I’ve read previous suggestions and tried to ensure that my proposal addresses the concerns that were raised. If I’ve missed something, please let me know.
Yes, the change would mainly impact defensive use, because the problem is just with passive repetitive d-scanning: doing it in the background because you must, not actively because you want to. There are a few things I’d like to make hunting with d-scan easier as well, but those would be separate proposals, and wouldn’t be aimed at reducing clicks or button presses.
The counterplay to the automated defensive d-scan is the same as the counterplay to the existing one; combat recons and cloaks, combined with victims not paying attention.
For a target to escape with this proposal, but not under the current system, the following all have to be true…
The target knows about defensive d-scanning
The target has the Eve client in the foreground
The target is maintaining a constant watch on d-scan
The target is able to keep the mouse over the d-scan button, or return it immediately if moved
The target is willing and able to push the button every 30 seconds or so
The target is not willing or able to push the button every 2 seconds
The proposal does not remove the need for active presence and attention, because it is specifically designed not to do so. It reduces the need to repetitively click a button while remaining present and attentive.
Also, this isn’t about not liking pressing the button: it is about it actually becoming physically painful for some people.
You don’t seem to fully understand. Dscan is an additional intel tool, and as such it should require some effort to use.
Sitting still in a spot for long periods is a deliberate choice to be more exposed and vulnerable, especially in situations where you solo, where there is no access to intel channels (e.g. w-space with a delayed local channel), and more so if one opts to sit tight even with potential hunters entering the system (“let’s see if they come any closer before I move my ship to a safe”).
Right. So in other words your suggestion only benefits one type of dscan user (the defensive one).
If a game activity becomes physically painful, one should look for alternative game activities to get sufficient relief for the repeated strain, perhaps even plan much needed breaks at regular intervals.
Alternatively you can opt to play in a group that does provide intel or active scouting and guarding, so you don’t have to press a button repeatedly.
The factor that puzzles me the most in this topic is the apparent under-usage of the local channel, the first and main intel source. Unless you live in w-space, and with the alternatives mentioned above, constant dscan spamming is not a normal activity, even for a miner or huffer. You press it a few times in a relatively short timespan to get your intel, and before or while you are trying to get safe…
The good part of your suggestion is … automated dscan for an active w-space hunter. Just hang there and let the automated scan do its thing. I could buy into that See what I did there ?
If I don’t understand, please help me to do so, because the arguments against seem to be based on either (a) not reading the proposal properly, or (b) nothing more than a resistance to change.
Yes, sitting still in a spot for long periods of time makes you vulnerable. Not warping off when there is someone you don’t know in system makes you vulnerable. The way to minimize that vulnerability is to keep an eye on d-scan, which works very well. This proposal doesn’t change that.
You seem to think you are teaching me something, but you haven’t said anything I don’t already know, you’ve just demonstrated you don’t understand my perspective or what I’m proposing.
automation with “limits” as a negotiating factor, including active presence/attention to some degree
RSI-inducing key tapping and physical pain,
It boils down to “fewer key presses” as long as “the mouse is hovering over the scan button” for a number of seconds or server ticks.
Which part of your perspective did I miss ?!
Good changes are just that, good. But “change” is not good per se. Fewer mouse clicks and a better font would do miracles for just about everyone, as an example. without affecting game mechanics. Semi-automating an intel tool is not “good” when it has been a part of gameplay for more than two decades because you say so.
Rather the question is if you are willing to listen to and understand counter arguments and suggestions.
I understand your negotiating position is one of “just a little bit of automation” instead of full blown automation as suggested in other threads, and that it would benefit you and your intended way of playing. Physical pain, which seems to be at the core of the motivation (?), can be avoided as demonstrated in a previous post. Admittedly, that entails a different kind of “effort”.
What impact on performance are you concerned about, specifically? The proposed solution is targeted at people who are already d-scanning repeatedly, and suggests that the d-scan interval is actually increased somewhat compared to how fast it could be done manually.
An understanding or acceptance of the way I like to play the game. Your counter-suggestions boil down to me playing differently. You implied, for example, that it wasn’t reasonable to “see if they come any closer before I move my ship to a safe”. Personally, I find there are many situations in which that is a reasonable thing to do, and there are many guides out there that recommend keeping an eye on d-scan while doing something else. Your assertion that d-scan is only an intel tool suggests that you don’t accept its use as a defensive mechanism.
Granted, but equally something is not “bad” just because you say so.
What game mechanics do you think are being affected by this proposal, and in what way?
Yes, I’m asking for a change to the game to make my own playing experience better, and I strongly suspect it would benefit many others as well. I believe I understand the drawbacks of what I’m asking for, and have done everything I can to mitigate those drawbacks.
I’m very happy to discuss other potential drawbacks that I might have missed, and I’d be even happier to hear constructive suggestions. I’m wary about suggestions that require server-side changes to the core d-scan model, because it feels like those could easily drag us into a much deeper debate though.
True. I do not accept lower effort by automation in a hunter vs prey dystopian, Darwinian game setting, especially if that automation is nothing but “fewer key taps” for you. It benefits you, not who hunts you, despite you mentioning “oh, but I could do suggestions for a hunter’s use of dscan but it won’t involve fewer keystrokes”. Cui bono ? So far, only you.
I don’t think every change has to benefit everyone, or be perfectly balanced; benefiting some while not upsetting the balance significantly should be acceptable, imho. You appear to be suggesting that no level of impact to your play style is a price worth paying for an improvement to mine, which I don’t believe is what you intended.
Consider this: if the model I’m proposing was the way it worked currently, would you propose adding a requirement to periodically press a button, and reject concerns that it might not be comfortable for some players?
At the very least it would have been brought to CCP’s attention, somewhere in the past two decades, that the feature was unbalanced. Whether the solution lies with more key strokes or with a different solution is not what is important.
The consequence of your suggestion is a stream of intel and perhaps a certain level of comfort that is only available for defense purposes.
Did you just reject, out of hand, the alternatives I mentioned a few posts ago ? For what reason ? There already are solutions available for people unfortunate enough to have an impairment or a condition (since you seem to bring up that subject/motivation a few times).
That cuts both ways though. I haven’t responded to a number of relatively vague statements because I don’t believe that they are defined well enough to address sensibly. You haven’t responded to a number of clear and specific points/questions, including which game mechanics you think are affected by this proposal.
And you’ve only addressed the “no new stream of intel” point which drives to the heart of your argument with “whatever, brother”.
Since you chose to ignore everything else that was written, I’m really not inclined to humor you with more replies that you can ignore or downplay again. Neither is it the forum’s task to counter your suggestion with a “better” suggestion.
Want to make a genuinely good suggestion ? Make it balanced by combining several ideas that benefit both the defensive and the offensive use of dscan, and you may get approval from the player base because they could all benefit from it. “May”, because the collective mind has the more complete view on “fun”, “balance” and “consequences”.
See what I did there ?