Player Features and Ideas Discussion

And in Eve, if you're not prepared to stand up and fight, or adapt to your surroundings then you need to rethink your mindset.

If you won't even entertain ANYTHING beyond 100% safe ratting, I submit this is not the game for you. Even highsec miners sign up for more risk.

As an example when I used to live in high sec (young kids precluded much else) I still maintained a jumpclone and ships in NPC null, FDZ4-A as I recall, in the event of a wardec to my one man band. I never had to use it in anger, only for funsies. But I made the provision, I preemptively adapted to aggression, I took steps to protect myself and enjoy myself simultaneously.

What does this mean to you Mike?

But it is a lopsided mechanic that gives one side an edge. So along comes the PvP player who notes he can use local and cloaks against the PvE pilot.

Your reaction is not to change the thing both players are using, but the one module the other side is using. That is not how you balance a game.

And yes, IMO, a PvE pilot should eventually get caught.

Yep. And that is why you don't see guys like Mark Hadden out solo killing blinged out ratters. Now anomaly rats will immediately switch over to attack anyone activating any sort of e-war module. Warp in an warp disrupt a ratter....now you have to tank the ratter and the rats. A nice little buff to ratting, IMO.

That is actually an example of PvE-PvP integration. So the normative "should" does not necessarily apply to Eve development trends.

Besides, seekers decloaking unwary (aka afk) cloaky campers on occasion fits developing Eve story-line nicely. They are motivated to seek out entosis links after all. Why should a cloak stop them from inspecting for contraband? Cloak up again if they decloak you.

I'll also add, I am in a primarily Euro allaince and I'm west coast TZ (long story). So if there are cloaky campers, typically they are not in my TZ and I can rat safely with a cloaked pilot in local...in fact I have on a number of occasions.

Teckos
Its always a horrible idea to individualize systemic flaws. Its sort of like arguing against the hotdropping super changes by citing every time you moved a capital ship from A to B without dying.

Sure you could, but it did not change the fact that the implicit threat hotdroppers represented severely curtailed fleet tactics for a long time.

Afk cloaky campers represent the same kind of implicit threat, but with a much heavier impact on the game.

It is a mechanism that in its current form causes players to log on, look at their screen, think "meh", log off, then play something else in their Steam Library.

It is a huge problem that I believe developers will deal with sooner rather than later.

Edit
Like I said, I have nothing against changes to local for as long as the changes do not mirror the problems afk cloaky campers cause; specifically loss of access to content with no recourse.

Implicit Threat of hotdropper means you'll have to kite and be ready to GTFO.

Not because something drops means you lose the ISK war or lose the field either.

So really man .... WTF you on about?

"implicit threat" is no threat at all. Stop that nonsense. You theorise and fantasise some more on top of that; and the more you post the more it all balloons out of proportion. It's a HUGE PROBLEM now with MUCH HEAVIER IMPACT on the game than the "implicit" (aka "nonexisting") fear of a maybe-hotdrop? That's like saying 10000 times zero is still zero.

You want to log off, then log off but don't blame it on whatever *might* happen. Undocking has the implicit threat of being blapped off the undock. Better not risk that, shall we?

No, they are denying themselves THAT content.

One could make a compelling argument that flooding the market with faction, deadspace loot and isk with no risk is unhealthy to the overall economy and such activities SHOULD be purged with fire.

As I say, even high sec runners accept more risk, typically got for less isk.

The counter to Fear is Morale.

It is not CCPs job to boost morale in your alliance.