desirable as it is one of the primary causes of AFK cloaking.

Do you find the above claims so antithetical to your view of EVE? If the answer is yes, we really have nothing to talk about, IMO. I think EVE should be about having to do stuff...its a sandbox for chrissake, not WoW. You want something...work for it...with the understanding that it shouldn't become a second job of course.

Oh and forever no to captcha. I've found that captcha have become almost complete illegible to try and dodge bots. I sit there reloading **** all f--king day till I can get one I think I can read only to find out I was still wrong. That is a horrible idea and you (Feyd Rautha Harkonnen) should be ashamed if you think that is a good idea.

*All caps, italics, bold, etc. is for emphasis, not shouting.

You know, you take one step forward then two backwards.

Local sucks.

Local is why we have AFK cloaking.

The logic is simple and irrefutable.

That you refuse to admit this is not my problem, but yours. Especially since it appears CCP thinks this way too.

Oh, and local does not require active playing. It merely requires being logged in. I've used scouts in one system to ensure I have warning while ratting. Do you know what I do with that scout alt? Nothing. I log him in, put him at a safe, then activate cloak and then do NOTHING. After that I do, once again, NOTHING with that character. I just look at the screen occasionally. If that is your definition of active game play, then AFK cloaking probably fits so long as the player comes by the screen every now and then and looks at it.

Intel channels depend on the current form of local too. If I am docked in station I can put tons of information into the intel channel as it currently stands. I can link everyone in local, system name, and do so rather quickly. I can quickly add the number of pilots in system too as local tells me that too. All at a mere glance and minimal "play". However, intel channels are more along the lines of how it should be done. Players are actually doing something vs. just sitting there and having all the information handed to them on a silver platter. Intel in general should work like this, IMO. Any new mechanic that just does the silver platter thing is Bad™.

The situation must be fixed on both sides. Any attempt to fix it on one side will almost surely result in imbalance. Further, I would submit that two bad mechanics that are balanced is a better situation where you have a situation with two bad mechanics and imbalance. We can see it this way. Suppose we make it so local is like WH space and leave cloaks as is. Since cloaked ships can still use D-scan such a ship can come into system undetected. There is only a small window to pick them up on D-scan as they drop gate cloak and engage covert cloak. Now the ship moves into system and uses D-scan and the handy little pointers as to where various sites are in system to get a location on the ratter/miner. Using his cloak, he warps in to where the poor ratter is totally unsuspecting his evening is about to be ruined. Our cloaked killer, gets into position and drops cloak and calls in his buddies. Result, 1 dead ratter.

There is very little in the way of counter to the above scenario. So "fixing local" would likely result in covert cloaked ships being considerably too powerful.

Similarly if we just "fixed cloaks" then there would indeed be no more AFK cloaking, but there would be no counter to the flawless intel that local provides. And considering that local provides intel to the person in system faster than to the person entering the system it provides a distinct edge to the system resident(s). Again, an unbalanced result.

This has been discussed and pointed out time and again to the PvE players yet they refuse to even acknowledge some of the basic facts such as local gives the person already in system a few seconds of advance warning that a hostile just entered system and has yet to load grid. However, this is a fact that has been demonstrated over, and over again.

Bottom line: local is broken. Badly. However, cloaks are broken too (in the limited context of this issue), but fortuitously enough they counter each other thus we have balance...but it is sub-optimal. And yes, that **** happens all the time. In fact, in economics we have a name for this kind of thing, the [theory of the] second best.

We agree. Change both...or neither, although I'd prefer a well thought change to doing nothing and that is the harder of the two.

In my old thread I posted this a few times hoping for some discussion.

http://www.themittani.com/features/local-problem-tale-two-solutions