Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Unified

For null-sec

1. AFK cloaky campers are not a peak-time problem. In peak times, null-sec players are either doing pvp stuff, or they have backup to protect their PVE activity.

2. PVE activity is generally geared towards PVP. Either individual players isk tanking to buy their pvp ships, or industrialist fueling the SRP machine.

3. AFK cloaks tend to target outside their timezone when the intent is to engage. Same timezone targeting is not good due to overlapping peak times and point 1.

4. The sum of 1+3 causes an unfortunate effect of discouraging player logging on in general, and in particular during off-peak times. For null sec, EvE trends more towards a peak time only player activity area.

5. The only argument with merit in regards to "pretty big psychological effect" relates to access denial being inherently deflationary. It gives less raw materials and less isk.

6. The other arguments fail when applying the principle of reciprocity. Anything said that about PvE players is either equally true of cloaky campers, or more true for cloaky campers.

7. No local aggravates the "pretty big psychological effect" by giving it a much more effective vehicle than afk cloaky campers are. It is by no measure a fix.

8. No local in null sec makes no sense. If central government can afford to sponsor gates, then of course it will also sponsor local and pilot ID services. Whatever change is done to local must also be done to gates for the change to be coherent.

9. Removal of local is also a hideously poor marketing idea that would re-enforce any player perception that EvE is dying by masking the number of players online in a system.

10. Players truly concerned about isk/hour revenue would look at PvE activity like PI and in particular moon harvesting as much more appropriate than relatively vulnerable ratters and miners.

11. Players have adapted to "pretty big psychological effect" by creating buffer zones around core sov by denying afk cloak support access to bases within practical reach of important PvE systems. The mechanism is sov expansion, but handing off sov to renters or other allies. The net effect is alliances holding more systems than they can possibly exploit effectively, with combat activity derived from afk cloaky camping mainly taking place in fringe buffer areas.

Citadelle will almost certainly see players revert from taking undesirable sov to a scorched earth policy of destroying citadels to deny bases for cloaky camping backup to stage from.

The effect of both measures is responding to denial of space with denial of space.

Uncontested POS bashing to secure moon resources is PvE buddy.

The only risk of unsolicited pvp is for blockade runners. And that risk rounds down to 0.

Their choice to solicit pvp, but almost inevitably not. Fleet battles tend to not occur by POSs.

A lot of null sec PvE elements are potentially not 0-sum. Frontline missions have been designed to encourage pvp, entosis links are designed to goad players into pvp, POS bashing is just another one of those things.

I get that you do not understand the points I am making btw. EvE can be understood at many levels after all.

Feel free to continue to understand EvE at your own level and at your own pace.

Quoting for posterity.

If I see a blackbird, I tend to think ECM.

Oh and you forgot to include Santa. Never forget Santa.

Actually pinpointing is not confirmed either, it is a suggested possibility by a "blue" post.

Teckos
"disrupting ship intelligence" based on service modules

Even if you took that to mean shutting down local (it more likely means disrupting dscan), you would still have to have service modules in the system to shut down local. Which is no mean feat if the system belongs to someone else.

Local can only be coherently replaced with the same mechanism that replaces nullsec jump gates.

You do the math

No one is as risk averse as an afk cloaky camper, yet they seem to enjoy null-sec fine.

Its about inertia, not risk aversion. Its a hassle to move and a hassle to move back if things don't work out with the corp that invited you to nullsec.

The default is keeping local btw. You have to think of good reasons for why Concord would suddenly decide to stop their pilot ID services, but continue to operate jump gates in null-sec.

No, the person tearfully demanding that cloaking devices be ruined because they're afraid to rat afk with a red in local is definitively more risk averse than pretty much anything else in the game.

No matter what kerfuffle you try, that badge is pinned securely on your chest.

Brokk
You think bling is the determining factor that separates yolo yokels from good pvp pilots? A cloaked venture is also very risk adverse; small sig and inherent double stabs + low slots...its not something stopped easily even in transit to the camping system.

Karous
I spend most of my flying time in cloaked ships. You can easily see that on zboards from the way I almost never die. It also follows I have no personal problem with being called risk averse. It is true for the most part. Not always of course. I will pvp when my alliance needs to bulk up pilots for certain things (I pvp'd all the time when we were on the losing side of a coalition war a long time back. Pilots were direly needed all the time then).

Wander
No reason to remove local except for "lore" as you call a game function that exists everywhere except in wormhole space. So why exactly is it that you want Concord to end the Pilot ID Service (PIDS) it provides everywhere there are gates?

It would make "pretty big psychological effect" much worse by giving it a much more effective vehicle than afk campy cloaking in a way that makes EvE seem dead to casual player inspection are not good balancing reasons for change. So it cannot be a balancing solution you want.

So it has to be "lore".