Assembly Hall

So show me that proof. Show me the proof that your ideas won;t break null sec. All you've shown is that one dev had a personal opinion that local should not be used for intel. You seem to think that if you can prove a dev posted that one twitter once, that there's no further arguments to be had. In your mind, that's categorical evidence that your ideas are sound. It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

And I've provided proof. Look around you, the game still existing is proof that the existing mechanic works.

You realise people can read the previous posts, right? You realise they aren't just going to take your word for it that I'm sitting around dismissing your ideas on a whim, they are going to look back in the thread and see that all you are providing is your opinion, restated over and over.

And yes, you are a child. When someone disagrees with you, you attack them, start shouting in caps, repeatedly misquote them, ignore what they are saying and restate yourself with no further clarification. That's not how an adult has a discussion. Luckily for me, the CSM members are unlikely to back ideas when people like you are championing them, so your response themselves help guarantee that the bad ideas you push forward will never come into fruition.

EDIT: Just as a quick thought though, exactly what is it you want me to provide proof of? You keep whining that I need proof, but proof of what? Since I want nothing changed, I need provide no proof that the existing mechanic works, since it's clear as day that it does. You however do need to provide proof that your ideas wouldn't break the meta, and show that it's been considered from multiple viewpoints. I asked you once before (and you ignored the question) how the intel mechanics would work in a huge fleet battle, with thousands of people in the system for example.

That is *a* dev, and it's a personal opinion. It's not an announcement that CCP is behind it. If CCP wanted to change it, then why have they not made any official mentions of doing so?

And I'm not assuming anything. You've made your opinions clear. You want to replace local which would require removing local in it's current form. You can dress it up however you want, but that is what you want. And for what? An effort based system would be no more fun for 99% of the playerbase. The only people that would enjoy it are those who want to hunt.

You've misquoted me multiple times. Often, you simply truncate the quote, then go off arguing at things I haven't said.

And typing in all caps isn't drawing attention. The fact tat I break your posts down piece by piece shows that I'm reading them, so no further attention is required. What is required is for you to read and understand what is being said to you in the response, which you have no interest in doing. And sure maybe capitalise SOME of a sentence, but I doubt people get taught to ragepost whole paragraphs of text, especially when you are capitalising something I have responded to directly (with quotes) no less than 3 times. I'll even do it again here. That is ONE DEV, not the whole of CCP. It's his PERSONAL OPINION, not the development direction of CCP. Is that clear enough now, you know, with the caps?

The "i know you are so what am I" response. You are completely incapable of accepting that your ideas might be flawed, and you respond by getting irate, ignoring posts and attacking people. I'm not even the first person in this thread to point this out to you. And funnily enough, you are posting on a disposable forum alt, so you can behave however you want safe in the knowledge you can just burn this one later. It's pathetic.

So you require proof of something you know full well can't be "proven" without actually implementing the system.

Understand this: I opt for the system to remain as is. We know from being able to play the game right now that the current system works, so no further proof is required for that. You want the system to change, so the onus is on YOU to prove that it won't be commercial suicide, and that that majority of null players won't just unsub their ratting alt accounts and move to highsec.

I don't believe any of the ideas presented so far are any good, and the main thing I question here is your experience in what you are talking about. You want to make a change which would heavily affect null, yet you don't seem to have first hand knowledge of how most of the null mechanics work. How would force projection be affected? How would large scale battles be affected? What would be the economic impact of introducing extra risk to miners who obtain the bulk of high end minerals?

You seem to think that people will be willing to sit alt accounts on gates all day to fetch intel. Prove that. Being that I live in null, I know first hand that most people would find that unacceptable and tedious. If it's not requiring that and is just skills, then it's surely just a nerf to noobs. How would you ensure that covert ops T3s don't just become the standard PvE ganker, like they are in WH space?

I ran out of space for your link to the same dev from 2012 again, but I'll just reiterate what I said earlier. That's one devs personal opinion. Some devs thought keeping loot spew was a good idea. Some devs though keeping drone assist was a good idea. Some devs even want to work on more WiS mechanics. Just because one dev says it does not mean it's the design direction for the game. Developers on my team disagree all the time but we generally end up working in one direction, with some developers ideas not being used. You need considerably more to push your case than a nearly 2 year old conversation between a single dev and a guy who RMTed all of his isk and quit.

Bugsy, while we can agree to disagree on one or two points, you will find that we have many thoughts in common.
However there should also be a mechanic to hunt active targets as well.
It should be fair, but both parties should have an equal base chance of success.
now as too jumping to bookmarks, that would be severely Overpowered. I am sure there are threads on that specific issue.
your idea of removing auto cycle of cloaks is sound, but has issues as well.
Good points, please keep posted to this thread as I am working on a summary of ideas to address this and would value your input.
Thanks

Ahh another person who would have her prey sit with all modules off and say "Kill me please"
so you would have me believe that your answer to AFK cloaking is that everything undocked is instantly scrammed and webbed until such time as you choose to open fire?

Thank you for you input Nikk, I was hoping to elicit a response after I re read what I wrote and it was .. a little more than I wanted, you are right, most players desire balanced game play.

I felt like this warranted a response. Never said cloaked ships should be used for a tackle, now did I? Infact, if you are using it for a tackle then you are doing something wrong. The amount of assumptions you just drew from that is... Well to be frank, I have no ******* clue how you drew that assumptions. Your constant attacks on me due to your failed argument is a tad silly really, shoo, be gone with thee, for your non-sense is not welcomed here.

Next! For different response.



Never said that now did I? I welcome a prey that can fight back, it can put up more of a challenge, however, if you look at the majority of targets. Which let me remind you, that covert cloaking vessels at the moment are so nitched due to heavy handed nerfs that they are limited on what targets they can attacked. IE, targets that are basically defenseless, or attacking targets that can not move out of the line of fire of their, lets say bombs, and then escaping for a hit and run tactic, the problem is, many of these targets have advance warning long before the clocked vessel even gets on grid with them, allowing them to, warp away, and safe up in zones that would be suicide for a cloaker to get close, example death star posses.

This forced players to come up with a clever, but boring solution. You know what that solution was? To make Local lie to you. That right, their solution was set it up so that they restart the game every time, during downtime inside of the system. It not always to lock it down, but to get that kill. Local is always reporting that they are there, even when they are technically not. That way someone is never sure if they are still there or not, so they must take a risk. Do I go out there, and risk my ship, or do I stay in here, and constantly lose money.

However, that being said, because of covert cloaks able ships are heavily nerfed, IE, they can't do much to targets outside of their special little box of targets that they can picked from. People have figured out how to get around that as well, The... Invention of cloaked hot dropping.

And what am I supposed to make of this statement?

If that is sarcasm I apologize for not recognizing it.



SO what do you suggest?
The purpose of this thread is to find and discuss ways to make gameplay more interesting.
Nikk and I have discussed tradeoffs to ship balances to where PVP between PVE and Cloaked vessels would happen more often, We are seeking to give both an equal chance of success, the chance needs to be such as to encourage engagement, instead of running away. We also want to encourage Active gameplay while discouraging AFK gameplay.
I welcome meaningful response, ideas, and conflicting views, provided they have substance.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. It's like you don' even remotely know what you are talking about. If you nerfed both, cloakers would be far far FAR superior to as they currently are as most people hunting for PvE players do not use local to do so. local is irrelevant to them as it does not tell you who is and isn't available as target. On the other hand, removing local from PvE players and forcing them to use another system is forcing them to spend less time playing the game they like and more time playing with some arbitrary system just so they can avoid becoming fodder. And that's before you even consider how it would work once you have thousands of people, includign cloakers, in a system.

And no, it's not the ONLY way to do it. It's the only way someone as one track, closed minded and uninformed about null sec mechanics can think to do it, but it is certainly not the only way. I mean if the end result is scrapping AFK cloakers, then the AFK part could be attacked for example, preventing people being able to remain AFK and cloaked for more than a set amount of time. Allowing the exploration covops ships the ability to probe out cloakers would be another, and would barely affect people cloaking actively, as you can't generally catch a ship that keeps moving.

People use stats or common knowledge to pick areas to hunt, then on arrival they scan out the system. Many systems have people in them 24/7 just docked or in a POS, so local does nothing for them. When they arrive they have to scan out the system, which they can do while on the move.

And they don't depend on it at all. That's why cloakers have no issue with the removal of local intel.

Some people enjoy PVE. That's the part of the game they love. You want to take that away from them because you don't have enough easy targets to gank.

It's not a rant, it's a statement of fact. You and Maria look at this from a single point of view. You don't consider how it affect other mechanics and how it would affect other people.

No, you are looking at it from ONE point of view. You don;t even understand the mechanics enough to TRY to look at it from other points of views. You haven't considered if from perspective of people who live in null at all, let alone how it would affect large scale warfare. You've barely even looked at it from the hunter/hunted point of view.

And no, you've backed up NOTHING. You've linked to ONE DEV saying that he personally thinks it should be different and a handful blog posts written by idiots for EN24. You have yet to show why any of your ideas would be good or how they would work if integrated into the current null environment without screwing everything up.

I on the other hand have nothing to prove since I want NO CHANGES. The fact that the existing system works, has worked for years and is used EVERY DAY is proof enough. The onus is on YOU to show that your changes won't break the game. But you are far too think to understand that, so you find it easier to ignore what people write, then scream and whine like a child.