Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Apparently you don't understand random number generators.

The false signatures aren't generated by scanning, but by objects in space. You choose which to zero in on. The only rng involved is some variation in how often they spawn and despawn.

The cloaked ship can warp off, assuming it's a cov -ops and not using a prototype. Or it could engage, as the hunting ship is of similar design as cov-ops, while the cloaking ship could be anything. Once it's possible to find them then gameplay assuming encounters initiated by both sides becomes possible again.

A chance to see a ship, despite such claptrap as worrying about those with vision problems or low end graphics, is better than what exists now. I mean, we could go with the deployable generating a beam like a target painter to make it more obvious for the afflicted.

And guess what: it's RNG whether the one you picked to zero in on is legitimate or a decoy signature. You have to keep probing down signatures until RNG works in your favor and you get a real one.



Covert ops cloaks are the only ones worth talking about. Other cloaks are worthless in PvP, worthless for AFK cloaking, and only really used by PvE ships to do the MWD/cloak/warp trick to evade gatecamps.



Oh FFS, do you know anything about PvP? People are not going to warp their probe alt, in a barely-armed covert ops ship that would get slaughtered by a T1 frigate, onto an unknown target. They're going to locate the target and then fleet warp in real PvP ships. So, since the cloaked ship is almost never going to be facing a target it can beat in a straight-up fight, the only reasonable action is to warp out to a new safespot as soon as the RNG locates the first one.

And of course there's the fact that if the cloaked ship had any desire to engage it would have done so actively instead of waiting passively to see if anything lands on grid with it.



IOW, "I, Mike Voidstar, understand nothing about good interface design." Thank god you're just an annoying forum poster and not anyone with the power to make changes to EVE, because you're the kind of person who makes games literally unplayable for some people because of terrible interface design.



Then what's the point of the "don't appear on overview" gimmick, if it's highlighted so that everyone can obviously see it? Do you think through any of your terrible ideas at all, or do you just shovel garbage at the forum in the desperate hope that you'll get a cloak nerf and can rat in 100% safety?

Please demonstrate 100% safety. Bear in mind that this would somehow include ratting while afk, and immune to attack from others.

The one you choose to zero in on need not be random. You could select signatures close to things you are interested in protecting, or you could gather friends and quickly eliminate them all. How you select what to scan is up to you.

Some afk camps are newbie ships with a prototype, but not everything is about afk camps. Some people hide capitals and supercaps under prototypes. There are many uses of cloaks both cov-ops and not, and all of them should be subject to enemy interference.

A second ago we were discussing trash tier alliances who can't field any combat ships becoming somehow safer, and now all the hunters are crack execution squads operating 23/7? Moving goal posts much?

I can understand you don't want to accept any possibility of being confronted in your 100% safety under a cloak, but maybe there is a point where it's not so subtle that only people with perfect vision on high end machines can see cloaks without hanging a brightly glowing sign off it? I think this is possible.

The point of it not appearing in the overview is that you don't just set an overview filter to highlight it and catch them while being engaged in other things effortlessly. I am fine with it taking dedication, skill and even luck, but the point is not to ruin the use of cloaks entirely.

local itself of course
it works for both sides, you know

Local does not mean 100% safety. Go anywhere outside of a wormhole and just sit ignoring threats indefinitely. Sooner or later you will find out just how safe you aren't despite local. It is your actions that make you safe, as it should be. It's the pro-afk crowd crying about things working properly, not their targets. Cherry picking the parts you like isn't very useful, please demonstrate 100% safety with the consideration that 100% means immune even while afk.

You really, really don't understand RNG. If it was RNG then every time you went to a signature you would have a set chance to find the ship. Regardless of that chance it might never come up, you roll resulting in failure despite all logic and statistical probability. Rather than that you instead have the opportunity to pit tactics against goals on both sides. You can remain hidden indefinitely so long as you are active about it, but watching a particular place with active opposition will be difficult and your risk increases with more hunters, which would barely occur at all with an RNG.


We were discussing trash tier people who can't be bothered to put more than a couple of ships in space ever, and now we have a dedicated prober, a competitive PvP ship, and a competent PvE setup, at minimum. Not only have you disrupted their PvE (probably, but stupid was also a factor here), but now this probe alt is fast enough to pose a threat to an active cloaked ship. Worst case scenario both sides are now engaged playing the game against each other instead of the current system where both sides just go afk or play elsewhere/leave the play area waiting each other out.

I don't claim expertise in interface design, but I do know that not everything exists at opposite extreme ends of a spectrum. It does not need to be hard to see.

The richest part is complaining that an interface element of EVE be made inconvenient as a balancing factor. Just because it's not on the overview does not make it hard. If that's your standard it's amazing you can play at all. It's almost like you are reaching to find issues, rather than trying to contribute to a discussion.

Works both ways, mate. People can see the invader, but he can also see all people in system in return.

Edit: You know what? Sure, give null delayed local like w space, but keep the capsuleer counter.

Never said there was a way around it, but players know there is a nuet in system just as much as the nuet can provide intel to his mates about what is in system. Works both ways. What's more, players in system will never know what's going to drop until it drops, so hotdrop fleets have the advantage there.

If you take into consideration safe log off, cloaked ships are completely safe and without counter, unless the player fucks up, and there is no way to actively put pressure into them. I strongly believe there should be ways to hunt down cloaked ships, ways that take more effort than what it takes for the latter to stay safe, but that at least deny them complete safety.

Also, let me remind you that I'm not advocating against the effects AFK cloakers have on ratters, what I want is an option for players to force (not bait) cloakers into PvP. This game is all about non-consensual PvP, after all.

Edit: How I see it, AFK cloakers want to have their cake and eat it too. We can't continue having that in EVE.

Really? Because that is the exact situation cloaks are in. You turn it on, and you are 100% safe until you do otherwise. You opt in to danger, not opt in to safety as everyone else does. That's not a straw man, that's the situation as it exists. Your hyperbolic lie of local providing 100% safety fails at the first challenge of the idea when compared with cloaks.

Thing is, If local provided the kind of safety you claim, I would be right with you-- except it doesn't. Instead it rewards active gameplay. Other than the delay caused by loading, local is fine. I'm willing to concede that something needs done about the loading delay, but the rest of that argument falls flat.





It makes all the difference in the world. If it was just an RNG then there would be no strategy possible on either side. With False Positives you can weigh the risk of getting too close to something to scout it for an ambush versus the need to blend in with the noise. Searchers can brute force all the signatures, prioritize them in various ways, or simply monitor them for any that last too long.

Do you have an objection beyond just not liking it because your cloaked pilot might have to actually be active to remain safe?




The point is that according to you, the people capable of dealing with it in that way are already unaffected by the way it's done now. Your objection became essentially "Oh No, people will use this to kill cloaks instantly every time!". The point of the new thing is that someone who wants to play can choose to deal with it as it is now, ignoring it and staying with a standing defense fleet, yadda yadda.... or they can choose to take the initiative themselves and deal with the threat directly. Cloaks should not have an unbreakable lock on initiative. Non-consensual PvP should cut both ways, not just in the direction of the guy who fits a cloak and goes to work.

Basically, not everyone is a trash tier lazy no good PvE scrub. Some just want to confront their attackers rather than waiting them out. They deserve a chance to do that.

Actually, I said it should be a shimmer or something. My intent is that it be identifiable as a cloak, not be difficult to see. I'm sure if it was suggested that the ship appear on the overview we would be right back to 'it makes cloaking utterly useless'. Feel free to contribute a compromise or suggestion of your own.

Oh FFS, why do you keep posting this idiotic idea as if it means something? We've explained to you, over and over again, that the delay on loading the system is irrelevant. If it takes 15 seconds to align and warp out and 30 seconds (a really, really fast estimate) to locate a target and get into tackle position after entering the system then reducing the warning from local to 29 seconds does not make any meaningful difference. So I'm forced to come to one of two conclusions here:

1) The only thing as lacking as your reading comprehension is your understanding of game mechanics. You don't understand how cloaked PvP works, at all, and so you keep proposing terrible ideas with obvious flaws. And because you lack the understanding required to evaluate your ideas and their likely consequences you keep posting nonsense in defense of them. Nor do you have the ability to understand the criticism you're receiving, which is why you keep posting the same garbage over and over again no matter how patiently we try to explain why you're wrong.

and/or

2) You're a liar who wants more safety for 0.0 PvE, but you know that this is an unpopular position so you try to throw a pretense of "everything should have a counter" over your ideas in an effort to get people to listen. This is a rather appealing theory given the fact that the primary group that benefits from your proposals is terrible PvE players, and the price is paid by PvP balance all over the rest of the game.

Either way, the value of your contributions here is rapidly reaching zero, as is my interest in continuing to explain in detail why every part of your ideas is wrong. Your anti-cloaking system is a solution in need of a problem, period, and there is no need for it.

People should always try walking in the other person's shoes. Try solo hunting with a cloaked ship. Even if you find a target you'll likely have to warp out and back in to re-position or slowboat under your cloak to get into tackle range, the whole time hoping he doesn't suddenly notice you in local.

But I doubt Mike will ever try it.