Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I have argue explicitly that if a change to local makes null sec (NS) less viable than high sec (HS), then NS needs to be buffed. In fact, my position is that NS needs to be buffed in general. I think NS game design should be in the direction of making NS more self-sufficient. Not necessarily more rat bounties, but make it so that people can still sustain themselves in NS without having to rely so heavily on JFs and other logistics operations moving stuff from NS to HS.

So, I’m not sure who you think you are addressing this towards. And nowhere have I argued that a PvE pilot must allow engagements or fight when he will surely lose. Further, you cannot point to anything I’ve written suggesting otherwise.

As for NS rewards, I think that if NS rewards from ratting in a given system dip below the potential earnings of HS the so what? If you can’t be arsed to move over a system or learn how to adapt to a cloaked player who is almost surely AFK…that is your problem. FYI, yes I’ve ninja’d stuff out of POCOs to keep my PI process going. Not hard when using bookmarks, safe spots, cloaks and that the interloper is almost surely AFK. Has it not always worked out? Yeah, but at least I’m not sitting in station shaking my fist at Devs and the rest of Eve. And losing the odd epithal every few months is not a huge deal when you can make so much ISK with PI.

And what needs to be kept in mind is not that NS provides greater rewards every second of every day, but that on average over a given period of time NS can provide greater rewards than HS. And those rewards may not be just ISK based. I like living in NS because of the guys in my corp and alliance and coalition. I like having the opportunity to PvP.

And you exaggerate with the PvP 101% of the time. I spend quite a bit of time in game not doing PvP. I also enjoy the PvE/industry side of the game very much. In fact, it was the Eve economy that first drew me to the game.

BTW, you should go listen to the Meta Show with the Mittani and Lazarus Telraven (July 22nd IIRC) where they talk about how using procurors in NS properly fit can not only help boost their ADM levels and present a not insubstantial threat to hostiles. Park 10-15 procurors in an ice belt and have them with a solid tank and pilots with good drone skills and the lone cloaky ship will not engage. Heck, you’d probably want to bring in quite a few more guys which is also easier to spot and get reported in intel channels. So your claim that there is hostility to PvE in NS may have been true when doing PvE in NS didn’t add much value to the corp/alliance/coalition and could be handled with alts for the most part. But now….now mining fleets to push up the ADM levels are a thing. In fact, it might very well turn out that a pilot more interested in mining than PvP (but who will PvP when necessary) will be as important or maybe even more so than the mostly pure combat line member.

It is the sole reason Fozzie gave. It's very important that PvE be disrupted, and AFK cloaking is one of the most effective methods to do that.

It is acknowledged that it has real effect, and it's totally ok because it keeps PvE suppressed.

/sigh. Define this mythical floor you keep talking about.

And do you really do PvE in systems where you haven't checked to see if sigs are WHs? wow...




The base assumption is there is no such thing as pure PvE. You DO realize what game you are playing, right?

And you DO realize this is a video game. The point is to have fun, not to maximize profits.

You replying is one of two things.

1. You don't quite understand what game this is
2. You are a pretty decent troll yourself

Maybe it makes devs happy, for ISK balancing equations. They seem to be concerned about balancing this.

I am more worried over player perception.
Especially after hearing it pointed out that high sec is so competitive with null, on the category of PvE profitability.

I hear games being attractive because they are fun, not so much well balanced.

PONG was well balanced. Not so much on the fun part, these days...

Nah, I know about the wormholes. I don't not play just because there is an unmonitored entrance to the system. I also don't stick around and wait to be tackled in a ship fit for PvE. I am happy to reship and engage, I am happy to reship and clear the space, if it were possible. I am not happy with being punished because some jackwagon decided to log in, without having a way to combat that person.

I don't believe in pure PVE, and neither pure PvE nor Pure PvP is available in EVE. I do believe in level playing fields.

Thie issue is that Sandbox means everyone can do what they want, not everyone can do what they want so long as it conforms to what you want.

Your lack of a single kill on your killboard suggests you are not happy to reship and engage.

I agree with your last sentence 100%. Which is why you can't get your blingy PvE without risk.

You also skipped when I asked what kind of PvE you're talking about that you can't run in ANY PvP fit ship.

I think my upvote / like button is hidden by plugin blockers ..... but +1 Sir. You succeed in explaining things so clear even I can understand. And despite the flamewar going on between Mike and Tachos, I must admit (to my dismay) I believe Tach's point of view has merit.

It didn't quite play out the way I thought it would because it seemed almost "obvious" the cloak was overpowered, just as I took local channel for granted. I see things different now.

I felt the need to share this, as in too many discussions neither party manages to convince the other.



With that out of the way, could you please re-iterate *exactly* what changes you propose? For all the beating-around-the-bush has left me somewhat confused as to what exactly needs to be done.

Am I correct in assuming we want:

(1) to allow stealth ships (covops, recons and specific T3s) to NOT show up in local unless under the effect of an Observatory array, to allow them to do what they are supposed to do, e.g.: stealthy infiltration in hostile territory?

(2) to allow observatory arrays AND dedicated scanning ships to pinpoint said shipclasses, to allow the "owner" of a system/wormhole to secure their space either through active effort or ISK investment in static assets?

(3) to allow non-stealth ships to show up in local after some delay, to promote "unexpected" engagements, under the assumption no engagement will occur when everybody in local simply docks up at the first sign of danger? And, to clarify, also under the assumption the ratter has access to intel channels so that, basically, he should still get a heads-up in advance if the alliance is securing the space?

(4) to promote co-operation in PvE wings by leaving solo play as vulnerable as solo PvP play? Or, otherwise put, do we agree that in a 15 to 1 situation, the faction that outnumbers and out-organizes the solo player should indeed win; yet a full complement of PvE players would stand a decent chance against invaders?


The one thing that has me puzzled over the last few pages, is that everybody seems to agree unchallenged cloaking is bad, same as 1.5 bil solo ships making ISKies unchallenged is bad; yet there appears to be a lot of commotion about ...... what exactly?

What it boils down to, is that 1 recon is only dangerous when it lits a cyno. At that moment, however, we're no longer talking about 1 cloaker, but an organized and overpowering attack fleet. The thing is, even non-cloakies can light cynoes and this all the way to lowsec factional warfare.


I admit I do not like the fact that people can go AFK in space. But you're right: the problem is not the cloak. The problem here seems to be the (wrong) assumption that ONE pilot, fit for ONE purpose, wants to go about his business without interference.

You have convinced me with clear arguments and relentless persuasion. I salute you, and thanks all you fine Sirs for your participation in this constructive debate.

Brokk out. Fly wreckless!

I have already admitted that AFK cloaking is bad game play/mechanics. However, so is the way local works/is used as a source of intel and the advantage it gives to the people already in system. Ideally no player nor anything that players rely on should be invulnerable to as a large an extent as is possible.

Not empty quoting. A very good point. Any argument that hinges on not interacting, especially in a sandbox game like this were the primary content is, by definition, provided by the players...players interacting...is going to be weak. This is a very important point that should always be kept in mind.

If you find this notion very objectionable/problematic then...there is a fundamental problem, yes as in...somebody is quite probably playing the wrong game.

These are both great ideas. Put them together. Having the ability to only see what is in local when you are not cloaked
means that you can sit on a gate and watch traffic but not know who is coming or going...although this hurts Intel.

Fuel is a great idea I can see folks hiding cans out in space ...maybe you have to plug it in like a TELSA :)

Maybe a timer....say you can only stay cloaked for 2 hours before you have to uncloak for 5 minutes and then
cloak up again...It would do away with AFK cloaking and you would have to run around to different safe spots
and for 5 minutes you have the pucker factor....