Player Features and Ideas Discussion

And yet the key PvE response would be still avoiding contact.

If interacting with defenses, specifically intended to deny access to PvE targets, was a satisfactory outcome, the cloaked player could have skipped the cloak entirely, and just went on a roam.

Posts like this seem to define PvE as a dead end ISK grind, which punishes the player by denying them actual interaction.
If we don't want PvE to interact, (in a game founded on player interaction), we may wish to consider automating the vulnerable aspects so that the player can at least be more involved with their fellow players.

Make the mining and ratting exclusive to AI managed by the player, who in turn flies something designed to protect these assets by fighting off the opposing players.

Making resource denial a strategic aspect in wars, does NOT require evasion by PvE players in this manner.

It won;t though, be realistic. It would be used by big groups who would have the infrastructure and organisation to build up intel networks. Smaller guys would try to disrupt it for a while, realise it's futile and be back here whining about how CCP caters to the blobs.

I'd much rather they just log off AFK players without decloaking them, sending them into a nice safe spot as if they'd safe logged off if they hadn't interacted in x amount of time and had no aggression timers. The same should be done globally. Noone needs to be made vulnerable and killed, but all AFK play should be discouraged, not just cloaking.

Depends on how vulnerable the intel networ/OA is. Personally, I'd classify it as a non-sov structure (you don't need one to hold space, once you have space you might want one, but it is not a requirement) meaning it would be vulnerable all the time or if that is too much an expanded vulnerability window.

Also, I'd favor having it set up so that OAs can be disrupted without always sending an automated warning. Thus you might think everything is fine and dandy until you jump into the compromised system and are killed.

As for this irrational dislike for AFK "play" I just don't get it. Who cares if a player goes AFK. If a guy wants to AFK auto pilot...fine. Don't care. Go AFK in station? Again, don't care. Sometimes these guys can even provide content inadvertently...just ask the CODE. guys. Somebody is AFK in the game....I just don't care. At all.

Edit: And I agree with Nikk, we should make sure the OA/intel infrastructure is something a small group can take advantage of. Yeah a big group might be able to take greater advantage of it, but sometimes bigger is not always better. Get too much data flowing in for example and you might have a harder time finding the useful bit you need. Players might want to compartmentalize their intel systems for a couple of reasons, make information extraction easier. Make it harder for a hostile to penetrate, for example. If you have one big intel system and a hostile somehow gets access...now he has access to everything.

ALL cloacking module should be auto decloack after 2 hour activation . its the best way for all players live in null sec and wh

Look the renter alliance guy has a horrible idea.

How about your ratting ship just explodes after a week? No? Gee, why not?

For crying out loud Mike, the game has been about hunting those weaker than you since forever. Go read some of the history of Eve, like M0o (Masters of Ownage) who'd set up on a gate and BBQ anything coming through...it got so ridiculous that CCP actually intervened and CCP Devs attacked the M0o ships in Concord ships, althought most M0o players left the grid.



In other words, hunting PvE, PvP, and any other type of ship has always been a Thing™ in game. Claiming that hunting PvE ships is something new, something bad, or something at all is just errant nonsense and stupid suggesting the person who makes such a claim does not actually grasp how things work in New Eden.

Repeatedly you fail to grasp the basic idea behind sandbox.

When the game was new, professions that involved more building than destruction were valued. Many of the game systems are designed to foster conflict, not necessarily direct combat.

Over time things devolved from mindlessly killing being newsworthy to having it be the norm, all the way into a culture of hero worshipping the folks that kill soft targets exclusively rather than ridiculing them as cowards.

I remember when you could not succeed in padding a killboard with bunches of miners and be hailed as anything but lazy. Today those guys are seen as elite because of their heroic kill/loss ratio.

Regardless... I have no issue with things like gatecamps and most other forms of hunting. All of them have direct counters involving active gameplay or reasonable choices that can mitigate or eliminate the issue. Cloaks do not.

FFS...

Gate camping is not the same as AFK camping in that...well the people doing it are not AFK and are not after resource denial, but asset destruction. However, there is a common feature that I went right over your head: it is the stronger preying on the weaker. Gate camps are designed to kill people who do not stand a chance against the camp. And the campers will also have a scout(s) in the next system(s) and if something bigger/stronger is coming towards the camp…the campers bugger off.

These last two things you’ve been whining about ever since I linked that soundcloud with Fozzie saying (paraphrasing), “Nope, cloaks and AFK cloaking, working as intended”. Let me explicit. You have been sitting here crying into your cheerios about:

1. Cloaking ships attack those weaker than them (like a gate camp).
2. They pick their engagements (like a gate camp).

It wasn’t culture that developed…it has been this way in the game from pretty much the very beginning.

You can confront a gatecamp and force it to disperse. You can go around it and still make it to your destination. You can counter it with active gameplay, and they have to be active. Not all counters need be active, but reasonable alternatives and meaningful choices should be available. Cloaks do not have counters, and leave neither reasonable alternatives nor meaningful choice other than abandon that space. Tactics that reduce the profits to less than high sec aren't reasonable. Since the cost of keeping whole regions AFK camped are trivial even just moving a system over is not always a viable answer. Cloaks that are so powerful as to allow for unlimited atk safety are not balanced except by dev decree that PvE be uncounterably in danger of direct disruption.

I don't complain that the stronger prey on the weaker, I complain that PvE are in ships that are weaker by game design. You do what you want, but the sandbox should provide an even base... If you are intended to hunt me then you don't need hard coded advantages for doing so.

The culture developed, it wasn't always like this with players like you treated as if you were some kind of celebrities and given all the hookers and blow you can swim in. You were always here, but early on so we're people that wanted to build, explore and create. Most of them left because everything got tuned specifically to support you, with spare few additions for other playstyles just to keep them around...for your benefit.

Techos, you already won long ago. I don't know what personal thing you have against me in particular, but I already said you win. Congrats. You don't need all the pure BS you are spewing. The game suits you fine, and when it changes that will suit you fine as well, because you and the devs and all the other mouth breathing baby eaters all agree on a vision.

Yes... You can do PvE in a group, and make less than you would if you all just packed up and went to high sec. That is fine if you have a goal other than pure profit motive.

That's not directly confronting the cloaked camper. He is still there camping with nothing you can do about it. If he does not like what you are doing he can directly confront you, but not the other way around. You are simply trying to twist things around to sound like the situation isn't completely borked sideways in the cloaks favor, but it is. I accept it, so can you.

That's the intended balance. It's fine. It creates a situation that is obviously intolerable for quite a few people, as they choose not to undock in that circumstance, and finding a way to address that so everyone can have fun would be nice and much healthier for the game... But whatever. Htfu or get out is the whole of the law. That's fine too.

EVE has always been a niche game, and it's getting more so every second. Most of that is due to the players. It's the only game I have ever played where alts outnumbered mains by a huge margin, which is especially odd as it's also one of the few games where all aspects of the game are open to every character. There are no mutually exclusive skill choices to limit play types. It had a lot of potential. I hope you and your ilk enjoy it for many years to come.