Crime & Punishment

Considering my idea involved how long you remained AFK to be detectable. The way "around" that would likely be someone botting. And that would meaning getting botting players out of EVE.

I welcome active cloakers. If they are willing to sit active in a system that long to disrupt activities I would be be pretty honored to have the attention of someone who is actually there and not off to the movies or elsewhere.

That is why I am so glad to see this topic.

My hope is that nullbears will whine enough local will get a nerf or cloaking ships will disappear from local when cloaked.

At the very least CCP would actually take a side on these issues. So I am glad to see this topic. I want to CCP to see that this has not gone away and people fleely admit to going AFK even for isk. This adds to those admitting they go AFK In wormholes to gain a tactical advantage over its occupants.

Again thanks so much!

It will be a great idea if you choose your targets wisely - not everyone is scared of a cloaked ship without a pilot.

Stay docked up when I can probe down ships and constantly force the offence to run the amount of jumps it takes to get to whatever system I would be in because they want to go AFK for long periods of time and not log out?

For me it would be an honor to the the target system of active players. Maybe we will even see more roams!

Key word here is active players.

You consider it gameplay. I never will. And CCP never comments either way. Your actions are helping to encourage CCP to take a side on the issue and for that I thank you.

[quote=Infinity Ziona]

Why should the same devs remove local from a system meant for it?

The reason wormholes work well is because they were made that way (and because of the way wormholes work and are access, they have WH space has a VERY small population compared to the rest of EVE, so no local works.

But low and null sec without local (but still with cynos and gates ie easy access ) would most likely be pure and total crap. it's a mistake to think you can change a key aspect of a complex system and not expect unintended consequences. The biggest one being less reason for people to inhabit that space for purposes other than pvp.

CCP knows this.

Back before the 1st anomaly nerf, CCP publicly stated that the reason for the change was to give people a reason to fight over space (back then, all systems were equally upgradeable). So they nerfed the military upgrade system. The end result was a sort of pve alt exodus from null sec to high sec incursions and low sec FW farming. That resulted in fewer juicy targets for roaming gangs and eventually lead to CCP re-buffing anoms (the "EHP/hour buff that turned Forsaken Hubs into water fountains of isk).

What CCP (and it seems, you) didn't take into account is that other areas of space exist and that when it comes to pve (which most use to fund other activites), people will go where it's the best isk/ease balance. No local seems attractive, but without local pve players and pve alts of pvp players will flock to the one part of space that doesn't need local and that has space cops, high sec (where the missions are infinite).

I'd stay in null with no local, but then i'm an adapter personality, i'd simply PVE like i do now (when a cloaker comes in), with cheap remote rep warp core stab set ups that are hard to kill and that escape easily. No more mach and Rattlesnake (or vindi, like the one i lost) in null sec for me.

But most folks aren't me and in the same way most EVE players don't screw with wormholes (look at the wormhole population numbers CCP puts out compared to the rehst of EVE), many current null and low players won't screw around in there with no local and and substitute.

That's a self serving rationalization of which there is no evidence. In fact their is evidenc to the contrary (the aformentioned anom nerf, people like me didn't replace the pve alts that left until the ehp/hour buff).

You also miss the interconnected nature of the game. EVERYTHING is economic. The the choice is adapt with cheaper ships in null of fly 5 bil isk vindicators and machs in high sec, high sec wins. Even now (with local in null), many choose to make the same or slightly less isk in incursions (or a lot less isk for no disruption in missions) rather than deal with null.

The most probably outcome given the actual data available is that no local = less people in null and low sec, in the same way fewer people use wormholes (no local space) than use K (local) space. That hurts EVE as fewer people means fewer ships dying.



This is where you fall completely off the tracks. The above is so dumb it's barely worth responding to. Good thing is that CCP (and our CSM that advises them) aren't nearly this narrow minded.

In formulating your brilliant ideas, do you ever stop to wonder "how would this turn out if I'm wrong"?