Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Great point, a person should be willing to change their views about something given new information and data. There is a term for being committed to one's views, dogmatic.

Did I say whim? No. So what are you talking about?

As for my opinions they have changed. That you don't see falls in the category of "not my problem."

Really? Let's recapitulate again:



You were quite clearly hysterical about people blowing up PvE ships. I mean that whole line about victimizing PvE pilots is intentional game design....you weren't going a little off the rails about people hunting PvE ships? Maybe you should refrain from posting when you experiencing moments of hysteria.



Normally, I wouldn't care. But when you run around calling people liars then you tell that whopper it is at the very least hilarious, and should be pointed out so everyone can laugh at it and you.



Not at all. I think, like you, when a player is in space he should be vulnerable. I think that if a player wants to secure space or try to increase their security in space they should not be able to do so via means that are unassailable by others--i.e. their intel infrastructure is a valid target as well, or at least it should be. If you want to dock up while me and my friends burn your intel infrastructure to the ground...go for it.

Basically, I'm seeing your bet (making cloaked players vulnerable in space) and raising you your intel infrastructure. Problem is that bet is too rich for you. Because you do not belong in Null Security space.

Now who is being less than truthful MIke?

Fozzie's comment was in no way about freighters. And there have been many threads discussing freighter ganking and it is a very different situation. In the case of freighters the gankers are not AFK and if the freighter pilot exercised a modicum of precautions he would not get ganked. Problems usually start with overloading the freighter in terms of cargo value. Not putting on the appropriate fittings. Not using a scout. Added via edit: And how many of those freighters are actually AFK themselves. Haven't you said being caught in open space while AFK the player deserves what he gets? IDK Mike, seems to me you are at best grasping for a straw here, at worst being far from truthful.

As for miners, it is again a case of where the players doing the mining are making bad choices. They often sit still in the belt (i.e. no transversal, granted mining ships are not speed demons, but hey use ever advantage you can). They often sacrifice tank for yield. And they don't pay attention to things like local or use standings to help identify groups like CODE. Oh and mining ships can fit considerable tank. The skiff can get a very substantial tank, for example. On zkillbaord for the first 12 were killed in HS and most of those sacrificed tank for yield.

And how can you be under direct threat from somebody who is AFK?

And most of us who want to "remove local" want to replace it with something...something that is vulnerable.

Everything else a player or players put into space in NS is vulnerable.

Outposts can be taken. POS' can be taken destroyed. POCOs also can be destroyed. Bubbles can be destroyed. The only thing that is beyond attack, just like a cloaked ship at a safe, is every players source of intel.

In other words, what I'm saying is that what I want is consistent with your early posts. Players and their assets in space should be vulnerable. Why not intel?

I have asked this before, why do you deserve enhanced safety while ratting? Keeping local as is and no AFK cloaking makes things safer for you. Is it your contention that PvE in NS is currently too risky?

Exactly, it doesn't have to be. It can change as we see with wormholes. So this argument of your is flawed.



If he is AFK he is not. All your complaints and whines are about active players. You shift effortlessly and rather dishonestly between active players using cloaks and those who are AFK.



Yes, seriously. It is called putting a target on yourself. Game mechanics are that CONCORD response times decrease as system sec decreases. Even in a 1.0 system there is a short delay in CONCORD's arrival. The gank groups know this and have refined their craft to an art. They have a guy with a cargo scanner (ideally with a passive targeting array) scan the ship, note the huge value of the cargo and they figure out how many ships they need to kill the ship. The higher the cargo the more attention you are drawing towards yourself.

And again, CCP has pointed out that in this game that when you undock, you should generally face some degree of risk. And that applies to freighters in HS too.



No, putting too much freight, or more accurately freight worth too much ISK, in your freighter is the mistake. And you brought it up, repeatedly.



Now who is being dishonest? How can a player who is AFK hunt anyone?

Word of advice, when you are in a hole, stop digging...and stop calling others liars.

I have heard it mentioned, at least once, that the overwhelming obstacle to PvE fighting back against hostiles is actually NPCs.

Context being, the NPC weakens the PvE player down to a more vulnerable point, and allows the hostile an advantage due to this.

A solution exists, that while arbitrary, is also fair.
Here is what I propose:

The fight between the NPC and the PvE player is a privileged event, which can only be joined by another player who was already joined in fleet to the PvE player BEFORE the fight started.
Those joining this way do so by warping directly to their fleet-mate.

It's location is arbitrarily isolated from entry by all others, until the fight is resolved.
SHOULD the PvE pilot flee the engagement, they will be able to warp anywhere as if nothing were different.

SHOULD the PvE player win this fight, they will have a 5 minute timer which starts after the last wreck is looted.
This timer marks the expiration of the grid's isolation privilege, that is keeping out other players and NPCs.
No additional NPCs will spawn until this timer either expires, or is manually canceled by the player warping out of the grid.
(They may return with no delay, if warping out, in order to camp the rat spawns again)

Players expecting to need repairs after an NPC fight, would already be incentivised to leave for repairs to do this before additional spawns popped.

The ultimate goal of this is to promote an expectation of a fair fight, not a gank which only one side would be seeking.

On the other hand, I must thank you for your refreshing idea. Because so far, we've mostly heard "AFK Cloaking exists to catch/grief PvE players. To fix this, we need to remove local, so that we wouldn't have to do it AFK."

The alternate option, which hadn't even crossed my mind until you brought it up, is "~to fix this, we need to make PvE immune, so that you wouldn't have to hunt."

Both are bazooka approaches to solving the issue at hand -- but your post made that point far better than anything I could come up with. It's like saying "if we restrict player activity to station trading only, the AFK Cloaking problem is solved".

I love the way you think

Yeah... I read Nikk's post and my face went O.o

There's certainly a problem that PvE players are at a significant disadvantage to a PvP player, and that's a good reason why having strong intel to actively respond to is a good thing. It certainly shouldn't be fixed by making PvE players immune to interference, especially since all that suggestion would do is mean that chaining PvE engagements would be risk free. If it is to be fixed, it should be by encouraging PvE players to return in a PvP ship once they get their PvE one safe.

I find it frustrating that we should expect a player at a disadvantage, to voluntarily sacrifice themselves.

It is not good game play, having such imbalanced expectations.

Here, I find it extremely flawed that you would support the PvE ship being made safe, and yet expect better resolution when a cloaked ship is then expected to fill the role of dis-advantaged participant.

We cannot raise the fighting ability of cloaked ships here, without making them comparatively overpowered. They should never be considered evenly matched against a regular PvP ship.

We are at no meaningful block, however, raising the fighting ability of a PvE ship up to a cloaked ship, for the purpose of resolution by combat.

And yet that would not be as simple as you implied.

If I am mining, and I KNOW that AFK play is not possible for a cloaked hostile, I would NEVER risk undocking while they were present.

I WOULD consider undocking if I knew they could actually be AFK, because I could possibly research when this was most probable, to the point where I would be making a relatively safe bet.

If I know they need to be at their keyboard and active, in order to be present, then I have an entirely new level of intel regarding them, which gives me the exclusive advantage here.

At that point, I will sit quietly in a cloaked frig, and ping for their cloak to inevitably fail, or see their name poof out of the system entirely, whichever the case may be.
The result will always be the same, I win.