Player Features and Ideas Discussion

No, but that's not the point.

I'm pretty amazed that you haven't seen the point yet.

It's not that easy i'm telling you. When you don't know if someone is active or afk, it's not that easy to just do some things as you make us to believe.

No, but that's not the point.

I'm pretty amazed that you haven't seen the point yet.[/quote]

Pretty amazed you are complaining about cloaky ships being dangerous. Set a few traps and they'll start changing their tune pretty fast. See that's the problem with people, they look for mechanics to help them "win" the game instead of devising their strategies with dealing with a very balanced concept.[/quote]
It's not that easy i'm telling you. When you don't know if someone is active or afk, it's not that easy to just do some things as you make us to believe.[/quote]


Of course it isn't easy. If the game was suppose to be easy you wouldn't be here complaining. Instead this is a difficult game where you have to use your mind a bit harder than you seem to have. Simple as that.

So why do the afk cloakers have it so extremely easy then if EVE is supposed to be a hard game?

Basicly, you just defeated your own arguments with that post. Congrats.

Are you being stupid on purpose here?

Running covert ops campaigns actively is not the same as sitting lazy in space doing nothing or being afk.

Make up your mind, are you running covert ops campaigns by being active or are you afk in space (witch is the problem)?

Those 2 things are not the same.

I realized that no matter what I write you'll respond to your own version of what I write.

You are amazing at coming up with strawman arguments and other logical fallacies, so why should I bother.

But please continue keeping the thread on the front page.

Actually, being AFK for hours on end while cloaked is indeed part of the campaign. Create the impression, "Oh he is always AFK" until they do something dumb like undock in an expensive ship....

And local is available so you can, you know actually play the game. Setting up [player-driven local] in game would be very, very hard even for CCP..

I do firmly believe that free stuff is usually good, yes. If everyone has access to the same intel, it all balances out in the end. There is no difference between automation and bots, except that bots give an advantage to those who are afk, which is to say that bots allow afk players to have an effect on the game, much like afk cloaking. While automation allows players to turn their attention to more complicated and strategic tactics, while monotonous actions are relegated to the computer's automation scripts. I support automation, but do not support any influence of an afk player on the game. Gets a little more complicated to explain regarding markets and PI, but the idea is that the player controls influences while at the keyboard which exist in game for other players to interact with; cloaks do not allow any interaction while market orders may be filled or countered.

Another point Nikk has tried to make and was largely ignored.

Right now, I think it is safe to assume that from the Dev's point of view the game regarding local and AFK cloaking is balanced. Maybe it is sub-optimal, but balanced.

Why? Because if this weren't the case they have had several years to change it to make it balanced or more balanced.

Taking this as an assumption, any proposed changed will have to maintain that balance. Given this AFK flags and auto-log off timers don't satisfy this criteria because they give a benefit to one group at the expense of another group.

Still waiting for Teckos, or anyone really, to acknowledge that a lone stealth bomber or a solo recon without any cyno capabilities is an easy "AFK cloaky" threat to deal with and that the real issue only emerges when there is a cyno possibility.

Revising my 5-part proposal:

1) Fundamental incompatibilities between the cyno and the cloak:
1a) No ship can fit both a cloak and a regular cyno at the same time.
1b) No cloak-fitted ship can jump through a bridge to a regular cyno; jump drive is not affected by the cloak.
1c) The cyno module does not allow the generation of a cloaked signature.
1d) Covert cyno generators only fit on a ship with a covert cloak fitted; the covert cyno requires the covert cloak to synchronize with the ship's systems.

2) Local only records ships when they pass uncloaked by intel structures in the system.
2a) Local only records ships which appeared uncloaked on grid at any of the following structures: Stargates, IHUBs, stations, ** Mobile Intel Structure **, or other intel structures.
2b) Logging on and off does not get a ship off local. All players on local are moved to a system offline until they relog, at which time they will be displayed in local again no matter where they logged.
2c) Stealthy entry is possible for ships entering a system on a grid devoid of intel or sov structures through wormholes, cynos and covert cynos, though dscan will always pickup uncloaked ships in range. Concealment from local continues until the ship appears decloaked on grid with an intel structure or with any player that is blue to the sov holder (everyone is assumed blue to Concord for this purpose). Only those friendly to the sov holder may see local, unless they are docked at a station. One may enter a system through a wormhole not covered by a Mobile Intel Structure, and may remain invisible to local so long as they maintain their cloak while on grid with intel structures.

3) 30 minute auto-log timer. Players can be bothered to click on their client at least once per half hour.

4) Neither the cyno nor the disruptor/scrambler may cycle while the other is active. The disruptor/scrambler cannot cycle for 30s after the ship has bridged. The ship's warp drives and microwarpdrives are inoperable for 30s after a bridge.

5) Supers are made mortal with vulnerability to eWar and regular points, and with EHP in the ballpark of regular caps (no more than twice as much, for sure).