Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Don't be obtuse.

What I meant is that "risk" is not the only tradeoff that exists in this game, most certainly not when it comes to ship and module balance, what's more.

Cloaks have other tradeoffs for the benefit they provide. Meaning that your entire point is as invalid as it possibly could be.

Not that this shouldn't be obvious to anyone not blinded by self interest anyway.

What stuff am I doing under my prototype cloak?

Kaarous Its my opinion of the matter. Its not possible for my opinion on the matter to be wrong.

Fine lets do a new one, one account and 3 characters.

Definitions:

Main--PvP, PI, and ratting character.
Alt2--PI and Trader character.
Alt3--PI, trader, and cloaking camping character.

Further assumptions:

Main has to be free to PvP as part of his alliance/coalition requirements. He could cloak, but only when not needed for either defensive/offensive operations. Since this can be hassle that is one reason Alt4 was created.

All characters are on the same account.

So this player logs in on an average day in the following manner:

Alt4 who e-warps back from where he e-warped to during downtime, cloak is activated shortly after logging in. This client is left up. This activity on this account is now done.

Main--PI is done, account logged off.
Alt2--PI is done, trading Stuff™ is done, account logged off.
Main--Logged back in and rats.

Lost monthly income due to having Alt 3 on a camping trip:

Lost PI Income: 200 million
Lost trading income: 400 million

Total opportunity cost to AFK cloaking: 600 million.

Note I picked the trading income to satisfy your constraint, Jerghul, that this account be able to PLEX each month--i.e. it makes at least 1.2 billion ISK. But since Alt4 is on his own special "deployment" he cannot trade and he cannot do PI. Sure he can start his planets, but he cannot empty them.

So, once again Jerghul your statement about opportunity cost is wrong.

Now I could get a second account, but then we are back to Jerghul's lemma.

Damn...I'll need a name for this one too....Jerghul's Same Account Lemma? Anyone got any ideas?

No Xcom you are wrong. This is not just opinion it is a well reasoned and logical argument. Your stubborn obstinate position is rather disquieting in terms of trying to have a logical discussion.

Maybe if we consider another form of game play.

One of the things I see people complain about are market bots. People screech about how they'll reset their prices in Jita and almost instantly they are undercut. They conclude (probably errorneously--I can explain this part if you like, but I'll leave it out for now) that only a bot could respond so fast.

So lets suppose CCP listens to their customers* And they introduce a captcha for trading. Problem is now they have nerfed everyone's game play who is a trader to get at those few bots. Traders would be pissed, especially if the bots adapt and carry on just as before.

The generalized concept here is that if you have N players using some aspect of the game and M < N (say M is = 0.1N) that are using it in an "annoying" way. Nerfing the game play for N players is instead of just M is bad because now you **** of not just M player, but N players. If you had pissed of M players and 25% of them quit...well maybe not so bad. Maybe even a good thing in that these guys were just doing this to annoy others. But if you lose 25% of N...now that is bad because most of those players quitting did nothing to annoy others. In fact, they were generating content.

Virtually EVERY suggestion to nerf cloaks falls into this category. Virtually EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. I should now because, well go look here. I have probably read more AFK cloaking proposals than even ISD (I think in the later years they just locked them and didn't read them much). And don't foreget to click on the "continued link" at the bottom of that page to see the additional proposals I found.

So lets do this....

Divided cloak users into 2 categories:

AFK cloakers: These players use cloaks but periodically AFK cloak.

Non-AFK cloakers: These players use cloaks but do not AFK cloak (or if they do it is for Bio breaks, answer the phone, wait out a hostile camp--i.e. they are not trying to suppress game play).

Now along comes Jerghul, who in his infinite wisdom, decrees...no cloaking unless once every X amount of time you click to stop your cloak from failing (and as an aside I'll add that there is [insert colorful languag here] all about this in the lore...for those who care). Now he has nerfed the game play for the Non-AFK cloakers. I'm going to hazard a guess here, but I'm guessing the first group is rather small compared to the second group.

Now Jerghul has also accused me of essentially wanting to kill the game. But I don't want to nerf anybody's game.

I want NS ratters and mission runners to be able to do their thing.
I want NS roaming gangs and solo guys to have things to shoot at.
I want NS miners to be able to mine.
I'd like more people in NS, and be there by choice vs. by necessity.

Xcom...you are on the wrong side of this debate....and after all these years of playing the game.

*WalMart listened to their customers once.

Xcom, how can you have played so long and not know that once you attack...you yourself can be attacked?

Cloaking ships are not sturdy ships. This is why they go after ratters, who themselves are not in sturdy ships. You rarely see cloaking ships in NS doctrines. Even cloaky scouts don't have a doctrine fit. Use whatever you got/can use. Probably best to fit for GTFO of hairy situations.

It is my opinion that there is no such thing as gravity.

It is my opinion that grass is blue.

It is my opinion that tigers are just big lovable bundles of fur.

It is my opinion humans can breath underwater.

Uhhhmmm what benefits?

Teckos
Your game play in Eve will improve dramatically when you understand the finite resource is real life time, and not isk or number of accounts on the Tranquillity server.

Your reasoning is better suited the Chinese environment where isk generation is more of a limiting factor (It requires a lot more time and skill to plex an account there). Though of course I am simply assuming you are a Tranquillity player.

I get that you want local removed as compensation for losing an established multiple account entitlement.

My vote is for removing an established multiple account entitlement without compensation.

Changes to local being a decoupled topic that is entirely separate from afk cloaky camping.

And not a very popular topic at that given how little traction the actual thread on that topic has generated.

Problem is Jerghul I was thinking that the player in my scenarios plays for at most 1-2 hours a few nights a week--i.e. is the median/typical EVE player, not some poopsocking player. After all the more time he spends playing the on the non-cloak camping alt/main the less time he is camping...can't have your cake and eat it too. I know you'll insist you can, but the rest of us know you cannot.

In fact. To assume one is going to be able to PLEX an account with 3 PLEX chances are that player would have to be a poopsocking player.

Further, there is not "entitlement" to multiple accounts. If people want them and can pay for them, then they can have them.

In short, yet another post where it is pretty much wrong on every point.