Player Features and Ideas Discussion

b) No, because this is EVE. (See Nikk's point about logging in while docked).

There are a few instances where players are extremely safe. Further, I have pointed out the following facts about a pilot cloaked at a safe and AFK:

1. He cannot harm anyone directly.
2. He cannot gather intel.
3. He cannot trade.
4. He cannot set up contracts.
5. He cannot change market orders.
6. He can't really do anything other than....show up in local and thereby scare the bejeebers out of the people want to PvE.

Even if he is not AFK and he wants to stay 100% safe (note this is Mike's problem, the "100% safety") the player can only really do that by staying at that safe spot, where the list is revised to:

1. He cannot harm anyone directly.
2. He cannot trade.
3. He cannot change market orders (maybe depends on where h).
4. He can't really do anything other than....show up in local and thereby scare the bejeebers out of the people want to PvE.
5. He cannot move (this may seem...wrong, but keep in mind we are talking about maintaining 100% safety, warping anywhere introduces at least some chance of being decloaked and killed).

BTW, this is the reason why those who do not favor simply nerfing cloaks also retort about having a mechanism to eject AFK players from stations....after all, this is EVE and nobody should be safe anywhere...right?

I try and fail to picture what a local reflecting cloaked status would look like; with names popping up and disappearing again based on the status of their ship. I can already see all new kinds of griefing by cloaking / decloaking to utterly confuse anyone trying to keep track of it, and using bogus alts named "Y47x11110QKALL" to make it all but improssible to check anything, since we'd be unable to drag/drop names that disappear too fast.

Not to mention waiting for a known cloaked vessel (eg Astero) with scanprobes out to become visible in local because then you'd know they dropped their cloak and are out there, somewhere, hacking a site. Not knowing the cloaked/decloaked status of a vessel is intel in its own right. A mechanic that would hide cloaked vessels (and as some would suggest, vessels in POS shields or docked in station as well) from local would automatically imply that character X has undocked / left the shield / decloaked.

The only way to assert NO intel is provided whatsoever would be to adopt the wormhole local everywhere.

Don't cry for "no local" too hastily, there are SEVERE downsides.

Don't forget that scan probes would show up on D-scan. So even if the astero pilot was not showing in local...you could see his probes.

Also, here is a good post in the OA thread to read.

There are no fine details here. The way this problem "AFK cloaking" works is pretty simple.

It works be cloaks render a ship unscannable and the pilot of the cloaked vessel shows up in local. Both are infallible and both are impervious to any sort of disruption.

If CCP leaves local and nerfs cloaks...that is a really bad move, IMO.

Regarding accessing the market...maybe. Depends on how good your skills are and how far you are from your market orders.

There are a number of fine details.

The situation with cloaks is not just an issue linked to holding sov or having the resources to field and maintain large structures.

The issue falls back down to a module not having equivalence to structures. To require an expensive, immobile,, vulnerable structure with ongoing costs to be able to counter the absolute safety of any random ship with a spare utility high is completely insane. They already said it won't be a deployable, so it's not something you can put down and pick up as you move around, yet many activities put in danger from cloaked campers require moving around. So to be able to counter the threat from an infinitely sustainable module I need at least one OA per system I may need to operate in... Completely unreasonable.

It's a module, it should be countered with a module. It has a class of ship devoted to making it better, so a class devoted to defeating it is also reasonable. In the interest of ties going to the defender requiring the specialized hull with the specialized module to defeat the less powerful general cloak also seems reasonable.

Well, they have changed local. Once to improve upon its intelligence with standings, and once to create wormholes at least.

As a UI element it also has a team devoted to monitoring and improving it.

I think it's not been addressed because it's a PvE problem and the current crop of Devs come from the ranks of the type of folks who love tears. There was a time when EVE as a world got developed, but that is still stuck in 2005 or so, with the outdated standings mechanics, poor npc Corp integration to gameplay, static mission system, and abandoned WIS.

It's possible the OA will address some of it. It's also possible that module tiericide will address it, as it will be the first time cloaks have been considered for balance apart from cov-ops, recon and black-ops hulls. I strongly doubt it in either case, but it's possible. It's just too niche of a problem to get much attention- they don't affect the largest population in the game (high sec mission runners), and despite the noise on the forums it only bothers one of the smallest populations, and is actively used by the same kind of people the devs are, or at least were.

Local is its own issue. It's pretty dishonest to claim you need AFK cloaked camps to roam. You may need them to attack lone industry and ratters more easily, but that is a choice you make and not a problem with local. You are not entitled to free shots at non-combat worthy ships.

However, if you take off into enemy space without a cloak I am pretty sure you will find PvP encounters with a fairly short wait. You won't like them, as they won't be singled out helpless ships, but it will be PvP and at least you stand a better chance than you were offering your chosen targets.

I could be wrong, but you won't see the changes in local you want even with OA. Nothing a blue name has said even hints at it.

I still don't understand what "local" has to do with anything.

The problem is that there are ships in space you cannot find nor engage. Changing local would make for other interesting options, as anyone who has spent some time in a wormhole knows -- but it still doesn't address the main issue.

I don't want to play alone in the multiplayer sandbox! I want to play with my friend over there; tag him, toss snowballs at him; gift him a free crate of 720mm premium grade Uranium, hugs and a free ride on the PodExpress

What people advocating changes to local keep milling on about -while perhaps worthy of discussion- is that it would not be perceived as an issue if you didn't know he was there in the first place.

Is that really so? What if I had some buddies keeping a close eye on the gates (undoubtedly using our own cloakies) and I knew for a fact my playbuddy was in the house? Then where does that take your argument? I know he's there. Because of scouts. Watchlist. Intel channels. Because I saw him fly through and cloak up. For whatever reason: I know my ole' buddy went to my little corner of the sandbox.

Why can't I go play with him?

What difference could it possible make that his name shows up in local, be it highlighted, delayed, faked, server-tick accurate or not at all ; he's out in space. I feel the urge to interact. I'm social like that

People repeat over and over again that cloaking somehow has something to do with local -- and I wonder what it is. Where is this mysterious link that keeps eluding me? Would you require me to proof to the EvE client that I KNOW by entering the name of the person I wish to scan for? Is that what it's all about? People think they ought to be hidden yet thanks to "local" they're not? Well, think again. I might have been sitting on this gate. I saw you cloak up. I saw what you did there. I might have a strong hunch you're here because you're here every bloody day.

And now you want to tell me "local chat" is to blame? No Sir. Want me to provide your name and last known coordinate, would that improve my chances of pinpointing your location? Could I up the odds even more if I told the client what ship type we're looking for?

Perhaps yes, ships you haven't seen shouldn't be so readily presented to you. But that has nothing to do with the total and complete invulnerability a 1 million ISK module provides.


In light of furthering the debate, how about this:

every player / corp / alliance (whichever is higher) has his own list of known locals. People are placed into this list whenever you see them on grid, and removed whenever you see them leave OR whenever somebody in your corp/alliance spots them elsewhere. For example, a member in your alliance was watching the gate and saw person X jump through. X's location is now known for every member of the alliance, and shows up in local for any member thereof. When another corpmate witnesses X leave, his name is taken off the list.

Knowing (or strongly suspecting) this person X is in my system, I use BioLocator Probes to scan him down by name.

Said system allows strong (OA anyone?) intelligence networks to provide accurate intel in their sovereign space, yet at the same time allows unguarded backwaters to be ambushed by regular uncloaked roaming gangs traveling from gate to gate.

You get the ability to genuinly travel unseen, provided you have indeed not been spotted by the homies.
And I get the ability to look for you and tell you up-close how I feel about your presence in my corner of space.


Deal?

I'd like to point out that this change came out, a few months after a large organised group had already found a way of doing exactly that. As a major change to the client to stop it was ruled out, (practically impossible tbh) they decided to just add it as a feature for all.

Make of that what you will.

So nothing in this 133 page circle fest has given you a clue yet? Really?

I'm sorry I stopped right there, much like Mags apparently did....

Seriously...you don't see the issue with local.

How do you know I am AFK camping your system?