Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Clones were needed each and every time a player was podded, or risk losing skill points.

If another player is providing you intel, then you have no need or direct value in seeking it yourself.

To what end would you choose to duplicate the efforts of another player?
There is no expectation you can improve on their efforts.
If they tell you player X arrived on gate, your achieving that same intel directly has diminished to the point of being a meaningless effort.

This would be more comparable to boosting, in that context.
Do you see everyone boosting?

Who said local is the only one we want changed? What about free intel from maps, watchlists etc etc

Most of us are happy to bundle: cloaks, local, watchlists, map intel, cyno's and all other intel and covert play mechanics into the same group for rebalancing.

Its people like you that are whining about needing local so you can rat safely. What you want is to remove peoples ability to sneak up on you so you can rat safely.



Specifically;
- Local counters cloaks.
- AFK cloaking counters local.
- Calling the cloakers bluff, moving system or ratting in groups counters afk cloaking, but is a nice, healthy gamble thanks to Cyno's.
- Cyno's are problematic.

A cloaked ship is intended for covert play. It is a tool for (amongst other things) gaining the initiative or ambushing in an engagement. Local completely counters that and you cannot use a cloak to ambush anyone where there is local. Instead you are more likely to get the initiative or effectively ambush someone by doing a log off trap or going afk, or in other words not playing. Hence our problem.

Its not good gameplay, and it is irrefutably caused by local. Thus local should be changed, especially if cloaks are changed.



Oh my god!

Read the thread...You'd realise we do this several times during this thread (and hundreds of threads over the years) until someone like you or Kell come in and whine about losing local and we have to go over it all again...



WH rewards are high because T3's are in high demand and there are few people that are willing and capable to do what we do.

Likewise Null rewards are less than WH's because anyone and their pet hamster can do what you do, and they can do it a lot. So much so that inflation was perceived to be problem in EVE for a good while, until isk sink after isk sink was introduced.

Add some risk to null sec and that raw isk becomes more valuable than it has been in years.



Edit- it may even free up some ideas that were dumped because they removed isk sinks.

That is assuming they were evading. That is an unwarranted assumption.



Stop putting words in other people's keyboards. I gripe that people get away too easily due to local. Intel channels don't bother me as it takes actual effort and player interactions. Local does not. Or let me put it this way, of course you'll ignore it and run to straw man (maybe you should ask him out on a date), local allows for ease of evasion for little or no work. You did nothing to earn local, you put nothing in place to obtain that intel. So then people turn around and use cloaks and local for reducing resource/isk acquisition...seems reasonable to me. If anything the cloaker did more to earn his place than you did. He at least had to train the skills to use that cloak. You did nothing for local.

And there you go again...if it can't be the way I want it has to be this really bad way! I never suggested anything like that. But then again arguing with a straw man is always easier.

And I already said numereous times that removing local (or something similar) would probably solve the cloaky problem (even though it is not the only possible solution) but would mean that the rewards from 0.0 anoms have to be increased a lot since this would increase the risk a lot.

Increasing isk from anomalies is very unlikely to happen not matter what the future holds. CCP is already watching the flow of isk from null very closely. In fact, it is the single biggest isk source in the game. Let me put some numbers on it for you, in 2010 December isk from bounties was 25 Trillion isk that flowed into the game.

So in CCP's opinion there is plenty of isk coming in via null sec ratting and they are unlikely to change it. In fact, given their concern with inflation they may decide that having it get nerfed via other changes is just fine. In fact, remove AFK cloaking and CCP might nerf null sec ratting income directly. How does slashing bounties in half grab ya?

That being said, I have never advocated simply removing local. But removing local and a new intel mechanic would get rid of AFK cloaking, but such a change must ensure that null sec PvE is viable, otherwise it will be bad.

I want the status quo between active players to remain as it is (with thousands dying daily), and people who want to AFK to burn in hell. What you want is easy kills against ratters who can't possibly escape because you are on them before they can react. You're a carebear.

Yes, I'm sure they all thought their unarmed ships stood a great deal of chance against their attackers. Obviously they stood their ground and it wasn't at all that they simply didn't evade quickly enough.

They obviously don't get away too easily or they wouldn't die every day. Whatever way you swing it, what you are pushing for is a system where is both the aggressor and the defender act perfectly, the aggressor wins. As it is now, if both act perfectly the defender evades with a second or two margin for error, and while the aggressor doesn't get a kill the defender doesn't get to continue their activity. It can't really be more fair that what it is. It's not putting words in your keyboard to read what you want and see what the outcome would be. You want easy kills, whether you're willing to admit it or not.

And no, much like hundreds of mechanics in the game, nothing was done for local. Nothing was done to use gates, nothing was done to be able to use the market, nothing was done to be able to mail other players. That doesn't mean the mechanics should just be removed. At the end of the day, if local goes, so does a massive chunk of the game, and cowards like you won't get those easy kills you are after, you'll just get empty space to cry in.

I was assuming you were using the "I want" to write from the perspecive of a generic afk camper, not you personally... hence the "you want" in the reply.

Also you seem to misunderstand what I meant with the alliance or corporation income. I meant the combined ratting income from the players in the corporation/alliance. This is what the cloaker is aiming for, not a single player as a specific target.

Also what point exactly are you trying to argue here? You originally said that moving out of the system would "counter" the cloaky, since then he would not have an effect at all. So now you admit it actually is effective to reduce the income?

Could you please make up your mind? Is afk cloaking a way to reduce the income of the players of an alliance or not? If it is then there is no point in claiming that local is a counter... local is there, if the effect remains, it obviously was not countered.



Now you are assuming that I said somewhere that the first part of your statement (the cloaky presents zero risk) is true. I did not. You said that. And that contracitcts the next statement.



A risk of exploding close to 1, is simply balanced for an activity that includes virtually zero effort (being afk) only risks very small assets (only a cheap bomber) and has a huge effect (influencing the whole system, drastically reducing the ratting possiblities for everyone there). No hypocrisy there, just adequate risk.
If there was a way to fly anos complelty afk for hours and make good ISK from that, a chance of exploding close to 1 would also be fine. Or maybe shoot structures afk with laser boats. You also have a chance of about 1 to explode if anyone objects to your actions. Thats just balanced.



Again: what point are you trying to argue here? That you consider some areas to be imbalanced in terms of risk vs reward, so we should throw the concept of risk vs rewards completly out of the window?

I dont really see the problem with the pi problem, maybe you are thinking of some details you didnt mention... but I dont even see how that is relevant.




So? That just means you should balance both, not defend the broken one. Still no reason to defend a mechanic you actually want to be gone instead of argueing for balance on both.

No trolling I suppose is a by product of game management. If I can force 10 guys to stay docked up because I am super spooky in my AFK Cloaky than I have damaged them in game. If they feed me delicious tears and whining in local (or a thread like this) that is way more valuable an outcome than a KM because I know my tactic for financial deprivation is actually causing someone irritability.

As for my 100% safety...if Nullbears actually used their systems, I wouldn't have a clear 20 jump path without seeing a single person until I hit the "good" space. I should be getting reported in an intel channel as soon as I enter your space and a gate camp should be established to catch me...if the space was used of course...but it isn't so I am not.

Its not my fault your intel network is incredibly filled with holes, and you and your friends are either to risk averse or ignorant to assisting each other to do anything about me LONG before I cloak in your prime ratting space.

I have been involved in this discussion for a long time. And actually, the suggestion to "move systems" is an old one. However, the amount of resistance to this idea is staggering in the threads it has been suggested in. Instead people simply dock up, and spin their ship or log off. So, despite this obvious and oft suggested response to AFK cloaking...it apparently works at reducing incomes.

For example, you seem to acknowledge that it is a possible response to AFK cloaking...but you seem dis-inclined to use it and instead want to change game mechanics and introduce an imbalance.

Oh, and based on comments by CCP devs, they do not appear to see AFK cloaking as unbalanced.



I already explained that, but I'll try again. Suppose we are going to bet on a sporting outcome. I say team is going to win with probability 0.9. You laugh and say, no they'll with probability 0.1. Are we both wrong? Am I wrong? Are you wrong? The short answer is "No." Those are subjective probabilities and they are not wrong even though they are very different. Same thing applies to what I wrote.



That is because you refuse to deal with the risk yourself. Sorry, I find it still to be a hypocritical position.



There is, it's called botting and is actually very unbalanced even with CCP banning them. So the above is just errant nonsense.



Risk and rewards are not fixed or pre-determined parameters. Risk is a function of your behavior and that of other players. Because a player has found a way to increase your risk does not mean you are entitled to a mechanics change to increase their risk. Either find a way to increase their risk or reduce yours or both.