Player Features and Ideas Discussion

So, let's go through this gem of a post that you're so proud of, and we're all fools for ignoring.





So, you kicked it off with basically the same both-sides-bad self-fellating rhetoric. Nothing new there.



Oh, boy! Teacher's gonna share great wisdom with us! This is so exciting!



Uhoh. Teacher's great wisdom seems to be a lot of vague, platitudinous drivel so far. But maybe they are building up to something amazing! Let's stick with it!



Oh... Oh, dear.

Teacher seems to have forgotten that Eve is actually a video game that quite literally sits on top of a vast, planet-spanning communications network. This is a bit problematic, especially when said network excels at creating relatively secure channels for communications outside the boundary of any particular set of video game rules.

Do entosis links work on IRC channels, or are you expecting everyone to go, "Hackable comms? Well, gosh, we could completely fix that in a jif, but in the spirit of fair play we'll just go ahead and roll with it."

Now, you did actually accomplish something noteworthy with that post in that you seem to have found a way around Cunningham's Law by posting something that was so wrong, nobody felt any particular need to correct it right up until you got pouty.

I'll give him that, yeah. The first time he posted, my thought process was:

"Whaa?"

"Well... okay. Good luck with that."

And then I moved on.

What I was illustrating is that your post was ignored because it was worthless.

You suggested that password-protected private channels in game should have a mechanical weakness. However, since the functionality of a password-protected private channel is trivially replicated out of game, all your suggestion would succeed in doing is obsoleting the in-game tools (more than they already are, anyway).

You can call it "bad game mechanic" all you want. It may even be one. That still makes your idea, which would serve only to actively drive people away from using the in-game chat system entirely, a far worse idea.

You didn't present a different perspective. Your sole contribution has been some self-aggrandizing claptrap. You more or less literally came to the thread for the sole purpose of being self-impressed with your own lack of contribution to the thread, and now you're pouting after being called out for it.




I'm pretty sure you've suddenly realized that there are some design issues that start to form at the boundary between what the players can do and what their characters can do, which is why you're begging off with more vague, platitudinous nonsense instead of presenting a solution. ;)

I came with the perspective that how information is handled at the moment. How local displays not only names, but will pop up the exact moment that their client starts to load into the system. I suggest that Watch lists, are also another flaw, it allows you to tag the most dangerous people so that you know when exactly they, and their alts log in, without actually having anyone tail them, or endanger themselves to gather this information.

Lets start with these two first, because you never know my friend, even you might have an idea. And my favorite quote of all time is that "Ideas do not go to vacuums to grow, they go there to die."

A few ideas that can really use some input, and be built upon that is based on those two issues, which are one of the most common issues brought up.

First, Watch lists. These just need to be removed, and the monitored the effect they have on people as they no longer are able to tell right when people log in and out.

Second, Local. This needs to be removed as well, and in it place, sensor based modules can be used in their place. Responses of "But my high/mid/low" slots! This is easy fix. Hulls will have their own sensor slot, that they can pick a sensor. Some sensors can be based around the D-scan system, used to spot hulls, what direction, and if close enough, some very VERY basic information on that hull. Some sensors can be used to detect the number of grave-metric distortions in the system. This will basically give you a player count, without actually telling you who the player is, or any information about the player. These but two of many sensor systems that I suggest, What this means is that small gangs working together can provide all, if not more information local provides with just a little bit of effort.

I'm not going to post more problems an ideas, because I strongly think that these two problems, and these two ideas can be used as a major jumping off point for a strong discussion, on why it might work, and why it might not work. I have finally gotten your attention. Granted, in a way that might not have been the best. But I strongly do hope that I can hold this attention and something good can come from this.

Morrigan
Stop with the dimwitted arguments. How can they possibly be pertinent to the topic at hand. Also, your issue is with Monkey. He brought up the cost of citadelles.

To rehash again.

In null-sec, the counter to denial of practical access to space is of course denial of practical access to space.

Campers are removed by removing access to bases their support might come from. Currently, you need to take sov on the perimeter, then hand sov off to some ally that wants it.

With citadell, you destroy the bases.

It will be great fun...and suddenly access denial will become broken and tears will flow. I rather suspect your tears in particular will roll.

Who gives a crap about NPC null sec? Talk about carebear pvp.


"Waah, we need more NPC stations so the meanies cant take them from us [and with citadelle] or blow them up"

Geeze. Mechanisms that provide safety are for the weak and puny.

And who gives a crap about major dockable assets (though yah, no one in eve is so risk adverse as the owner of capital+ ships. See the tears that flowed when they could be hotdropped easily)?

Its the same old same old. "Waaah, my playing style should be immune from danger" Man up and accept assets can be lost.

The problem my friend with the dim witted arguments is not that PvE pilots are worried that the afk camper is going to cyno in supers. It never was.

Server goes off-line in 30 minutes and I just finished sweeping up a few frost sites in my constellation. And yah, there were afk cloaks. But who cares? The nearest base their support could stage from is a long way off.

You can just add me to your watchlist if you want to see when I am ingame. Assuming you play EvE of course.

It is on topic (and I am surprised you do not recognize hyperbole. You use it often enough).

In sov space, the response to access denial by way of cloaky camping is access denial to cloaky backup by grabbing sov on the perimeter and handing it off to allies who want it. With Citadelle, the response will be to burn citadelles to the ground without the chore of taking sov.

The worry was never "major dockable assets" (you may want to check up what can dock at xl citadelles btw). The worry related to afk cloaky camping is small gangs of yolo yokels taking advantage of a ship dropping cloak and holding tackle for a few seconds.

That is the "pretty big psychological effect" Fozie is speaking of.

By low sec dwellers, are you speaking of the 0,0001% of EvE players that habitually mine and rat in low sec (excluding fraction and intrusion stuff but of course)?