Player Features and Ideas Discussion

This is very apparent -
all in this thread should agree, that we disagree about how to handle it. I think we all agree that is needs to be handled.
All in favor of creating a petition to send to CCP that the issue of AFK cloaking, as Non active gameplay needs to be addressed. please put a comment stating such.

Absolutely

But you've chose to to that because of their active actions in the past. If this is the level of your arguments now there's little point since it's clearly just trolling. You know the difference between the existence of CODE and the existence of a completely AFK activity.

This makes no sense. That's like saying "I understand your point of view which is why I think smartbombs should do more damage". It's an unrelated buff to a playstyle that you're desperately trying to screw in as the only option. In addition, it's an option which CCP are unlikely to even implement and the sheer number of people against it would be overwhelming.

Prove it. More NPCs die in highsec and they all payout bounties too. With mission blitzers, the highsec rats that dies tend to be the higher value ones as they are normally the triggers, so you can't even assume that low value rate make up the difference.

And like I said, other recent changes have increased the amount of ISK coming into the game without balancing them out with incoming materials. The very minimal difference (if any) AFK cloaking being removed would make would be balanced out by additional mining. Either way though, no, I don't mind more isk coming into the economy, it's a natural progression, and to be quite honest inflation isn't that high. I'm happy to let CCP balance that how they see fit and won't dismiss good ideas simply because they might bring in a minimal amount of additional isk.

I do highsec trade... Apparently you don't read too well.

People care about locals existence because it has more of an impact that just ratting. That you don't realise that is yet another reason why your opinions can be dismissed.

No, I'm here because I believe that AFK play is bad.

No, but it balances inflation from incoming ISK. Adding value from materials adds more supply thus reduces the additional cost from inflation. I do find it amusing hat you see to have such a problem with NS income because of "inflation" yet you seem to lack basic understanding of the economy or the sources of isk into the game.

Really, logging off AFK players. No. No reason to in general.

The AFK cloaking issue is going to be addressed by CCP when they release the OA. They have hinted somewhat strongly that local will also likely change as well.

No I haven't. You've just got double standards. You are happy to bang on about people avoiding interaction when it suits you, but refuse to accept that it works both ways. AFK pilots should not be able to opt out of interaction in space simply by adding a cloak module.

Guys I blocked Lucas Kell a long time ago, he is only interested in posting opposing opinions on everything. his goal is to derail a thread to the point ISD closes the thread.
He is a stray bear I would not feed him

Let's see....

Ayra wrote,



By eliminating the first statement and keeping the second can one only arrive at the point you have made in a logical fashion. By eliminating the first comment, you have shown that for somebody who claims to put great store in logical arguments, well you fall short by your own metric.

Players want to go out and hunt down ratters. That is a perfectly fine and valid form of play in this game (contrary to Mike Voidstar's incessant whining to the contrary). However, to do so currently requires either one of the following to happen,

1. A distracted PvE pilot.
2. Dumb luck.

Neither of these are really skill based. Catching a distracted player is not that difficult. Catching a player who has had a stroke of bad luck (a scramming rat scrams him just as you jump in) also does not take much skill.

So, instead they AFK camp. As Mike keeps pointing, for now CCP thinks this is acceptable given the current state of the game.

Ayra's comment fall well within that range of outlook among some players who want to change this.

Teckos, you have outright lied again.

I have never said that hunting PvE was bad or invalid in any way. Hunting them exclusively is lazy and looking for easy kills, but that's not the same thing. Whining that you can't get PvP because you can't catch noncombat ships before the defense fleet puts you down is just ironic. But I have said over and over again that I don't mind being hunted, I just want the ability to hunt back if I choose.

Also, while I am flattered you feel the need to reference me in several of your posts, you should probably take the effort to honestly represent me if you are going to do so. I am sorry that I cannot provide you with a satisfying win on your untenable arguments, but dev fiat is all you got, not actual logic or any kind of reasonable grasp of balance. You are promoting a blatant double standard with the single supporting statement of 'because I can't catch PvE pilots otherwise'.

Except of course that I addressed the first statement. Suggesting that "hunters" (it's actually cloakers, hunters don't use cloaked ships) will give up AFK cloaking in favour of a bigger buff to their playstyle isn't surprising. It doesn't change that without that massive buff, he's in support of non-interaction.

Or they need to be skilled, like the many pilots who consistently score kills against ratters in null. That you don;t understand the skill involved doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Anything you can do in null, you can do in highsec. It's really that simple. Are you saying that in highsec something prevents you from scouting or sharing intel with your group? Nullsec is only as safe as you make it by the efforts of your players. Highsec can be the same using the same methods, plus you can rely on concord preventing your death in many cases.

You know nothing about what I want. And if you want a challenge, why are you supporting changes that buff already overpowered cloaked ships?

Also, that you left SMA, surely that helps show that you're grr blobs... It certainly doesn't prove that you're not, and the way you've been crying about them shows you clearly have a bug up your ass.

No it doesn't, It simply means I won't roll over and give up when presented with an opposing argument. That's what you're upset about. I don't agree with you, therefore there's something wrong with me, like I'm trolling or shitposting or like now, narrow minded. Why you can;t simply accept that people have opposing viewpoints and it's just as reasonable that your is wrong as mine, I don't know.

Really?



I'm sorry Mike, for taking some of your comments at face value.



Granted you were pretty hysterical there in that last one.

Oh, and before you run around calling people liars, maybe you can provide something for this?

Yeah, didn't think so. I think you should be careful using the term liar Mike....because I think you have quite a bit more problems in this thread than I do.