Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Funny how you agree to wanting to increase the pvp risk to pve by removing local and then you retract it. Are you now saying that you don't want to increase pvp risk to pve by changing local? Please set the story straight on where you stand and then stick to it. I have read you say time and again how you think your local changes will increase pve rewards. Do you change your position on this too or do you just like to pretend a position change so that you can say I am changing the meaning and taking things out of context. And what is with all these qualifications? Can you simplify your views enough to go on record as for or against my statements above? Or do you partially agree but find it hard to say exactly where any difference lies.


I am no authority to declare what is balanced. True. I never claimed to be, despite the way you refuted the idea.

The CCP devs, however, ARE the authority on what is balanced. In some cases, it changes based on fixing bugs, or wildly unexpected emergent game play aspects.
This does not apply here, as this situation has existed more than long enough to say:
"If it could be easily changed to be more balanced, it would have already happened"

Considering the simplistic nature of a timer or fuel idea, we can safely rule those out as having been rejected in favor of something more carefully considered. They already have both timers and fuel in the game, so difficulty in coding is a non issue.

As to having a mechanic to replace local, that is a given. I think I can point out more than one suggestion for making local better, and more competitive, in this thread.[/quote]
Are you so much as an authority to speak for CCP and declare what they desire? They are rebalancing every ship in the game, so do you think they are even remotely satisfied with any aspect of the game with such sweeping changes for the last year or so? I think that it is safe to say that the only reason they have not addressed an issue is due to lack of manpower. They have addressed a desire for modular stations and poses for years at their annual functions in major presentations, and still not done it. CCP does not offer blanket endorsements through silence and they do not declare anything balanced. In their own words, they are working towards a balance on each issue one iteration at a time, so we can't even say that a single pass of changes or two are enough to say that CCP calls it balanced - they do not call anything balanced.

And to Teckos, I do not change my position on cynos, hotdrops, etc.. They are OP, but I can manage them well enough through evasive practices. Evasion does not create balance. It just allows OP mechanics to not ruin the game. Mark these words: True balance is found when evasion is neither needed or desired!

I'll say it again, because it is absolutely critical to understand:
True balance is found when evasion is neither needed or desired!
Anything which creates a desire to engage the game is good, while anything which encourages people to log out or move out of any particular security of space is bad; and reveals underlying issues with balance and game mechanics.

So, a game is then balanced if one side could CHOOSE to lose.

Yes, I see your point now, thank you for explaining that.

Removing local and changing local are two different concepts.
The context has become effectively "Local Intel", with emphasis on the intel side.
We are advocating for a change in the way intel is being achieved.

Removing local implies something akin to a wormhole style, where local's intel is strictly voluntary from chatting into it. It must be noted that the players from wormholes have made it very clear they do NOT want the means to evict or detect cloaks, and solutions that include such provisions are wanted kept separate from their game play.

Changing local, on the other hand, suggests a more moderate approach, where players can replace the intel with effort based solutions.


1. Am I an authority on CCP? Of course not. That was exactly my point, and I made it. The actions of CCP speaks for them, whenever absence of an official statement exists.
You, on the other hand, seem to feel free to interpret their actions in very specific ways. And you add in details to make your views fit better.
"lack of manpower" << Really? You are speaking for their HR department regarding the need for more staff?
"they do not call anything balanced" << And here you are, doing it for them by declaring this aspect out of balance. If we extend your point far enough, then we must all still be playing the BETA release of the game, since nothing is safe to be considered balanced enough for paying players.
Of COURSE the game evolves, and is tweaked along the way. To assume that this aspect demands such attention, and must therefore be only explained by critical lack of manpower to implement, simply goes too far with assumptions.



No. Consensual only PvP is achieved by this, not balance.
And that is not EVE.

Not true at all. It has been said many times by me, Nikk and others that a PvE pilot can get caught if they are unlucky (e.g. scrammed by a rat at just the wrong time, hung up on an object like an asteroid, etc). But aside from that you have to the rely solely on pilot error (not watching local, not watching intel channels, waiting around just another second to get his drones, etc.). The claim is that even when you combine those two types of events it results in a really small chance of being caught.

And the "automatic" nature of local has to do with the fact that pilots don't have to do anything to get the benefits of it. You get them automatically...whether you have sov or not. Irrespective of what ship you are in. Whether you have 10 million SP or 100 million SP local works for both pilots and exactly the same. That kind of mechanic has generally been frowned upon by CCP. The other aspect of local that is problematic is that the person already in system (i.e. the PvE pilot/resident) and an entrant enters system (i.e. the hostile PvP pilot) the resident has a distinct advantage. Both of these aspects of local are "automatic" you get them no matter what and have to do nothing to get that benefit.

Sure evasion can create balance. Nothing says that PvP has to be literally shooting holes in each other's ships. That is a point I have been consistent about not only in this thread but most others I participate in in this sub forum. PvP even happens when you buy my stuff in Jita and it includes everyone else selling the same items too. It is all competition...and they are all players....hence it is all PvP. No ships being shot. Nothing being destroyed. In fact, this kind of PvP creates stuff! Amazing isn't it?

Sometimes PvP can be ship-to-ship and have not ship deaths. Example, Ice minging. When I've done that it is a race to see who can get most of the ice for themselves...PvP. Again the nice thing about this type of PvP is it creates stuff (ice products for towers, capitals, etc.).

So I suggest part of the problem is one of view point/definitions. Basically broaden your concept of PvP. For example, that annoying AFK cloak SOB...he's engaged in PvP too. Boring, dull, and bad game play PvP (IMO), but still PvP.

Bottom line: competition is good in general. Competition in sports makes for better athletes, competition in markets makes for more stuff and and lower prices. Removal of competition results in less stuff (and less employment) and higher prices. In the context of ship-to-ship blow-them-up PvP in this game it is fun and creates a fascinating and interesting environment. Many players play this game not because of the PvE (which, IMO, really really sucks) but for the PvP and the meta-game.

Also, evasion is the tactic used by people in industrials. There was a whine thread (its a few pages down now) where some PvP boner was whining about how they can't catch the epithal now. Too many WCS. The industrialists who get away...they win. They get their PI stuff and don't die. To me, that's a win. When I'm scouting something out for my corp, alliance or coalition and break through a gate camp....I do it in a ship with a covert ops cloak, if I don't get caught...I win. How did I "win" in those two situations? By evasion and stealth. In both cases the attempt to obtain a goal by the other players have failed. From my perspective that's good...for those whose goals are diametrically opposed to the players who failed.

And if you can manage them (cynos/hot drops)...they are by definition not OP. OP is something for which there is not a reasonable response. Example tracking titans. There was pretty much no reasonable response there other than to bring even more tracking titans. That is not balanced, that is unbalanced. Hence the nerf.

At the end of the day they are both changes. Different scales sure. You want to ruin nullsec, while I want to stop AFK players pushing people out of nullsec. It still doesn't make your idea more valid just because you throw in some half-assed attempt at what you think is "balance". You still don't address any of the key issue that would cause a nuking of local to destroy more gameplay than it creates.

And for the record, my idea targets the AFKness of players, not the cloak, so it would in fact have no effect on active players, cloaked or otherwise.

Oh, and no, local is not the CAUSE of AFK cloaking. It the method to display it's threat, but it is not the cause, any more than you monitor being the cause of popups. The cause is that cloaking takes no effort to keep on, has no counter, and does not allow a player to differentiate between an inactive pilot and an actual threat. I propose targeting that last bit, but you are so hung up on the idea that local is some kind of monster mechanic that you will never look at the actual issue.
Get it into your head. LOCAL WILL NOT GET CHANGED. CCP are not going to kick the majority of the playerbase in the nuts just to appease people like you. CCP want MORE people in null, not less. You will get nowhere by repeatedly screaming the same thing over and over.

AFK cloaking however was addressed at EVE Vegas in a Q&A. From what was said it's clear to me that the hunter -> hunted style of play is what they have in mind, which to me would seem to be affecting active cloakers too which is bad, but hell, since you and your twin won't drop the "waah local" bit, I now fully support that!

Except any time you are beaten by "superior effort" is because you made a mistake. Your example there it's using a T1 hauler. Using a T1 hauler in null is a mistake.

If it were possible for "Superior Effort" to win out, even if the opponent made no mistakes, then people would work out the best way that guarantees a win, and always do that.

You have to realise that EVE is more like tic-tac-toe. If either side makes a mistake, they lose, but if bots sides play perfectly, the outcome is always a draw. In the case of null PVE, that means the PVP player doesn't get the kill, but the PVE player doesn't get to continue their play uninterrupted. Neither side loses, but neither side wins. Tipping it so a win can be guaranteed by trying hard enough, no matter how well prepared the other side was would totally break the game.

Alright, enough of this. This is a lie. I live in null. I like null. I'd rather be there than empire. I like this game (guess I'm not a bitter vet yet). I've spent lots of money on it for my subscription. So why would I want to "ruin null".

So the above statement is just simply a complete and utter lie.

Oh, and if an AFK cloaky player is pushing people out of null sec...they shouldn't have been there in the first place, IMO.

Why should they [PvE pilots] get something for free that gives them an advantage?

It is a ****** lie. I don't want to ruin null, I think my idea will improve it. I might be wrong, but that does not mean I WANT to ruin it.

See the difference?

So, now the question is why are you persisting on lying about my intentions? Why are you using a ****** and underhanded debating technique?