These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Cloaking Countermeasures
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jacid
Corvix.
Greater Domain Cooperative
#121 - 2013-03-19 22:54:00 UTC
When you think of the no local argument does the idea of optional local or no local just play out in null sec or should low sec and high sec also be without local? Also in the past have any of the devs commented on local channel and its functions vers cloaking?
Mikaila Penshar
SISTAHs of EVE
#122 - 2013-03-19 23:55:03 UTC
Granted Nikk- you want local to be a non gift to intel, so using my suggestion re: 'local entities' one would jump into system and warp to a safe location off grid from everything. Then by simply logging off they would vanish from local, and with a stroke of the keys logging in they would be ...ready for this big guy.... In system, but NOT in local.

Sure it's a time consuming process to be living 'off the grid', no one said it should be easy or fun... I think it would work though. The lazy, or the bold would not fear local showing them as present, whilst the sly and sneaky-slick would have their option to cloak their ship and their presence, or just their presence... whichever they want or need. Local exists, but it should be able to be circumvented.

now that's fair n'uff huh Nikk?
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#123 - 2013-03-20 01:03:00 UTC
Mikaila Penshar wrote:
Granted Nikk- you want local to be a non gift to intel, so using my suggestion re: 'local entities' one would jump into system and warp to a safe location off grid from everything. Then by simply logging off they would vanish from local, and with a stroke of the keys logging in they would be ...ready for this big guy.... In system, but NOT in local.

Sure it's a time consuming process to be living 'off the grid', no one said it should be easy or fun... I think it would work though. The lazy, or the bold would not fear local showing them as present, whilst the sly and sneaky-slick would have their option to cloak their ship and their presence, or just their presence... whichever they want or need. Local exists, but it should be able to be circumvented.

now that's fair n'uff huh Nikk?

I admire the strategy. It would make sense for all ships to avoid being displayed in local under those conditions.

As to what I would also suggest, consider this:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2369739#post2369739

I believe it serves interests in all directions if local is limited to displaying active uncloaked ships in this manner.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Tarn Kugisa
Kugisa Dynamics
#124 - 2013-03-20 05:38:32 UTC
I personally don't think cloakers are a problem
Just fleet up with some friends and enjoy not being able to be killed by stealth bombers whilst ratting

Be polite. Be efficient. Have a plan to troll everyone you meet - KuroVolt
Azrael Dinn
Imperial Mechanics
#125 - 2013-03-20 06:53:12 UTC
Tarn Kugisa wrote:
I personally don't think cloakers are a problem
Just fleet up with some friends and enjoy not being able to be killed by stealth bombers whilst ratting


Yet hundreds or players think cloakers are a problem. Would love to see a poll made by CCP what people actualy think about this matter. Smile

After centuries of debating and justifying... Break Cloaks tm
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#126 - 2013-03-20 08:52:32 UTC
Machiavelli Interface wrote:
If I need to go afk, I pos up, or dock up if I happen to be in a system with a station.

...

Every one in EVE has reasons to become AFK. We all deal with it without a cloak on 90 percent of our ships.
Why cant you?


See, this is the hypocrisy that I don't like. You admit that you go AFK in your pos or station where you're invulnerable, but you don't want anyone else to go afk in a state which allows them to be invulnerable?

You want absolute safety in your own little systems, but want to remove similar safeties from everyone else.

No. That is unbalanced and unfair.
Machiavelli Interface
S-T United Heavy Shipyards
#127 - 2013-03-20 14:11:37 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Machiavelli Interface wrote:
If I need to go afk, I pos up, or dock up if I happen to be in a system with a station.

...

Every one in EVE has reasons to become AFK. We all deal with it without a cloak on 90 percent of our ships.
Why cant you?


See, this is the hypocrisy that I don't like. You admit that you go AFK in your pos or station where you're invulnerable, but you don't want anyone else to go afk in a state which allows them to be invulnerable?

You want absolute safety in your own little systems, but want to remove similar safeties from everyone else.

No. That is unbalanced and unfair.


++++++++++

You haven't been reading have you?

If I dock up, I can only enter the game in one place, the station undock, you can check where I am with complete safty.
You can choose to locate me, hunt me and the moment I undock, you can choose to shoot me.

the Cloaker and how the afk cloak who abuses the mechanic is in no such restraint.

So,,
before you call things what they aren't,
please read.
DataRunner Attor
Doomheim
#128 - 2013-03-20 14:23:18 UTC
Machiavelli Interface wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Machiavelli Interface wrote:
If I need to go afk, I pos up, or dock up if I happen to be in a system with a station.

...

Every one in EVE has reasons to become AFK. We all deal with it without a cloak on 90 percent of our ships.
Why cant you?


See, this is the hypocrisy that I don't like. You admit that you go AFK in your pos or station where you're invulnerable, but you don't want anyone else to go afk in a state which allows them to be invulnerable?

You want absolute safety in your own little systems, but want to remove similar safeties from everyone else.

No. That is unbalanced and unfair.


++++++++++

You haven't been reading have you?

If I dock up, I can only enter the game in one place, the station undock, you can check where I am with complete safty.
You can choose to locate me, hunt me and the moment I undock, you can choose to shoot me.

the Cloaker and how the afk cloak who abuses the mechanic is in no such restraint.

So,,
before you call things what they aren't,
please read.


you clearly never seen a deathstar pos.

“Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.”
Machiavelli Interface
S-T United Heavy Shipyards
#129 - 2013-03-20 14:58:56 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Please specify how you would balance local's absolute and free intel, as your idea removes the ability for cloaking to continue this task.



As mentioned, I don't have a problem of local going away, or fading.

What the system fighters do is stop the abusive nature of the afk cloak.

Any other pilot in game has to risk being interacted with in EVE, and those in stations have a very known location they must enter into the EVE universe plus,, locator agents can find them. So in no way is docking up similar to Cloaking.

If CCP intended cloak to be the solution to needing to go afk, or an effective "game pause" button...
Every ship would have the ability to go,,,"half phase" when looking at the "esc" key option screen.
But they didn't and don't.

So, on the simple concepts of":

Everyone in eve is in a sandbox and is supposed to be interactable by players, at the other players choice of time and place.
No ship is supposed to be king, every ship is vulrable.

the game mechaince that people are abusing and leads to people feeling cloak is broken is valid.

While cloak itself may not be broken, the fact that there is no effective in game way to bring the EVE interaction to the cloaked player is broken.

So, finding a way, like the system fighters, that take time, isk investment, and some player skill to organize, setup and run as a system defense, would keep the idea of a cloaked ship in system having the ablity to disrupt the efforts in that same system still viable.

The only thing the system defense fighters do is eliminate the idea that someone not actively playing EVE, affecting eve with impunity. With no way to bring them into interaction with EVE.
No other player can say that.

No other player can log in and choose to stay safe for 23/7 hours of play while still having a mesruable effect on EVE.
Any other player logged into eve, in the eve sandbox, can be brought into interaction with other players at the time and choosing of the other player.

market players have 3 month limit on their orders. (and consider the .01 isk wars in jita)

players in station must come into EVE at a known place
players are locatable by in game npc agents. (we cant even bribe them to provide a false location!)

Given;
that CCP has changed the loot tables to make hi sec mission running less involved in the production of minerals.
The Drone lands loot change.

The rat AI has been changed to kill drones and to change up other aspects to make lvl 4 mission running more interactive, greatly reducing the abilty of people sit even semi afk in a drone or missle boat.

the mineral compression of some modules is being changed so that you cant just buy mins, build these modules, and ship them down to null sec... means they want people to mine. To be more interactive with EVE.

Leaving an abusive game mechanic with no counter isn't going to last much longer.
If you cant see the direction that CCP has been going towards for years...

At least my suggestion brings more ships into play, makes covert ops more active and way more playable.
I can already hear people braging that they got into such and such system,, stayed for days.. got bribed to leave...
all because they where effective at actualy playing the game.
And being at risk just like the rest of us that are in the EVE universe.

Or would you like to argue that with local cloaks get super uber tank, and able to fire lasers..
oh wait,, then I should be able to have a cloaked hulk that mines in complete safty too...
Your argument breaks down, becuae the need for minerals in EVE is just as strong as any argument for gathering intel.

No playered mined minerals, no player built ships, no ships to fly, no ships to go boom, ect..

So, system defense fighters, that have the abilty to bring a cloaked ship into play, a game mechaince that can be dealt with by an active player, (say 30 min to do one section of the system for patrols?) The active player could avoid detection.
Only the abusive afk cloak would be found easily from being sloppy and vulrable.
Yes coverts could still make mistakes, but then..

who hasn't lost a ship to a gank or some other in game combat and not gone, "gee, I could have done that better!":
No one else goes afk and is immune to interaction unless they log out.

it would be like arguing that the anoms are player specific instances and you shouldn't be able to scan them down with probes.
Eve already has the concept of finding hidden space.
the cloaked ship should be no difrent, there should be a way to hunt and scan them down, to breing the "totaly risk evasive" player of the afk cloak into game play.
DataRunner Attor
Doomheim
#130 - 2013-03-20 15:31:01 UTC
Machiavelli Interface wrote:


Everyone in eve is in a sandbox and is supposed to be intractable by players, at the other players choice of time and place.
No ship is supposed to be king, every ship is vulnerable.





this one quote here makes your entire argument void.

How does this one quote make his entire argument void Steve? Well I shall explain Bob.

A cloak ship interacts with eve in many ways, an in turn can be interacted with. Despite what people believe but the act of ignoring a ship is a form of interaction. Someone could hold your system for ransom and say that they won't decloak or leave unless you pay them. Sure you can pay them that is one form of interaction or you could outright ignore them which is another form of interaction, most people that make demands like that actually have no power to back themselves up and won't attack anyone but the weakest and most isolated of ships.

Also the act of a cloaker making it way to your system is also another form of interaction, you fail to understand that they don't magically puff out of thin air, they made it to your system through either slow boating it, finding out about your pos passwords(Then you are really screwed) or through a wormhole, all this is interaction and all this can be interacted by another player, be it defending your gateway systems to keep people out, to actively protecting your mission runners and mining operations to keep the now /afker/ away.

“Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.”
Mikaila Penshar
SISTAHs of EVE
#131 - 2013-03-20 20:03:35 UTC
Hold on- i'm confused... what was the issue again?
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#132 - 2013-03-20 21:57:20 UTC
Machiavelli Interface's *Suggested Fix*

A set of fighters, to deal with patrolling a system.
Use the system scaning screen to setup a system scaning patern, based on skill level should be easy enough to code acruacy or a number of stored patterns, or even aviable patterns to use.

The idea of a fighter, something curiser sized, with the capabilities of a t2 drone for combat, the probing capability a missle sized item has, and frigate type agility isn't dificlut to imagine. Having a low sig and needing a silent running mode themselves to not interfer with the abiltiies of the electronics to "sense" the sublte signature of a cloaked ship would mean they don't have great shields, armor or otherwise. So, an easy kill. and probably not cheap. but would mean they could deal with the afk cloak.


Wow.
So far no person has posted a single solid reason why the development of System defense Fighters shouldn't be in the game.
Not only would they increase the playability of EVE, they would increase the utility of more expensive and skill intensive ships, as well as putting them at risk.
You cant launch fighters while hiding in a pos.

I would think black ops teams would love this fact.
I accept that in EVE someone else can choose a time and place of their choosing to shoot at me.

The Cloak does not.

Ok, point one. This needs a capital ship unless we are using changed requirements to operate fighters.
That means it favors corps and alliances with a ready supply of these for use with this.

Point two, these can be used unattended by the description. Having a programmed pattern to search. Figure out how long it takes the pattern to run, come back and repeat.

Point three, risk averse players, the ones doing PvE who are otherwise threatened by cloaking since it pollutes local's intel with unresolved issues... these issues will now either be resolved or prove the cloaked pilot is active. Log and return later to check again, no more stalemate.

Sorry, but I am not seeing this as an ideal balance solution. Even assuming local did stop reporting cloaked presence, you have placed the means to counter cloaked vessels instead into the hands of cap pilots, who are not necessarily an equal balance to covert pilots.

If you want to detect and hunt cloaked ships, you need to earn the intel regarding them on all levels with a level of effort equal to what it takes them to operate cloaked. For every aspect this is different, the greater probability it will spin out into something the devs are likely to regret.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Machiavelli Interface
S-T United Heavy Shipyards
#133 - 2013-03-21 13:53:31 UTC
Thanks for the reply.

Steve...
it is the fact that the cloaked ship can choose to interact or not interact with impunity, other players can not in any effective way bring the cloaked ship into interaction on their terms. That is the imbalance. So your agurment is void.
Sitting in a system cloaked breaks the concept that at any time any other player can interact with your game.

Forgive me if I include Smack talk in local, sending an eve mail or any non "game physical" way of interacting as a effective means of game interaction.

And yet again people are splitting hairs and using symantics to try and justify an abusive play style. That of a player who may nor may not be at the keyboard affecting the game time of a player who must be at the keyboard to play.

If I set up an account to mine 23 / 7,
I would have to use a bot?
Share an account..

ect.

All things that break the EUL of EVE.

Deathstar pos?
You can always shoot it. doesn't mean you personaly affect it, but in Null, any pos can be taken down.
"Game physical" interaction.
Machiavelli Interface
S-T United Heavy Shipyards
#134 - 2013-03-21 14:30:34 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Machiavelli Interface's *Suggested Fix*

A set of fighters, to deal with patrolling a system.
Use the system scaning screen to setup a system scaning patern, based on skill level should be easy enough to code acruacy or a number of stored patterns, or even aviable patterns to use.

The idea of a fighter, something curiser sized, with the capabilities of a t2 drone for combat, the probing capability a missle sized item has, and frigate type agility isn't dificlut to imagine. Having a low sig and needing a silent running mode themselves to not interfer with the abiltiies of the electronics to "sense" the sublte signature of a cloaked ship would mean they don't have great shields, armor or otherwise. So, an easy kill. and probably not cheap. but would mean they could deal with the afk cloak.


Ok, point one. This needs a capital ship unless we are using changed requirements to operate fighters.
That means it favors corps and alliances with a ready supply of these for use with this.

Point two, these can be used unattended by the description. Having a programmed pattern to search. Figure out how long it takes the pattern to run, come back and repeat.

Point three, risk averse players, the ones doing PvE who are otherwise threatened by cloaking since it pollutes local's intel with unresolved issues... these issues will now either be resolved or prove the cloaked pilot is active. Log and return later to check again, no more stalemate.

Sorry, but I am not seeing this as an ideal balance solution. Even assuming local did stop reporting cloaked presence, you have placed the means to counter cloaked vessels instead into the hands of cap pilots, who are not necessarily an equal balance to covert pilots.

If you want to detect and hunt cloaked ships, you need to earn the intel regarding them on all levels with a level of effort equal to what it takes them to operate cloaked. For every aspect this is different, the greater probability it will spin out into something the devs are likely to regret.



++++++
Thank you for the relpy.

Point one.
Every one says that to counter a cloak it should be expensive,(the cloak isn't a cheap ship for its lack of other in game stats)

A carrier counter is both multiple times expensive in skill and isk to the cloak.


Point two
any one who chooses to leave a carrier active in game, out of pos shields, can be shot at. This would give Covert ops an excellent chance to kill the carrier. Again, the solution allows other players to interact with the play style. And AFK play in the carrier would be less than optimal for keeping it alive.

I would love to see a system screen where I could take my mouse, etch a fighter flight plan onto it and then watch as the fighters then traversed said route scaning and then possibly attacking a cloaked ship.
I just don't know if EVE can be coded in that way. Balancing a game with the game programing does create some interesting issues, just look at how the orca was..(a few interesting exploits with that ship too.)

Point three
They do that now, log in, see the ship in local, and either log out or stay docked, If they had a way to bring the cloak into eve interaction at a time of their game play choosing, just like the cloak... they would gather together and do so. Stalemate and abusive play style resolved.

Gathering of intel.
the AFK cloak gains way more from the "perfect intel of local", in that the abusive play style would not be possible or as effective by not actively being at the keyboard. but there is still no way to bring that player into the same EVE environment of being interacted with on other players terms.

Gaining intel.
Fighters don't automatically shoot every target in their range. You have to tell them to engage for the most part.
So, system defense fighters, following some scaning patern would then have to be told by an active player that the possible scan anomaly should be attacked. If its a Cloaked frigate or other such small ship, I have no problems with the defense fighters able to shoot it and kill it. There should be at least 5 of them or most likely more. And again it might take a few moments to do, if the player is active, they can warp to a difrent safe point.

Earning intel.
building up a system, worth having a carrier on post, to run the system defense fighters isn't simple eve play. Skill time, isk investment, ect, keeps the idea of a lone player in eve having the abitliy to cuase the butterfly effect. Keeping EVE true to its roots. Making the abitly to hunt down cloaked ships dificlut skill wise, isk investment wise, isn't a bad thing. It still leaves lots of targets out there for the cloaks to play eve with. But it does give people an abilty to defend a home system, it does give players the ablity to bring the EVE experience of someone attacking the cloaked ship on their terms and not the cloaks terms into balance.

Possible adjustment.
Covert ops ships could be allowed to fit a module that would link with a type of eccm drone. Using the system screen, the covert ops ship would launch the drones, click the module, and a "bubble" of some size would appear on the screen, like the probes produce. Depending on the volume of the bubble, (limited by the range of drone control the pilot has) it would take some amount of time for the drones to scan and cover that area.

This would let Covert ops hunt covert ops in a more Hunter killer mode.
Onomerous
Caldari Black Hand
Caldari Tactical Operations Command
#135 - 2013-03-21 14:35:48 UTC
Machiavelli Interface wrote:
Thanks for the reply.

Steve...
it is the fact that the cloaked ship can choose to interact or not interact with impunity, other players can not in any effective way bring the cloaked ship into interaction on their terms. That is the imbalance. So your agurment is void.
Sitting in a system cloaked breaks the concept that at any time any other player can interact with your game.

Forgive me if I include Smack talk in local, sending an eve mail or any non "game physical" way of interacting as a effective means of game interaction.

And yet again people are splitting hairs and using symantics to try and justify an abusive play style. That of a player who may nor may not be at the keyboard affecting the game time of a player who must be at the keyboard to play.

If I set up an account to mine 23 / 7,
I would have to use a bot?
Share an account..

ect.

All things that break the EUL of EVE.

Deathstar pos?
You can always shoot it. doesn't mean you personaly affect it, but in Null, any pos can be taken down.
"Game physical" interaction.


Your basic premise is flawed. You can't force someone else to interact or not because you want them to. Why should you be able to 'effectively' bring the opponent into interaction on your terms? If so then I want you to meet me in Jita in your unarmed T3 cruiser (you have to interact with me on my terms) with a suspect flag!!

I'm still lost how a cloaky ship is the problem... I don't even have local to help with cloaky ships in WH but it doesn't stop me from playing EVE in a WH.

I suspect the replies to this post will reveal the true problem (which isn't the cloaky ship by itself).
Machiavelli Interface
S-T United Heavy Shipyards
#136 - 2013-03-21 14:53:42 UTC
in reply wrote;

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Machiavelli Interface's *Suggested Fix*

Sorry, but I am not seeing this as an ideal balance solution. Even assuming local did stop reporting cloaked presence, you have placed the means to counter cloaked vessels instead into the hands of cap pilots, who are not necessarily an equal balance to covert pilots.

If you want to detect and hunt cloaked ships, you need to earn the intel regarding them on all levels with a level of effort equal to what it takes them to operate cloaked. For every aspect this is different, the greater probability it will spin out into something the devs are likely to regret.



Hum,..

Ok, having the abilty to actively hunt down covert ships in the system, but not instant,(no one click fix, no instant scan)

Allowing the covert player to attempt avoiding a set of active players searching for them.

How is this not balanced? It takes skill points, isk, and the willingness to risk a much more valuble ship than the cloak to defeat its Cloaked status.

the only play style this would defeat, and be defeated by an actual player at the keyboard would be the cloak that goes afk for long periods of time, the player that is abusing the cloak mechanic.

It provides a balance in that every one in game is now at the same level of having other players interact with their game play on a "game physical" level.

How easy to defeat?
the cloak like any other person in EVE who finds themselves in a sticky situation but not yet in active combat, can log out, and hope the people hunting them get board.

But, if they didn't do it smart, there risk the chance that the other players now have a smaller portion of space to hunt for them when they come back.

Reward active, smart play, create game mechanics that allow active players the ablity to bring that EVE experience to those that are AKF and cloaked, just like any other ship / play style in eve.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#137 - 2013-03-21 14:58:03 UTC
Machiavelli Interface wrote:
Thanks for the reply.

Steve...
it is the fact that the cloaked ship can choose to interact or not interact with impunity, other players can not in any effective way bring the cloaked ship into interaction on their terms. That is the imbalance. So your agurment is void.
Sitting in a system cloaked breaks the concept that at any time any other player can interact with your game.

Forgive me if I include Smack talk in local, sending an eve mail or any non "game physical" way of interacting as a effective means of game interaction.

And yet again people are splitting hairs and using symantics to try and justify an abusive play style. That of a player who may nor may not be at the keyboard affecting the game time of a player who must be at the keyboard to play.

If I set up an account to mine 23 / 7,
I would have to use a bot?
Share an account..

ect.

All things that break the EUL of EVE.

Deathstar pos?
You can always shoot it. doesn't mean you personaly affect it, but in Null, any pos can be taken down.
"Game physical" interaction.


Someone who is afk and or cloaked cannot "abuse" or interact with you in any way, friend. We've repeated this many times yet you do not seem to understand.
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
#138 - 2013-03-21 15:33:16 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Someone who is afk and or cloaked cannot "abuse" or interact with you in any way, friend. We've repeated this many times yet you do not seem to understand.


What he said.

A cloaked ship in system poses no immediate threat. A cov ops cloaked ship shouldn't cause you a problem. A non-covops cloaked ship takes so long to be able to lock you after decloaking that even if you're in a battleship you should be able to get out unless you're playing AFK in which case you deserve to die.

Remove non-covops cynos from being able to be fit to ships with covops cloaks and give normal cynos the same time to use penalty as you have for locking after decloak and voila, you have no more overpowered situations with cloaks. No need whatsoever to create anti cloak fighters.

That, or you could do what most people in nullsec do and grow a pair.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#139 - 2013-03-21 17:21:32 UTC
I maintain my premise that the current situation may not be ideal, but it is balanced.

I also suggest specific changes affecting both sides, with but one goal in mind. Make it possible to actually compete with other players.
I do not see that as happening right now, and that is boring many of the more talented pilots.

As is obvious, here is the current situation being repeated:

PvE pilot aligns to safe spot of some form. Engages rats or mining while keeping an eye on the pilot list in local.
The moment a non blue pops up on this list, they hit warp, and are safe from conflict.
When a cloaked ship enters, it avoids being forced out due to it not being possible to locate within reason.

In this situation, it is not some one sided game, but a stalemate where one pilot sacrifices their time to create a threat on others.
These others use local to know a threat exists, no matter how unlikely, so can be completely safe.
That is what I consider boring. Noone is shooting, since it is effectively a cold war of threats, each hitting a perfect defense.

I want to need to make effort to gather intel, and form strategies to survive while PvE engaged. I want this so I can make a better effort than the next guy, and live while they die in a fire.
I want this level of difficulty to affect the rewards available, and reflect that it is a challenge worth more than we can earn currently.

I think the first step is for local to stop doing my competition's homework for them. I can do my own intel gathering, and being able to do it better than the next guy means I am competing against him and coming out ahead.
I don't want everyone to be winners, with some lame "Also Participated" trophy rewards... this is not why most of us want to be in null.
Sure, cloaked vessels could be hunted, but that needs to be balanced very carefully, which is why I think it needs to mirror cloaking as much as possible.

Let's compete.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Mag's
Azn Empire
#140 - 2013-03-21 21:40:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
@ Machiavelli Interface

How does gaining more intel, make your idea balanced? You have what can only be described as 'intel on a plate', in the form of local. You're now claiming that to balance the game, you want to add yet more intel.

Sorry but no. How can anyone even remotely claim that, to be a balanced approach?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.