Player Features and Ideas Discussion

No you are confused. Nikk describes much of my attitude towards the more common PvE aspects of the game. I generally do not like ratting. Nor do I like missions. Not even overly fond of mining. I find invention mildly interesting and PI marginally worthwhile since once you have your planets set up you can get in and out of it quick and still make a decent buck. And my goal in making ISK in the game is so I can afford ships for PvP. Whether it is a deployment, a roam (wish these were more of a thing, and that I had the time), etc.

So when I rat I want it to be a painless as possible. I want to get as much ISK as I can, as fast as I can with as little effort as possible. And I do it because the ISK can be so good relative to other ISK making endeavors.

Would I automate (if it were not against the EULA)...in the end, yeah probably. Especially, again assuming it is not a EULA violation, everyone else was automating as well. And to be clear, I absolutely do not think automation should be allowed. At all. At a minimum it would lead to a massive surge in ISK entering the economy and cause all sorts of problems. Further, good automation will make roams even less of a thing than they already are.

Now, on the other hand yes, we want more people in space doing stuff. That way roaming can be a thing. There are a number of problems though, one of which is local. Local provides such good intel and is never wrong nor can it be destroyed, subverted, etc. that it does present an obstacle towards roams becoming a thing. At the same time if we make things too uncertain, which I maintain people do not like...risk is okay as it can be managed but not uncertainty, then people wont be in space doing things. Thus, the whole issue is a balance issue and AFK cloaking it actually a tangent issue.

AFK cloaking is a response to the power of Local as the primary source of intel. Remove that, and AFK cloaking goes away. However, it raises the specter of uncertainty which people, again, do not like. People avoid uncertainty when they can and manage risk.

So the issue is how can we get people to feel safe enough to undock in null and do stuff thus becoming a target....and at the same time setting up an intel system where yes indeed sometimes they will go boom. People in null should expect to lose ships. Expecting anything else is just flat out stupid. Blindingly stupid. Anyone who thinks that they are entitled to a zero probability of having their ship destroyed should not play this game. The ideal situation is where that probability is conditional on player actions. If the attacking player takes good actions and the defending player bad actions then the probability should go up. Reverse those and the probability goes down. Further, I personally don't think the probability should go to 1 or zero except in special cases (i.e., if you go AFK in your ratting ship and a hostile comes calling...then having a probability close to or at 1 is fine with me).

The basic premise is that when you undock, in any type of ship, in null you become a target. If you intend to PvP you'll face the chance of being the target. If you want to PvE you face the chance of being the target. Nobody is exempt. In a way, we want something like an ecology where we have prey and predators. If you undock in a mining ship you are kind of like an antelope (depending on the ship you may have some defense options, but your offense options are curtailed...by design). If you undock in a HAC you are more of predator like a lion...but you could still end up being somebody else's prey as well. We want both though...we need both.

Now if somebody just wants to mine in null sec...I'm fine with that, but you must realize you are making a choice where you are going to be the target more than the targeter. Complaining about being the target when you make such a choice strikes me as just silly.

Edit: Wrong attribution and a typo

Dude grow up.

Going in and destroying the ability to gather ISK is a totally viable aspect of warfare in this game. Shooting ratters or a response fleet are both legitimate forms of game play.

FYI, some of the most fun I've had in game were HAC roams through Goon space when we were on the other side of that forever war. First we'd shoot the ratters and other PvE assets. Goons, et. al. would form a response fleet and we'd then engage them too. Fun times.

Why discussion continue :

Local or not local : Do yo have a viable solution against semi afk cloacker? no you can't detect they : god mod on. Didi it's a game mechanic ? The cloack yes maybe. Did the perma cloack a game mechanic ? Cleary not : No viable counter. On the best way it's grieffing (CCP can said what they want it is). On the baddest way it use to make moral harrassement. Perma cloack must be nerfed.

Change local will not change perma cloack problem :How to have a viable counter an avoid the "god mod".

People have free intel about farm/mining and way to go in system with activity in 0.0
Counter of this is local.
Counter of "local" is perma cloacking (in fact true counter of local is not this but let you imagine you are true).
Perma cloacking is counter by ? in pat fighter assist, and now ?

Yes, it is. Why do you keep wanting to change it so it is less of a sandbox. You undock, anywhere in game, you are a potential target. Changing that in anyway changes the fundamental nature of this game.

And spare us the rhetoric about cloaks being 100% safe. You still have to undock...where you are NOT safe. You still have to use gates where you are NOT safe. You still have to decloak to do various things, where you are NOT safe.

You are only safe with a cloak while you are also, literally, harmless.



Eve is fundamentally a PvP game. As such the PvE is going to almost always get the short end of the Dev stick. Trying to make the game better by making the PvE better while at the same time complaining about those psychopathic PvPers who literally **** babies (in your stunted and horrible view) for blowing up your stuff is your problem. Not mine, not CCP's. And it is likely a losing strategy for this game as it goes against the fundamental nature of this game.



There should be no customized tools, really, as it is a sandbox, IMO. We all have the same tools and we can use them how we see fit.

100+ pages of what I am sure is fine feedback.



Since FozzieSov is based on system Indexes, WHATEVER method to address cloakies has to be available with the release of FozzieSov.

I doubt that several of those who have presented options to limit cloaking, have considered how valuable it is.
Specific in context, to allowing players to go AFK for extended periods of time.

It is NOT in the game's best interest, that such players be encouraged to either log out entirely, or leave hostile space as a result of being unsustainable.

Holding sov is an excellent means to leverage greater opportunity.
Specifically limited to higher value rats, and mining ore, and general NPC encounters.
NOT safety.

Unless we deliberately want consensual PvP, to be the only type deliberately encountered by either side of an engagement.
( And I specify that both must avoid taking obvious steps to evade, for the encounter to happen, or by carelessness miss such opportunities )

I rather find myself fascinated by how I agree with you on this.

The cloaked player, at best, expects to be out the time and effort they invest into placing themselves into hostile space, with no means to deliberately push an encounter from their end.
They know that they are acting the role of a scarecrow, and even the most distrusting opponent has a fairly solid idea that they are a non threat most of the time they are displayed as being present.

It is not that they could never be a viable threat, but simply that most of the time we KNOW they are bluffing about being alert, and / or prepared to react to possible targets.
We are mad that we can't tell when they are bluffing, with any sense of reliability.

Unless the cloaked player has an alliance that benefits from crippling their opponents logistics, they are either playing a long-shot at catching some fool with their pants down, or have some unknowable issues driving them to waste their own time.

We are not even talking about not-for-profit play. This is truly acting at a loss, and is possibly only viable if you could not otherwise play at all. Perhaps concluding to be better a false threat, than a non-existent one entirely.

PvE players are often inconvenienced by this, being forced to relocate to neighboring systems, or even high sec, unless they prefer inactivity.

Now, if they could become the manager of a PvE system that mined or harvested pirates, and they were defending profit bins from being raided, that would incentivize play for both sides, by giving the players something to fight over.

Local is counter by perma cloack , who is counter of perma cloack ? Nothing. It's the problem

And more over problem is not local or not, intel not intel: it's you have a mechanic who permit to make moral harassement.

But there are other ways to dealing with local. At least two I can think of.

First, you could send dozens, if not hundreds of alts, even if just in unfit newbie frigates and just clutter a system. This is what effectively happens in high sec, and there would be very little to be done about it. In null this would be most effectively accomplished either by wormhole or cyno, and while not trivial to do it would at least represent the kind of effort an alliance puts forth keeping a system free from that sort of thing. It will be discarded out of hand as being too hard and counterable... But the folks interested in disrupting local think all the work should be on the defender.

The second way would be by acquiring blue status. It would be a lot of work and of limited usefulness as the status would be revoked fairly quickly... But again, effort on the Hunters side is as good a thing as effort on defense. I would imagine some sort of bumping and using cynos to bring in third parties to do the actual killing might be the way to best capitalize on this.

But, with cloaks you can.... Well, nothing. Zero proactive measures to deal with a cloak at all, even far fetched.