Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Hi Mike!

THIS is correct.

But, I would clarify two details.

One, they did not dock up because of local, agreed. They were ABLE to know that a force larger than they felt capable of handling was inbound because of local, however.
Local was not the motivation, it was the alarm bell provided at no extra effort / cost.

The second part, in my opinion, is the central point that all of this centers around.
I would suggest, that these pilots knew they were not flying ships fitted for PvP, or else their obvious numbers advantage would have made it more compelling for them to shoot back.

The inherent conflict, that we complain of little interaction when the ships are NOT designed for interaction, is present.
I believe it needs to be addressed.

The recent dev post on exhumers for the next tiericide gives hope, in my opinion, as that Skiff has good fighting potential increases.

I agree with both of you.

My stance about the need for local or its equivalent is based on the current mechanics. If ships are designed with evasion as a defense, they must have oportunity to evade. Denying them that is like giving miners a weapon that would let them mine out your hull right through the shields and armor while keeping you ecm'd.

The core of the issue is that space has too little value. Fleets are flown fit purely for PvE because the only value is time on task, and thus must maximise value per time unit. Since their value per time unit is near zero with you engaging them, they only stand to lose even more value by engaging and so at no point does it benefit them to fight unless that is what they enjoy.

Tie that awareness and value to something that can be attacked and you may indeed see more active defensive measures. I doubt it. Folks will be right back here complaining of blob defense and inability to catch lone miners due to intel upgrades within a week...

That would not solve the issue in the OP, because it would be trivial to use that to flee as soon as unexpected guests arrived.

The opportunity to run at all before landing on grid is the 'problem'. I doubt any solution that does not end in explosions will satisfy.

This is where you are incorrect. It does not come at no extra effort/cost. It is provided by the efforts and cost of their combat forces keeping the space clear of neutrals and hostiles. It is a direct result of persistant cooperative play. If no efforts to keep the space clear it would be flooded with neutrals and there would be no early warning, just like in high sec. No additional effort is needed because the work is ongoing by others, just like no additional work is needed to fly a ship you didnt produce yourself, even if it wasnt built when you were online.

There is absolutely no reason to deny alliance members this benefit. It is needed to make the space usable at all under the current ruleset.

I like the way you think, sir, but then we'd have people upset because of the loss of bitter, bitter tears, as apparently you're supposed to take it for their team, and then offer up your frustrated wails or it's no fun at all.

What is good for one, is good for another.


---
Regardless, docked ships that cannot be hunted are broken under the basic concept of EVE. You become completely safe. never subjected to non-consensual PvP, without even the need to put out the effort of watching local. Every argument about the perfect safety of local is utterly trumped by the absolutely inviolate safety of docked ships as they currently exist. They don't balance each other, because local is balanced in the rule set. Docked ships are just broke.
---

The funny thing is, your statement makes perfect sense when substituting docked ships in exchange for cloaked ships.

Now, before you judge too quickly, and assume that you are being mocked, consider what local empowers.
Local empowers PvE ships, such as the ones I often use mining, to both know the threat exists, and when it has arrived.
This effectively let's me get into a POS, or dock up, before I can be attacked... but still make ISK up to that point.

I did not need to fit a module onto my ship to either dock with an outpost, or enter the shields of a POS.
While I am docked or inside the POS, I can refit my ship, change vessels, repair damage, etc.

If I am to use a cloak, I must sacrifice a high slot. If I am to use a vessel capable of cloaked warp, I must sacrifice that plus even more aspects the devs deemed appropriate to balance the ability.
I cannot repair cloaked.
I cannot change ammo cloaked.
I cannot launch probes cloaked.
I certainly cannot change ships cloaked.

The upshot, is that the group efforts have resulted in our version of safety having significant benefits, while that portable version is comparatively no frills basic protection only.

Oh, and local residents also have the option of swapping into a PvP craft, or even a similar cloaked ship. Whether a POS or outpost, I often do so since I want to play rather than twiddle my thumbs.

Like us, a pilot relying on a cloak to secure encounters not balanced to overwhelm will probably avoid interacting with ships in scenarios where they see little chance of a positive outcome.

That... that is my point.
BOTH sides are using a balanced ability to avoid overwhelming encounters where they end a play session, or simply just the tools they were playing with at the moment.

IF you want to fix this, shift the details so they no longer are motivated to avoid each other. Make them willing to encounter each other, and test each other's ability to fight.

But surely a ship ought to be able to switch off its transponder - even if that generates a system-wide warning by the gate:

"warning! a ship has transitioned the xxxx stargate showing no identification. Assumed to have hostile intent."

I think this would add a new twist to the game since if IFF were switched off, even friendlies might mistake you for a hostile (I suggest applying it to the overview also).

One could hail a ship directly (right-click->pilot->start conversation) and of course then you'd see who it was (if they responded).

This would be better wouldn't it? Offering more tactical interpersonal contact without losing the early warning facility of local in 0-sec?

EDIT: if this mechanic were enabled I would envisage switching off the transponder in hisec or lowsec to be a suspect offence - making you flashy yellow to all until 15 minutes after it was switched back on. There would also be a sec hit.

Incorrect.

Cloaked ships cannot be hunted at all. They are as safe as a docked ship, safer than one in a POS. They require nothing but a high slot and minimal ship resources to completely circumvent PVP in any fashion while remaining indefinitely in open, enemy, space. Docked and POS are supposed to be safe. There are systems with no stations, and if cloaks were not broken then you could more effectively hunt there, as a safe spotted cloakex ship could not remain undetected forever regardless of skill, equipment, effort or even luck. They are completely passive for the entire duration of their unlimited use.

Even a docked pilot can be hunted. You can verify its location, set up a camp and watch for it to undock, even bubble the undock to prevent the use of instawarp bookmarks. You can negate that pilot as a threat if you want to put in the active time and effort.... and that is in a place that is supposed to be safe. Not so with a cloaked ship.

Local provides you information that allows you to act, or not, as you choose. It is only effective if you are awake, aware, and paying attention. It loses that effectiveness in any area of space with poor traffick control and so relies on either good timing, remoteness or the efforts of many to remain effective. Using local to evade predators is active on the part of the pilot at all times.

Local is a demonstrably, independantly balanced and active mechanic. Cloaks are not. Arguments can be made that local provides too much detailed information, but its functional use as a tool to enable evasion is a game necessity that cannot change without several other core mechanical changes and an overall shift in the nature of EVE combat. Cloaks already violate many of those core principals and are broken as they stand.

That is a reasonable position (despite the double post) and I am beginning to see your point of view.

How would you resolve this initial obstacle so that the discussion could move on to an improved local?

Would you advocate some kind of inactivity timer for a cloaked ship, or perhaps a cloak only working for a limited time before needing to "recharge"?

So, your argument implies balance does not currently exist, since your solution set would undeniably shift future events more in favor of PvE play over cloaked threats.

Since the only other threat to PvE play, in this context, is massive blobs taking the space itself, the effective risk to PvE play is diminished significantly. I know of no competent player unable to avoid the marching band fleets as they move in to attack, so they are not a threat to PvE directly.

With reduced threat and consequent risk, how do you expect PvE balancing to be affected?