Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Jerghul,

My point is find out when they are most active....then don't rat during those times, at least not alone. I mean ****, here you are just begging for CCP to handle your problem.

And no AFK cloak camping was not a heavier impact on the game than teleporting apex force fleets around the map in very short time spans. Notice CCP nerfed jump drives...they have not nerfed AFK cloaking.

And dude, you will always lose content without recourse. The rest of us wont, but you, and Mike, et. al. will.

Going to also add my point was also aimed at your notion that the "implicit threat" was incalculable claim. You claim the threat cannot be calculated, yet there I was day-after-day ratting away. Why? Because like a good little German guy he was in bed. Granted he could have been like me, a West Coast TZ guy for some :reasons: who is part of a German corp. However, I gave that a low probability.

So this notion that the threat cannot be at least somewhat parametrized/bounded is just a not true, IMO.

Could 800 pilots be within 8 light years waiting to stream through a covert jump portal and kill me? I suppose. But I’m going to assign that a very, very low probability. Could there be 8 guys? Now that is much, much more likely. But I too can go about bringing friends too…oh even the odds.

So much for incalculable.

The counter to fear is competency.

Carebears can never have that, or else they wouldn't be carebears. So they cry for CCP to fix problems that only arise from their lazy, entitled mindsets.

Why?

Nah, players like me and Mike are invested in EvE to the point of even posting here. Its not about us. Its about players who log on, look at their screen, think "meh", log off, then play something else in their Steam Library.

Yes, people greatly invested in the game and argued vocally did eventually change an unfortunate mechanic directly relevant to a small portion of the Eve community. Go capital ship fleet team!

The change to enduring afk cloaky camping has not happened yet, but I am pretty sure the developers recognize that it is the same kind of flaw that lead to changes to hotdropping supers. Perpetual implicit threats are simply bad for the game; bad for capital fleets in a small scale. Bad for anyone wanting to access content in cloaky camped systems on an endemic scale.

You would be wise to take to heart what you know: winter is coming. Persistent afk camping without the possibility of unsolicited pvp is going to end. Fighting it tooth and nail is a waste of energy better spent on trying to identify a low impact change.

If a player cannot be bothered to find a way to do something in game if there is an AFK cloaker, that is their problem.



AFK cloaking is nowhere near the problem of having 50 supers and 60 titans zipping across the galaxy in 10 minutes or less. This is why cloaking has not been nerfed but jump drives have been nerfed.

And there are no perpetual implicit threats. Or more accurately with a bit of work you can get an idea on how much of a threat there is. For example, I am west coast US TZ. So when it is 3AM for me it is probably safe to rate...I am not going to hotdrop anything on you ever at that hour.



So is local as you know it.

Here is your sense of entitlement working over time. When you undock, you consent to PvP. When you dock, you revoke that consent. You are not entitled to kills. People do not have to fight you in non-combat ships if they can get them into a dock.

Those players are not willing to risk their non-combat ships against you, so they put them away. It does not matter what they were doing before you got there. That is literally not your concern in any way. Your issues with ISK faucets and sinks are something for the devs to handle with a huge array of tools at their disposal... tools they apparently do not see a need to use as they keep putting things out on the Aurum store rather than creating desired consumable features purchased with ISK, or turning down the various ISK faucets, etc...



You are the one that brought up the edge case as a supposedly compelling argument for the *need* to leave cloaks 100% risk free. It's all about making sure your shiny ships stay shiny ships and don't turn into shiny explosions. You even posted 'chat logs' of some guy claiming he watched for 3 years just to pop your titan... which means either someone logged a titan in unsupported and sat still long enough for people to look it up on a 3 year old spreadsheet or run a locator on it, and get a fleet to it, or else you are claiming they camped that spot for 3 years 23/7 and whacked it before it could do anything. In the first case, that's clearly just incompetence, the second would be an epic case of they really deserved that kill. That second case would be even more epic if it wasn't possible to camp that particular spot in space for 3 years in complete safety.

That you also engage in PvP encounters willingly and lose stuff is irrelevant. That's consensual PvP.

The really tragic part is that you think I don't understand anything, and you want to make large lists of things that are vital to a number of different playstyles, and you think that any and all of that should be able to go on unchallenged by enemies, while I look at the list and think to myself--- if you are doing any of that, and at any point in the middle of it you are in a position to think "eh, I'm safe enough to go make a sandwich, have a smoke, and maybe go tumble the wife in bed for a bit...." then that is a situation that is too safe for the performance of such vital functions.

The more you say in defense of cloaks, the more it proves the cloak to be OP and in need of the introduction to some risk.

Yes. You are entitled. You are over the moon about how someone did something when you were not even in the solar system. You wanted that to stop, when you arrived they stopped, and you are mad that as soon as you are gone they will do it some more.

You cannot defend AFK cloaking with the track you are on. Morrigan got closer with the "Think of the Titans!" argument, which you would have been all over if attacking it didn't interfere with your shiny ships too. Just as much as you feel it is your god given right to shoot a non-combat ship, it is the right of a system defender to shoot a ship in position to threaten those under his care. That's what we like to call conflict and resolution. In balanced gameplay that defender would be looking for you, you would be looking for a foolhardy non-com gambling on system defense, and things would work out according to the luck and skill of everyone involved---those that find the risk too much can go home assuming they aren't caught first.

Both sides aren't giving something up. Until cloaks become huntable all the risk and sacrifice comes from one side. I'm looking to see a balanced start point. Surely OA and intel changes will shake things up, but it's going to shake things up regardless, and that has nothing to do with balance right now. I see no reason to not support changes to create balance on an unbalanced system now, in favor of hoping changes coming at some unspecified day in the future make all this a non-issue.

You do, because you benefit from the situation as it stands.

No, you are not. We have balance right now with the current situation, you want to break it in your favor.

The really funny thing will be when local goes away completely without recompense.

Oh look, the Arbiter of all that is right and proper in EVE is back. At least, right and proper so long as it does not affect him in any way. Go wet yourself some more, craven nitwit.

It would be wonderful if you actually had a clue what you were talking about, rather than just supporting any passing whim that puts all the risk on someone you want to shoot. You are a toddler trying to burn ants with a magnifying glass and crying when one bites you.