Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Still waiting for Teckos, or anyone really, to acknowledge that a lone stealth bomber or a solo recon without any cyno capabilities is an easy "AFK cloaky" threat to deal with and that the real issue only emerges when there is a cyno possibility.

scroll up tool... As I have stated multiple times... I never post on my main... ever... you might actually want to familiarize yourself with the conversation before throwing accusations!

!

Still waiting for Teckos, or anyone really, to acknowledge that a lone stealth bomber or a solo recon without any cyno capabilities is an easy "AFK cloaky" threat to deal with and that the real issue only emerges when there is a cyno possibility.

Revising my 5-part proposal:

1) Fundamental incompatibilities between the cyno and the cloak:
1a) No ship can fit both a cloak and a regular cyno at the same time.
1b) No cloak-fitted ship can jump through a bridge to a regular cyno; jump drive is not affected by the cloak.
1c) The cyno module does not allow the generation of a cloaked signature.
1d) Covert cyno generators only fit on a ship with a covert cloak fitted; the covert cyno requires the covert cloak to synchronize with the ship's systems.

2) Local only records ships when they pass uncloaked by intel structures in the system.
2a) Local only records ships which appeared uncloaked on grid at any of the following structures: Stargates, IHUBs, stations, ** Mobile Intel Structure **, or other intel structures.
2b) Logging on and off does not get a ship off local. All players on local are moved to a system offline until they relog, at which time they will be displayed in local again no matter where they logged.
2c) Stealthy entry is possible for ships entering a system on a grid devoid of intel or sov structures through wormholes, cynos and covert cynos, though dscan will always pickup uncloaked ships in range. Concealment from local continues until the ship appears decloaked on grid with an intel structure or with any player that is blue to the sov holder (everyone is assumed blue to Concord for this purpose). Only those friendly to the sov holder may see local, unless they are docked at a station. One may enter a system through a wormhole not covered by a Mobile Intel Structure, and may remain invisible to local so long as they maintain their cloak while on grid with intel structures.

3) 30 minute auto-log timer. Players can be bothered to click on their client at least once per half hour.

4) Neither the cyno nor the disruptor/scrambler may cycle while the other is active. The disruptor/scrambler cannot cycle for 30s after the ship has bridged. The ship's warp drives and microwarpdrives are inoperable for 30s after a bridge.

5) Supers are made mortal with vulnerability to eWar and regular points, and with EHP in the ballpark of regular caps (no more than twice as much, for sure).

No one afk has ever lit a cyno...fact.

If you choose to believe AFK players can light cynos, it starts to explain your irrational concerns...

One: Comparing EVE to WoW insults many EVE players. It suggests you view them as being no better than these theme park dwelling, orc humping, elf cybering wannabees... Not a good start to an argument where you hope to win minds over to your views.

Two: Deciding that activity can be measured in keystrokes per hour, (requiring a minimum over a period of time to be considered active), is amazingly short sighted.
You have been provided with ample opportunities to understand that EVE is more complex than WoW, so expecting the limiting mechanics that work in WoW to function in EVE is equally short sighted.
Put simply, it is an accepted tactic that EVE players can and do play the game passively at times, either not touching the controls, or even by just listening for the audio cues to alert them to important opportunities...

We have no need to subscribe to your limited views regarding what is valid play, but you seem bent on trying to force them on others. The idea behind a timer like this disregards all other play styles except those conveniently able to meet them.

It dumbs down EVE, bringing it closer to WoW, which seems to be what you want.

That makes it bad for EVE.

Let me add to this, those of us who either want to keep AFK cloaking, or want to fix it via local/intel changes get this point.

I have have written that an AFK cloaker, or even any cloaker in a system increases the level of uncertainty for those who want to PvE in that system. Hence, I get this point. I get it very well.

My response to this is the following:

How do you know this is not precisely what CCP has intended and consider reasonable. They have had over half a decade to patch AFK cloaking out via any one of the dubious ideas listed on the first page of this thread. These threads have popped up regularly since cloaks were first put in the game. If we assume 1/week there are probably over 200 such threads on this issue...and they invariable use the same proposals over and over.

In fact, it is quite likely that right now with the current mechanics CCP sees things with local, cloaks, and cynos as balanced. Maybe not in an optimal fashion, but balanced and as such it is low on their list of priorities to change.

One of CCP's marketing strategies about Eve Online is that it is a harsh uncaring universe, not for the timid or feint of heart. If you play it you will face the possibility of very unpleasant outcomes unlike most other MMOs (e.g. if you lose that 2 billion isk ship...its gone, not like in WoW where every time you die you get all your stuff back). Removing uncertainty from the game and changing the risk/reward ratio in favor or less risk and more reward goes counter to that marketing strategy.

Come, play Eve Online, it used to be a harsh and uncaring universe, but now it is the cuddlier version.

Don't think that is such a great idea.

The problem is that EVERY, and i mean EVERY damn players who see that someone is a cloaker will take them as a bait with cyno in 0.0 space today. That's because they have to believe it as they simply don't know if that player is afk or active. So they automaticly just believe they are bait as there is no other choices.

This causes alot of problems and this causes alot of unfair play. That's why there should be a system to let us know if someone is afk or not. EVE lets you see if someone is active, so why not just let us see if someone is afk to then?

Yes, it have been alot of talking about adding an afk timer and so on for a long time. The funny thing here is that you actually believe that CCP will change local just because of you when tons of peoples have complained about local for 6-7 years here on the forums without CCP changing anything with local.

The fact is that CCP wont change local.

Adding an AFK timer would not be that hard.

Changing local/intel...that would be hard to do it in a balanced way.

So one thing is not like the other, writing posts as if they are indicates either a fundamental lack of understanding of the two mechanics, dishonesty, or...both.

I'll let you pick which of the three apply.