Player Features and Ideas Discussion

You really shouldn't speak for CCP Fozzie.

Well, no, you've posted quotes along with an interpretation of those quotes derived in a fashion that bears no particular resemblance to the normal rules of reading comprehension.

Implicit risk is major EvE problem and is derived from a number of things including, but not limited to, afk cloaky camping Implicit risk should be dealt with using mechanisms that lower it to acceptable levels. Acceptable levels are defined as those giving acceptable player retention. Implicit risk should not be mitigated by changing mechanisms it is derived from unless there is no other option.

Implicit risk is at acceptable levels in wormhole space (a premise). This is surprising as wh local seen in isolation would increase implicit risk. Therefore, other compensating mechanisms in wormhole space have reduced implicit risk to acceptable levels.

An presentation of compensating wh mechanisms adapted for 0-sec that reduce implicit risks in wormholes (relevant to thread topic because implicit risk is derived from afk cloaky camping).

1. Rats 2.0
The sleeper lesson:
Break up the tailored tanks by adding more omni damage ships in rat fleets (imagine the rats cross trade ships. Mix it up a bit)
More ewar rats that can act as surrogate tackle for ratting vessels
A bit stronger sites to make it more small gang pvp'ish

These measures would protect ratters from themselves basically. Trend towards making ratters more small gang pvp ready.

2. Closing gates
Collapsing wormhole strategy lesson:
Allow gates to be closed and opened using entosis links.
A visual prompt on opposite side of gate to indicate if gate is currently being entosised (open or shut)

Simulates intentional wormhole collapses used to control access into a wh-system.

3. Natural phenomena
Modifiers let wormhole players tailor ships and skills specifically for the environment they live in. This lowers implicit risk as visitors must either fight at a disadvantage, or arrive after a solid amount of premeditation.

Allow sov holders to tailor a system's local combat ecosystem using infrastructure modules. Perhaps combined with star types in normal space also giving lesser combat modifiers.

4. No clones
The ability to swap clones increases implicit threat. Players risk trapping themselves into flying with implants they cannot afford to use or not flying at all (because they want to keep an expensive set active the next 24 hours) due to the 24 flip over time between possible swaps. A trap a wormhole pilot avoids by clones being semi-permanently unavoidable.

Implicit risk can be lowered reducing the time between flips to something significantly less than 24 hours, or by going the other way and making it significantly more than 24 hours in null-sec (up to never changing clones in null-sec for the same thing as wormholes).

5. No cyno
Decreases implicit risk.

Sov holders access to an infrastructure module that closes cyno-generation possibilities in a null-sec system. Cynosural System Jammer. Devs should and will play around with the mechanics and costs (real and opportunity) to increase usage frequency somewhat.

6. No local
Increases implicit risk. That no local works in wormhole space validates the efficiency of the above compensating measures.
===========

Done for now unless I think of some other hipster wormhole thing that decreases implicit risk (ship size limits may be relevant for example. I need to think on that. I do not need to reflect on the special snowflake argument given lowered implicit risk is sufficient explanation to why wormholes work without local (which heightens implicit risk far more than afk cloaky campers do if viewed in isolation).

Jerghul is Yige Shen and I claim my 5 million isk.

Implicit risk/threats are fine. They are not a problem. In fact, there is always an implicit risk everywhere in the game. If you undock and want to mine ice in HS you could be ganked. There is always non-zero risk. It will happen with little or no warning as well. Same thing with freighters, once you undock you are implicitly agreeing to PvP—i.e. there is an implicit threat there.

What is not fine is there is if there is no way to mitigate that risk. For example, freighter bumping, some argued there is nothing one can do when one is being bumped. However, ganking the bumping ship is a workable option. Also, one can take steps to NOT get bumped in the first place.

In other words, threats of all kinds are what drive emergent game play in Eve.

With regard to cloaking there have been a number of possible solutions put forward to deal with these threats. As noted, the DPS from 10 ishtars with PvP tanks in an anomaly is not something most BLOPs gangs are going to want to take on.

As for your turning rats to blues, that already happens. Try this. Put an alt ratting/tanking rats in an anomaly. Warp in your main and target paint, jam, damp, or scram your alt. Guess what the rats are now shooting your main. You guys already got that kind of a stealth buff awhile ago. It is horrible as it eliminated a whole style of ATK hunting of ratters using solo stealth bombers. Further, I don’t see how that is related to implicit threats at all.

To be quite honest I don’t think you know what your own terminology means, and I don’t think you truly understand the game. This is a sandbox PvP MMO with a minimal set of rules where emergent game play is the goal and that emergence comes from the threat of PvP, implicit or explicit.

I am pretty sure that most, if not all of the Devs would disagree with you on just about everything.

Any mechanic where NPCs do things that players should be doing is generally speaking a bad mechanic as it is essentially having CCP do something players should be doing. Having rats “turned blue” and then used as a de facto CAP is CCP providing PvE pilots with a level of security. That is just horrible game design. CCP has already done this to some degree by having all EWAR modules draw aggression from rats. Personally, I find it a terrible change (even though I have benefitted from it on occasion).

tbh, you should be honoured at least somebody still bothers replying. The answers to your questions have already been posted. Reposting is redundant.

Edit: Clarification: you still haven't answered any of our question -- eg: present your case. Any conclusion based on false parallels or rejected assumptions is folly.

You have the right to your opinion of course. I find the possibilities inherent in PvP-PvE integration intriguing.

I have found input in this thread to be remarkably non-constructive. Its been a while since you stopped being the choir I am preaching to.

Mike generates some thought provoking perspectives that I use to mold my views. So all is good.

False. The Echochamber raised an argument that stealth would imply remaining UNDETECTED. Having your name scream out in local chat "Look! There's a guy in system which you can't see!" defeats the very purpose.

Wormholes are the very embodiment of "implicit threats" if you absolutely must use expensive words. I also believe The Echochamber pointed out nowhere's safer than sov null space.

In fact, wormholes and nullsec have nothing in common.