Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The only problem with this is it breaks the whole idea of black ops. Covert ships fit covert cynos, then can black ops can bridge other covert ships to it.

But they have responded, saying (though vaguely) that it won't be looked into in the near future, no?

How can you be given any more chance at success with out opening a gap that guarantees it. If I do everything right, and still get killed, then whatever method you used, you can simply repeat. Nothing I do, except staying docked would help. And you currently have a chance at success, you simply don't have a great chance at success against someone who does everything right to try to avoid you.

But it can't be both ways. You can't guarantee you can get some kills without guaranteeing you can always get kills. Unless they put some random timer on warp alignment or something, if you figure out a way that works, you can use it every time, while I would know that if you do that, it's unstoppable. If it's stoppable, I'll still be able to make myself safe every time. If I can't then that means I have no chance. If I do everything perfectly, and still die, then the only chance I had to live was if you did something wrong, exactly what you are complaining about from my side. It's simply not possible to have it both ways, and sadly for you, evasion generally trumps attack, especially when I'm already poised to escape, since if attack beat evasion, evasion would be pointless.

Also, I'm only safe while I'm performing that one task. I have to take other precautions the then ship the minerals. The job doesn't end in the belt. They've already made it harder and tightened up timing by making gravs automatically show up. If I'm not incredibly quick on the warp, an interceptor will have me. An interceptor will arrive on grid before I leave grid if they warp straight to the grav.
And if you have no chance, then how come people die daily in null?

I honestly can't understand why my ability to escape while mining is an issue, while so many other tasks have no risk and a higher reward.

I do not agree that allowing the possibility to exist results in it being guaranteed. I believe if intel gathering were sufficiently reworked (this is a big task, and I wouldn't be quite sure how to approach it) such that it isn't done merely through looking at a chat list and being told instantly and accurately, then it would become a matter of skill for both sides - both the hunter and the resident would then have to work at gaining the intel they need, for the hunter this would be determining if targets exist, and then how to find them, and for the resident it would be determining if a threat exists and how to avoid them. In an ideal situation like that, it would be skill at intel gathering (there is no skill required on the hunter or residents part currently - you just look at local) and diligence that determine the outcome. The amount of effort and diligence currently required is virtually none, and as a result one side has a clear advantage, and a guaranteed outcome.

I think maybe wormhole mechanics - and by this I mean how wormholes themselves spawn, and not local or cynos - can demonstrate what I mean. So as you know, outgoing wormholes stay open a set period of time, then close and a new outgoing one is randomly created. Both sides of the wormhole must put in the effort in order to take advantage of this.

On the side where the wormhole originated from, you must pay attention to when the wormhole spawned in order to determine how long its got left, and when the next one will appear. If you (or corpmates) don't pay close attention to, or don't put in the effort of scanning your new outgoing wormhole, you obviously won't know exactly when it opened, where it goes, or if it's been used by anything (though obviously you can get a rough idea if there were a huge amount of use that crippled the mass, but scouts, a small fleet of T3s, etc would be undetectable). This obviously puts you at a disadvantage if the other side is paying closer attention and putting in more effort, and your chance of running afoul of it increase.

Likewise, if you're on the incoming end, you must pay attention to your system in order to notice when new wormholes open up into your system - you already know your outgoing one, but these other ones spawn randomly so you must be diligent. If you're not, you end up at a disadvantage the same as the other person - not knowing when, where, or what. As a result, it is player effort and skill that swing the balance - perhaps not by a great deal, but at least by some - one way or another. When it comes to local in nullsec, this doesn't happen. The mechanics are too absolute and require no effort by either side, which is why one side or the other is "guaranteed" something.



Saying "if you have no chance, then how come people die" is a fallacy, because we're discussing one very specific avenue of PVP, so take the result from all the OTHER avenues for PVP in null combined and using that result as if it is the result of this one very specific avenue doesn't work.

Your ability to escape is an issue if you are both gaining resources while being exposed to zero risk. There are no other activities which are afforded that level of safety let alone that level of safety AND that level of reward

Funny thing that, I was sure that the response I've seen to the gazillion of identical topics about AFK cloaking in the Russian subforums was translated from English to Russian but after reading it again just now - could it possibly be that it never reached the English speaking parts?

I'll link the post and translate the relevant part, if I may (the first quote is of some ISD guy who said he couldn't comment, but he did summon the CCP dude who said the following:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1885267#post1885267

---

CCP Ytterbium (via correspondence with CCP Droog that's been allowed to be published)

"We are aware of the fact the part of the players are not satisfied with the applications of cloaking systems, but there are not going to be changes in the short run - if only because any countermeasures require thorough balancing (to avoid jumping from the pan into the fire)."

---

Not sure it's the idiom that was originally used, but it'll suffice.

Thanks, that's very much appreciated, and sheds some light on their side of the matter. That should be quoted and linked into the original post for clarity. Any chance of that Teckos?

I suppose you can look at the variations as being separate situations, with their own distinct "correct" reactions, but even we approach it from that point of view, I still don't like the current system - there aren't enough different situations with the current model of local. For both the hunter and the residents, local tells you immediately and with no variation whether there is someone or not. I'd prefer the means with which you gain that knowledge to be more varied than it currently is, and more open to variations based on the players themselves. Once you gain that intel, there may be a specific, ideal way that you respond to match your goals, but the process of gaining the intel to allow you to react that way should in my opinion be reworked to allow more dynamic play, and more driven by players than local is.



I didn't necessarily mean that probes and scanners be the new methods used to gain intel - in fact I'd say that was a bad idea - I was only using the probing mechanics as an example of a situation in which player effort (how often they probe) and player skill (how well they understand it and how fast they can do it) can alter the outcome or chances for each side, which is something sorely lacking in the current mechanics. As I've said before, it doesn't matter how much effort or skill a hunter has, they cannot increase their chances against a local who puts in minimal effort. And I don't think that is good design.

I'm sorry Andy, but this simply is not backed by the facts in game.

Point one, you should easily be able to verify I have no ganking kills registered. I do not "AFK Cloak"
I am a null miner, in point of fact.

I object to the low effort competition I see marching about, who barely seem competent to operate out of high sec, and yet find null much easier due to it's lesser risk once in a sov environment.

I object to the all or nothing mentality. Fitting a ship in expectation of hostile encounters should be the norm, and yet we see fits in null that would be suicide ganked in high sec, as they are not meeting the real criteria: Don't fly what you can't afford to lose. Ratting carriers should never be seen outside of a blue sov doughnut, and min maxxed exhumers either.

I object to the bar being lowered on my options. The expectation that we must dock up or risk attracting hostiles returning, because everyone else is doing this, feels backwards.
I am in null, and being a miner who is effectively being told not to play because a fight MIGHT happen? I could have stayed in high sec and seen more action than that, just where exactly IS the dangerous area?
This is not specific to my corp or alliance either. When the bar is lowered, it is based off of statistics on this level. 10 miners being sidelined so 50 can operate with less interference is nice on a spreadsheet, but it blows stale air in game.
It bizarrely became a good strategy somehow to NOT PLAY when this happens.

And efficiency... great Amarr.... efficiency?!?! THIS IS A GAME. NOT A SECOND JOB.
Your task, and you are paying to do this, is to have FUN, not make someone else more efficient by sacrificing your time and or money, try to remember why you wanted to play!

I can afford to lose a LOT of hulks. As well as mining I run high sec industry and inter-hub trading. I can afford to mine in a triaged carrier. And I live in a big blue doughnut, I'm CFC. Yet still you tell me I should be exposed to monumental amounts of risk. I also run my same mining fits in high sec gank free by the way. No that they would be hard to gank, I just avoid being ganked.

That not the bar being lowered, that's where the bar started. If a PvPer is looking for easy kills, and he finds easy kills, chances are he will return to that location again. A miner with low or no combat skills is guaranteed to die in combat with a skilled PvPer, even in a PvP ship, and will simply encourage the PvPer to return. No local changes would change this. If anything, local changes would make this worse, since they would find it harder to find targets at a glance in null, so they would return to places they know they can get kills more often.

I have fun by doing things that require vast amounts of isk (and vast amounts of tritanium and pyerite). Shipping it all is not feasible, so mining is the option. To maximise my fun, I must minimise the amount of time I have to spend mining to meet my targets. Like if I were playing a console game and a particular level bored me, I'd learn to blitz my way through it rather than playing it the same way as the rest. Final Fantasy 8's training area for example, bores the hell out of me. So I don;t hang about.

The overview upgrade thread I suggested included this. It did not, as you questioned, create a need for a specialty ship.
(The function ONLY alerted to a cloaked presence, not being functional in any manner to actually hunt a cloaked ship)
An exhumer or ratting ship could do this. Obviously, a ship with boosters or better sensor strength would have greater range, but that is a trade off.



Think about what you just said, about not being able to see a black ops group.

Did the devs fail to balance these ships, in exchange for their cloaking ability?
Perhaps they would require further balance, if player effort were needed to see them. It is possible they were balanced with being outed constantly by local as a considered detail.
For a fleet, just like having boosters, having competent scouts watching for cloaked vessels should be a given.