Player Features and Ideas Discussion

On natural phenomena

Brokk: "Wrong. These phenomena do not mitigate risk at all -- at the very best the offender would pick another doctrine, though most of the time you're still hosed since the attacker has the element of surprise on his side; such as high DPS/neuts/solid tackle and range dictation. And here, too, is it inconceivable a sov holder can magically alter the galaxy by sheer force of will. Not to mention this has nothing to do with AFK Cloaking."

Jerghul: "Wormhole space has system effects that impact significantly on doctrine and tactical efficiency. This allows residents of specific systems to fine tune doctrine, skills, and tactics optimally adapted to their specific ecosystem. Visitors to that system must either fight at a serious disadvantage, or enter with a high degree of planned premeditation.

Giving sov holders access to infrastructure modules that allows them to tailor combat environments in systems they control duplicates that effect and could be combined with expanding wormhole star effects to more types of stars (in weaker or different incarnations).

Implicit threat is reduced by giving visitors the option of either fighting at a disadvantage, or by preparing sufficiently. In effect reducing the level of opportunistic predation a PvE player need worry about."

Addendum
This of course has everything to do with afk cloaky camping as the "big psychological effect" derived from it, and we are looking at things in wormhole space that can decrease the "big psychological effect" caused by afk cloaky camping.

Tecklos
If the Devs choose a direct nerf on cloaks like you seem to suggest, then a scanning mechanism is too prone abuse. A cloaky ship could be hunted down by a cloaky ship. Which I reckon cloaky ships being hunted would find unfair. A cloak suppressor infrastructure module similar to the cyno suppressor would be my guess. But I think dealing with the "big psychological impact" directly through compensating mechanisms is a better course than nerfing cloaks. I can see why people would prefer cloak nerfs. I would just prefer different solutions.

@Jerghul : sounds like yet another take at "more safety for sov null". Does not sound relevant to the discussion, but I'll bite anyway

Your kind of hocus-pocus reduces implicit risk, explicit risk, absolute risk and risk derived from the esotheric meta-plain. There's out-of-the-box thinking, there's NEXT-to-the-box thinking, and then there's Jerghul. By comparison, you are aiming a shotgun way left when you ought be using a scalpel to the right. Or rather, ought to consider *maybe* using it, actually.

Nope. I said "Wrong" then and I say wrong now. If nothing else, then because your offender WILL be prepared so any residual benefit your wacko ideas might have off paper won't be there in reality.

I won't dig into the subject any further, but I'll tell you one last thing: what you're suggesting essentially boils down to a system-wide offgrid booster. Which you already have (for now, until CCP puts them on-grid soon (tm)). Imagine such an offgrid boosting structure on top of existing warfare links... Balance where? whiiiiieeeeee!

Hell, why don't you just lobby for a sov structure that spawns concord NPCs whenever a non-blue violates the law in your system? It'd be a more direct approach to accomplish what you want to achieve here. Every post is about reducing risk -- and no, not just implicit risk. ANY kind of risk; implied, present, nonexistant or otherwise. You might want to try highsec - it may live up to your expectations.

How on earth can whatever jumps through an AFK Camper's cyno not be prepared?? If it was just the camper without cyno, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. The camper itself can be quite prepared for a number of opportunities, with (mobile depot?) or without refitting.

Not to mention your regular bomber doesn't care about armor or shield effects; they sigtank and damptank. Drop a Falcon and a Pilgrim and nobody gives a hoot about your 'special environmental effect' : neut the marauder, jam the rest. It's not rocket science, really.

Unless your system-wide effect can counter a drop, you are in effect countering every other playstyle EXCEPT a drop. Like, for example, roaming gang. Then again, the counter to a roaming gang is staying aligned so there's that.

and then there's




Which one is it boy? Either you don't mind losing ships, or you DO mind suffering an embarrassing loss.

Nah, I came up with that about forty seconds after I read the post.

I honestly cannot figure out where you're getting "we're going after gates!" from that, aside from your attempting to project your desperation to not admit that local is the problem onto the developers.



Oh, that's easy.

They will delete local. And then, neither the player ratting nor the cloaked player will know the other person is there without seeing them on grid or d-scan. All passive gameplay and intel is thereby gone, both players have to engage in more active piloting.

The ratter has no one to be annoyed at, and the cloaked player has no way to annoy the ratter with his presence alone.

And afk cloaking is instantly gone.

It is used in sov warfare. It is also used by yolo morons who are trying to copy some idea they ripped off redit to justify a bloated sense of leet skillz and use of pirate emoticons. These groups are not mutually exclusive and both contribute to the "pretty big psychological impact" Fozie is talking about.

It is up to you if wish to contribute or not. But there is a certain wisdom in disengaging from an argument you simply do not understand.

There may be hope for you yet

Wander
Still not about me.

I have tried to be pretty clear on what my agenda is. It has changed. So I apologize for it not being clear despite my best efforts.

You do not really need to know what mechanisms reduce a "pretty big psychological effect" to enjoy the reduction, and easy answers do cloud the issue ("we are a breed apart" is a comfortable wh answer that sort of stops further thought on the matter for example). So I am rather unsurprised that you have never met anyone pointing out that flying with implants they can afford to lose makes them less worried about being podded (to name one example).

I am not insisting you agree on every detail in an analytical approach either. There is room for disagreement, though not in absolute terms as we are simply looking at things that can reduce a "pretty big psychological effect" without there being any certainty if they do - or if they do not (a pedant might argue that virtually anything has at some point in EvE history reduced a pretty big psychological effect for at least 1 player. But we are looking at the big picture, so that line of thinking is not relevant).

Don't worry Wander. He's playing a quiz: every time you post something, he'll say "still not about me" until somebody can figure out who he is. Like those drinking games where you hold a card against your forehead and you have to guess which card you're holding

How is it analytical if all you are doing is sticking fingers into your ears if someone says something you don't agree with? I have pointed out multiple times how your assumptions are wrong and included my own experiences in the subject. So far all you have done is make wild assumptions, logical leaps and moving goals.

You have been asked how is NPC-null or lowsec any different from sov-null, which seems to be the only place in New Eden where "AFK-cloaking" is an issue. Yet somehow, "That's not important"

If you want to do this scientifically, then you first start with an assumption, then you research that assumption and see what your research tell you. Then you make corrections to your assumption and do it again.

You don't just take random things, call them important somehow without any proof or experience in the subject matter.

Because you aren't doing any kind of studying, you are just making wild guesses based on what are the dfiferences between K-space and W-space without any kind of experience or learning of the matter at hand