Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Baltec
ATK cloaky camp is a perfectly good counter to activity in a system for as long as you can be bothered to do it. Or go to wormhole space where local is not an issue if you prefer to play without local. Very few people like to play without local.

You see? Answered again. Either be ATK in nullsec, or do whatver in wormhole space that has the environment you want (no local).

Dead in sense that no one dies there. It has 10% of null-sec ship losses for a comparable number of systems. It needs a buff. Player deployable and destroyable gates and local intel structures may fit the ticket. But that is hardly a concern for this thread.

In sum: AFK anything is not an an acceptable counter to anything.

Anyway, this is boring. Am adding you to my blocked list.

Monthly statistics were released today. The huge imbalance between production (final product) and destruction has grown worse. 1 ship is being destroyed when 3 ships should be destroyed for better balance between building and destroying.

Essentially - player hangers continue to fill with ships they will never lose.

This is a pretty fundamental reason for why afk cloaky camping has to end.

More activity in space will lead to more ships being killed. Particularly if Alpha clones can join the null-sec in much greater numbers (the logic being that they will die more in null-sec than they do in high sec. And they represent at least half of all null-sec ship losses).

I disagree with that, the richer players are, the more likely they will take fun fights, all the cloaky AFK strategy does is make newer players who will like to fight to defend their space poor as hell or risk averse because they cannot afford their stuff, so they don't fight roamers and the only people who like it is rich entitled entities like PL and people like them who can do their assasination type kills and brag with their killboards...

This has never happened in the past and will never happen in the future. The ratters see you coming and dock up until you leave.

I was in Saints Among Sinners an IT renter and we would fight roamers most of the time, when Galactic Emperor and I created Pirate Nation we rented from Atlas in Querious, we went after roamers for fun, we organised the other renters to such a degree that the Goons who were there to camp the renters went after Krysis because they were easier. I have plenty of kills on roamers and the like in Querious during that period. And what happened, the CFC sent in two alliances to remove us from our space and they could not do that either. I have lived as a small alliance and done this while you were can flipping...

We made ISK from our space to enable us to do that ...

No there will be more people willing and able to kick ass.

They want to rat, providing fights means those gangs come back and they can't rat. Its not in the ratters interest to fight that roaming gang, the ratter needs them to go away as quickly as possible and not return. There will bo no uptick in PvP, you will only remove it.

So let's get rid of local, given it's free, automatic intel that prevents human error from being a factor. Why wouldn't I undock to PvE if I didn't realize a hostile was in the system?

Two other things,

1. Don't use numbers from industrial QA metrics for kills in a video game. You just look silly.
2. Don't use "I want to PvP more" as an excuse when you average less than two kills per month. Actually prove you're a PvP player before using "I want to PvP more" as an excuse.

Because local is already powerful enough. The one thing a hostile player can do to try and counter that is now to be nerfed?

Brokk is really, when you get right down to it, lying.

Very few have said, "Do nothing, it is fine as it is." Most say, "Nerf local and cloaks." But Brokk can't, apparently, use and honest argument anymore.

Even those who prefer "Do nothing, it is fine as it is." often accept that "Nerf local and cloaks," could work.

So Brokk is ascribing the view of a very small minority to everyone here. He has gone down the rabbit hole of completely dishonest shiptoaster.

Jerghul won't see this because he doesn't like it when people question his reasoning.

Jerghul's argument, in a nutshell is this:

1. AFK cloaking is reduced (not gone, see more below)
2. More people are out ratting because of 1.
3. Because people ratting sometimes err--i.e. they start watching Netflix vs. watching local and intel channels--more people will be caught. That is, if the error rate is say, 2% and there are (using simple numbers) 100 ratters, roamers would catch 2 ships and destroy them. Now, without AFK cloaking we get 150 ratters, we'd see 3 ships destroyed.

Thus, nerfing AFK cloaking would result in more kills.

Baltec1 is correct in noting that this does not factor in the decrease in kills related to AFK cloaking. Using the above numbers if AFK cloaking results in 1 kill, the net result of reducing AFK cloaking is no change. If it results in 2 kills, then there are less kills.

Further, Jerghul's reasoning is "just so" style of reasoning. It is possible that that is how things will work out, but we are talking about a game of spontaneous order and emergence. We don't know for sure that such "just so" reasoning will obtain. In fact, I am sure that is what CCP has done when they have made many changes....that in turn blew up in their faces.

As for eliminating AFK cloaking, one possible outcome is using a third party device to log off after a certain amount of time. Using such software probably would not be against they EULA as it would be logging one out...not helping one acquire ISK, resources, or anything else for that matter. There are even phone apps that would let me access my PC via my phone and shut down the client.

And once again, since so many people just cannot be honest in this thread.

I am fine with nerfing cloaks so long as local is also nerfed. Hell, I'd even be open to having local delay showing somebody in local for 10-20 seconds. My preferred solution though is to move intel into a structure and have local simply become a delayed chat channel. Then a cloaked ship lingering too long in a given spot could be probed down and attacked.