Assembly Hall

We aren't ONLY talking about hot dropping. You are talking about flying cloakers around to find targets. And I explained why the predator would not change. Go ahead and read it.

Lol, really not. You are repeating yourself and when you get yourself lost you seem to just stop responding to what I've actually said and go off on a tangent. You are yet to actually poke a hole in anything.

It's not facts though. It's your opinion restated as if it's gospel.

And generally it's the same people. It's the same reused argument that's been around for years. And it's ridiculous. And no, you can very easily change one without the other. You bang on about being creative, yet you can't even separate those two mechanics.

I want to note something to you, regardless of your constant attacks, and in fact, adding no content on what happening. You act, like one of those people, no I wouldn't even say people as that stereotyping, but you seem like a person that just wants to argue for argument's sake. You my friend are the classic example of a null-bear, you want all of the reward, but none of the risk that comes with the reward, I'm sorry, but that has to change. The ability to gain reward without risk goes ageist everything this game stands for. So I provided a suggestion that would increase risk for both sides.

You provided why predators wouldn't change. I clearly disagree with you on that subject, but instead of taking my disagreement with thoughtful action, you called me someone that doesn't understand how null sec works. Now, I'm sure a man of... 15 years of something experience knows the ins and outs of how every single person lives their life in null sec, despite the fact that each corporation technically has different goals they wish to achieve, thus will perform and work differently from each other, will be structured differently, and have different set of rules. I myself will make no claim that I understand EVERY SINGLE ASPECT OF NULL SEC, making such claim is ludicrous, and I will not believe someone when they make such claims they do.

As for the I'm not poking holes in your argument, What making it so hard to respond to you is because even after poking holes into your argument, you just throw insults at me. How does one argue with insults? It pointless, and your attempts to continue to throw insults at me, are...Well...Relatively pointless.

It's not facts? It your opinion of course, right?

As for your response to, for separating the mechanics. Yes, you are right, they are two different mechanics, but they kinda go hand to hand with each other. I do bang on creativity, and game design, but hey I have yet to see you listen, or you know, provide any creative suggestions. Again the statement still stands, if you want to change cloak, then you have to change local, there is really nothing else to argue about with that topic.

As for the real world, I think you need a reality check, yes, people will disagree with ideas, and I'm perfectly fine with that, it when people disagree with ideas, then proceed to insult said person is the part that in reality, that will most likely land you without a job, specially if you do it to your boss, or have a law suit placed on you, if you are the boss. And other questions about reality that I need to bring you up to speed with as someone that not only goes to college, but also works to help put themselves through college?

Oh, and finally the last thing, oh I want to chew you threw with that comment. "Were you interested in that topic, and did I make you mad when I chucked it out?" Did you even read the first part of that post? After all I did say, that making new intel tools isn't something that one can do at the drop of the hat and expect people to be nice and receptive about it. Hell, look at your response to it. You didn't even look at the possibility of said new intel tool, you just scream about how it won't work if you have hundreds of people in a system, yet I never fully fleshed it out, I only provided it as an example to someone that asked "now what?" Something to build off of, something, you didn't do.

Now, can you stop derailing this thread, and maybe do something useful with your time here? I don't know, maybe provide a suggestion of your own... "Mr. I know how all of null sec works so I'm the only real authority here!"

You call me arrogant, yet in turn, you make yourself look just as arrogant.... It funny really.

They don't have to go hand in hand. Like at all. They are totally separate mechanics. And again, I'll make this clear. I don't want to change cloaks, I think they work well as is, which is evidences by their constant use.

Well you'll need to grow some thicker skin if you've been taking these responses as insults. At the end of the day, I've explained pretty clearly why I think not only your ideas but the basis of your ideas is flawed, and yet you just repeat yourself ans say "and these are the FACTS" as if that's suddenly going to make you less wrong. You need to take a step back and realistically look at the situation. You are putting forward a fundamental mechanic change which negatively affects a large group of people which you are not part of while positively affecting you, and you are refusing to even consider another viewpoint. Worse still, you consider your admittedly limited knowledge to be the facts.

This doesn;t even make sense to me. Is this a response to me or someone else?

And no, I don;t look at the possibility of a new intel tool, since there's absolutely no point in turning a working mechanic into a minigame so gankers can gank more and PvE players have to do more work just to be allowed to have fun.

My suggestion? Leave cloaking and local alone and focus on the real problems of nullsec: sov mechanics favouring massive coalitions forming and force projection allowing groups to operate on all sides of nullsec with little effort.

Is this supposed to make some kind of sense, or is this just a standard derailment post, since you picked out the single paragraph which had nothing to do with the topic of this thread and ignored everything else?

I accept your concession of defeat.

Lets see.

• You state your opinion.
• I disagree and state my opinion.
• You ignore what I wrote and restate your opinion with the word "fact" dotted about.
• I once again disagree and call you out on it.
• You can't figure out how to respond, ignore most of what I said and implode with rage.

Yep, sounds pretty childish to me. Maybe next time you might want to consider that opinions that don't align with yours aren't trolling and perhaps you won't implode so spectacularly. I guess the only upside is you are only embarrassing your disposable forum alt.

LOL, then point out where they are logical fallacies. You keep saying how wrong my opinions are, yet when asked for specifics, you suddenly can't. It's because you are talking bullshit, and anyone reading this thread can see that. Basically you are upset because you want to nuke nullsec, a place you don't live and occasionally visit, and someone with actual working knowledge of null, who has lived and breathed nullsec for years, has called your idea out for being badly thought out from other angles.

Let's face it though, if I bored you you'd not be here crying every few minutes.

And the owner also statedSomething you seem unwilling to drop.

Lol, I can't help it if he changes his mind. I quoted him directly, go ahead and look on the previous page.

That's not a slippery slope fallacy at all. Do you even understand the meaning of that or did you just look at the graphic, read the wikipedia page and guess it must be a fallacy? You want to replace local with an effort based mechanic, which will have the sole purpose of generating the intel that is currently available. It won't be integrated into the existing gameplay it, and yes, it will be a tedious activity. It's not a slippery slope fallacy to point out the direct result of a given change.

Wrong again. I didn't misrepresent anything. I simply stated that the predator activity would not change. I also pointed out that the steps you claimed a cloaker would need to to are the steps of a tackler.

Wrong again! Lovely! I claimed that it would fundamentally damage the whole of nullsec. At no point did I claim that nullsec would be the only part of the game affected, I am simply challenging your idea from the point of view of null sec. If a lowsec player wants to come in and represent their views, they can, but I won't, because unlike you I accept that a lowsec player knows lowsec. I know nullsec, so will represent only that view. From a nullsec perspective, your idea is terrible. Go ahead though and try to convince us all you were really aiming this at lowsec.

You can if you want. College kids are funny. You'll pretty much scream fallacy at everything said against you, regardless of if it contextually makes sense. And the result of your hilarious screaming is what? It doesn't suddenly make your terrible idea any better.

there have been many good suggestions in this thread, although it is getting quite lengthy, Several have taken form of proposals,
This big deal with most is how to change things to where one side or the other does not get an overwhelming advantage.

Now, as to local as explained by ccp and chronicles. Every pod pilot and ship has a becon, similar to the little black boxes on modern jets. Now concord uses these to find and monitor everything from sec status to aggressive combat and respond accordingly. Thus Local.

Now in every suggestion about changing local has included adding a new form in intelligence gathering system. whether automatic or active by player. This new intel system has been tied to finding cloaked ships.

The effect of local on cloaky is that you know he is there. in the submarine analogy basicly the cloak does not block the black box. Thus giving intel that a pilot is in a given system, just not his location or ship type.

Past that there is no relation to local and this thread. As I have time I plan to go through post by post and make a summery of all the suggestions for changes to the cloaked vrs pve. I will post it here at the end of the thread and in the front.

Once I have done that I would hope that those interested would just discuss the pro's and con's of the suggestions, not get hung up on other mechanics and whether or not they should change.

I thank everyone for their efforts and time in this thread

I don't agree with this, I will now quote you a reason why.

Yes, some of the devs have, for years in fact. Yet it still doesn't change. Why? Because it would be commercial suicide to take a fully working feature and nuke it for one of your biggest market groups. There's simply not enough benefit to changing it to make it worthwhile. The only group that would benefit are people who like to hunt PVE players in null in cloaky ships, which sorry to say is a small group which offers little in the way of income.

You can say that, but it doesn't make it true. There are ways to change each without affecting the other, you just aren't willing to consider them.