Kaarous I didn't understand your last post. You mean cloaked ships are not exempt from risk in there operation?

Nah, Troll


It was successfully argued that they are intended to be as safe as in a station. Which is fine.... then make them limit a ship in the same way. Either safety or usefulness needs to go. I argued for the safety so they would stay useful. However, others argued for the safety to stay, so usefulness should go.

It's also not just ratting. It's not that they threaten ratters.

It's that they are out there, doing stuff, while at no risk. You should not be doing stuff at no risk.

What is hilarious is that this is the exact argument you would be making in your own trollish way if it was someone *you* wanted to shoot doing something under a cloak. You don't understand anything about balance, just childish trolling.

Thats the whole argument. The issue is that some people like myself think that the benefits are to great.

Mostly because the operation of a cloak have to near zero risk when operated. The only tradeoffs are also negligible compared and easily circumnavigated.

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

Teckos
We are speaking the same language now, right?

1 account has up to 3 pilots.

I get that you might be saying generating a plex per pilot is challenging. Suggesting it is difficult per account is ludicrous. On Tranquillity at least. The Chinese server pushes that envelope a lot more.


Isk generation is scalable infinitely for individual players if but for time.


You really are doing afk cloaky camping wrong if it has an isk opportunity cost for you. And doing something wrong is poor optimization that can be blamed entirely on not mastering Eve well enough to afk cloaky camp effectively.

Which is ok. But is not an opportunity cost issue. Its a learn to optimize properly issue.

If the fix was something easy and simple, don't you think it would have already been done years ago instead of us bickering about it in this 261 page thread?

Morrigan This is your opinion. Its not a fact or anything other then your wishes regarding how the game should and shouldn't be. Some do believe that any impact caused by tweaking the cloaking dilemma won't impact on local in any extent other then minor ripples. I believe that people just use that as an excuse to firmly hold on to cloaking the way it is.

In 2009, Walmart surveyed customers in an effort to improve the customer shopping experience. The survey data was used to create the company's Project Impact, a plan that overhauled Walmart's approach to displaying inventory on the sales floor. The program included the removal of 15 percent of the store's inventory from the floor. As a result, the retail giant eliminated the use of pallets that blocked the aisles, decreased the merchandise stocked on the aisle end caps, and shortened shelf height. The Outcome? Customer satisfaction rose while sales plummeted to the sound of $1.85 billion.

Seriously, still trolling? Be nice if you could just stop one day.

You are completely wrong in any case. Ask Morrigan for the exhaustive list of things that cloaked ships do that will be broken by making them vulnerable. All of that stuff should be at risk. It's not just a null ratter issue. It's an entire game issue. Nothing at all of any use what ever should be possible while cloaked. Your screen should go dark, all windows but chat unresponsive. If you are going to be able to use it as a portable station usable at anytime, then that's how useful you should be.

This is the issue, this right here. Benefit without risk. Just because your not generating income doesn't mean you shouldn't be impacted by risk.

Your doing something far worse then generating income. Intel is the most valuable commodity in battle.

"If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles." - Sun Tzu

Not one thing about cloaking devices needs to be changed. Right now they are probably one of, if not the most balanced module concept this game has. You disappear from grid, but in exchange you cannot have any mechanical effect on it at all. It's more or less perfect.

The only thing that needs to be changed here is the free, untouchable, instant source of intel that allows carebears to cry and whine about people in their system in the first place.

The only thing that needs changed is local. No local, literally no effect from afk cloaking. The cloaked ship would have to actually be hunting you to have any effect whatsoever.

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

It demonstrably is.

Not all opinions are equal or of equal merit. You can have the opinion that the Moon Landing didn't happen, and that's really just you being wrong and trying to defend it by claiming subjectivity where subjectivity doesn't belong.

Thats the whole argument. The issue is that some people like myself think that the benefits are to great. Mostly because the operation of a cloak have to near zero risk when operated. The only tradeoffs are also negligible compared and easily circumnavigated.

Ask Morrigan for the exhaustive list of things that cloaked ships do that will be broken by making them vulnerable. All of that stuff should be at risk.

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

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.

Teckos
You may want to rethink that last post of yours. We know you manage 7 pilots yourself. I for one am generously assuming you are paying for 1 real life subscription. I am generous that way.

Otherwise. Nice straw men. Its nice to see people play with dolls made of environmentally friendly fibers.

Teckos
You may want to rethink that last post of yours. We know you manage 7 pilots yourself. I for one am generously assuming you are paying for 1 real life subscription. I am generous that way.

Otherwise. Nice straw men. Its nice to see people play with dolls made of environmentally friendly fibers.

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.

This mindset would be thrown out the window the second you disliked a feature too.

This is a very funny sentence.

See, because carebears are utterly incapable of intellectual honesty, they also assume that everyone else is as well. They cannot actually understand a non-hypocritical position.

Yet every single change, nerf, buff and additional content added to the game do just that, impact the N group. Its kinda pointless stating this in the "Player Features and Ideas Discussion" part of the forums. This mindset would be thrown out the window the second you disliked a feature too.

"Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of 'new players', that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players."

"Any change that is made to privilege a specific group in an open, classless game will invariably be to the greater benefit of older, richer, more experienced players"

Don't try and make EVE "better for new players"; just try to make the game better for everyone and the new players (or miners, or solo PvP, or small alliances, or hi-sec CSM voters) will benefit just fine.

Maria
Teckos mentioned how many pilots he managed a number of hundred thread posts ago.

Teckos
You are again restating that the finite resource is real life time.

You moved the goal posts in your second to last post (which is a strawman arguments). The infinite account, but for time is an equilibrium equation. So 1 plex per account, not 3. I also always assume the first account is a paid subscription.

Afk cloaky camping is established multiple account entitlement.

Bravo Sierra is a masked profanity.