Player Features and Ideas Discussion

BTW, stating something does not make it true.

For example: The player with the character Lucas Kell is in fact a potato.

Does me clearly stating you are a potato make it true? No.

Please, stop lecturing everyone else on logic and sound arguments when you make this kind of a blunder.

Oh no, heaven forbid you might have to click your screen or type anything a total of 3 times during your 45 minutes. Not to mention that if you didn't when the "ready up2 call is made, you'd be back to where you were in 20 seconds with no login required.



By your own logic, an AFK camper has no risk, since they can't hurt anyone so
Prob(AFK Camper no longer being AFK)*Risk(AFK Camper) becomes Prob(AFK Camper no longer being AFK)*0 which would equal 0, so I want to get rid of "0".

Also consider that my timer idea wouldn't change that. An AFK camper could still return which would be the same risk as a roamer jumping into system. The only part that would change is the "during AFK" part, in which case they would no longer resemble an active threat.

I don't think it's much to ask to have people actually have to play the game.

lol?
So when you state that it does reduce risk, that's somehow a fact, but me and several others stating it doesn't that's just nonsense right?

No, I've demonstrated it.

Risk(activity A) + Risk(Activity B) > Risk(activity A), so long as the risk from activity B carries a non-zero probability.

Basically, simple arithmetic.

Well, if you misrepresent my proposal to such an extent, that I can't even recognize it, I would have to say you weren't actually talking about my proposal at all.

Let's just dissect what you wrote, and bring it back inline with my actual proposal.
Cloakers:
Gain the ability to sneak up on unsuspecting people with greater ease, with the exception of the largest blobs with huge intel networks
Something cloaked being able to sneak up on something, naw, that could NEVER happen. Well, currently it could never happen, I should say. You simply cannot surprise someone if they have already been told you are present.
Now, as to requiring large blobs with huge intel networks, that is a straw man argument by virtue of the extreme exaggeration of requirements involved. It actually requires only one ship.

Non-Cloak PVPers:
Gain the ability for their ship to be utterly useless in solo/small-gang PvP, since they would be swiftly identifiable, making them less useful in PvP thank a non-covops hunting in a wormhole.
Barring recent changes specific to interceptors, exactly how would solo / small gang PvP be negatively affected?
These ships would not appear differently in local, would not have their DPS reduced, and would have the same chance of catching targets as before. They are already swiftly identifiable, as every ship is, at this time.

PvE players:
Gain fancy new modules to hunt cloakers, enabling them to PvP... Which they don't want to do, since they are PvE players.
Really? You finally confess this NOW?
The idea that someone playing PvE should have no need to consider PvP, in your opinion, should be reinforced by game mechanics?
I am fascinated to know you believe this.
It is not directly linked to my idea, although parts of my proposal could make it harder for players to disregard PvP so casually.

No, a non-covops currently has other benefits. Their power is balanced with cloaking elemnts. If local were to be remvoed, covops ships advantage over non-covops would be massively inflated. Meaning either they need to be nuked in power (to a dedicated scout ship), or non-covops need to be an order of magnitude more powerful.
Seriously, if you can;t understand why covops would be the ship of choice, even though you want this change to make covops ships the ship of choice, nothing any of us will ever say will get though, since it means you are solidly in your own little world separate from the rest of us.

Yes, I know traders are PVPers and blah... blah... blah... HEard it all before. But there are player who enjoy PVE, and there are player who enjoy ship to ship PVP. Currently as it stands, those players are intermingled but work as they are relatively balanced in aggression and evasion. Your change would tip that balance forcing PVE players to have to actively PVP. That's a bad idea.

Oh bull. The module would do nothing to a cloaked player that isnt already done to a non covops. So that means even at the absolute worst, a covops ship would be as good as a non-covops ship. Yeah, real drawback there.

HAHAHAHA. Yeah, because "Nikk's Cloaking MegaBuff" as his idea could reasonably be named is not favouring a single class AT ALL. LOL.

No more dangerous than it is now. The cyno would on be at risk once it's lit. As logn as he was on the move a cloaker would be impossible to find.

L O L.
You can keep asking that question all day long. But since it's an irrelevant question, not at all related to what any of us are asking, you won't get an answer.
You are simply asking that over and over since you have no ability to respond since you realise your argument is weak.

You just complained that you might have to click 3 times in 45 minutes if a timer were put in place, and instead wish to have a huge balance shift to make your favourite type of ship into the best type in the game, then you ask a trader (someone who in fact does not PVE due to it's low return) why he deserves to play with people that actually play the game rather than a bunch of AFK characters?

Next level of genius stuff going on right there.

Sure, but now a cloaking ship could have a chance getting through a gate camp to light the cyno. With bubbles and these probes that could be kind of tough.

I suppose you could use an interceptor, but then even regular probes would be an issue. And there might not be much time to get into position and light the cyno before hostiles on it and blapping it.

L O L.
You can keep asking that question all day long. But since it's an irrelevant question, not at all related to what any of us are asking, you won't get an answer.
You are simply asking that over and over since you have no ability to respond since you realise your argument is weak.[/quote]

Okay, so you don't deserve it. That is all I can surmise at this point. So, you also shouldn't get it.



I shouldn't have to do anything is my point. I am at my keyboard, I am active. I shouldn't have to take any additional steps to keep playing the game. That is my point.

For sneaking up on people...yeah, non-covert ops ships should be relegated to a lower class.

Crazy, I know.



As it is, right now interceptors are probably the best ship to "sneak up" on people as in, they can get into system and warp fast, ignore defensive bubbles, and can hold down bigger ships while sig tanking most of that ships weapons.

Covert ops...useless.

Did I say you wrote something like that? Hmmm, nope.

As for your depiction of my argument, nice distortion.

What I'd find ideal is where the current level of risk/uncertainty is preserved, AFK cloaking is eliminated, and active hunting is made more viable.

Note the first part means that it wouldn't translate into more deaths...or if it did, allow for a commensurate buff to null sec incomes to (at least) offset the null PvE pilots losses.

Let me help you out a bit on that last one.

If, after some changes to local, cloaking, etc. you find you are losing more isk than you were before, then there would be a buff to your ability to generate isk to offset those losses. Ideally, the buff to income would offset both future and past losses. So even though you might lose a ship with a higher frequency the additional income would "make you whole" again. Kind of like insurance...but you'd have to work for it.

I know, you'll ignore that and distort it.

Go ahead.