Player Features and Ideas Discussion

My ability to use local is not at all diminished by the presence of a cloaker. It works just as well as it always does, and in most situations moving to alternate systems is the best bet. So no, it's not countering local, it's countering null PvE in a given system. It's using local as a tool to do it, but it's not countering the effectiveness of local.

I've read the arguments, I simply feel what you want is unreasonable. You want null PvE to suffer because you think that if they stop people retaining 100% safety while AFK, there should be an associated cost. That's all this is. It's you wanting people to be punished because you feel you're going to lose out. I'm not going to quote you in detail and respond to each point because quite honesty you are just insulting me and trolling at this point and I refuse to enter into a discussion with someone like that.

And what either side thinks is irrelevant. CCP will do what CCP will do. I personally don't think they will nuke null into the ground by removing local, and if it is removed it will likely be replaced by something equal in power making it a pointless change. I can;t see them going though a massive sov rebalance only to dropkick the vast majority of PvE players out of null. AFK cloaking however I can see them taking a stance on as AFK play is never good.

These I'll respond to
High sec does in fact have local, and wormholes are for the most part empty.

If they increased null rewards too significantly they would see another monument shooting uprising from the rest of the playerbase. AS for supply and demand, there's nothing null supplies that can't be fetched in other areas of space.

What is with this goddamn stance! Nothing must change unless they also change something else. Not because it needs to happen, but because you want an associated cost. There's absolutely no reason that one can't be changed without the other, and the suggestion CCP has already put forward for cloaking fixes the issue without breaking cloaks. When you repeatedly state this you come across as an overly entitled player, like other player should not be allowed changes that benefit them unless they also receive heavy nerfs. It's absolutely ludicrous.

No, I'm saying that wormhole space has a tiny fraction of the population of null, so suggesting wormhole space as proof that space without local retains a significant portion of null population doesn't really work.

But it wasn't local that was countered! Local still works exactly as it did before, local is entirely unaffected.
Seriously, I'm done arguing this, since you're just going to keep saying !"but it was countered" as if you talking about it being used as a tool is proof. I'm done going in circles with you. If you want to continue thinking it's a counter to local, be my guest, it won't change a thing.

As it currently stands you get at most a second between the appearance for each party. if they made it so you appeared as soon as your screen had loaded grid, nothing would be any different. Removing local which is being suggested here is a considerably more significant change. From seeing these arguments over the years, most of your side won't be happy until they can sidle up next to a PvE player unseen and only show up when they decloak. Maybe you're not included in that group, I don't know, but that's what they want. Free and easy kills.

It is called balance Lucas. The current system is balanced, yet sub-optimal. To maintain that changing just one of the two mechanics involved will likely result in imbalance. How about this, cloaks are made scannable via probes, but you cannot land closer than 20km, and cloaked ships can now lock and fire their weapons and ewar (including warp scrams and disruptors)? No? What a shock...all you want is a benefit with no cost. In short, you want to get an indirect buff to null PvE via nerfing a form of game play you find objectionable.

But surely you can see there's a significant difference in the severity of these, right? AFK cloaking is a minor inconvenience to a small group of players. Removal of local is a crippling blow the the majority of PvE players. It's like saying "You can have this extra shoelace in case yours breaks, but in exchange I'm taking both of your arms. Fair?".

I do see this, and agree, the sov rebalance will be a massive nerf to null PvE, which is why I don't think it should be further nerfed by removing local too. The sov rebalnace does however offer alternative guerilla warfare opportunities though, so AFK cloaking I feel could be removed quite safely.

it's not all that unhelpful, most people use local all the time in highsec. Having gankers set red for example is a pretty good way of seeing them arrive, as is seeing them go criminal when you didn't know they were a ganker.

The prices would eventually balance back out to a norm. Probably higher than now, but that's not a bad thing since T2s are too cheap anyway. Beyond the hubs most systems have few enough players that a compact member list and a tall chatbox will show most players at a glance.

Perhaps you missed it, I noted that both players seeing each other at the same time was the bare minimum. That the PvE pilot gets not advanced warning to get safe. If you are slow to hit warp, or were re-aligning to stay in range or something...well sucks to be you as you are facing more risk. At the same time the PvP pilot should not get any advanced indication of ratting activity...to be quite honest I'd like to see that aspect of dotlan removed. I'd even consider the average number of pilots in space being revamped somehow.

Oh and it is more than a second between hitting jump and being able to take an in-game action.

As for the part about moving up next to an unsuspecting PvE player...why are you complaining? You keep saying your beef is with AFK cloaking and their perfect safety while taking a dump, going to the grocery or rubbing one out. But....I think you just let slip your actual intent...safer PvE in null.

Oh, and good going on ignoring that I don't advocate just removing local. That intel is handled via another mechanic and/or that cloaks are now scannable...maybe even just visible on d-scan. Or maybe have 2 d-scan modes, one that is like the current d-scan and second mode that has less range (put still pretty far out there) but will only detect cloaked ships. IDK, but I'd like the new system to be balanced so that PvE in null is viable as is PvP and AFK cloaking is a thing of the past.

And thats why we are trying to keep it balanced.

you're the one asking for changes in only one direction and trying to upset balance.



Look at your own posts. You fling more **** than anyone else here. If you want to return discussion to what it was like before you got here, im all for that.



I thought if local was removed everyone would leave null and its population would be very small.

So are you now saying that PvE and PvP would be just as healthy in null as WH's (which is to say very) if local was changed because the no local dynamic works with low populations?

if not, why not?

At the moment it's pretty much as close as it's likely to be. It's about a second between showing up in a system and being able to move if you side by side two clients. Obviously there's network lag which can affect that, but if they made it much closer it would just mean people from the UK would get a jump on other players. They've spoken about the potential ability to fake data that gets served up on the map and API, but quite honestly it's irrelevant since it's trivial to find ratters in null without those, especially if you are looking for a particular group of players.

Because I think active cloaking is balanced as is. Making it more viable for a cloaked ship to get right next to a ship would break that balance.

For it to be replaced with another mechanic it would need to be removed. If the other mechanic didn't give the same ability to see neuts when they arrived the problem would be the same as it's complete removal, it would open the opportunity for players to always win against a PvE player no matter what they did, because there would always be ways to evade detection which is their only realistic defense without keeping a fleet on grid- which is a terrible idea because this is a game, and noone wants to sit and watch other players PvE.

Why is it you seem to have no concept of severity of changes? I'd rather keep the status quo that go with the idea of nuking local into the ground. AFK cloakers are at most a minor irritant. The worst part about them is the fact that they can stay safe while completely AFK, not even the actual effect they have. You're suggesting that making them vulnerable, or even just making them show up as AFK should be balanced by destroying the ability to use local intel. How can you possibly believe those changes are in comparable?

It could be structured in a way to make it better, IMO. If it cannot be made where, on average, each pilot sees each other at pretty much the same time, then local is too good especially with just a nerf to cloaks.



No you don't. Not really. Because that active cloaked ship would still be scannable, which IIRC, was one of your suggestions. That is a nerf to even active cloaking too. So all you get is no change for active cloakers...if anything they get a nerf too. And AFK is gone for good...in the end you are made safer. Or to put it diffferently you are implying that the status quo is stacked against you...which of course is laughable.



If it is "just as good" then we'd have to leave in AFK cloaking. You should not be able to rat with the low level of risk that the current local provides without providing players a way to disrupt that. And not just for 15-20 minutes.



What are you talking about. My top preference was "Change both local and cloaks in a balanced and reasonable manner that eliminates AFK cloaking". Where is the severity in that? I write that I want PvE in null to be viable post any changes to local/intel and cloaks and you just fly off the handle pretending like whatever I wrote before never happened.

Well, I can see we disagree on a few details here.

Without an advanced warning, the contest between the two sides would be opposed, rather than against a timer.
I grant that effort is required for such, perhaps as drastic as a scout one system out who alerts those ill equipped to fight.

Being blapped by rats... that's a sad indictment of poor preparation, if NPCs actually pose a meaningful threat to players farming them.
A specifically designed PvP ship, now... you mean this handicapped ship with the covert cloak?
If you rat in a BS, this should be the punchline of a joke.
If you are worried about being hot dropped, then say that instead.

As to the killboard, that is funny.
Most consensual encounters there involved roams meeting response groups, or AFK PvE pilots listening to the sounds of themselves being podded from the bathroom.
(I've done it too, kept the ships working when I knew I was leaving myself open to attack by stepping away. Flaw in judgement, but it never got me caught yet, knock wood)

You may may notice the killboards lack any listing for pilot who was both attentive and prepared, but was unable to avoid the newly arrived hostile. The encounter simple never happens, because the attentive and prepared pilot always gets away.