Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sure it does, it proves your statement is pure unadulterated Bravo Sierra. You said utter immunity, but now we know that is just simply not true at all.

Care to wildly exaggerate anything else?

You're talking about yourself, right? Rarely have I seen anyone on these forums as devoted to self delusion and dishonest as you.

There is no feedback to be found because Fozzy is on record having said that afk cloaking is perfectly fine because it is disrupting null isk.

I'm as null sec as it gets, and I am a PVE player. I hate afk cloakers and have been affected by them since the beginning (basically 2009 when CCP created the upgrades system that let us farm null sec).

But just like the nerf local idea, nerfing afk cloakers doesn't work unless and until you do other things 1st. Null anoms are AFK-able themselves (I know, because I sometimes afk them lol) and spew liquid isk into the economy. AFK cloakers are a counter to this (and a poor one that is very easily countered by making a ratting fleet that can fight a hot drop, or in other ways I've detailed earlier in this thread).

Basically, you have to fix how null pve works before you nerf afk cloaking, and , ironically, if you fix null pve (like making it based on mission running instead of anoms for example), you probably just 'fixed' afk cloaking anyways lol.

But fixing afk cloaking while leaving AFK isk making is totally wrong.

What you want is the equivalent of a naval destroyer, able to hunt submarines whilst unable to cloak itself, isn't it?

What, you said utter immunity, that is clearly not the case. Now instead of saying, "Okay, yeah I exaggerated....etc." you want to make seem like my fault.

No.

I pointed out that being able to afk anomolies isn't the same situation as being able to afk camp under a cloak.

It's that equivance thing you seem to have such a hard time with.

I fully agree that afk behaviors are bad. However... Afk some PvE and a hunter shows up, PvE guy dies because he wasn't safe, unlike your very tired claim. Local protects nothing, but it us used to enable you to protect yourself.

Afk under a cloak, a hunter shows up...camper continues to camp without a care in the world, because the cloak makes that pilot utterly immune to any outside action (/sigh while it's in use, terms and conditions apply... For the thinking impaired...)

How you got the rest of your knickers twisting out of my post I don't understand, except you are desperate for something that won't make you sound desperate in your rebuttal.

Essentially your argument is that the cloaked camps are ok so long as they are hurting the other guy, becuse too much ISK.

I don't accept that as a valid way to balance the game. If the problem is too much ISK, then address that problem directly, there is no need to allow a different problem that is orders of magnitude more negative on enjoyment of the game for the largest demographic playing it. That's before we get into discussions of basic game concepts of risk and open space.

Intel is another seperate topic. One we have been over. I am fine with changing it, but it won't matter to cloaks and hunting if we do, because people simply won't go out in areas where the Intel goes down. You will still have the same issue that you can't get to your preferred prey because they won't stick around to be shot. You might get some more play out of people putting up and attacking Intel, but that won't be cloaks ambushing non-combat ships. It's amusing to see you scratch for a nerf to others even in this however- you want to add risk to Intel without compensation to those that rely on it to operate. As much as you have screamed about your own playstyle not receiving even the most insignificant quantum of additional risk or effort for any reason at all, it's ok if it's the other guy eating the nerf to resolve a problem you have. Yay compromise and stuff. Still, Intel and how it works is irrelevant to the discussion because in the end it will work or you will have even less in null sec.

The only relevant point to the discussion is the safety of cloaks. No one should be safe in open space. Active play should trump passive play. Cloaks as they are now make an absolute hypocrite of you and most other PvP pilots that ever cried about carebear risk avoidance, risk, reward or even the ever so smug EVE is a PVP game. If there are other issues ameliorated by cloaks in their broken state, then those issues need to be dealt with in a way that does not involve one-sided broken mechanics.

At the end of the day, your desired playstyle of ambushing non-combat or severely disadvantaged ships in one-sided buttsex fights isn't something the other guy is interested in, and he does not have to stick around for it-- and CCP should not make changes so that you can have an easier time of it. If near-helpless ships that won't run from a fight they can't win are what you want, the rats are all over the place. Stop expecting intelligent enemies to be unintelligent just for you.

What I am saying Mike, if you can wrap your head around it....is the following...

If you want to be able to hunt a cloaked ship...YOU MOTHER ****ING HAVE TO GIVE UP SOMETHING IN RETURN YOUR GREEDY SON OF A *****.

It is just that simple.

It's exactly like the Freighter rebalance thread.

They really do think they should get something for nothing. They are not capable of conceiving the fact that the game might be balanced, much less that it's already unabalanced in their favor. In their skewed minds, the game won't be balanced until they're perfectly bubble wrapped and no one can touch them.

They genuinely think they should just get blanket buffs without any thought towards game balance.

A more blind, selfish mindset I cannot imagine.