Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Agreed. A few dozen pages back I made a flip post about how a ratter earned 2 billion in a month, but lost a single T3 making his total ISK for the month 1.4 billion and Mike was all over it like stink on sh!t about how that was horrible.

Me, netting 1.4 billion a month would be great, at the end of a year I'd be in a super carrier if I wanted one or have enough ISK to go on 5-6 deployments before having to rat again.

So feel free to make some posts that discuss ISK faucets and sinks, your issues with local and how Intel works, etc...

Stop dragging unrelated crap into a discussion of AFK cloaks and trying to justify them because other stuff is wrong.

Your tantrum about wanting something for free is baseless. PvE playsyles don't have anything here to give up. You might have a point if it were balanced, but as you yourself admitted, it's not. The PvE guy gives up EVERYTHING he values when a hunter wanders in, for as long as he stays. What's he going to give up in return for just the chance at a shot at his aggressor, so he can try to rejoin the parts of the game he enjoys? He has nothing, and currently no options to try and get something.

That scream you just let out was balance honking you on the head.

Discussing local chat is not unrelated to cloaking.



It's not baseless at all, your entire post history is the basis. You're a selfish carebear who doesn't give a backflipping **** about game balance.



They have everything to give up. But since they're selfish like you, they think they should get to have their cake and eat it too.

And the answer to that will always be no.



And your values are "screw the sandbox, screw other people's player freedom, only my playstyle matters"

Selfish, like we've been saying.



It's nothing but that, no matter how what excuses you make or how you try to justify it.

More of your lies.

Thanks to a decade of your whining, CCP has turned this game into that hugely favors carebears.

You think the game mechanics are what make you nothing but worthless prey? No, that's the ****** attitudes you refuse to change. The only reason you cucks are helpless is because you think you shouldn't have to defend yourselves.

Your posts constantly demand more bubble wrap.



See my point, Teckos?

They are not even capable of realizing what game balance, or what it means. They think "balanced" means "freighters should never die in highsec", which is what they were all crying for in the freighter thread. They think "balanced" means "all carebear buffs, all the time" despite a decade long history of nothing but that.

And do you know why? Because they refuse to accept what EVE is. This refusal makes them want to dictate game balance from only their own selfish perspective.

It's all because they do not belong here, and refuse to admit it.

Look at you just troll away. You want to bring every argument here since it won't be closed.

No. No one said freighters should not die in hisec. That was just one of your lies. Big jump from starting a fight in high sec should carry the penalties associated with starting a fight in high sec, and saying freighters should not die. There's that terror of actually having consequences for your actions at work. You preaching it for everyone but yourself, because you and you alone are just so darn special.

It's unfortunate you can't discuss anything. You will just keep it up, dieasing every thread you post in until it's locked, or in this case they delete everything influenced by your vomit. No further discussion from this point forward has any value, because you are so special we now have to play the Karrous thread closing game.

You absolutely did. You said that in your ideal highsec, freighters should only get ganked if they are headed out to nullsec anyway.

You shortly afterward claimed that gankers should either have to activate non existent killrights on a freighter, or lol, trick them into duelling or stealing from a can.

That was you saying what you think highsec is supposed to be.





There's that projection again. You really can't stop, can you?

BTW I admit my ideas in the previous post may not be sufficient, but they provide a starting point for future iterations. I see this issue as a give and take...if we are to make cloaks less invulnerable then local and intel has to become more vulnerable.

I see a refusal of this, aside from a solid argument, as nothing more than pure unadulterated rent seeking--i.e. seeking economic profits one is not entitled too.

I did address your other concerns by saying if you feel they warrant discussion feel free to post a thread about them.

- I already said a while back that making people not show up in local until the gate cloak drops seemed like a good compromise to me. The only legit gripe I ever heard from your side of the table was showing up in local before your client loads. This has nothing to do with AFK cloaking.

-I don't care about Intel. It can change or stay the same, but the affect on PvE vs PvP will be the same. People simply will not PvE in areas without Intel, as their only viable defense is proactive retreat. Remove Intel and it's just like removing tank modules from the game for combat ships. Without defense they die without effort. This has nothing to do with AFK cloaking

- You scream about nerfs for yourself when they represent nothing but balance, yet scratch for nerfs on others, because you don't want to hunt with a chance of failure or risk to yourself. I don't care if Intel can be blown up, so long as it's robust enough to be useful. If it's so vulnerable it becomes a real problem to keep up then PvE will only take place in the most heavily defended areas and you will have even fewer targets as people are squeezed out of fun gameplay options. This has nothing to do with AFK cloaking.

-discussing the balance issues with afk cloaking was what this was supposed to be about. Glad you have finally opened up to the actual point of the thread.

-I don't care about raw income outside of logical balance. It only toucheon this thread because it was where the bulk of the damage done by afk cloaking took place.

For the off topic stuff I would be happy to discuss them, in their own respective threads. I think there are plenty of balance problems caused by bad dev decisions, isk sinks among them.

However, that wast what this thread was about. 2 wrongs don't make a right. The brokenness of cloaks isn't balanced by other broken things...they are all broke.

You want to know what this thread is about, Mike?

Despite your claim, that the existence of the thread at all somehow yields the point that a balance change is needed, the OP simply states that this thread serves as a focal point for the topics that would otherwise be locked for being redundant.

That's it.

There is no admission that there is a "balance issue", it's merely to focus discussion around this thread itself. That's still entirely up for debate, so you can't just claim it as fact.

Reading through 5% of the posts...

The problem with cloaky camping in a system is that cloaking can be combined with cynos. This gives the cloaky camper immeasurable threat potential.

This is bad only because it impacts on player activity levels. A cloaky camped system sees players do other things than play eve.

To resolve:

1. Make a cloak+cyno combination on a ship impossible. IF cloak, THEN no cyno.
Or (preferred as less intrusive and tweakable by dev adjustment of fuel consumption)
2. Add opportunity cost to cloaking in form of some kind of fuel consumption.

For local (since a lot of discussion was about that)

Give means to entosis local in null-sec. This is consistent with emerging design and adds content. Breaking and fixing local can be a thing to do.