|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 06:22:38 -
[1] - Quote
Totally useless thread. Reading it just gave me cancer of the amount of off topic nonsense. Talks about probability events where PVP meats PVE, constant attempts on linking local to afk cloaking, linking PVE nullsec to market balance, impacts on nullsec population with any change and all just to attempt to dilute the main topic. AFK-cloaking.
Obviously any change might have drawbacks and unintended consequences but it won't for sure be predicted in this silly thread. I for sure hope they shake things up a bit. If they had balls they would have done something about this issue already and this new OA sounds like it might be years in the pipeline.
Just looking at F&ID this very topic is the commonly recurring issue showing up over and over. Clearly there is a problem that needs looked into more urgently with a bit more hands on approach and immediate firm action. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2015.12.30 18:58:41 -
[2] - Quote
Am I the only one noticing how cloaking gets indirect buffs each patch? Few patches back they added sister cov-ops ships, this patch they are increasing grid size. Also a huge part of the argument about cloaking was how you could dock and be invulnerable. Now you can't even do that as your base can get attacked and blown up.
What next? |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2015.12.30 22:53:24 -
[3] - Quote
I believe that the current AFK cloaking mechanic does fit into the current sov meta. Issue is just how the mechanic in itself is flawed. Its silly that we need a flawed mechanic to counter sov behind enemy line cov-ops battles. I think the whole argument loops around when the AFK cloaking is justified as a broken mechanic capping and countering solo farming in null space. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2015.12.31 06:24:19 -
[4] - Quote
If ones belief is that cloaking is working as intended its obvious that any change would impact there traditional mindset regarding the matter. The dogma around the idea that cloaking is working as intended without a hard direct counter is flawed. You just shouldn't be able to be safe anywhere in space unlocked and as of citadel even docked. Not even cloaked. Clearly if you don't believe in this then you shouldn't have any problems with the idea of having ANY form of offensive ability on a cloaking ship. Yet we do ergo the **** storm we are in, 250+ pages. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2015.12.31 07:23:27 -
[5] - Quote
Except a cloaked ship do have the ability to turn of the cloak and attack its opponent when the outcome is desirable. The opposite doesn't hold. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2015.12.31 07:56:36 -
[6] - Quote
Technically your no longer safe even docked after the patch.
Link
CCP Ytterbium wrote: That leaves us with player docked inside the structure when it was lost:
The player is podded with all normal rules applying for such a case (implants are lost) and moved to his or her medical station. If the medical clone was set to the structure that just blew up, it will be moved to a medical NPC station.
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.01 23:24:33 -
[7] - Quote
How is it possible for people to be so obtuse about justify there silly belief that nullspace rattings only counter is a broken mechanic. Talk about broken logic. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.02 06:11:23 -
[8] - Quote
It would actually make a whole lot more sense if cloaked ships would have absolute zero offensive or defensive ability after de-cloaking. You can run around cloaked and do your "reconnaissance" but if you want to join the fight you better drop that cloak in a safe spot then warp to the fight or you will be sitting there like a potato for a really good while. Basically change that targeting delay to activation delay, remove all modual activation after de-cloak. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.06 00:03:51 -
[9] - Quote
This whole situation stinks. The devs know it and any clever person who really have thought this through knows it as well. Cloaking is broken and stupid. What makes it worse is how stupid it is that its used to counter the isk printing null space farming that also is just as stupid.
Back in the day before cynos, IAC one of the dead Alliance I was part of, owned a constellation. One of the systems had archenor and was a nice source of isk for the Alliance. Some time after we moved in some jackass moved into the system with 2 cloaked BS and a cov-ops Arazu. Clearly he was selective about who he targeted but from time to time people would die to his cloaked attacks. We did bait him and kill him from time to time but he just replaced the ships and cloaked back up. All he did was to attack miners at random by locking them down with the recon then jump said target with the BS and pop him before any aid could get there. He didn't kill any bigger target then some random guy who did mine or rat alone. Just the fact that this stupidity did exist before cynos is a testiment that cyno removal wont fix the problem.
I have also been part of wormhole corps and I can also put in a note that AFK cloak shenanegans do appear in wormhole space as well. Sometimes assholes cloak up in smaller WH corps after probing down sights and jump people while they try to run said sight. You just end up having to move to another system to do anything with the included risk of getting jumped by a cloaked ship when trying to go through your wormhole.
Everything about cloaking is broken and only a portion of it is influenced by local. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.06 09:37:54 -
[10] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Quote:I have also been part of wormhole corps and I can also put in a note that AFK cloak shenanegans do appear in wormhole space as well. Sometimes assholes cloak up in smaller WH corps after probing down sights and jump people while they try to run said sight. You just end up having to move to another system to do anything with the included risk of getting jumped by a cloaked ship when trying to go through your wormhole. Well, if you can't defend your space....
How are you supposed to defend your space? Probe down the cloaked ship? Its not possible to survive wormhole sight + pvp encounter when your logi is suddenly jammed by a falcon and some other baddys hammering you down. Your forum warrioring really needs a bit more brains and a bit more ingame experience. |
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.06 10:12:09 -
[11] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:That's some impressive work for "afk" ships.
Your complaint is people can bring "unfair" PvP to you. That is the game. I'll bite just to level with your stupidity. Its fair pvp when you don't get mauled down like a bug. Its unfair when a ship de-cloaks in his preferred range and position, jams you under 7 seconds. Then have his buddys that were logged out in system warp in on top of you and you didn't see it coming or had any chance to counter the attack in any way possible. No local, no d-scan, no idea your being watched while your opponent had you watch listed and camped the system till you started running your system behind his "AFK cloak". Really good game design, best pvp experience. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.07 10:50:37 -
[12] - Quote
Its all opinion based.
People that prefer things to stay as they are argue relentlessly for the traditional mechanics staying rigid. Use every possible mechanic in defence to point out how everything is related.
People that want change use in fact same exact mechanics to point out how things could be different. Because they want change from the status quo.
Smart is the one who realize that its the same coin with different sides. Smarter who realize why either party wants things the way they want it. Arguing forth and back intentionally ignoring points the opposing sides favourable effects on the same mechanics is stupid.
If the vocal majority of this thread would be removed something useful could come out of this thread, till then its pointless posting in it. Sadly its a topic that needs looked into by CCP because clearly its a point of interest that does impact players negatively, game mechanic wise, or noone would post in this thread or prior to this thread have dozens of threads pop up about cloaking issues. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 11:15:44 -
[13] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Xcom wrote:Its all opinion based.
People that prefer things to stay as they are argue relentlessly for the traditional mechanics staying rigid. Use every possible mechanic in defence to point out how everything is related. Actually most people are saying that for cloaking to change - the mechanic which it most directly interferes with and is in fact the only counter to in many systems - local - also needs altered. Many try and sweep this under the carpet as "off topic" when in fact the two share a symbiotic relationship. You cannot have an "afk cloaker" problem without local (and to a lesser extent, the watch list). A further consideration is that in the drive to kill off "AFK" cloaking, there is a severe risk of breaking or greatly diminishing the other activities of cloaks. To date still no-one has found a way which can threaten a cloaky who is at the pub, without shattering other areas of space and other cloak uses. Any balance debate has a responsibility for the direct knock on effects of a proposed change to be considered these are not off topic - this is simple diligence. Tying this to a structure in response to finding cloaks alone is not actually valid - not everywhere can have structures. Now if one were to say this is ok because the areas where one cannot place a structure do not have this problem then you're effectively saying it's not actually a global problem. Which undermines the notion that it is even "broken" in the first place. Finally, the level of "noise" a complaint gets doesn't make for a broken mechanic - see high sec ganking, bumping, war decs and so on and so forth.
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. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 14:14:56 -
[14] - Quote
No one thinks changing cloaking won't have any impact on other factors. Its just acceptable to some and not to others. Its a fact when a game is unfair people get upset. Saying that people that get shaffed by the AFK cloaking problem should suck it up and live with it is the issue most people pro change in this thread are facing. Its just hard for me to understand why anyone would like the idea of having a game mechanic around that directly causes this much rage, or be defending it by creating even more rage. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 14:58:21 -
[15] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:You do need to suck it up and accept the fact that you are supposed to have uncertainty and risk in your gameplay, most of all if that gameplay is PvE of any kind, and extra especially PvE in nullsec. This is a bit of a contradiction to the rest of your idea of cloaking being balanced. Why is there no uncertainty in cloaking? There is enough prove that using a cloak does bring benefits beyond the risk of its use. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 16:03:20 -
[16] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:They are intended to provide an advantage via an attack of opportunity to the player using it. 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. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 16:28:32 -
[17] - Quote
Kaarous I didn't understand your last post. You mean cloaked ships are not exempt from risk in there operation? |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 16:51:56 -
[18] - Quote
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. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 17:03:59 -
[19] - Quote
Kaarous Its my opinion of the matter. Its not possible for my opinion on the matter to be wrong. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.10 11:10:49 -
[20] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote: 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.
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. Quote: 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.
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. |
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.10 20:47:52 -
[21] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:It is pretty hard to argue with. Just make the game better and all players will be made better (or no worse off).
So when it comes to cloaking and intel...the discussion should be how to make the game better in general. Simply put, everyone here is trying to make the game better. The difference of ideology either for or against change is what differs.
I think the game will become better for everyone if cloaking were to be made less unbalanced. Some individuals will be impacted more or less, for better or worse, but in the end the game will become a better more balanced sandbox. Note that this is my opinion and your thoughts on the matter might differ.
No one here is an expert on game design. Have any credentials or proof, statistical data or anything other then pure speculation. Claiming someone wrong in this thread is a mighty huge claim brought out of massive hubris that your opinions somehow hold more merit. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 07:19:55 -
[22] - Quote
Yet however balanced cloaked ships are ones they drop there cloak. They are overwhelmingly unbalanced before they do as described on post #5220. Less combat ability doesn't make up for the extreme advantage choice of engagement brings. Its easy to think of cloaked ships balanced when you ignore said part of the equation.
@ Maria Dragoon If you really do have actual evidence to back your claims you should lead with it. I don't think its that easy proving any claims put forth in this thread. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 08:26:30 -
[23] - Quote
The AFK part of the cloaking is the product of broken mechanics. Cloaking itself needs a proper counter so going AFK wouldn't be possible. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 09:02:57 -
[24] - Quote
If cloaks were properly introduced into the game with there counter none of the problems we are facing now would be cropping up. The issue is that its been around now for so long that its taken granted that we can't change cloaks without changing the ecosystem. I find that to be a load of bull. There have been multiple nerfs like the jump fatigue nerf that was around for a good while. After the change players adapted and now live with the changes.
I think cloaking is unbalanced and needs fixed. Its not possible to weigh the entire universe of eve against the mechanic and somehow finding things to be balanced. You simply shouldn't be able to cloak up and indefinitely be safe from any attack. Whatever side effects change to cloaking brings will just have to be adapted to.
Whatever this OA thing is won't do much other then change how null space mechanics work. It won't fix the proper underlying unbalanced mechanic that is cloaking.
Simply put, permanent cloaked ships is against any form of balanced game mechanic I know of. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 10:10:31 -
[25] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:So what is your way to fix it everywhere, without unnecessary collateral damage?
Answer my question.
Suggest a solution that a) works in all areas of space and can't be abused, b) has nil/negligibly effect on the non-afk cloaker and c) can still be used to usefully find a moving cloaked ship
And also please stop glossing over the fact you can kill these in transit if you're that scared of them. An unwillingness to put the effort in doesn't translate to a broken mechanic. They don't magically teleport into your system
Edit: Although your complaint isn't even that they are AFK, merely that they so much as exist. Not that hard. Make changes so permanent cloaking is no longer possible, ergo not be able to go AFK when cloaked. Live with the consequences.
Its not possible having change without consequences. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 11:31:09 -
[26] - Quote
I'm not here to entertain you :)
Endless repetitive posting have dragged this thread to the ground. I would honestly have had a proper discussion with a proper dev from CCP about this subject. But the attitude in this thread really makes it impossible. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 13:37:12 -
[27] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Xcom wrote:Not that hard. Make changes so permanent cloaking is no longer possible, ergo not be able to go AFK when cloaked. Live with the consequences.
Its not possible having change without consequences. So you dislike the power they have over some, whilst they Afk cloak and want it stopped? No I dislike how cloaked ships can't be attacked. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 13:42:30 -
[28] - Quote
Yes |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 18:34:39 -
[29] - Quote
Round and round we go. :/
The cancer that this thread holds is staggering. I truly wonder why people are so abusive on this thread. Its like walking into a room where people want to kill each other for simple game mechanic changes. I get the same feeling when discussing with teenagers. I can't even form my opinions without getting personally attacked for my idea of how things should be changed for the betterment of what I think is balanced. Not only that, the entitlement of attacking people that have a different opinion of how things should be run is almost as stupid as caveman ideology. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 22:22:40 -
[30] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Afk cloaky camping is dangerous in the wrong way. Its implicitly dangerous. A nuisance thing that only encourages newer players to limit the time they play EvE to peak periods for organized pvp events. You have probably lost out on 100ds of fights due to a third party afk cloaky camping this or that system on your roams. A player that might have fought you does not because of the unquantifiable risk an additional neut or red in that system gives.
Its also not dangerous versus the right activity as it does not impact on PI or Moon Goo collection where the actual isk is. I agree with this fully. AFK cloaking isn't an issue in the sense of ISK generation. It impacts it marginally, all it does is aggravate some individuals in those few camped systems. The issue is just the mechanic itself.
I think Mike put it right in post #5213. Its a loophole in the game mechanics adding a cyno on a cloaked ship, it has to be a massive oversight. Sadly one that isn't looked into properly along with a few other moduals that can be instantly activated after a cloak is dropped. 5 seconds after dropping a cov-ops cloak isn't even a delay including ping / server tick delays. Its mechanics like this that just doesn't look balanced and is what probably brings so many people to this thread.
Sadly this threads turned into some s**t throwing contest. Some individuals think its funny attacking anyone who suggest a nerf to cloaks, somehow gotten this idea that its a carebare act. So many things are done to dumb this game down but this ones damn not one of them. If null sec is flawed then that is a different topic and have little to do with one single modual that impacts null sec marginally. |
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.12 09:23:20 -
[31] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:See, this is where we disagree. Fitting a cloak gives you the right to pick your engagements (under current mechanics that is). This makes it perfectly okay to be AFK -- sometimes merely to relay intel on a POS / POCO timer. If the hostiles want to play the blueball game, well: so can you!
With the above quote, you think it's up to you to decide how a stealth operative should fly his ship. !?? That's not how EvE works! The mechanics are provided, how you use them is entirely up to you. Him being AFK pisses you off, and that is a very weak argument. It's not like he's breaking your game or anything. The thing is that cloaked ships do break the game when they engage. Every single game I can think of have a counter to the cloaky. Except for eve that is. Its the fact that they can choose to engage when you are at your most vulnerable with accurate intel and come out unscathed as thats the power they have.
I don't think cloaked ships are to overpowered with there individual firepower. Its that you can bring more then one ship to the fight, choose when to drop that curtain at there leisure and at the point of engagement know they will win. That is the power cloaks hold.
The only thing that breaks this whole dilemma is local except for in WH space. But then WH space doesn't have belts that people farm, no cyno, no alliance wars, no stations other then POS (which you can't engage your target at). All contributing factors where the cloaking part of WH space is less of a problem as anyone who engages you either have chosen to engage prepared or you have somehow managed to jump your target in a sight with bunch of sleepers that will one shot you if they switch targets on you.
It makes it less of a pita to know you died when you were trying to pvp and not trying to fund your pvp. But then you would be even more pissed if you knew that your target was sitting 20km off your ship for the last 30 min watching you and didn't engage cause he knew at the time he wouldn't win the fight, its just something people never figure out and never rage on about.
A game mechanic shouldn't allow for lopsided engagements in this manner. It should be that both sides should hold the power to engage depending on what they bring to the fight. Rock, paper, scissors with cloaking being paper except we don't have any scissors in eve. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.13 11:15:53 -
[32] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote: The thing is that cloaked ships do break the game when they engage. Every single game I can think of have a counter to the cloaky. Except for eve that is. Its the fact that they can choose to engage when you are at your most vulnerable with accurate intel and come out unscathed as thats the power they have.
Well it would be stupid to engage when you are at your strongestGǪso your complaint is that players are playing smart? Cloaks allow for asymmetrical warfare. A small, smart, and correctly equipped force can be a PITA for a larger entity. That is precisely the point. I see this complaint as one of, GÇ£I donGÇÖt like it that my opponent might attack me when I am least prepared.GÇ¥ No, that is the best time to attack. As for intelGǪwell now we are back to local again. Funny how the pro-cloaking side is told time and again that it is off topic, not relevant, etcGǪ.until it works for the anti-cloaking side at which point it comes back up. Maybe you guys should huddle up and let us know which is it and actuallyGǪyou know, stick with whatever you say instead of this wishy-washy flip-flopping. I'm glad you have finally caught up. That is the exact problem with cloaking. Its tactics backed by game mechanics and not player intelligence. Such a game mechanic should then have a counter, it doesn't. Ergo the need for one.
And leave the personal agendas guesses and childish name calling behind. Makes you sound like a little teenage girl. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.13 12:45:44 -
[33] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:If it doesn't have a counter, why do all these BLOPS keep dying?
Why are ships with cloaks fitted littering the killboards? So the killboards prove that people are de-cloaking ships and then attacking them?
BLOPS require a player with a cloak to engage on there accord. That just shows you didn't even understand the point. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.13 13:08:24 -
[34] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Xcom wrote:[Such a game mechanic should then have a counter, it doesn't. You have the chicken and the egg mixed up, probably deliberately because you are dishonest. Cloaks are the counter to the free, instant, untouchable intel that is local. I'm honestly not sure if your trolling me or genuinely think I'm being dishonest. I'm going to assume your not trolling and just give you the simple answer.
Local can't be the counter to cloaking because cloaks work in all areas of space. If local was the counter then cloaks would stop working where local didn't exist. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.13 13:27:56 -
[35] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Xcom wrote: I'm honestly not sure if your trolling me or genuinely think I'm being dishonest.
The latter. And the rest of your post proves that you didn't bother reading my post to begin with, which reinforces my claim of your dishonesty. I did not say local is the counter to cloaks. I said cloaks are the counter to local. Try actually reading it next time. I see what you mean. But we are still left with the issue that cloaks on themselves are unbalanced excluding local from the equation. If you isolate local as a unbalanced feature then yes, cloaking is used to counter it. But I believe that using a unbalanced feature to counter local isn't a good game balance. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.13 14:32:54 -
[36] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Xcom wrote:But we are still left with the issue that cloaks on themselves are unbalanced excluding local from the equation.
First of all, you cannot exclude local from the equation, and even if you do, you get the example of wormholes, in which cloaks are not broken either. All roads lead to local on this one. Quote: But I believe that using a unbalanced feature to counter local isn't a good game balance.
Were this premise true, cloaks would be monstrously broken in wormholes, which is anything but the case. In fact, we've had numerous former or current W-space residents, including myself, laughing at the carebears in this thread crying about cloaks. I do think they are monstrously broken. The fact you can't hunt a cloaked ship is the broken nature of cloaks. Local and cloaking are tied to each other but they don't counter each other. AFK cloaking does counter local but not the other way around.
Its not a logical reason stating that cloaks are balanced as cloaked ships aren't powerful enough to do enough of an impact. They do an impact so they shouldn't be invulnerable when cloaked. No ship in space should be invulnerable when they interact with the universe of eve in ANY form. Specially when they have the power of
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:They are intended to provide an advantage via an attack of opportunity to the player using it. as you yourself stated. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.13 15:22:14 -
[37] - Quote
Clearly I haven't presented a bulletproof way to hunt cloaks as if they weren't cloaked. I only stated there needs to be a way to hunt cloaked ships. The degree of how easy it should be depends on the devs. Preferably make it a form of cat and mouse type of minigame that is interactive.
What I don't want is how we have it right now where its so safe so as to even be able to go AFK in a cloaked ship. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.13 16:02:27 -
[38] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:It's justifiable because they cannot touch you either AND take massive hits to fit such a module. This is actually an interesting topic regarding cloaks. You state that ships take a massive hit fitting a cloak. I disagree strongly as there are enough moduals that can impact the surrounding without needing a target lock (as target lock is the only nerf you get). If cloaks were made so as to remove the ability to activate any modual then it would be more fitting to state that fitting a cloak would have enough drawbacks to balance it. Which isn't the case as of right now. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.13 16:11:41 -
[39] - Quote
You can't have the cake and eat it too. Cloaked ships get 100% safety after they activate there cloak. In return then you should also expect to have all moduals on your ship except for the cloak to go offline as you activate your cloak. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.13 16:35:12 -
[40] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Morrigan Cake = predictable gate use and cynos Eating it too = afk capable cloaks Point in case. Thank you. |
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.13 17:29:31 -
[41] - Quote
And we are full circle again. Arguing with these 3 is just stupid. Insults and personal attacks is all they reframe to the second they don't have an answer. Clearly its pointless arguing as they seam to get something off of this.
My stance of the matter is simple. Fix cloaking and AFK cloaking with disappear. Simply add any form of ability to hunt cloaked ships, small or big changes, doesn't matter. Local, nullsec farming or other issues impacted by any change to cloaking is secondary as they are only products of any change and have nothing to do with the unbalanced nature of the modual itself. EvE should simply follow a trend all other games in existence that have cloaking. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.14 14:45:32 -
[42] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:I argued long and hard to balance the safety rather than the utility. You can't have it both ways
Mike its pointless arguing with them. All they do is to take out sentences out of a post, attack you directly, call out names, tell you that your wrong and repeat the same dragged out argument over and over in a repetitive manner. They aren't here to try and improve the game for the sake of game balance or anything.
I haven't seen any constructive or creative idea come out of any of them, nothing but attacks against any idea or suggestion in this thread. Its forum warrioring at its core and its obvious, I suggest to not feed them anymore cause your just literally entertaining there sick pleasure they get out of hacking down ideas in this thread. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.14 19:58:57 -
[43] - Quote
Was thinking hard and factual about how to make a nice cat and mouse kind of minigame for both hunter and hunted. Best way to fix the cloaking problem is to give it a form of counter. It should fix the cloaking problem ones and for all but still make it less powerful to prevent the cloaking aspect of the game to retain its original intended use. Mostly to create a way to at least give the opposing side a fighting chance. To make it proper I'll present it from top to bottom with the ideas and my views of how it fits in with my side of balanced approach.
To start of there should be a proper ship that conducts such an attack, call it the anti-cloaker. Said ship should have the ability to launch charges similar to a stealth bomber. The charges should similar to smart bombs simply decloak any ship in its radius or explosion. Same ship should also be able to have the single intended ability to scan for cloaked ships and only cloaked ships. Should be week and fragile enough to as make it even possible for cov-ops ships to take them down easily and clearly not give them any offensive slots or cloaking ability. Basically a paper thin anti-cloaker that relies on support to operate.
The charge should fly similar to a bomb in a straight line roughly 70km and explode with a proper 50km radius. 70km - 50km should make it impossible to jump through a gate and de-cloak anyone on the other side of said gate instantly. You would need to pick an area of space to de-cloak. A well prepared pilot would still need to deploy the charge where he suspects a cloaked ship and if anyone with a cloak spots a charge would still be able to warp off to avoid being de-cloaked and if de-cloaked even have the chance to get out before anyone would lock and point. Similar to bombs the charges would need to be used sparingly, both as few would fit in the hold and the price of each.
Said ship would also be the sole ship to have the ability to probe down cloaked ships and only spot cloaked ships during probing. Even landing on grid would give you a very vague approximation of your targets location. Even after landing on grid you would need to use charges to weed out your target. To balance this you could land at a minimum of 70km to always give the cloaked pilot the ability to spot any ship on grid and warp of before getting de-cloaked.
This would make it nearly impossible to use said anti-cloaker in large scale combat as they would be easily poped. Even cloaked ships could try to snipe them out as they would cause interference. They would be used to spot any cloaked ships so they would be mostly used passively to counter cloakers that didn't pay much attention. Well prepared groups would be able to use the anti-cloakers in WH space to try avoid getting killed by cloaked enemy's but cloaked ships still be able to avoid them easily. They would mostly be a form of fighting chance to weed out the worst cloaked pilots that basically thought they would be totally safe behind there cloaks. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.20 16:23:44 -
[44] - Quote
I honestly were interested in getting some feedback on the proposed suggestion. Any one here wana poke some holes in it?
Link |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.20 17:01:41 -
[45] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:At a minimum I don't like it because it's too effective at finding cloaks immediately. The point to the system of false positives I suggested was to allow a skilled and attentive pilot the opportunity to evade, and provide time to accomplish goals. A scout would have to decide where the balance of more Intel vs. Discovery and confrontation lies, someone ambushing needs to decide to pull the trigger or get out, ect. The reason I don't like a long scan cycle for that is to provide uncertainty and room for error on both sides. You don't know if you will find him on the first Sig you scan, or the 10th.
The rest is just fluff. I'd simply allow such a ship to see the shimmer of the cloak, but not on the overview. You could target it by clicking in space, but first visually locate it. You wouldn't ever have any idea where the target would be if you would land anywhere at minimum of 70km when attempting to probe down the target. The target could be anywhere, up down left right. You would need to re-probe and estimate based on multiple scans. Target would be somewhere on grid but you would have no idea until re-scanning and warping to multiple spots within that grid. Still after multiple scan attempts and estimating the location based on multiple warping points you would only know in approximation where your target would be. You would still need to waste expensive charges to de-cloak. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.22 00:55:16 -
[46] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote:I honestly were interested in getting some feedback on the proposed suggestion. Any one here wana poke some holes in it? Link This is not a new idea. It has been proposed numerous times, but there is one fatal flaw in that is looks only at one side of the issue and as a result in plainly a buff to NS PvE via a reduction in risk and a nerf to cloaks of all sorts and used in more than just resource denial. Further, as Mike notes there is the issue of how fast can a cloaked ship be found. Cloaking devices are supposed to offer a great deal of stealth and come at a cost. The prototype and even the improved cloaking device come with increased lock times and movement constraints and they take up a high slot that can be used for a gun, neut, nos, missile launcher, etc. For the covert ops cloaking devices the lock time in greatly reduced but these ships are generally not that robust and their DPS is below average for other ships in their class (cruisers). This and the very nature of the cloaking device provides some balance to cloaking devices. They cannot shoot you when the cloak is active and you cannot shoot them. Only when the cloak is down are you vulnerableGǪas are they. Further, the bomb launcher aspect is not very good in that it will likely find heavy use at gate camps where they will likely be spammed depending on the actual mechanics and the size of the gate camp. Players looking to infiltrate enemy territory should have a reasonable chance of succeeding. Lastly the entire notion of being attacked when you are least prepared is a complete non-sequitur and a strawman. There is nothing in the game that says players can only attack when their opponent(s) are well prepared. Attacking when they are ill-prepared is actually the smart thing to do. To the extent that a cloak can help a player lurk up on a ratter who is ill prepared for a fight (with his omni-tank and most likely being alone) is actually things working as intended. You are using a stealth device to sneak up on another player/avoid defensive fleets/players and kill the guy who is not prepared for that fight. In Eve you do not want to bring a knife to a gun fight, and it never hurts to bring a bigger gun, more guns, more friends, and shooting them in the gameGÇÖs version of GÇ£the backGÇ¥ or GÇ£while they are downGÇ¥ is largely what happens. It is basically saying, GÇ£I want this nerfed because it is unfair.GÇ¥ This idea that cloaks are working as intended is also not an new topic. The suggestion given also doesn't reduce cloaks to a useless module. It just reduces the safety level of a cloak to a level of acceptable where your forced to take active action when your getting triangulated. You should be able to avoid getting de-cloaked and if the opposing side doesn't have or doesn't want to use expensive charges you won't ever be found. Its only when your becoming a large enough threat where that last step is taken. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.11.04 21:44:58 -
[47] - Quote
Why not just remove local and cloaking at the same time and be done with it. Or we can just keep things as they are because of some random vocal conservatives on the forums that probably post more then play. Cloaking got broken the second they added cov-ops and hot drops. Going in circular arguments in this thread just fuels the rage and shows the bureaucratic nature of CCP. Real devs would rip the guts out of the game mechanics and force change then observe the outcome and adjust accordingly. How is it even possible to see a 360+ page long problem about something that clearly needs attention that goes ignored till this day. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
39
|
Posted - 2016.11.24 03:21:42 -
[48] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
There is an answer from CCP. Nothing is wrong.
There is a counter. PvE in fleets while on comms in PvP fits. How many times have you been hot dropped when ratting in the same site with 10 corp mates in PvP fit ships and a few logi? How many times have you even ratted like that at all? There's your answer.
Don't ask for nerfs because nullsec PvE-ers are unwilling to use existing mechanics.
Noone gives a s**t about what you should or shouldn't bring. Its about the fact that people think its not balanced. Falcon, Nano domi/phoon, Ishtar all got nerfed because they were used in unexpected ways that made alot of people unhappy. If CCP were bunch of retards they would ignore that fact but they didn't, they nerfed them. Thats what people in this threads trying to indicate, change, because they are not happy.
Its also proven that any change causes rage in the eve community. Even if its directly superior or not. You just happen to be amongst the raging conservative bunch. Good luck trying to prove that people shouldn't be happy and take the big fat d**k up there a**es by the cloaky in there system and still be contempt. Unhappy people are allowed to have there opinions and its stupid arguing against it.
Cloaking still needs a limitation no matter the mechanics its connected too.
Edit: Note the actual word cloaking literally, yes its during the actual cloaking faze I'm referring too. The second you drop your cloak its a different ballgame as everyone in this treads pointed out. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
40
|
Posted - 2016.11.24 20:35:29 -
[49] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote: Cloaking still needs a limitation no matter the mechanics its connected too.
Edit: Note the actual word cloaking literally, yes its during the actual cloaking faze I'm referring too.
Except that even while all of your examples were nerfed relatively shortly after those dominant tactics were used AFK cloaking remains....despite over what...a decade to change the mechanics of cloaking. And we have Devs from CCP pointing out things like, "Cloaked ships do remarkably little DPS." Sorry, what you feel is irrelevant. What CCP thinks on the other hand.... Why haven't this guy been banned from this thread. 6 posts in a row? what kind of forum is that even acceptable posting behaviour.
Teckos Pech please learn to restrain yourself from posting junk. No one cares what you think either. You have already said your piece in this thread over 100 times over, time to move on. Now let people that have something useful to discuss in this thread not get drowned out by your spamming.
And WTF are you talking about, low DPS? Learn to read. DPS is not related to cloaking, you cant shoot while cloaked. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
40
|
Posted - 2016.11.24 23:07:26 -
[50] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote:
And WTF are you talking about, low DPS? Learn to read. DPS is not related to cloaking, you cant shoot while cloaked.
OMG....no kidding you can't target let alone shoot, hence the low DPS. It was a Dev being sarcastic about the supposed OP nature of cloaks. AFK cloaking is not a problem because a cloaking device will destroy your ship, but because seeing an unfriendly mug in local scares the bajeebers out of you.
Sir please read before posting before making a fool out of yourself.
Let me repost the vital key line of text you seam to have ignored.
Xcom wrote: Cloaking still needs a limitation no matter the mechanics its connected too.
Cloaking is broken, just cause there is a metagame revolving around its broken nature and some players unwilling stupidity to abuse it to hell doesn't justify the ecosystem that's in place.
But something tells me that your just here for the forum warrioring. But then why am I even explaining this to you, your just here to arguing for the argument sake. Noone with relentless post counts in this thread have any intent in its outcome other then feeding there ego or whatever you get out of this. |
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
41
|
Posted - 2016.11.25 01:04:22 -
[51] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote: If cloaking was broken, it would cause issues everywhere. Somhow it seems to only be issue where you rely on the free intel given by local. I don't hear anyone complain in highsec, lowsec or w-space. Somehow it seems that sovnull is the only place where "cloaking is broken"
Cloaking is broken everywhere.
But then some people could swear on the fact that entosis interceptors wasn't broken either. Neither was carrier hotswapping moduals in mid battle. Hell even repping concordicon suiciders keeping them alive in empire wasn't broken at one point too. My favourite was off grid DDs that whipped entire fleets using a cyno when titans were added. Lets just bring that s**t back cause you know, they weren't broken. Why fix s**t when it works right? |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
42
|
Posted - 2016.11.25 05:51:33 -
[52] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:Xcom wrote:Wander Prian wrote: If cloaking was broken, it would cause issues everywhere. Somhow it seems to only be issue where you rely on the free intel given by local. I don't hear anyone complain in highsec, lowsec or w-space. Somehow it seems that sovnull is the only place where "cloaking is broken"
Cloaking is broken everywhere. But then some people could swear on the fact that entosis interceptors wasn't broken either. Neither was carrier hotswapping moduals in mid battle. Hell even repping concordicon suiciders keeping them alive in empire wasn't broken at one point too. My favourite was off grid DDs that whipped entire fleets using a cyno when titans were added. Lets just bring that s**t back cause you know, they weren't broken. Edit: Totally forgot, best example right in front of me. Off grid fleet boosting. That **** was totally broken right? CCP decided to just rip the whole thing apart and redo it. Time to look at a 400 page long thread and ask if we should still fly invulnerable in space. Off-grid boosting was just stupid everywhere, not just in one area of space. Same with swapping capital modules mid-fight. It made fights in wormhole-space annoying as well. Your problem is not with the cloak , but the cyno. You just don't want to nerf it because you use it yourself. *major facepalm* I just have no words. Read between the lines and look up sarcasm.
Please read, take a short break. Let that information sink in so you understand the concept of what the poster is trying to convey. Pause yet again just to make sure before hitting that post button.
Cyno is not the problem in a cloaking thread. Cyno is a different topic. Cloaking is the problem in its entirety. Its not to complicated to understand that.
Let me spell it out. C L O A K I N G
Fix cloaking and no more cloaking complaints. Cloaking needs a nerf.
Just going to make damn sure its right on the point and not an inch to the left.
CLOAKING IS THE PROBLEM.
No cloaking fix, big cloaking complaint thread. Cloaking fix, no more complaints.
Its that thing you do in space where your actually cloaked, you know when your ship disappears and stays invisible. Yes, that thing you do, the cloaking thing. That needs to be nerfed because it lacks any productive counter. It makes people sad. That's why people are complaining. So many people wouldn't complain if cloaking wasn't broken. If things were balanced people would be happy. People are not happy and that is why they are here, complaining.
No need blaming anything or anyone else or even out right flaming me personally. When I step away someone else will show up out of the blue and complain, someone I don't even have any contact with. Another person that have basically stepped over the big fat problem that's right here clear as glass. You might know what I'm talking about by now. Unless you skipped over anything I just typed and hit that post button.
People will keep showing up complaining and it wont stop until this problem is resolved. Smart people find problems and resolve them ahead of time before they even show up. It takes a different kind of snowflake to hear so many complaints and still ignore the problem, even worse outright attack the people pointing out the flaw. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
42
|
Posted - 2016.11.25 07:03:53 -
[53] - Quote
Is OA really a solve it all to cloaks? and have there been solid confirmations on it? |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
42
|
Posted - 2016.11.25 13:23:53 -
[54] - Quote
HTFU players? its the most carebear mindsets who think cloaks are remotely hardcore. It is nice to just click a button, go invisible and safely step away from the pc. We aren't even safe in empire space, some instances unsafe even when docked, but somehow the cloaking is safe everywhere. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
42
|
Posted - 2016.11.25 20:18:13 -
[55] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Xcom wrote:HTFU players? its the most carebear mindsets who think cloaks are remotely hardcore. It is nice to just click a button, go invisible and safely step away from the pc. We aren't even safe in empire space, some instances unsafe even when docked, but somehow the cloaking is safe everywhere. So if we nerf cloaking, what is your proposal for a new counter to local chat in sov null? Frankly I don't give a s**t, everything doesn't actually revolve around the null space pilots of eve. I honestly will leave that discussion to anyone who is willing to entertain it and won't be least bit interested in that topic. Its extremely egocentric thinking that cloaking and null space is directly connected and all other types of game plays takes a back-seat till its fixed before we can move on. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
42
|
Posted - 2016.11.25 20:56:47 -
[56] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Xcom wrote:Frankly I don't give a s**t, everything doesn't actually revolve around the null space pilots of eve. I honestly will leave that discussion to anyone who is willing to entertain it and won't be least bit interested in that topic. Its extremely egocentric thinking that cloaking and null space is directly connected and all other types of game plays takes a back-seat till that particular relation is fixed before we can move on. AFK cloaking is something that only people in sov null complain about. The most vocal majority of cloaking complaints come from null space and gives the illusion that AFK cloaking is the only problem with cloaking. It is so extremely ego centric thinking that cloaks don't impact the game in other areas of the game. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
42
|
Posted - 2016.11.25 22:44:44 -
[57] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:6 years living in w-space and roaming around New Eden and the only place I have heard this complaint is from sov-null. Why even respond, waste your time posting and at the same time show your ignorance.
When they first implemented cloaking someone in the dev team forgot to ask themself if they even had a counter in play. Not one game I know of have cloaking ability's like in eve. Its a major major oversight. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
42
|
Posted - 2016.11.26 00:29:27 -
[58] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Xcom wrote:Why even respond, waste your time posting and at the same time show your ignorance.
When they first implemented cloaking someone in the dev team forgot to ask themself if they even had a counter in play. Not one game I know of have cloaking ability's like in eve. Its a major major oversight. There is a counter. Cloaky camping is only an issue in sov null. Where you should be in fleet, on comms and ready to PvP 24/7. If you're ratting or mining in groups with a standing defense fleet in system, you won't be hot dropped, and if you are, you will get a nice juicy multi billion ISK kill from killing the hot droppers. If you're in a nullsec corp and someone is ratting or mining solo while not in a standing fleet and on comms (the only people who actually die to blops), I suggest giving them a one time warning and then kicking them from corp, as they really shouldn't be in null. Dude why are you so thick. Cloaked ships are immune from attacks. That is unbalanced, not the whole null bullshit local hot-drop crap connected to the cloaking discussion. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
42
|
Posted - 2016.11.26 00:45:15 -
[59] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Xcom wrote:Dude why are you so thick. Cloaked ships are immune from attacks. That is unbalanced, not the whole null bullshit local hot-drop crap connected to the cloaking discussion. How many ships have died to someone with an active cloak? Link me specific killmails please. Or, (and this is shocking) is the balance that a cloaked ship can't attack anyone or earn any isk while cloaked? /gasp! Literally the only people who whine about AFK cloaking are nullsec PvE-ers who hate to have to not min/max their ISK generation and *actually* defend their space. So again, rat and mine in groups in PvP fits while on comms. Problem solved. Hell, I've been yelled at by leadership in nullsec for undocking in a PvP ship to bait a cloaked ship in system. Apparently we "didn't want to risk a hot drop, so change systems or stay docked". That was the day I left that corp. People with that attitude need to stay in high sec. Your the carebare who think its ok to stay safe behind a cloak. Cloaked ships should not be safe, they should be able to die because someone or something should be able to hunt them. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
44
|
Posted - 2016.11.26 21:29:18 -
[60] - Quote
Cloaks don't need a super fancy high tech mechanic to get hunted. The whole AFK part about cloaking is the product not the reason why cloaks needs nerfed. They are to safe and easily abused because of that very simple reason.
Clearly its a balancing act making the cloaking aspect not just plain useless but its quite easily accomplished for a company with 10+ years of experience. I trust it won't take the dev team a ton of time to choose a feature and implement it. Its just confusing and really disappointing to see this massive flaw get neglected for this long. I guess other features and fixes take priority but its quite embarrassing when you see this page sit on the sticky with 400 pages. |
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
44
|
Posted - 2016.11.27 00:59:22 -
[61] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:\AFK-cloaking is the product of sovnull-alliances using local as their primary source of intel. It is the direct counter to the 100% accurate intel given by local. Nobody else sees cloaks as being overpowered. Stop whining. I know your not that bright but let me lay it out on you cause you don't seam to get it. The only instance where a player can see the clear evidence of overpowered behavior of cloaks is in nullsec when its used in AFK-cloaking. Any other instance its not as clear to players as they don't have that level of access to notice the cloakys overpowered safety. Its not like anyone can complain when they cant see that AFK cloaky in WH space or that war target that might be docked in one of the restricted citadels in empire or AFK in a cloaky.
Just because you like to carebare behind a cloak doesn't make it unbalanced. And why are you even here? if you find it balanced and working then you shouldn't even be in a thread like this. Afraid all the complaints might remove your favorite carebare module? |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
44
|
Posted - 2016.11.27 01:48:37 -
[62] - Quote
I propose we get a new module. I call it the Invulnerability hardener. You can activate it as long as no one have locked you. You can stay invulnerable as long as you want and it costs nothing to activate. Some specialized ships should also be able to warp around invulnerable in the same system. The only drawback is that you can't use any other module when its active and some other random side effect on your ship when its fitted, not that relevant.
If you ever find yourself in a sticky situation you just have to click that button and go invulnerable. If you happen to be hunted by pirates or hostile enemy's or even if you have managed to somehow wind up in the heart of your enemy's main staging system. Just click that button, bam, invulnerable!
It should put you invulnerable for as long as you like to so as to make you be in full control of your ship without anyone being able to harm you. Full safety and security. Only when it fits you and not one moment earlier can you come out of invulnerability and go about your business what ever that being mining, pvping or whatever that may be. No restrictions and completely safety meaning, if you happen to be camped it all turns into a waiting game to see who has the most patience.
But wait there is more. If you ever happen to feel like it and having access to one of the invulnerability warping capable ships can you quickly warp to safe spot and log out without giving enough time for anyone to probe you down and harm you.
Invulnerability hardener, the best idea EvE forums have ever seen. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
48
|
Posted - 2016.11.27 16:59:44 -
[63] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:Xcom wrote:Wander Prian wrote:\AFK-cloaking is the product of sovnull-alliances using local as their primary source of intel. It is the direct counter to the 100% accurate intel given by local. Nobody else sees cloaks as being overpowered. Stop whining. I know your not that bright but let me lay it out on you cause you don't seam to get it. The only instance where a player can see the clear evidence of overpowered behavior of cloaks is in nullsec when its used in AFK-cloaking. Any other instance its not as clear to players as they don't have that level of access to notice the cloakys overpowered safety. Its not like anyone can complain when they cant see that AFK cloaky in WH space or that war target that might be docked in one of the restricted citadels in empire or AFK in a cloaky. Just because you like to carebare behind a cloak doesn't make it unbalanced. And why are you even here? if you find it balanced and working then you shouldn't even be in a thread like this. Afraid all the complaints might remove your favorite carebare module? If there was a module that could make you invulnerable and visible in all types of space people would be outraged. The only difference here is that you can't see the cloaky except it really is invulnerable which only is worse. I'm here to keep idiots like you from breaking a module just so they can keep making isk in perfect safety. You ignored the post right above this comment. What do you think about the invulnerability module? Or did you run out of words cause you for once see the error in your logic?
Idiots like you forget that the cloaking module also helps people make isk in perfect safety. Cuts both ways. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
48
|
Posted - 2016.11.27 18:47:33 -
[64] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:Xcom wrote:Wander Prian wrote:Xcom wrote:Wander Prian wrote:\AFK-cloaking is the product of sovnull-alliances using local as their primary source of intel. It is the direct counter to the 100% accurate intel given by local. Nobody else sees cloaks as being overpowered. Stop whining. I know your not that bright but let me lay it out on you cause you don't seam to get it. The only instance where a player can see the clear evidence of overpowered behavior of cloaks is in nullsec when its used in AFK-cloaking. Any other instance its not as clear to players as they don't have that level of access to notice the cloakys overpowered safety. Its not like anyone can complain when they cant see that AFK cloaky in WH space or that war target that might be docked in one of the restricted citadels in empire or AFK in a cloaky. Just because you like to carebare behind a cloak doesn't make it unbalanced. And why are you even here? if you find it balanced and working then you shouldn't even be in a thread like this. Afraid all the complaints might remove your favorite carebare module? If there was a module that could make you invulnerable and visible in all types of space people would be outraged. The only difference here is that you can't see the cloaky except it really is invulnerable which only is worse. I'm here to keep idiots like you from breaking a module just so they can keep making isk in perfect safety. You ignored the post right above this comment. What do you think about the invulnerability module? Or did you run out of words cause you for once see the error in your logic? Idiots like you forget that the cloaking module also helps people make isk in perfect safety. Cuts both ways. Wait, how do you make ISK when you are cloaked? Last I checked, you aren't able to activate any modules when cloaked You know comments like that makes you look like an idiot more then anything. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
48
|
Posted - 2016.11.27 20:15:45 -
[65] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:My "complaining" is just the truth. Using local as your main source of intel made you vulnerable for AFK-cloaking. It was invented to counter your use of local as your primary way of gathering intel. I know your slow but you don't seam to get it. Not everyone here complaining about cloaks are from nullsec or even care about AFK-cloaking/hot-droping aspect of cloaks in nullsec. Cloaking in general needs nerfed because they are ruining the gameplay for more then the 200 or so players that are directly impacted by the niche problem you seem to source your entire argument around. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
49
|
Posted - 2016.11.27 20:51:21 -
[66] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:Xcom wrote:Wander Prian wrote:My "complaining" is just the truth. Using local as your main source of intel made you vulnerable for AFK-cloaking. It was invented to counter your use of local as your primary way of gathering intel. I know your slow but you don't seam to get it. Not everyone here complaining about cloaks are from nullsec or even care about AFK-cloaking/hot-droping aspect of cloaks in nullsec. Cloaking in general needs nerfed because they are ruining the gameplay for more then the 200 or so players that are directly impacted by the niche problem you seem to source your entire argument around. Show me one who doesn't live in null and is complaining about cloaks? Me. I don't live in null and complain about cloaks.
@ Sonya Corvinus you can kill people in citadels. Just takes a bit of effort. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
49
|
Posted - 2016.11.27 21:28:31 -
[67] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:So you have a alt that lives in highsec that you use to post in here, okay. lol what a try hard. Dude get the f**k out of this thread and play the game.
Doing background checks to win an argument on the forums. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
49
|
Posted - 2016.11.27 23:46:48 -
[68] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Maybe if you could articulate a cogent reason as to why you think cloaking is broken....?
Your claim of a counter is just not really very good in that:
1. Cloaking ships die all the time. 2. Even AFK cloaking can be countered by players who care to do so.
That people complain is not sufficient. People complain many things in game repeatedly, that does not make them broken. People often complained about invention and the number of successes they observed.
I'm glad you asked. Now that we are on point its much easier to articulate the issue.
The main problem of cloaked ships isn't the whole issue of the module and its use after the cloak have dropped. The problem is during the use of the cloak. There is no limitation to it. You can use the module for an indefinite amount of time in a limbo between logged off and on grid. Its almost like going into observatory view and have the power to stay there for any amount of time. You are close to invincible other then pilot errors which are to easy to avoid. That state of cloak shouldn't have some form of limitation to it. Its crazy thinking that cloaked ships during cloak shouldn't have any limit to there ability's. They have benefits such as observation without any drawback, that is the main issue. Observation without drawback and the chance to engage in combat or avoid it at no cost.
Its clear that any state should have a form of drawback other then, "you can't do much in cloaked state". The power to observe and engage or avoid is a huge advantage when combined with the aspects of unlimited time that you can stay in cloak. There needs to be a limit to cloaking, preferably something that does give the surrounding players around the cloaked ships the power to influence said pilot. Removing the power to influence cloaked ships creates an unbalanced advantage that fuels this thread. It gives anyone on the opposite side of that cloak a feeling of helplessness that in the end creates a bad gaming experience. Its game design 101. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
49
|
Posted - 2016.11.28 01:41:00 -
[69] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Xcom wrote:@ Sonya Corvinus you can kill people in citadels. Just takes a bit of effort. Are you honestly saying specific people can be killed in citadels? and did you notice I said stations, not citadels? If you find that imbalanced then start a thread and reason why people in station can't be killed. Don't come to a cloaky thread and complain about it. I could be sitting here and reason that cloaked ships are connected to any number of random reasons just to drag the conversation to the gutter.
This isn't connect the dots. Cloaking is connected to the game yes but it is with clear evidence close to invulnerability. At least with citadels you as a player can force people to undock. Stations may or may not be changed to move in the same directions as citadels, but that's for time to tell and nothing to do with cloaked ships. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
49
|
Posted - 2016.11.28 02:02:35 -
[70] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:No, please explain how a cloaked ship makes ISK.
Can you shoot rats while cloaked? No. Can you extract your PI output from your planet while cloaked? No.
Exactly how does one make ISK while cloaked?
You really want to go there?
This is a game, cloaks needs to be balanced to give a good gaming experience. It doesn't matter that your making isk or not, its about the feature called cloaks that causes bad gaming experience in EvE online.
At this point that comment coming from you really is a troll comment. This is Features and Ideas parts of the forum, don't confuse it with EvE politics. |
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
49
|
Posted - 2016.11.28 02:27:04 -
[71] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:Xcom wrote:Sonya Corvinus wrote:Xcom wrote:@ Sonya Corvinus you can kill people in citadels. Just takes a bit of effort. Are you honestly saying specific people can be killed in citadels? and did you notice I said stations, not citadels? If you find that imbalanced then start a thread and reason why people in station can't be killed. Don't come to a cloaky thread and complain about it. I could be sitting here and reason that cloaked ships are connected to any number of random reasons just to drag the conversation to the gutter. This isn't connect the dots. Cloaking is connected to the game yes but it is with clear evidence close to invulnerability. At least with citadels you as a player can force people to undock. Stations may or may not be changed to move in the same directions as citadels, but that's for time to tell and nothing to do with cloaked ships. Also while you are cloaked, you cannot activate modules,you cannot target anything, your ship is pre-nerfed for the ability to use the covert ops -cloak and it takes one slot from the ship. The only special ability that the cloak gives you is to choose the moment of engagement. Yes but the intel gathering, prolonged stalemate of locking a player in system without being able to affect the outcome other then waiting the stailmait out and the ability to activate some modules that do not need ship lock tips it in a lopsided favour. If your ship would turn into a flying brick without the intel gathering cloaks would be perfectly balanced, but that's not the case.
These 3 points amongst other are the reason why cloaking is not balanced. 1. Intel gathering without any drawback. 2. Ability to engage with no drawbacks, because of point 1 tipping the hand heavily in the cloaked ships favour. 3. Reduced quality of gameplay when cloaks force the engagement to a stalemate where only one side of the party having the ability to break it.
Clearly as a gameplay perspective its evidenced to show imbalance when you look at the points above. Obviously if you start looking at it from an ingame perspective where cloaks have a role to play in the grand scheme of things then you can justify it form any number of standpoints. But isolated the module itself and the ability to cloak in EvE is not balanced, evidently from all the complaints. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
52
|
Posted - 2016.11.28 19:36:29 -
[72] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Xcom wrote:If you find that imbalanced then start a thread and reason why people in station can't be killed. Don't come to a cloaky thread and complain about it. I could be sitting here and reason that cloaked ships are connected to any number of random reasons just to drag the conversation to the gutter.
This isn't connect the dots. Cloaking is connected to the game yes but it is with clear evidence close to invulnerability. At least with citadels you as a player can force people to undock. Stations may or may not be changed to move in the same directions as citadels, but that's for time to tell and nothing to do with cloaked ships. Don't sit here and claim you can kill someone in a citadel. The length of the invulnerability timers means anyone can escape. Also, assets in destroyed citadels need to drop in space everywhere. It's insane that your assets are 100% safe in any player made structure. Xcom wrote:Yes but the intel gathering, prolonged stalemate of locking a player in system without being able to affect the outcome other then waiting the stailmait out and the ability to activate some modules that do not need ship lock tips it in a lopsided favour. If your ship would turn into a flying brick without the intel gathering cloaks would be perfectly balanced, but that's not the case.
These 3 points amongst other are the reason why cloaking is not balanced. 1. Intel gathering without any drawback. 2. Ability to engage with limited drawbacks (easily circumnavigated), because of point 1 tipping the hand heavily in the cloaked ships favour. 3. Reduced quality of gameplay when cloaks force the engagement to a stalemate where only one side of the party having the ability to break it.
Clearly as a gameplay perspective its evidenced to show imbalance when you look at the points above. Obviously if you start looking at it from an ingame perspective where cloaks have a role to play in the grand scheme of things then you can easily start to justify it from any number of standpoints. But isolated the module itself and the cloaking ability in EvE is not balanced, evidently from all the complaints. Intel gathering without any drawback is a problem. Cloaks do give you a drawback. You can't attack or earn ISK when cloaked. Local chat is intel without any drawback, so let's nerf that. Brokk Witgenstein wrote:I already posted several solutions to this and agreed to several others; but I'll recap:
- cloaks: too safe; the sonar scanner posted several hundreds of pages ago sounds like a lot of fun so I'd roll with that one. - local intel: too safe; I'd go with delayed local to give potential hunters the time to locate someone (or at least load grid). - mining ... not safe enough; these guys need scan-down signatures in addition to anoms. - observatory arrays with the ability to mask ships as blues (subvert intel) or remove them from local: go for it! Deploying one's own observatory array in a system 1-2 jumps out should allow this. - cloaky nullified T3s: beyond too safe: should not exist. Either nullified or cloaky-- not both simultaneously. - hotdrops: too safe; it would help to get a 40 second timer after decloak to allow combat before a drop happens.
The end result, would make scouting an active role; risking either losing the scout while you were alt-tabbed, or risking no scout at all and checking DScan. It would return danger to those who don't put in effort, and preserve the safety of those who do keep eyes on DScan / gates and take the time to scan their holes. Mining isn't safe enough? You will literally never be caught if you watch local. Miners being AFK watching netflix is the issue. hotdrops: you're risking multi billion ISK ships to kill a retriever. If you mine/rat in groups while in fleet and on comms in PvP fits, hot drops are a non issue. A cloaky nullified T3 doesn't do much damage at all, a proper group PvEing together would destroy that T3. So the real question it seems is why are people PvE-ing solo in null? You seam a bit lost, this is not a fix it all kind of thread. Don't try and derail it with local/station/kitchen sink bullshit. This is a cloak balancing thread. Go open a new thread and stop derailing this one.
Just because local and citadels are not balanced in your point of view doesn't mean they are directly connected to cloaking, they will more then likely not be fixed in conjunction with the other. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
52
|
Posted - 2016.11.29 01:36:39 -
[73] - Quote
@ Teckos Pech Your wall of multi posting truly shows your intellect. You unknowingly answered your own questions when asking if cloaked ships generated any income. They didn't generate ISK but they did generate value. You seam to have gotten lost with narrow-minded responses trolling this thread having gotten that particular response to that exact question get answered over and over to you. Just to make a fool out of you from me as well I'll lead you along like a little kid through first principles.
Value is generated when a player logs in and spends time in EvE. That time can be direct ISK generation (ratting/mission running for example) or production that will lead to ISK income (mining/production). Then there are other forms of value generation such as pvp where players engage in combat. First principle of combat is conflict that drives the engagement. You have to have an opponent to preform combat. Your opponent will prevent you from preforming some actions with some moves while in also becoming vulnerable with other actions when either forced or by choice done other moves. All of this drives value in EvE online, the game we play. Without value generation actions would automatically cease to exist as players would stop playing. Not all value needs to be in ISK directly.
The dilemma of cloaking generates value for one side of the party while not for the other. This is the act of lopsided value generation and is the imbalance of cloaks. Cloaks generate opportunity of engagement while the opponent can not do the same as the stalemate can only be broken from one side. This was prevented with the points above with your ignorant response of "Gathering intel with a cloak is cloaks working as intended." not even understanding the main underlying imbalance. Being forced to move is a direct cause and effect of value ceasing to exist in that particular space. This type of act generates less value for all sides and is clear evidence of bad game design. A well balanced feature would generate player attention and have people gather around a conflict and not have to move away from it. If cloaks force people to move it means its not a good feature, quite the opposite.
And for the 100th of time. This is a cloaky thread and not a local thread. Even if its in need of alteration it will be done and discussed in a thread of its own. No one is a hypocrite when they ask to stop the derailment of the discussion to start talking about other broken features or justify the role of cloaks because of n number of reasons. If it wasn't for local there would be stations or any other number of random bullshit conjured to derail the main topic or justify its function. Only discussing cloaking on its own can you justify its actual intended use. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
52
|
Posted - 2016.11.29 01:40:26 -
[74] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:I've thought for a while that local should be tied to a structure in sov null. If you are at that structure you can slowly scan for cloaked ships, but if I destroy or disable that structure local chat goes away until it's repaired or reanchored. This is a grate idea in sov space, I frankly like this idea as well. But what about other types of space? |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
52
|
Posted - 2016.11.29 01:47:44 -
[75] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Xcom wrote:This is a grate idea in sov space, I frankly like this idea as well. But what about other types of space? AFK cloaking is only complained about in sov null. The only area I haven't personally lived in is NPC null, so I can't talk about that, but AFK cloaking is a non issue in HS, LS and WHs. To a lesser degree it also is an issue in WS. There are instances of players using it to camp mining operations and getting off cheep kills. Its just harder to prove.
But the cloaking module needs a general nerf, its not very entertaining to have bunch of cloaked pilots engaging in combat or avoiding it. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
52
|
Posted - 2016.11.29 02:18:13 -
[76] - Quote
@ Brokk Witgenstein I just wish others would get that as well, you would think this part of the forums would have a bit more objective scope over the game itself.
Sadly its impossible coming to any resolution or take anything in this thread seriously. People are way to invested in the game to come up with balanced game decisions, unlike proper game development forums. I guess its the same reason CCP avoid this part of the forums as well. Its fun discussing topics regarding game balance but at some point you have to start thinking if its productive and move on. Specially when trolls are lurking. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
54
|
Posted - 2016.11.29 08:51:12 -
[77] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote:@ Teckos Pech Your wall of multi posting truly shows your intellect. You unknowingly answered your own questions when asking if cloaked ships generated any income. They didn't generate ISK but they did generate value. You seam to have gotten lost with narrow-minded responses trolling this thread having gotten that particular response to that exact question get answered over and over to you. Just to make a fool out of you from me as well I'll lead you along like a little kid through first principles. So Wander and I were both right despite your insulting and dismissive posts. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to imply others are stupid after this fine display on your part. As for creating value I suppose that is true, but that is not the same thing as ISK now is it. I value sitting and reading a good book, but that does not generate income for me now does it. You said Wander was basically an idiot for asking how a cloaked ship makes ISK. Answer they don't. In fact, players using AFK cloaking incur a cost. [snipping your paragraph on value as it is nothing more than your attempt to save face.] Quote:The dilemma of cloaking generates value for one side of the party while not for the other. This is the act of lopsided value generation and is the imbalance of cloaks. Cloaks generate opportunity of engagement while the opponent can not do the same as the stalemate can only be broken from one side. This was prevented with the points above with your ignorant response of "Gathering intel with a cloak is cloaks working as intended." not even understanding the main underlying imbalance. Being forced to move is a direct cause and effect of value ceasing to exist in that particular space. This type of act generates less value for all sides and is clear evidence of bad game design. A well balanced feature would generate player attention and have people gather around a conflict and not have to move away from it. If cloaks force people to move it means its not a good feature, quite the opposite. Two points. Much of these points can be made about local as well. Local allows the person already in system advanced warning to get safe thus making content (aka value) far, far less likely. It is also one sided and the opponent can do nothing about it. Second point, you do have options for dealing with an AFK cloaker or even and ATK cloaker. They have been covered ad nauseam in this thread. Quote:And for the 100th of time. This is a cloaky thread and not a local thread. No, it is an AFK thread. Go read the Goddamn title Xcom. Then read it again. And one more time if you will. Here I'll copy and paste the title of this thread: Quote:AFK CloakingGäó: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals Do you see those first three letters. Do you know what they mean? AFK = Away From Keyboard. This is not just a "cloaking" thread. This is what to do with the issue of AFK cloaking. As such, it is quite clear that AFK cloaking only works because of local. No local, no AFK cloaking. Why? What is the point? With no local nobody would see me and thus not dock up. With your own admission you have clearly shown that value is removed from the system where AFK cloaking tactics are used. Its also evident that you can bring N number of ships to protect any activity in said system to the point where income division amongst players compares to empire, a safer space to preform same actions. But as a default the aggressor with the advantage of scouting can just bring N + 1 ships and win the battle in direct favor of there outcome. Local and AFK cloaking in fact ruins the game for anyone involved. Anyone seeing this should be appalled by its impact. It just confuses me to see people like you defend it.
Why do you even defend this broken mechanic? |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
54
|
Posted - 2016.12.01 13:17:00 -
[78] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Now, to you, the AFK Cloaker is no longer an AFK cloaker as soon as he drops his cloak or resumes gameplay ATK. I find this to be in error. It's like saying a burglar becomes a visitor once he's in your living room because "the door was already open", becomes a pedestrian when he makes off with your TV set because he's not in the act of breaking and entering at those exact moments in time.
To me, the AFK cloaker remains an AFK cloaker even when he resumes play after 10 days of AFKness, even when he drops cloak and engages: it is still an AFK cloaker! Why? Because there is no way for anyone else but him to know he's AFK or not. And merely because that cloak dropped 5 seconds ago and you're now scrambled and webbed, doesn't make it any less of a cloaker attack.
Can you follow my line of reasoning in this? The thread is not merely discussing the presence of a cloaked, unpiloted ship -- if that were the case you'd be quite right to point out it doesn't do anything and it totally harmless. But we know this to be false. What said cloaked ship does after the pilot gets home, after it tackles something, is very much within the context of this debate! The fact that it's been sitting there for five hours or more makes it an AFK cloaker; and until the residents can assert that it is or is not AFK (as Dracvlad suggested by flagging it inactive) they damn well ought to treat is as an ATK ship.
I completely disagree. I follow your argument I just think it is fundamentally flawed. Your analogy is flawed in that the burglar is still doing all the things that make him a burglar at each stage. When he breaks in, goes into your living room and makes off with with the television set he is still doing those things that make him a burglar. There is no actual change in his status/activity. For the AFK/ATK something has absolutely changed and in a significant way. It is right there in your post. The transition form AFK to ATK is significant in that ATK is far, far more dangerous...which you correctly note. And yes, this thread is about AFK cloaking. Problem is everyone who wants to deal with AFK cloaking want to have their cake and eat it too (nerf AFK cloaking, and keep local) but also nerf cloaks for people who are not AFK cloaking. So the guys roaming around with cloaks looking for ratters who are not paying attention or do have bad luck they get screwed by 99.99% of the anti-cloak proposals. And yes, the issue of uncertainty is a major factor here. My view is that removing that uncertainty just by itself is bad game design. Especially given what EVE is supposed to be. This should be especially so in NS, IMO. This is why I'd prefer the OA that can be turned off at any time when the person doing the hacking/entosising is left undisturbed. The OA isn't destroyed, it would just need another round of entosising to turn it back on. There should be a way for other players to create uncertainty and impose some degree of risk on others. So if we have an alliance full of chicken littles who run and dock up as soon as a scary pilot shows up, and stay docked up while said scary pilot entosises their OA...well boo-fricking-hoo for them. And if they are too much the nervous nellies to undock without local and turn it back on....not my problem. In fact, I'd probably be paying them regular visits to do such a thing routinely. Hell, I'd even look into hacking more of their sov related structures. And guaranteed they'll be back here in this sub-forum making post after post after post whining about how their OA is being turned off by mean psychopathic players (who kill puppies and take candy from babies IRL). You literally wipe your a*s with this thread and bash any idea anyone suggests just to prove this point? It sounds more like you have a very targeted audience that you rather are not fond of. Farming in null is what you have complacency against. Not the actual cloaking mechanics. This is quite literally the most backhanded attempt to force everyone to think like you, that nullsec farming needs nerfed. Go complain about that in a different thread and let people that want to change cloaking have there discussion in piece.
In fact there are plenty of tools preventing players from farming in any given location. AFK cloaking is the worst of them all, defending it from any standpoint shows the ill intent of anyone that wants change. Surprise attacks on income activity's in a very narrow group of players in null space which sums up to about at most 100 or so players in the AFK cloak impacted systems. Why would anyone want to force this target audience to not have there farming done with even 1% less risk with any change? whats the whole obsession that this group of players might get an overwhelming buff to there activity to literally s**t all over every idea in this thread? Why even bother, what would actually change in EvE if AFK cloaking went away? 100 players would earn 10% more ISK then there usual income in the neighboring systems they usually farm in? |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
55
|
Posted - 2016.12.01 21:45:56 -
[79] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote: You literally wipe your a*s with this thread and bash any idea anyone suggests just to prove this point? It sounds more like you have a very targeted audience that you rather are not fond of. Farming in null is what you have complacency against. Not the actual cloaking mechanics. This is quite literally the most backhanded attempt to force everyone to think like you, that nullsec farming needs nerfed. Go complain about that in a different thread and let people that want to change cloaking have there discussion in piece.
In fact there are plenty of tools preventing players from farming in any given location. AFK cloaking is the worst of them all, defending it from any standpoint shows the ill intent of anyone that wants change. Surprise attacks on income activity's in a very narrow group of players in null space which sums up to about at most 100 or so players in the AFK cloak impacted systems. Why would anyone want to force this target audience to not have there farming done with even 1% less risk with any change? whats the whole obsession that this group of players might get an overwhelming buff to there activity to literally s**t all over every idea in this thread? Why even bother, what would actually change in EvE if AFK cloaking went away? 100 players would earn 10% more ISK then there usual income in the neighboring systems they usually farm in?
You are correct, I am not sympathetic of players who feel they should be allowed to rat in the game and can wall off any and all interaction with other players. I don't care if you are in HS, NS, or wherever, if another player decides to interact with you, even in a hostile manner, that is what this game is about. I have read dozens of these threads on AFK cloaking (go to the old collection thread I started and count the number of threads I found and linked) and the vast majority definitely were of this sort. There is a subset of players in this game who view non-consensual combat PvP as a bad thing. You can see it in the numerous threads on ganking, particularly freighter ganking, as well. I have no sympathy for these players. This is a game built around PvP much of it non-consensual. Further, these players often have a rather disgusting habit of using all sorts of inappropriate name calling for players who do want to play the game as it was intended (e.g. non-consensual PvP). They have even used terms like psychopath and and outright said that such players are this way IRL. In fact you are doing it in that post of your, Quote:AFK cloaking is the worst of them all, defending it from any standpoint shows the ill intent of anyone that wants change. There you are assuming bad intentions, vs. considering that people have a different view of the game than you do. This is especially true since I do favor change. I have posted this multiple times. So, no....these players can literally GTFO as far as I am concerned. Am I clear enough for you on this? The problem with most of the ideas put forward in this thread is that they nerf ATK cloaking which is fine. I know you disagree, but I find your entire view point antithetical to the philosophy of the game and for the life of me can't figure out why you play. I should always have some means to come up and shoot you in the face in every part of the game. Cloaks, in general, are fine. You can kill people in ships with cloaks. You can kill them on gates, you can kill them as they warp to celestials if you have a bubble and get a bit lucky. You can kill them when they drop cloak and engage. Yes, they might have a cyno fit, but then that is true of the brick tanked BC that jumps into your gate camp as well. And I suggest you go look at the amount of ISK flowing into the game via NS ratting each month. It is huge...enormous, ******* gigantic amounts of ISK. It is so large that rumor has it CCP is considering hitting it with the nerf bat. What does that tell you...they are going to hit ratting ISK with the nerf bat and leave AFK cloaking until the OA is going to enter the game. Tells me they are more worried about the former than the latter. At last we have a consensus, non-consensual, pvp should happen everywhere and to anyone. There is just one flaw in that, cloaked ships. I know we disagree on the point where income activity needs to happen in forms of ISK before you should be forced into non-consensual combat. But its clear that some forms of AFK cloaking do actually contribute to direct opportunity of engagement, for some this is of value but just not in the forms of ISK.
Clearly AFK cloaking does prevent farming in some systems but its not even remotely impacting the overall ISK income of ratting. Unless every system in multiple systems gets AFK cloaked every single day forcing people out of nullsec. Which we have discussed is a negative use of cloaks and removes value from the game. It is far easier to just nerf ISK income from ratting in some form and give players the ability disrupt income from ratting in other more meaningful methods. Fix the cloaking method of AFK cloaking right here and now and not wait for X number of features before it happens that probably wont even see the light of day. Break the cycle of broken cloaks. Don't need to drag out the conversation about what end of the egg we should start eating at, we all want the same thing, change. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
55
|
Posted - 2016.12.02 04:34:29 -
[80] - Quote
I think Brokk hits the nail on the head. No need to talk about compromise and risk balance while attempting to tamper with mechanics that will shift the mechanics of nullsec at its core in a thread about a single module. There are plenty of mechanics used to deny resource gathering for a specific group of players. AFK cloaking is just the symptoms of broken cloak mechanics and honestly is the abuse of its unintended use. Its removal have nothing to do with global game balance. Its removal will only be welcomed by a minority.
Fixing roaming gang pvp vs soft pve targets is not going to happen in a thread about cloaks. Attempting to blame cloaks being the only stopgap before everyone and there dog emigrates to nullsec and farms its content and breaks the game is quite literally bullshit. Everyone knows that you can move to the system nextdoor and is currently being used against AFK cloakys. Cloaking changes wont change anything to nullsec. What it will change is free kills with no risk cloaked ships currently enjoy. |
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
59
|
Posted - 2016.12.04 03:12:47 -
[81] - Quote
LOL recked.
baltec1 just wants spontaneous death to ratters, as if it was a great solution to riskless farming. But noone is stupid enough to rat with AFK cloakers so they use the next system over tactic. Who in there right mind thinks its a good game mechanic to have invisible attackers coming out of cloak right on top of you and blapping you. Even worse for the active roaming gang tactics are a waste of effort because you can put in a tenth the effort to catch idiots who rat or farm with a cloaky in system.
Nothing about AFK cloaking is good for anything to anyone. It reduces activity in a very targeted system. It makes the game a chore and really s**ty when you have try hards camping. PvPers activity is reduced because system renters can earn income to support there pvp activity. Content is reduced from the game in all aspects. Its a giant hole that leeks game content for anyone involved, even for the AFK cloakers themselfs. What kind of mindset is needed to tryhard for a kill, is that kind of pvp even constructive and thrilling? Do they have fun logging for all those hours to just get one kill? |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
60
|
Posted - 2016.12.04 08:05:38 -
[82] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Xcom wrote:LOL rekt
baltec1 just wants spontaneous death to ratters, as if it was a great solution to riskless farming. But noone is stupid enough to rat with AFK cloakers so they use the next system over tactic. Who in there right mind thinks its a good game mechanic to have invisible attackers coming out of cloak right on top of you and blapping you. Even worse for the active roaming gang tactics are a waste of effort because you can put in a tenth the effort to catch idiots who rat or farm with a cloaky in system.
Nothing about AFK cloaking is good for anything to anyone. It reduces activity in a very targeted system. It makes the game a chore and really s**ty when you have try hards camping. PvPers activity is reduced because system renters can earn income to support there pvp activity. Content is reduced from the game in all aspects. Its a giant hole that leeks game content for anyone involved, even for the AFK cloakers themselfs. What kind of mindset is needed to tryhard for a kill, is that kind of pvp even constructive and thrilling? Do they have fun logging for all those hours to just get one kill?
If AFK cloaking disappeared you could still log out in the targeted system then catch people in belts getting around the so called "intel network" by logging in. But the same idiots who want AFK cloaking also want there incursions to enemy space risk free. The problem is logging out with safety after stirring up the hornets nest so they want a way to get around that with cloaks. The second you log in they warp off because you show up in local before you finish loading into the system. WTF am I reading hahaha. You want people to just role over and die? What a carebear. If you don't want to put some effort into your kills you wont get any.
This is what cloaks boil down to. Easy mode pvp. Decloak on top of targets that guaranties a win cause who would be dumb enough to engage an overwhelming force. Blap the target and warp out. Ever thought that its f**king stupid to blow up to random cloakers that point you out of the blue? You really need to grow some balls and bring friends and take the system instead. That infrastructure that your targets use was put there in preparation they took out of there time. You expect to just login and blap anyone without any notice on behalf of your target? What WTF is the point of there infrastructure they wasted to put up? You really need to use those brain cells and come up with something better.
No one is dumb enough to fly in a pvp fit shooting rats. Don't expect anyone will because its a matter of numbers. Even if your targets fully pvp fit they will die just as easily when 8 ships gets on top just for that killmail. Even if you have friends in the system you will die before anyone's able to get to you before your dead. That's the point of cloaks, intelligence. Information kills before guns. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
60
|
Posted - 2016.12.04 09:37:58 -
[83] - Quote
Edit: Double post |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
60
|
Posted - 2016.12.04 09:40:20 -
[84] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Quote: WTF am I reading hahaha. You want people to just role over and die? What a carebear. If you don't want to put some effort into your kills you wont get any.
Feel free to tell us all what effort can be made to load the system and scan down a target before you show up in local. Quote: This is what cloaks boil down to. Easy mode pvp. Decloak on top of targets that guaranties a win cause who would be dumb enough to engage an overwhelming force. Blap the target and warp out. Ever thought that its f**king stupid to blow up to random cloakers that point you out of the blue? You really need to grow some balls and bring friends and take the system instead. That infrastructure that your targets use was put there in preparation they took out of there time. You expect to just login and blap anyone without any notice on behalf of your target? What WTF is the point of there infrastructure they wasted to put up? You really need to use those brain cells and come up with something better.
I have taken on drakes, caracals, ravens and multiple vindicators in a solo bomber. Apparently you think they are easy fights. You then go on about growing some balls immediately followed by "bring friends" and bang on about taking out their infrastructure. You are literally saying invade with several thousand ships because that is what is required to hammer the likes of the imperium. So much of wanting more pvp, no solo/small gangs allowed. Quote: No one is dumb enough to fly in a pvp fit shooting rats. Don't expect anyone will because its a matter of numbers. Even if your targets fully pvp fit they will die just as easily when 8 ships gets on top just for that killmail. Even if you have friends in the system you will die before anyone's able to get to you before your dead. That's the point of cloaks, intelligence. Information kills before guns.
Lots of people fit a cyno to get instant support. Response times in any system with an organised ratting fleet is faster than concord. Of course you would know this if you had spent any time either hunting or ratting out in null which clearly you have not. What exactly are you on about. Solo pvp, hammering the imperium. Small gang pvp? You should focus on a single topic and stop talking out of your a*s. No you shouldn't be able to go into a well defended system and survive. Somehow cloaking have allowed you to get around that mechanic and that is pure bullshit. If you want small gang pvp you can just head into a mid or low defended system and try and get a fight. You shouldn't however cloak up in a bizzy system and expect people to drop there guard and jump them when they least expect an engagement. Also your not supposed to scan down the system and find your target instantly. You do what everyone else does. Use D-scan.
How exactly will broken cloaking mechanics bring you solo or small gang pvp? Please enlighten me. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
65
|
Posted - 2016.12.04 21:04:21 -
[85] - Quote
Don't worry boys I know how to fix this. Lets remove local and see what will happen. I also suggest that if s**t hits the fan and everyone moves into empire we should man the f**k up and keep the local change cause HTFU. Lets go into every thread on this forum and spam this s**t till it happens mkay. Including the cloaking thread. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
65
|
Posted - 2016.12.04 21:33:20 -
[86] - Quote
STFU I'm an anti local fan now, fully support its removal cause why not. Lets remove the thing and see what happens. I'm sure nothing will go wrong. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
67
|
Posted - 2016.12.05 04:51:16 -
[87] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote: WTF am I reading hahaha. You want people to just role over and die?
Nobody wants this at all. This is just errant dishonest nonsense and you spew it because you can't put forward a well thought out and logical argument. Well baltec1 wants to remove local so he can get a jump on null sec pve activity. I disagreed with him before but now I have come to my senses. Remove local! PvP is boring when people can warp before I can point them. Its the best feeling when you get into optimal of that stupid idiot who thought null sec was going to be fun before I decloak on his a*s. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
72
|
Posted - 2016.12.06 12:33:50 -
[88] - Quote
After CCP adds OA.
If the OA structure gives local to everyone. Less then 24h and all active systems within sovren space of alliances have one. Cloaky ships are probed down if they are stupid enough to stick around. Rest of eve suffers from the local alteration.
If OA only works for the alliance that have placed there own. 24h and every system in alliance space with one of the OA structures onlined and working directly in favor of alliance members. Attacks of all kinds including roaming pvp is dead as they are spoted while they cant spot anyone in system. Rest of eve turns into a s**t fest with 100s of OA structures floating around in empire and low.
Seams OA is not an easy fix to cloaking after all. Its probably easier to fix cloaking instead of introducing more complicated features. Fixing a broken mechanic with another untested one. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
73
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 09:26:51 -
[89] - Quote
Yayy I'm on page 400. The only thread on PaID that ever hit this page. The one and only broken mechanic that have gotten this much attention and still been ignored by CCP :) |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
73
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 09:36:12 -
[90] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Local is fine. The problem is really local. It is perfect, invulnerable, and provides a distinct advantage to those already in system. It is really the OP mechanic that local campers piggy back on to scare you back into station. Fixed it for ya bro. Stay on topic, we must force the fools who think this is a cloaking thread. Keep fighting the power, bro. |
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
77
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 11:34:01 -
[91] - Quote
How many systems are cloak camped at any point? cant be more then 10 system total. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
77
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 15:01:00 -
[92] - Quote
So we have about 10 players in eve that this AFK cloaking mechanic would hit hardest, if it was removed. I would say that its alright to change the mechanics to weed them out. The other 300 would just have to setup 2 bookmarks and warp between the 2 over and over as long as people start looking for them.
Sounds like an easy solution to a very simple problem and a very small alteration to game mechanics. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
80
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 22:40:26 -
[93] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Xcom wrote:So we have about 10 players in eve that this AFK cloaking mechanic would hit hardest, if it was removed. I would say that its alright to change the mechanics to weed them out. The other 300 would just have to setup 2 bookmarks and warp between the 2 over and over as long as people start looking for them.
Sounds like an easy solution to a very simple problem and a very small alteration to game mechanics. It would hit every super pilot, every WH resident, every nomad (I have a character that only does PvE and hasn't docked in two months) extremely hard. Do you even play this game? AFK cloaking in null is by far the smallest part of the game that would be impacted by a nerf to cloaks.
Wander Prian wrote:Xcom wrote:So we have about 10 players in eve that this AFK cloaking mechanic would hit hardest, if it was removed. I would say that its alright to change the mechanics to weed them out. The other 300 would just have to setup 2 bookmarks and warp between the 2 over and over as long as people start looking for them.
Sounds like an easy solution to a very simple problem and a very small alteration to game mechanics. Congrats on breaking cloaking for everyone that uses it and nerfing the whole point of cloaks. Well done! Like every other change sense the release. Cloaks needs a counter and its about damn time they added one.
To shay you feel all carebear safe behind that cloak. HTFU |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
81
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 07:41:49 -
[94] - Quote
Why is Techos so salty? is it cause we are trying to remove his ability to cloak + Alt + tab to forums module? or he is just eve forums biggest troll.
Local isn't the counter to cloaks. You cant neutralize cloaks using local. There is no proof of anyone ever having used local to kill a cloaked ship. Show me the killmail. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
85
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 13:28:56 -
[95] - Quote
Iteration of features is key to create a balanced game. Just look at most pvp games outside of eve that is centered around pvp. Its just stupid thinking that adding features without iterating through them will be balanced. Cynos, cloaks and other major mechanics are left alone while they do the teiraside balances. People talk about T3 balance acts while major factors are left unchecked that alters balance of combat along with them. Eve really shows its age when nothing along with old changes ever gets a second glance at.
I would think that a major company such as CCP would put some manpower into reworking old features without fear of alienating there playerbase. They have done alterations in the last update in the fields of fleet boosts but that was just a fraction of what needs looked at. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
87
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 17:16:44 -
[96] - Quote
If we are talking about pvp in the wide perspective it really favors blobbing. Why bring 1 ship when you can find a group to fly with. Issue is the speed of intel network as well. It really is easier to scout few jumps ahead of an attack and counter the attack by simply getting off grid into safety. The root of the problem is ill structure of conflict resolution, your seldom going to fight fair with the current tools so why fight at all.
Cynos really were great for capital class ships until the Black OP and Titan bridges. After that it was just a matter of time till cyno attacks would become a problem. It really is sad to see pvp become a drop game. PVP in WH space is a bit more interesting except for the fact that its hard to catch people wanting a fight cause of logistical nightmares. If there was a better way to open the game up for a more rewarding pvp encounter I would think that more people would throw in there income to see some action. But the cyno drop, cloak drops and cheep tactics like that really spoils it all.
If there were more tools to have fun spending your isk on blowing people up more people would do it. AFK to get a cheep kill in null sec, hot dropping to stick it to that solo pirate, blobbing to kindom come and listen to FC yell at you to obay him like a drone really doesn't encourage pvp in the least bit. Wallets get fatter and huge sparks with massive blobfest battles are the only outlet of resource and arms races.
Fixing the pvp balance and encourage conflict is a massive balance tweak starting with removal of cheep cloak and cyno tactics. As for WH space it would be nice to have easier logistical fixes so more conflicts would happen. I doubt anyone would sit behind a pos shield or docked when they could have fun fighting there invaders if they knew that it was going to be a fairer fight then a drop. Even worse to have a fairer chance to lick wounds and gather resources instead of getting camped to move out into another system. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
89
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 18:49:08 -
[97] - Quote
I know your salty but your not obligated to post Sonya. Its ok to just read and never respond with your worthless opinion. Give your input regarding game balance or stay out of this part of the forums. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
91
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 19:58:02 -
[98] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote:Why is Techos so salty? is it cause we are trying to remove his ability to cloak + Alt + tab to forums module? or he is just eve forums biggest troll.
Local isn't the counter to cloaks. You cant neutralize cloaks using local. There is no proof of anyone ever having used local to kill a cloaked ship. Show me the killmail. Actually I don't AFK cloak, so there you go being completely wrong as usual. And counters do not have to result in kills just as AFK cloaking does not result in kills yet is a counter to local. Acceptance is the first step to resolution. Admit your addiction to forum trolling. Confess your sins child, confess that you cloak + Alt + tab and cant live without it. Just let it out, you will feel better afterwards. Go to a happy place in your mind when you read all the posts that give you the urge to troll. Trolling is not a good thing child, it brings evil into your life and consumes your sole. AFK cloaking is evil child, it is evil. We must drive it out of this world and trolling in this thread will bring you closer to the devil. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
93
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 20:22:05 -
[99] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:And here we are with "one more nerf" to cynos even though they have been nerfed via fatigue and jump range reductions.
And I am sure a BadGäó will post that those are not nerfs to cynos, but of course people use cynos withoug bridging or jump drive capable ships right. I mean you just light a cyno and ships automatically explode...or something.
And cynos are not an AFK thing. No player who was AFK ever lit a cyno. The funny thing (that no one will listen to) is in the 4+ years I've played this game I've never trained capital or blops ship, only lit a cyno a handful of times while spending 90% of my time PvE-ing in hostile null/WHs. EVE is a game of cat and mouse, what's the fun of playing as the mouse if there is no risk of being caught? That's why HS is boring, and that's why cloaky campers and/or cynos shouldn't be nerfed. Living with 2-3 other people in hostile null or WHs has been the most fun I've had in this game. I'd be bored out of my mind if things got safer for what I do. For everyone who has "blocked me", that's why I am posting in this thread. You speak of cat and mouse and yet you leave the part out about cloaking being safe. Its easier making Null less safer and more interesting by 100 other more constructive and interesting mechanics like more wormholes opening into active systems, player built gates and other random fun pvp mechanics to make null less safer. The one thing you cling on to is the least fun and most broken or rather carebear method of pvping. Camping till you catch someone. Just cause you like to pve with a gun to your head dosen't make it constructive rather destructive when the cloaky is holding all the cards and the trigger.
Explain why AFK cloaking makes pvp good and leaves both sides feeling satisfied and I'll rest my case. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
96
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 23:29:34 -
[100] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Xcom wrote:You speak of cat and mouse and yet you leave the part out about cloaking being safe. Its easier making Null less safer and more interesting by 100 other more constructive and interesting mechanics like more wormholes opening into active systems, player built gates and other random fun pvp mechanics to make null less safer. The one thing you cling on to is the least fun and most broken or rather carebear method of pvping. Camping till you catch someone. Just cause you like to pve with a gun to your head dosen't make it constructive rather destructive when the cloaky is holding all the cards and the trigger.
Explain why AFK cloaking makes pvp good and leaves both sides feeling satisfied and I'll rest my case. You agree to get rid of local in sov null and I will agree to give a way to scan down cloaked ships. I've said that from my first post in this thread. I've gone months without docking in hostile null and hostile WHs doing purely PvE. Without cloaks, that lifestyle is gone. Being decloaked for 30 seconds to log out without bouncing between bookmarks is more than enough time to get caught. Any nomad in the game would say the same thing. I've lived solo in WHs for a while as well. Without cloaky alts you will die very, very often. You're nerfing that playstyle as well. Why do you want to kill all other playstyles surrounding cloaks just to protect miners and ratters in null who already can be 100% safe if they keep an eye on local chat? The cloaked ship isn't holding any cards. If you're in a standing fleet and on comms with defense ready as backup, you simply counter the hot drop. I choose to live purely in hostile space, so by that logic I choose to defend myself. I said I enjoy PvE, not that it's the only thing I do. I always have an alt cloaked in a PvP fit ship 300k off ready to attack someone who tries to jump me when PvE-ing in hostile space. That's the counter to AFK cloaking. Well cats out of the bag. This right here, your exact examples are the problem of cloaks. Your defending it with every tooth and nail knowing its over powered. You shouldn't expect going into danger and expect to survive. You should die and thats normal when diving into space that is inhospitable. Your using mechanics that get around the danger and think its ok. Well someones paying for your workarounds and its the people who are hunting you expecting to get kills. Your denying the kills using a cloak and then complain that local is the counter? you take us for fools?
Its easy defending something broken when your abusing it. |
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
97
|
Posted - 2016.12.09 00:37:09 -
[101] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Xcom wrote:Jesus why are you so thick. This right here, your exact examples are the problem of cloaks. Your defending it with every tooth and nail knowing its over powered. You shouldn't expect going into danger and expect to survive. You should die and thats normal when diving into space that is inhospitable. Your using mechanics that get around the danger and think its ok. Well someones paying for your workarounds and its the people who are hunting you expecting to get kills. Your denying the kills using a cloak and then complain that local is the counter? you take us for fools? I understand 100% why you're saying this, given you don't PvP. Anyone wanting to live in sov null should be willing to reship to a PvP ship at the drop of a hat. That isn't the case today. That needs to change. As I have asked dozens of times in this thread, link me a single killmail of someone who died to someone with an active cloak. If you are PvE-ing and watching local (hell, forget local, even just watching d-scan) you will literally never die. And you want to make things safer in the most dangerous parts of space. You've yet to explain why you want that. Someone PvE-ing can earn isk while using local as free 100% safe intel. Someone using a cloak can't hurt anyone or earn isk. Balance. Working as intended. If you honestly think there's no danger in hot dropping (and let's be honest here, this conversation is 100% "I want to PvE in null without the risk of a hot drop", and nothing else), you've never played this game. How many times have you risked a 2 billion ISK ship in hostile territory where you could be countered with a cap fleet 2 seconds later simply to kill a procurer? I don't do it myself, but I respect the balls it takes by the people who do. LOL You cant go back on your words. They are quoted right up there 3 posts up. You really slipped and spilled the beans. Anything for anyone claiming they want risk free pve really is trying to divert the conversation to bullshit topics just to divert from the main one. Risk free intel gathering or pvp avoidance. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
97
|
Posted - 2016.12.09 01:39:12 -
[102] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote: Well cats out of the bag. This right here, your exact examples are the problem of cloaks. Your defending it with every tooth and nail knowing its over powered. You shouldn't expect going into danger and expect to survive. You should die and thats normal when diving into space that is inhospitable. Your using mechanics that get around the danger and think its ok. Well someones paying for your workarounds and its the people who are hunting you expecting to get kills. Your denying the kills using a cloak and then complain that local is the counter? you take us for fools?
Its easy defending something broken when your abusing it.
You are incorrect because you are using a faulty premise, that cloaks provide perfect safety, they don't. A casual stroll through any killboard will show this is not true, that ships that fit cloaks do indeed die. If you actually used an honest starting position then a discussion can start, but either you can't or won't. A cloaked ship at a safe spot is very safe. This point has been covered repeatedly in this thread. Nobody denies it. However, a cloaked ship that is on the move going through gates and even warping around to objects in a given system faces varying degrees of risk and they can and are killed. Further, few people would argue that AFK cloaking is awesome. However, it currently is the only way to degrade the intel local provides. Many people here actually agree that moving intel into the hands of the players, changing local, and letting cloaked ships be scanned could be a positive change. Techos you sound like a broken record, we both agree on changing the cloaking problem in the same way. You just want it an inch to the left and have OA come first, I don't. I want cloaks to be fixed now and let OA come when its flushed out and ready. If you still have something to disagree with that then your an idiot because its the same, just in a different order. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
97
|
Posted - 2016.12.09 02:28:53 -
[103] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote:Jerghul wrote:The core problem with afk cloaky camping is that it lowers activity. So it has to go. I've blopsed a lot in this game. A lot. For most of it, I hunted, but hunting is impossible if you want to do something to people with very few systems, especially if they have geography which lends itself to early warnings. Thus you have to camp. Now, there are the majority of people who, when camped, have no cohesion at all, are all in a null alliance for them and theirs, and refuse to do anything about campers, as it is easier to find another alliance to live under that is not being camped, and continue to get their ratting on. These people quite frankly did not belong in null in the first place, and there is no real loss. Then there are people like goons, which you will only motivate by camping, because they have a strong cultural unity and grow attached to their alliance and the space it owns. They will actually prepare counter-drops, baits, and the like to put the fear of Poitot into would be hooligans. These people deserve to live in null because they understand teamwork. It only lowers activity of people who belong in Hi-Sec. If you just want to shoot rats in perfect safety, go do incursions in Hi-Sec, it is good money. Now, if you want to participate in a grand scale player versus player, empire versus empire type deal where there is never safey, please join a nullsec alliance, and appreciate null for what it is. Local is so broken a mechanic, the only possible mechanic that can coexist with it and maintain the balance is cloaky camping. Both are horrible, granted, but they justify each other's existence. Everything that you are saying about cloaky camping is true about local, if not to an even greater extent, where it lowers activity, risk, and the potential for interactions. It's plain silly. Nullsec is supposed to be dangerous, and sometimes the only way to keep it dangerous is to cloaky camp. The question people need to ask themselves is, am I built for nullsec? Can I get like-minded friends who want to counter or bait out some blops hot-shots and their multibillion isk pwnmobiles? If not, you do not belong in null. Period. All I got out of this is that goons have the firepower to counter drop and smaller null alliances don't so they don't belong there.
Vic you probably glanced the thread, your name seams unfamiliar. All those who are pro change want more meaningful pvp where discusting camping tactics cant be used. Its not making null less safe if other mechanics later on gets added to make it so. Its just that camping will be gone. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
97
|
Posted - 2016.12.09 02:51:07 -
[104] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Xcom wrote:LOL You cant go back on your words. They are quoted right up there 3 posts up. You really slipped and spilled the beans. Anything for anyone claiming they want risk free pve really is trying to divert the conversation to bullshit topics just to divert from the main one. Risk free intel gathering or pvp avoidance. good lord your trolling is bad. I primarily do PvE, but I immediately reship to do PvP when any hostile is close. That's something you don't know a ton about, given your KB. Stop complaining about not being able to PvE risk free in null. The only person more painful to read than you ATM is Jerghul, who keeps trying to troll me by talking about WHs. At this point I'm assuming you and him are the same person. right, Jerghul? You're down to a 1/10 You and your friends have turned this thread away from a discussion about a way to help EVE progress into an online d*ck measuring contest to see who can out troll the other. I want to actually talk about what's best for the game, if you want that, shoot me a message. Why would you swap to a pvp ship when you can't shoot the hostile cloak? even worse when your in WS, how are you going to warp off to get into a pvp ship when your pointed? given that cloaked ships don't really give of any warnings before they point you. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
97
|
Posted - 2016.12.09 03:02:39 -
[105] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:Xcom wrote:Sonya Corvinus wrote:Xcom wrote:LOL You cant go back on your words. They are quoted right up there 3 posts up. You really slipped and spilled the beans. Anything for anyone claiming they want risk free pve really is trying to divert the conversation to bullshit topics just to divert from the main one. Risk free intel gathering or pvp avoidance. good lord your trolling is bad. I primarily do PvE, but I immediately reship to do PvP when any hostile is close. That's something you don't know a ton about, given your KB. Stop complaining about not being able to PvE risk free in null. The only person more painful to read than you ATM is Jerghul, who keeps trying to troll me by talking about WHs. At this point I'm assuming you and him are the same person. right, Jerghul? You're down to a 1/10 You and your friends have turned this thread away from a discussion about a way to help EVE progress into an online d*ck measuring contest to see who can out troll the other. I want to actually talk about what's best for the game, if you want that, shoot me a message. Why would you swap to a pvp ship when you can't shoot the hostile cloak? even worse when your in WS, how are you going to warp off to get into a pvp ship when your pointed? given that cloaked ships don't really give of any warnings before they point you. You really don't know how W-space works. You are 100% of the time in fleet, on comms and have people online who will help you. So all your telling by this is that cloaking is working perfectly fine when giving off no warning at all? Up to the point when they point there target of course.
Am I correct to assume you also want this in null space? |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
106
|
Posted - 2016.12.09 09:59:41 -
[106] - Quote
I'm glad I at least understand your logic with that standpoint Wander Prian. I just disagree strongly with it. Although it sounds fair that cloaks do nerf you to the point so that anyone could defend themself against a squishy target like bombers it does make sense to not give any pre warnings. The only problem with that analogy is that most fights never are one on one. There are hot drops and massive fleets followed up after the point.
The pointer just needs to survive the short time before a second point lands. In those situations its more logical to let anyone have some form of advanced warning to have the option to choose to engage or flee. Decloak timers to lock are supposed to be just that but in the case of Recon ships and faction cov-ops where you can tank to a moderate degree and you have ample time to land a point. Ballparks of 6 seconds is the aproximate locktime of more tanky cov-ops recons and SoE ships. If cloaks are supposed to always catch there target null will turn into WS where any fight is spearheaded by a cloaky pointer without local. I really don't know if that is the type of pvp that will even encourage satisfactory pvp for anyone other then the one who engages. At some point even the engage party will get board when noone uses belts any more. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
107
|
Posted - 2016.12.09 11:26:18 -
[107] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Wander Prian wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Wander Prian wrote:The whole point of Eve is that PVP happens do you choose it or not. If you want to have the ability to turn off PVP, go to WoW. You aren't supposed to be able to know for certain what will happen. You don't get to eliminate all risk. Cloaks are one way to have uncertainty in the game that you cannot just remove.
If you have a problem with someone blowing your ship to without your permission, you are in the wrong game That is such a tired retort, WOW and all that, the problem is that many people do not chose to do it, what is the fun in giving guaranteed kills to a load of entitled old players whose fun is execution style perfect kills. And people know for certain what will happen, a fleet will drop them which will blow them up with no chance to get a kill in return and they will then jump out or cloak up without any chance to kill them. And if that hot dropper gets a whiff of anything risky he will not drop. It is stale, it is boring and it is not fun, far better to not give them that kill, the only thing I would do now that I did not used to do is log on an alpha account and belt rat in a cruiser and if they want to drop that then go ahead, hopefully after about 100 such kills they will get bored, but some how I actually doubt it... Reading through your post only makes it more clearer. You don't have a problem with cloaks, you have a problem with the hotdrop. If you really want to "fix" this, change cyno's to require a certain time before they can be popped when you drop the cloak. When you cry for claoking-nerf, it only looks like you want to choose when you do PVP. Well excuse me, I have two issues, the first is the AFK side of things and the second is the hot drop, I thought it was pretty evident what I have an issue with, good god man!!! If it was not for the hot drop then the AFK part would not be an issue, you got that mate!!!! Use your brain FFS!!! Nothing to do with choosing to do PvP or not, that is just you thinking that as a tired old whiny excuse to project on others, it is all about having fun and if you think that having fun is being dropped by 6 BLOPS's who neut and ECM you then think again, why should I feed good ISK into the kill mails of such lazy toe rags and a lot of people feel the same, which is why people go and do something else to the detriment of this game. I want to see people enagged in playing and building up their space with meaningful content and fights, not the same old tired entitled old players playing other games and dropping people for that perfect execution buzz. Do you read anything that people say or just post your go back to WOW, you can't choose to PvP or not in this game. Another post like that mate and you are blocked because you add nothing to this discussion, you don't even live in null sec apart from whining about local not enabling you to get kills when you pop out of your WH, go cry more please. Again, you make my point. You don't have an issue with the cloaker, you have the issue with the drop. For the sake of argument, what if you couldn't light a cyno for 2 minutes after you drop a cloak? You have 120 seconds to break point, kill the cloaker, call in your friends, arrange a counter-drop, etc etc. Would that be enough? Or is that still too dangerous because they MIGHT be able to get the cyno off? Cloaks are designed to be able to choose the moment of engagement. The whole point of them is to add uncertainty to the game. So you cannot just eliminate all the dangers out of the situation. It is a powerfull ability and that's why CCP made the ships who can use a covops-cloak weaker in tank and in DPS (just compare combat- and force-recons). Somehow magically the only time that cloaks are an issue, is when there is a cyno involved, yet somehow the cloaks are broken Cant cloaks tank enough for a single interceptor to get on top of the target? After that its just a matter of time till anyone dies, friends or not. Given that the scout cloak isn't inept and scouts the surroundings before engaging. Seams like a one sided engagement.
Remember that you can have logged out targets in the system, next door behind gates or wormholes or even behind a 120 second delayed cyno. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
107
|
Posted - 2016.12.09 11:39:49 -
[108] - Quote
Not really. The problem is the free intel gathering. If you leave that out then you can justify cloaks yes. But free intel gathering is to valuable to not put a label on it and say its "intended" so we should just leave it as is. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
107
|
Posted - 2016.12.09 11:51:11 -
[109] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:Xcom wrote:Not really. The problem is the free intel gathering. If you leave that out then you can justify cloaks yes. But free intel gathering is to valuable to not put a label on it and say its "intended" so we should just leave it as is. If you are AFK, you cannot gather intel. If you are active, you are using cloaks like they are supposed to. What is the problem here? The irony about talking how free intel is bad while supporting local... I never said I support local. I just think cloaks shouldn't gather intel without being able to get hunted. Local is a can of worms on its own.
Frankly its naive just assuming free intel gathering without drawback is justifiable by any standpoint. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
107
|
Posted - 2016.12.09 13:27:08 -
[110] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Xcom wrote:Wander Prian wrote:Xcom wrote:Not really. The problem is the free intel gathering. If you leave that out then you can justify cloaks yes. But free intel gathering is to valuable to not put a label on it and say its "intended" so we should just leave it as is. If you are AFK, you cannot gather intel. If you are active, you are using cloaks like they are supposed to. What is the problem here? The irony about talking how free intel is bad while supporting local... I never said I support local. I just think cloaks shouldn't gather intel without being able to get hunted. Local is a can of worms on its own. Frankly its naive just assuming free intel gathering without drawback is justifiable by any standpoint. The entire point of the cloaking device is to be undetectable, thats why it comes with huge drawbacks and the cov ops ships come pre nerfed compared to the other combat ships. Yes, the point about being undetectable is the problem. You get intel and therefore you shouldn't be undetectable. Local doesn't counter that intel gathering, its just another form of intel gathering tool working alongside the cloak. It just makes the cloaked ships presence known spoiling some but not all the intel gathering aspect. By that I specifically mean that you can't gather the intel without disturbing the environment. Weather you have or don't have combat capability on your ship just makes the situation worse. |
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
107
|
Posted - 2016.12.09 18:00:41 -
[111] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Xcom wrote:I'm glad I at least understand your logic with that standpoint Wander Prian. I just disagree strongly with it. Although it sounds fair that cloaks do nerf you to the point so that anyone could defend themself against a squishy target like bombers it does make sense to not give any pre warnings. The only problem with that analogy is that most fights never are one on one. There are hot drops and massive fleets followed up after the point.
The pointer just needs to survive the short time before a second point lands. In those situations its more logical to let anyone have some form of advanced warning to have the option to choose to engage or flee. Decloak timers to lock are supposed to be just that but in the case of Recon ships and faction cov-ops where you can tank to a moderate degree and you have ample time to land a point. Ballparks of 6 seconds is the aproximate locktime of more tanky cov-ops recons and SoE ships. If cloaks are supposed to always catch there target null will turn into WS where any fight is spearheaded by a cloaky pointer without local. I really don't know if that is the type of pvp that will even encourage satisfactory pvp for anyone other then the one who engages. At some point even the engage party will get board when noone uses belts any more. Which is why (as I have said multiple times) rat and mine in groups when outside of HS. A dozen rattlesnakes ratting in PvP fits are going to be very hard to hot drop. How often do people actually do that in null? Xcom wrote:Not really. The problem is the free intel gathering. If you leave that out then you can justify cloaks yes. But free intel gathering is to valuable to not put a label on it and say its "intended" so we should just leave it as is. So you're against local chat and killboards as well? If so, then we can talk. Those give more free intel than cloaks ever could. This game gives way to much info out. The map even shows ship counts to accurate numbers throughout eve. Local broadcasts numbers of pilots that was promised to be replaced with a more overview alike mechanic. Killboards, other player made maps, websites and other external tools that turns this game into a spreadsheet rather then a game. I do agree that some tools help make life easier but at some point you start losing the immersion. Most battles are lopsided and way to planned out. Nothing in eve is encounter based rather then strategically planned and most times when you die your made fun of. If we had more unpredictable tools in eve players might have actually start to play the game rather then camp enemy systems to whore for killmails. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
108
|
Posted - 2016.12.09 18:41:55 -
[112] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Xcom wrote:This game gives way to much info out. The map even shows ship counts to accurate numbers throughout eve. Local broadcasts numbers of pilots that was promised to be replaced with a more overview alike mechanic. Killboards, other player made maps, websites and other external tools that turns this game into a spreadsheet rather then a game. I do agree that some tools help make life easier but at some point you start losing the immersion. Most battles are lopsided and way to planned out. Nothing in eve is encounter based rather then strategically planned and most times when you die your made fun of. If we had more unpredictable tools in eve players might have actually start to play the game rather then camp enemy systems to whore for killmails. I agree with this. I've said from the start if they agree to nerf local, I'm OK with a way to scan down cloaked ships. In the current state of the game, you can't nerf one without nerfing the other, or it won't be balanced. I want killboards to go away completely as well, as they just prevent fights from happening. The problem with local is how integrated it has become. I think CCP admittedly said it was an unintended feature that slipped into the game and now gets abused. Sadly by now it will alienate so many players that its removal will be a major major decision that will need some balls, sadly what CCP devs lack. I just want something minor like AFK camping to at least be removed. But apparently even that is resisted as it seams everything is entangled and every alteration is resisted by so many players. This game is old, it needs devs with some gusto to step in and start to shift mechanics around to stir the pot a little.
I guess threads like this one really puts the fear into the devs, probably less constructive when so many rage posts are clogged into one giant thread. I try and play the game as is but from time to time you really get riled up and frustrated that decisions are made at a snails pace and end up back here. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
115
|
Posted - 2016.12.10 02:18:33 -
[113] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Xcom wrote:The problem with local is how integrated it has become. I think CCP admittedly said it was an unintended feature that slipped into the game and now gets abused. Sadly by now it will alienate so many players that its removal will be a major major decision that will need some balls, sadly what CCP devs lack. I just want something minor like AFK camping to at least be removed. But apparently even that is resisted as it seams everything is entangled and every alteration is resisted by so many players. This game is old, it needs devs with some gusto to step in and start to shift mechanics around to stir the pot a little.
I guess threads like this one really puts the fear into the devs, probably less constructive when so many rage posts are clogged into one giant thread. I try and play the game as is but from time to time you really get riled up and frustrated that decisions are made at a snails pace and end up back here. We're coming full circle. I think we need to make local in sov null tied to a structure that can be destroyed. If I destroy or disable it, local stops existing, but you can't scan down cloaked ships either. Everything outside of sov null stays as it is today. That beign said, you're right. Most players who live in sov null are so risk averse they would be terrified about not having local. Null is as safe as HS anymore....the only actually challenging parts of the game any more are LS and WHs. Although I agree local needs altered I also believe that most features shouldn't be solidified in a thread of changes. Making local changes your also forced to look into D-scanner and other areas of the game simultaneously. The end result is a massive rewrite of the game core. That given its pointless arguing where to even start. That is why I think that cloaks should be isolated and fixed on there own and hopefully we might see local also changed before or at least soon after.
It really is pointless arguing what feature needs looked at first though. Its not like forum posts determine CCPs priority development. Thats why I do find local discussions pointless in a cloak thread, even if its connected it doesn't need to overshadow cloaking discussions. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
116
|
Posted - 2016.12.10 12:16:01 -
[114] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote:Sonya Corvinus wrote:Xcom wrote:The problem with local is how integrated it has become. I think CCP admittedly said it was an unintended feature that slipped into the game and now gets abused. Sadly by now it will alienate so many players that its removal will be a major major decision that will need some balls, sadly what CCP devs lack. I just want something minor like AFK camping to at least be removed. But apparently even that is resisted as it seams everything is entangled and every alteration is resisted by so many players. This game is old, it needs devs with some gusto to step in and start to shift mechanics around to stir the pot a little.
I guess threads like this one really puts the fear into the devs, probably less constructive when so many rage posts are clogged into one giant thread. I try and play the game as is but from time to time you really get riled up and frustrated that decisions are made at a snails pace and end up back here. We're coming full circle. I think we need to make local in sov null tied to a structure that can be destroyed. If I destroy or disable it, local stops existing, but you can't scan down cloaked ships either. Everything outside of sov null stays as it is today. That beign said, you're right. Most players who live in sov null are so risk averse they would be terrified about not having local. Null is as safe as HS anymore....the only actually challenging parts of the game any more are LS and WHs. Although I agree local needs altered I also believe that most features shouldn't be solidified in a thread of changes. Making local changes your also forced to look into D-scanner and other areas of the game simultaneously. The end result is a massive rewrite of the game core. That given its pointless arguing where to even start. That is why I think that cloaks should be isolated and fixed on there own and hopefully we might see local also changed before or at least soon after. It really is pointless arguing what feature needs looked at first though. Its not like forum posts determine CCPs priority development. Thats why I do find local discussions pointless in a cloak thread, even if its connected it doesn't need to overshadow cloaking discussions. I don't think there will need to be a huge issue with the code. Making local delayed should not be that hard. The code for the OA will be new code...again not that hard. It is not like somebody is asking for a rewrite of the POS code (my understanding that code is a complete mess and messing with it would be very bad). Its more then just new code from what I understand. Either each proposal is taken into consideration with the marketing team and blocked if it reduces population count or accepted if its impact will show more towards favouring growth. Or they are just very careful adding new content and watching statistics to make sure the player base adapts before moving to new mechanics. I have seen in a few smaller MMOs where larger rewrites alienated the player base to mass quit.
Edit: @Jerghul I do understand the concerns the anti change to AFK cloaking crowd is trying to tell us. That null doesn't need more hand holding mechanics. Removal of cloak camping does that in all honesty and is a valid argument. I just disagree with there stagnated local needs fixed before cloaks ideology as cloak camping really is disgusting to the point its removal should be imminent. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
116
|
Posted - 2016.12.10 14:35:58 -
[115] - Quote
I find it stupid that the title of this thread is even called AFK cloaking TM. Its impossible to prove if anyone is AFK or not behind there PC. It should be renamed to Cloaking. You could say that cloaks are safe enough to AFK with but its not possible assuming that as a given. It just generates pointless argumentative loops. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
119
|
Posted - 2016.12.14 11:28:58 -
[116] - Quote
I agree with Brokks post. There needs to be incentive to pvp in null and we are done with the null sec part of the cloaking dilemma. Null is 1 / 4th the cloaking problem so by fixing OA we are done with that. But what happens to the rest of eve. Should cloaking stay the way they are? |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
119
|
Posted - 2016.12.15 04:23:57 -
[117] - Quote
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Q7IaLXRf5I0/VgMBhCM1aAI/AAAAAAAADjo/MINI_wFEA18/s1600/eve.jpg
According to that picture about 15% live out in null. Less then 10 systems get cloak camped so assuming its the most populated systems in null it might add up to about 100-200 players tops at any time. Makes no sense arguing on about null getting easier by AFK cloaking removal. What does make sense is opening a new thread about making null more interesting or join all those discussions on null changes. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
119
|
Posted - 2016.12.15 07:32:47 -
[118] - Quote
If the nerf is subtle enough ATK cloaking will be able to avoid detection. A cloaky can just change position in an instant and avoid anyone attempting to get to them. If they can't or are just bad enough to sit in the same spot for to long then it should be expected for them to die. Cloakys should just be harder to find but not like they are currently, impossible.
Assuming cloaking also impacts bombers and in some rare instances recons getting into position. Generally attacks using said ships take about 10-15 min at most. That should be the rough ballpark of how long it should take for someone to find and attack a cloaked ship sitting in the same exact spot, maybe a few mins + / -. Given that during this time someone would be actively looking and attempting to kill the cloaked ship. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
119
|
Posted - 2016.12.15 09:20:30 -
[119] - Quote
I think that OA as you describe is sounds really nice. It sounds like a well flushed out idea. But I don't think it fits in with any other space other then sov null. It would break the concept of WS and generally be a clunky mechanic in high and low sec, or even null NPC space. If sov null behaved differently then all other types of space then I totally agree that OA would fit perfectly within its place though.
Maybe make cloaks behave differently in sov null depending on the anchored OA rather then the other way around. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
121
|
Posted - 2016.12.15 17:16:58 -
[120] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Xcom wrote:I think that OA as you describe is sounds really nice. It sounds like a well flushed out idea. But I don't think it fits in with any other space other then sov null. It would break the concept of WS and generally be a clunky mechanic in high and low sec, or even null NPC space. If sov null behaved differently then all other types of space then I totally agree that OA would fit perfectly within its place though.
Maybe make cloaks behave differently in sov null depending on the anchored OA rather then the other way around. I disagree, the issue is that AFK cloaky camping also affects NPC null and lowsec, but both of those can be countered by limiting your activity to running missions which require gates or probing down, belt ratting and anoms are of course just as risky as those in sov null. Two very intense campaigns of cloaky camping that I went through were in Stain. I'm actually referring to this. Cloaky camping in null might make null sov safer so OA is the solution to null sov becoming to safe whiles rest of eve still will suffer from cloaking in general. I don't know if it even makes sense to nerf cloaks in all other types of space other then null sov. I just think cloaking needs nerfed and null sov could have OA somehow tie into real time pvp bait. Cloaked camping might not have to be directly tied into OA in general. Its not like camping ever had any positive attributes to have to stay. With more suttle nerfs to cloaks you could just as well never have to disable any OA structure to cloak in null sov. You would simply disable intel networks and any ship would behave like a cloaked ship and cloaked ships would have the added benefit of being very hard to track down without the intel network disabled, just not impossible. |
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
122
|
Posted - 2016.12.18 14:32:21 -
[121] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:Also, nobody living in w-space complains about cloaks. This is not true as you probably only know what the people closest to you think about cloaking. You can't be sure unless you have done a survey.
I honestly enjoyed my time in w-space and it was perfect the way it is. Things that I did actually enjoy was the different mechanics compared to null regarding the locking down system by controlling the entry points, high risk vs reward and the need to use probes to get around. But I can't say the same thing about the cloaks. There was always that glooming annoying feeling that someone is watching you and in a few rare instances there actually was. Getting jumped without a moments notice from a cloaked ship wasn't very welcoming when you were trying to mine in a paper thin ship. Given we fended the cloaked ship away before we got into warp was just luck as his mates logged into system and were on there way to our mining op.
I know it may sound like a good idea forcing people to always stay vigilant and always bring friends. But there are instances in w-space where smaller mining ops were put into gear just to kill time where we didn't have a massive defence fleet in place. In those instances it would be actually meaningful if we could get some form of warning that we were being watched so as to give some chance to get away. Even if that window was small and in favour of aggressors. Or even if it was meant for us to die because the aggressors got a jump on us we should at least have gotten some form of chance to get into pvp ships to fend off the attack. But just as we were jumped and attacked the cloaker just warped to safespot and stayed there till his aggression timer ran out and logged off while we were desperately trying to get to him.
I know that w-space shouldn't change but this cloaking nonsense needs to change. It makes it cheep and gimmicky because of how easy it is controlling the outcome from just one side of the attack. It might gimp one ship because of fitting restrictions but a single point is enough to prevent ships from warping. One point and a tank enough to hold people in place till more ships land on grid. Your also safe up to that point till you decide to release cloak and engage giving you every bit of time to scout and prepare for the engagement.
GÇ£Every battle is won before itGÇÖs ever fought.GÇ¥ - Sun Tzu Scouting without penalty really tips the battle on the aggressors favour, if you come to said system and want a fight then you should also be prepared to get a fight you can't win. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
125
|
Posted - 2016.12.19 10:38:48 -
[122] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:Xcom wrote:Wander Prian wrote:Also, nobody living in w-space complains about cloaks. This is not true as you probably only know what the people closest to you think about cloaking. You can't be sure unless you have done a survey. I honestly enjoyed my time in w-space and it was perfect the way it is. Things that I did actually enjoy was the different mechanics compared to null regarding the locking down system by controlling the entry points, high risk vs reward and the need to use probes to get around. But I can't say the same thing about the cloaks. There was always that glooming annoying feeling that someone is watching you and in a few rare instances there actually was. Getting jumped without a moments notice from a cloaked ship wasn't very welcoming when you were trying to mine in a paper thin ship. Given we fended the cloaked ship away before we got into warp was just luck as his mates logged into system and were on there way to our mining op. I know it may sound like a good idea forcing people to always stay vigilant and always bring friends. But there are instances in w-space where smaller mining ops were put into gear just to kill time where we didn't have a massive defence fleet in place. In those instances it would be actually meaningful if we could get some form of warning that we were being watched so as to give some chance to get away. Even if that window was small and in favour of aggressors. Or even if it was meant for us to die because the aggressors got a jump on us we should at least have gotten some form of chance to get into pvp ships to fend off the attack. But just as we were jumped and attacked the cloaker got overwhelmed by drones, just warped to safespot cloaked and stayed there till his aggression timer ran out and logged off while we were desperately trying to get to him. We basically got lucky and should have died, which is what happened a few days later when the same stupid tactic got us killed. I know that w-space shouldn't change but this cloaking nonsense needs to change. It makes it cheep and gimmicky because of how easy it is controlling the outcome from just one side of the attack. It might gimp one ship because of fitting restrictions but a single point is enough to prevent ships from warping. One point and a tank enough to hold people in place till more ships land on grid. Your also safe up to that point till you decide to release cloak and engage giving you every bit of time to scout and prepare for the engagement. GÇ£Every battle is won before itGÇÖs ever fought.GÇ¥ - Sun Tzu Scouting without penalty really tips the battle on the aggressors favour, if you come to said system and want a fight then you should also be prepared to get a fight you can't win. Edit: I have to point out that it was ok for us to get killed because we got jumped. What wasn't ok was how the cloak helped him get away with staying out of combat and go to sleep mode avoiding combat at his leisure. The cloak basically made it impossible to get him killed after being overwhelmed. Gave perfect scouting intel making an unfair advantage to know when its clear to engage and when not to as we never got jumped when enough of us were logged in. Made him able to get a jump on us without any warning before decloaking at point blank range and worst of all abuse cloak to avoid aggro timers in perfect safety. All avoided if some form of ability to hunt the cloaky was put in place making it impossible to stay cloaked and scout for days gathering intel on activity levels. We knew he was in system because it was back in the watch list days and from time to time probes showed up to scan down our sights knowing it wasn't our probes when he was logged in. Here's the thing: I've lived in w-space for over 6 years. So far I have not heard a single person complain about cloaks. Zero, zip, nada. In that example of yours, you can have probe-scanner open to see if new sigs pop up, scout on the wormhole to see/hear if someone jumps in, D-scan, etc. The only one that you cannot see coming is someone who is already in the system when you go in. Yes, the point of cloaks is to be able to choose the moment of engagement. That is why the module is in the game. To make you have uncertainty in the game, so you cannot just math out all the chances of you getting killed or not. I like the fact that there is uncertainty in w-space. I think that it's missing from nullsec, making it more stagnant and risk-averse. You could be living in nullsec for the rest of your life, ignorant and never hear about cloaky complaints. And from what I read your perfectly fine with creating uncertainty for anyone who gets hunted down by cloakers while forgeting the fact that cloaks don't have any uncertainty.
Cloaks don't bring any constructive uncertainty, just gimmicky pvp with really crap camping tactics and broken pvp avoidance. Nothing about them does anyone any good other then carebears who don't have the balls to pvp in something that might get them killed.
Choose the moment of engagement my ass. Its carebear mode pvp at its finest and not even having the balls to remove the camping aspect (AFK cloaking) just shows how carebear anyone who defends this mechanic is. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
126
|
Posted - 2016.12.20 02:52:27 -
[123] - Quote
Ya cause feeding the troll camping your system will make him go away, nice try. I know your blind but I did point out it was during the over watch days. He had us all in his over watch list and knew we were less active in the US tz. What ended up happening was that we basically deprived him of content by never running mining sights and he got board and left. If we were stupid enough to leave ambushes and gotten him killed he would just use one of the other characters logged out in the system and gotten back in to camp us for far longer. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
128
|
Posted - 2016.12.20 15:54:29 -
[124] - Quote
I have this gut feeling that every CCP dev flyes cloaked ships when online. Even with local removed AFK cloaking will be a thing until they shut down the servers. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
128
|
Posted - 2016.12.20 16:21:17 -
[125] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:Xcom wrote:Ya cause feeding the troll camping your system will make him go away, nice try. I know your blind but I did point out it was during the over watch days. He had us all in his over watch list and knew we were less active in the US tz. What ended up happening was that we basically deprived him of content by never running mining sights and he got board and left. If we were stupid enough to leave ambushes and gotten him killed he would just use one of the other characters logged out in the system and gotten back in to camp us for far longer. Well thank god the watchlist was removed then right? No more easy intel of who is online and who is not. Now he actually has to use his eyes, which means he has to leave his safespots I know your not aware of the methods of getting rid of AFK cloakers. The best method is to deprive them of content. If everyone logged off and never logged back in no AFK cloaking would be needed. The stupid thing is that cloaking is so safe that the only method left for the defenders is literally that very action, log out or move till the AFK cloaker gets board. Give that cloaker some bait and arouse some interest and it will stick around for longer.
Cloaks in this game is by far the worst implementation of its kind. Nothing about it is balanced, exactly nothing. The second that cloak activates the game turns into a ****** invulnerability module. Its like having a rorqual turn that invon boost on indefinitely.
Local just makes it easier to spot the cloaked ships. But if local wasn't there cloaks would still be able to cloak in perfect safety. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
129
|
Posted - 2016.12.21 16:48:07 -
[126] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:Xcom wrote:Wander Prian wrote:Xcom wrote:Ya cause feeding the troll camping your system will make him go away, nice try. I know your blind but I did point out it was during the over watch days. He had us all in his over watch list and knew we were less active in the US tz. What ended up happening was that we basically deprived him of content by never running mining sights and he got board and left. If we were stupid enough to leave ambushes and gotten him killed he would just use one of the other characters logged out in the system and gotten back in to camp us for far longer. Well thank god the watchlist was removed then right? No more easy intel of who is online and who is not. Now he actually has to use his eyes, which means he has to leave his safespots I know your not aware of the methods of getting rid of AFK cloakers. The best method is to deprive them of content. If everyone logged off and never logged back in no AFK cloaking would be needed. The stupid thing is that cloaking is so safe that the only method left for the defenders is literally that very action, log out or move till the AFK cloaker gets board. Give that cloaker some bait and arouse some interest and it will stick around for longer. Cloaks in this game is by far the worst implementation of its kind. Nothing about it is balanced, exactly nothing. The second that cloak activates the game turns into a ****** invulnerability module. Its like having a rorqual turn that invon boost on indefinitely. Local just makes it easier to spot the cloaked ships. But if local wasn't there cloaks would still be able to cloak in perfect safety. You are aware that you are not invulnerable when cloaked? You do take damage. So bombs and smartbombs work. That would require an approximate location of the cloaked ship, which is not possible as its cloaked and as of right now completely impossible to track. If that impossible were tweaked into improbable it would be fine. That would mean going AFK in a cloaked ship would be as stupid as going AFK in a safespot. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
130
|
Posted - 2016.12.22 03:26:13 -
[127] - Quote
Why are there so much local discussions in this thread? Evidence to the contrary cloaks wont suddenly stop working when local stops working. Local is an intel tool, its not the reason cloaks are imbalanced. AFK cloaking is just a wordplay on the nature of how safe cloaks are and nothing to do with local directly. Cloaking is the problem in a cloaking thread, everything else is of topic unless there is a direct link to cloaks. Local might be used to put fear into players in a system when camping with a cloak, but without local as in w-space we still have people sitting AFK cloaked, just not visible to any player. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
130
|
Posted - 2016.12.27 04:01:34 -
[128] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Quote: I don't think you're being honest here. Traveling in a nullified cyno-packed cloaky boat is quite safe in and of itself, and you make it sound like if you were using your main account, which we both know it's not the case even more so when those afk camps can last weeks of being online 23/7. If you're actually sitting in front of your screen during all this time I can only take my hat off to you, and I hope that any change to the mechanic, if it is ever going to happens, don't interfer in your way of hunting.
What I for one am trying to say is that it needs to have some kind of ACTIVE mechanic to speed things up. Otherwise, just like off-grid boosting, it's one of those mechanics that doesn't allow counter-play by enemies and doesn't involve risk appropriate to its power.
That said, I agree that local chat is too strong as an intel tool, and that nullsec would benefit from a revamp.
I do use my main, I am not nullified , I am alone and I do not have a cyno. My targets are generally not the afk idiots and I will happily attack in the very heart of an empire in the most populated systems. You say I have no risk but the second I uncloak to attack anything the timer has started on the response from the defence fleet and that's before we include the victim fighting back. I have had titans and supers cynoed on top of me many times so trying to say it's risk free is just a lie. The entire point of a cloaking device is to be undetectable and the bulk of the ships I kill can only ever be caught by going afk for a week in a system and trying to catch them off guard. I have spend up to a month hunting in just one system and I do not want to see this gameplay nerfed into dust just so ratters can enjoy 100% free and effortless safety. Hello, Im baltec. I want to pvp in null sec and specifically I want to pvp against pve ships. I don't want a challenging pvp fight because thats to challenging for me. Im also to bad at finding my targets so I want to camp a bizzy null sec system in my AFK ship just to get a free pvp kill. Just to brag about the killmail to my buddy's. I rather not make the effort of finding my target by warping around because that is to challenging, I rather sit in the same system with a cloak till I can find some helpless person and pownd him down for that killmail. If people ask me I tell them I make null sec better by reducing inflation, cause inflation is bad, I think. Please CCP don't nerf my camping AFK cloak tactic cause I'm so pro at camping and without it I can't play eve like a pro pvp champ killing noobs. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
130
|
Posted - 2016.12.27 06:51:35 -
[129] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote:baltec1 wrote:Quote: I don't think you're being honest here. Traveling in a nullified cyno-packed cloaky boat is quite safe in and of itself, and you make it sound like if you were using your main account, which we both know it's not the case even more so when those afk camps can last weeks of being online 23/7. If you're actually sitting in front of your screen during all this time I can only take my hat off to you, and I hope that any change to the mechanic, if it is ever going to happens, don't interfer in your way of hunting.
What I for one am trying to say is that it needs to have some kind of ACTIVE mechanic to speed things up. Otherwise, just like off-grid boosting, it's one of those mechanics that doesn't allow counter-play by enemies and doesn't involve risk appropriate to its power.
That said, I agree that local chat is too strong as an intel tool, and that nullsec would benefit from a revamp.
I do use my main, I am not nullified , I am alone and I do not have a cyno. My targets are generally not the afk idiots and I will happily attack in the very heart of an empire in the most populated systems. You say I have no risk but the second I uncloak to attack anything the timer has started on the response from the defence fleet and that's before we include the victim fighting back. I have had titans and supers cynoed on top of me many times so trying to say it's risk free is just a lie. The entire point of a cloaking device is to be undetectable and the bulk of the ships I kill can only ever be caught by going afk for a week in a system and trying to catch them off guard. I have spend up to a month hunting in just one system and I do not want to see this gameplay nerfed into dust just so ratters can enjoy 100% free and effortless safety. Hello, Im baltec. I want to pvp in null sec and specifically I want to pvp against pve ships. I don't want a challenging pvp fight because thats to challenging for me. Im also to bad at finding my targets so I want to camp a bizzy null sec system in my AFK ship just to get a free pvp kill. Just to brag about the killmail to my buddy's. I rather not make the effort of finding my target by warping around because that is to challenging, I rather sit in the same system with a cloak till I can find some helpless person and pownd him down for that killmail. If people ask me I tell them I make null sec better by reducing inflation, cause inflation is bad, I think. Please CCP don't nerf my camping AFK cloak tactic cause I'm so pro at camping and without it I can't play eve like a pro pvp champ killing noobs. In a sandbox game, PvP against any ship is reasonable. This space bushido is about as rank a Bravo Sierra as the actual bushido nonsense. Second, if you are in fleet, on comms and fit a cyno on your ratting ship you can get reinforcements pretty quick. We had a guy get into trouble with a JF a few months back, he was on comms, didn't have a cyno but was right there in our pocket. So we all reshipped and went to his rescue, the guy buggered off before any support landed on grid. We of course gave him grief about getting his JF into trouble. So yeah, there can be considerable risk using a cloaky. Point is just because you use a cloak does not mean they are easy kills or free kills. Here is how I see it. There are two types of pvp involving cloaks. There is the genuine cloaked pvper, flying from system to system using the cloak hunting for something manageable as that cloak gives you that opportunity to choose your engagement. There are instances where you engage and you get the kill or get overwhelmed, other times you point but miscalculate and target slips away. Sometimes you get into a system with a few people in system in it and stick around for an hour or two baiting for people back into there belts or mining ops but eventually you have to give up because of limitations to your cloak. This type of pvp regarding cloaking I totally agree with. If things were to change and impact this type of gameplay I would be against it myself. I would be sad to see it removed as well as anyone else here.
But then we have the other end of the stick. The type of pvp cloaking ruins completely. The fact that you can stay hidden from everyone indefinitely if there wasn't a downtime and your connection held. This type of broken mechanic is open for abuse and it is right now. Cloaked camping ruins pvp and if anyone supports this type of gameplay for any reason starting from point A being local to any other points like stations being as safe is by any argument reason a complete bullshit. If your so safe as to even be able to go AFK in your ship in space then s**t really have hit the fan. It should be removed and it should happen yesterday. OA and other local, null sec, ratting any other mechanics can and should be discussed but not here in this thread.
baltecs view on getting around locals instant intel just for whoring for easy kills is disgusting. Its quite evident of using the abuse cloaks give and supporting his view of sandbox is just as bad as supporting item duplication. Abusing one mechanic to get around another mechanic doesn't make anything regarding AFK cloak mechanics justifiable. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
134
|
Posted - 2016.12.27 14:02:40 -
[130] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Xcom wrote: Hello, Im baltec. I want to pvp in null sec and specifically I want to pvp against pve ships. I don't want a challenging pvp fight because thats to challenging for me.
There is no such thing as a free pvp kill. Would you take on a drake in a solo bomber? How about a vindicator? How about trying to bait an entire interceptor fleet to try and solo bomb them? When was the last time you flew logi in fleet outnumbered 3 to 1? Ever flown a battleship in a frigate fleet in a block war? How about roaming in a dreadnought? Oh none of those? Heres a hint, don't call out people who take on a lot more risk than you ever do. Xcom wrote: Im also to bad at finding my targets so I want to camp a bizzy null sec system in my AFK ship just to get a free pvp kill.
How do you catch them when they see you from the other side of the region? The russians know where you are and what you are in from long before you get close to their system. Back when redswarm existed they had an intel system that covered 14 regions, how exactly do you counter that? Goons used to have up to 30 minutes warning you were there and on the way. Xcom wrote: Just to brag about the killmail to my buddy's. I rather not make the effort of finding my target by warping around because that is to challenging, I rather sit in the same system with a cloak till I can find some helpless person and pownd him down for that killmail. If people ask me I tell them I make null sec better by reducing inflation, cause inflation is bad, I think. Please CCP don't nerf my camping AFK cloak tactic cause I'm so pro at camping and without it I can't play eve like a pro pvp champ killing noobs.
You are begging CCP to remove the only threat most ratters ever have and you have the gall to call people who are looking to kill stuff noobs... Are you kidding me. What exactly is it with idiots who think they can jump into deep nullsec and expect people to be as so stupid as to get killed in there own space. What exactly is the point your trying to make? That the only way to kill people in this so called goon space with 30 min warning time would be AFK cloak camping? if that the solution to the problem of your so called fixing the pve risk reward balance? I'm calling out your stupid bullshit right here. If you want a fight without warning go to w-space. If you want to remove local vote fore OA to get implemented. Don't be stupid and ask to keep AFK cloaking mechanics to stay. That mechanic is not by any long shot balanced and brings nothing but meaningless pvp camping. It serves nothing but to reduce gaming content for everyone involved.
There are multiple ways to get around the pre warnings. You could log out in the system your trying to catch people. Or camp in an unexpected system next to an active area. Use interceptors with implants to warp on top of people before they can react. Your not supposed to always catch people. Its part of the cycle of pvp where you shouldn't be able to easily kill people who avoid getting killed. Pve and pvp in this game don't mix all to well and in most games never have. Its a really weak argument and a ****** justification when stating that AFK cloaks are the only counter to risk free pve in null. In fact the only risk free activity is AFK cloak camping. |
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
136
|
Posted - 2016.12.28 07:59:43 -
[131] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Quote: Are you kidding me. What exactly is it with idiots who think they can jump into deep nullsec and expect people to be as so stupid as to get killed in there own space. What exactly is the point your trying to make? That the only way to kill people in this so called goon space with 30 min warning time would be AFK cloak camping? if that the solution to the problem of your so called fixing the pve risk reward balance? I'm calling out your stupid bullshit right here. If you want a fight without warning go to w-space. If you want to remove local vote fore OA to get implemented. Don't be stupid and ask to keep AFK cloaking mechanics to stay. That mechanic is not by any long shot balanced and brings nothing but meaningless pvp camping. It serves nothing but to reduce gaming content for everyone involved.
So long as local exists we need afk cloaking to counter it as that is the only thing that can. I don't go out there expecting to bag a load of kills, most of my attacks fail because the target either out ripped me, flew out of my tackle range, had warp cores fitted, got help, lit a cyno, was going to kill me before I killed it or just outright alpha my ship. Quote: There are multiple ways to get around the pre warnings. You could log out in the system your trying to catch people.
They are in warp to station before you can find them because you show up in local before you have loaded the system. Quote: Or camp in an unexpected system next to an active area.
And do what? The targets are in the other systems and not coming to you. Quote: Use interceptors with implants to warp on top of people before they can react.
This tactic only works when you have a gang and again only works if people are not using intel channels. Most are docked before you even get to the target system. Equally if solo you the issue where the interceptor at best can't break the of just about anything or at worst gets torn apart because it needs to get within grapple range. Quote: Your not supposed to always catch people. Its part of the cycle of pvp where you shouldn't be able to easily kill people who avoid getting killed. Pve and pvp in this game don't mix all to well and in most games never have. Its a really weak argument and a ****** justification when stating that AFK cloaks are the only counter to risk free pve in null. In fact the only risk free activity is AFK cloak camping.
Most ratters use intel systems which means most ratters are no seen let alone caught by people roaming. Afk cloaking is the only way to catch these people. If you want rid of afk cloaking then you also have to get rid of local. Let me see if I have gotten it right. You think that cloaks should hide you from your target and insure an engagement. On top of that ignoring that your also given ample intel prior to the engagement. Local ruins this, so camping counters local.
All you want is assured engagements. You wont get that and shouldn't, you have to work for it. Your entitled arrogance thinking that you can bring pvp on your terms to anyone undocked but not have the same happen to you when cloaked is just astounding. Your in null and so should your ship be at risk, even if cloaked. If local helps people dodge engagements then abusing camping tactics and thinking its a counter is just as thinking that your eligible for always getting engagements and be exempt from the at them at the same time. Thinking so is the route of stupidity that drives this discussion to the ground.
In null, if you want to force engagements you should and have the ability to attack the structures anchored in space. If you want covert tactics, head to w-space. If you think local is to overpowered gtfo and start a new thread. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
136
|
Posted - 2016.12.28 08:41:12 -
[132] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote:
Let me see if I have gotten it right. You think that cloaks should hide you from your target and insure an engagement. On top of that ignoring that your also given ample intel prior to the engagement. Local ruins this, so camping counters local.
All you want is assured engagements. You wont get that and shouldn't, you have to work for it. Your entitled arrogance thinking that you can bring pvp on your terms to anyone undocked but not have the same happen to you when cloaked is just astounding. Your in null and so should your ship be at risk, even if cloaked. If local helps people dodge engagements then abusing camping tactics and thinking its a counter is just as thinking that your eligible for always getting engagements and be exempt from the at them at the same time. Thinking so is the route of stupidity that drives this discussion to the ground.
In null, if you want to force engagements you should and have the ability to attack the structures anchored in space. If you want covert tactics, head to w-space. If you think local is to overpowered gtfo and start a new thread.
AFK camping does not ensure anything...aside from unimaginative players remaining docked. For example, suppose your camper is in Mountain TZ and you are in Euro TZ...what are the chances your AFK camper is going to be online when you are online? If you rat in a group, what is the chance an AFK cloaker like baltec1, when he is ATK, will engage you? These are just a couple of examples how your thinking is flawed. You always assume the cloaker has the means to win and the target has no means to "win"--i.e. prevent the encounter. Here, let me ask you this.... You are in a cloaked T3, you just landed in an ore site and you see a skiff and 2 procurors....do you engage? What if the skiff is 45 km away from his buddies? Do you engage? Its a matter of choice. Taking that choice away from the player by mechanic is the discussion, not the what if scenario of some player doing this or that. The problem is the lack of choice the target has on engaging back. Its an imbalanced mechanic where only one side have the ability to engage. Given cloaks should tip the engagement balance by definition and is the intended use. But there needs to be balance where it's not a complete one sided nature. At most it should be a 90/10 or at least 95/5 where the cloak have a 5% chance to get directly engaged, maybe less. Right now its stupidly 99.99/0.01, and retardedly 100/0 when in safespot. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
136
|
Posted - 2016.12.28 09:35:27 -
[133] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote: Its a matter of choice. Taking that choice away from the player by mechanic is the discussion, not the what if scenario of some player doing this or that. The problem is the lack of choice the target has on engaging back. Its an imbalanced mechanic where only one side have the ability to engage. Given cloaks should tip the engagement balance by definition and is the intended use. But there needs to be balance where it's not a complete one sided nature. At most it should be a 90/10 or at least 95/5 where the cloak have a 5% chance to get directly engaged, maybe less. Right now its stupidly 99.99/0.01, and retardedly 100/0 when in safespot.
That is the benefit cloaks provide, you get to choose when to engage. Of course, that is not a guarantee of success because of a cloak. The downside to cloaks is usually gimped combat capability so such ships go after softer targets. By the definition of gimped combat capability vs reward of choice of engagement, is valid if you ignore the other benefits. You clearly ignore the benefit such as being un-engagable. If you ignore that aspect then your right, but if you add in the full scope of cloakings total benefits then no. The second benefit needs a counter, not the first one. The part of gimped combat capability vs benefits to engagement benefits is balanced, not the un-engagable part though. That part needs a tweak. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
139
|
Posted - 2016.12.28 11:46:04 -
[134] - Quote
You can and should be able to after cloaks are nerfed slightly. You won't however be able to go AFK while camping any system. You just will have to stay behind your PC and avoid getting detected. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
139
|
Posted - 2016.12.28 12:44:56 -
[135] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Xcom wrote:You can and should be able to after cloaks are nerfed slightly. You won't however be able to go AFK while camping any system. You just will have to stay behind your PC and avoid getting detected. And we lose the ability to hit the bulk of ratters, gather intel and set up camps deep in enemy space. You are demanding nerfs to something you have no experience with and that would result in a lot fewer things getting killed. Welp, you have enjoyed what is by definition a broken mechanic. When its gone it will be sorely missed by few. AFK in space never was and should ever be a valid strategy. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
139
|
Posted - 2016.12.28 13:31:09 -
[136] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Xcom wrote: Welp, you have enjoyed what is by definition a broken mechanic
Citation required. Xcom wrote: . When its gone it will be sorely missed by few. AFK in space never was and should ever be a valid strategy.
You can go AFK in a POS on on a citadel and be immune in a station yet going AFK with a cloak is somehow bad. If you cant handle a single neut in local then you have no place in null. Cloaking is a global module and never was intended in the manner used. No one ever sat down in the dev team and thought. Lets make a module you can go AFK in to get rid of risk free ratting. Its not just used in null or ever intended solely for null and specially not to go AFK in. Your flawed idiotic method to kill ratters will be history and people like you will have to use actual effort to get kills. Your weak minded pvp tactics are so stupid that it wins the darwin award. I can't believe your defending it.
QQ I can't go AFK and kill people. LOL |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
139
|
Posted - 2016.12.28 13:45:24 -
[137] - Quote
Ideas coming from people like baltec is the gigantic flaw of this game. Its the weak mindset of CCP devs that really makes me think this game have become an outdated spreadsheet. Its boarder line exploit sitting in Jita drawing battle plans on paper with all the data right there at the edge of your fingertip. Killboards, map statistics, cloaks, forums and more. You never have to ever sett foot in enemy space without knowing where everything is. Worse even you can exploit cloaks to get around counter play. So much about this game needs bold change that it makes me sad seeing people like baltec guy clinging on to old broken s**t knowing the devs feel the same about the game. Old exploit mechanics like this one really starts to show the age of this mmo and top of that, the fan base defending them. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
150
|
Posted - 2016.12.29 02:43:50 -
[138] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Xcom wrote:Ideas coming from people like baltec is the gigantic flaw of this game. Its the weak mindset of CCP devs that really makes me think this game have become an outdated spreadsheet. Its boarder line exploit sitting in Jita drawing battle plans on paper with all the data right there at the edge of your fingertip. Killboards, map statistics, cloaks, forums and more. You never have to ever sett foot in enemy space without knowing where everything is. Worse even you can exploit cloaks to get around counter play. So much about this game needs bold change that it makes me sad seeing people like baltec guy clinging on to old broken s**t knowing the devs feel the same about the game. Old exploit mechanics like this one really starts to show the age of this mmo and top of that, the fan base defending them. This bold plan being the reduction of pvp and introduction of 100% safe ratting. If it's so easy and provides risk free kills how about giving it a go? I see none of you have ever even tried solo hunting so how about you pick up a bomber, fit it however you want and go attack S-6HHN in delve. Let's see if it's as easy as you think it is. You don't want to eliminate risk free ratting. You just want to whore for kills using a broken AFK tactic. Ratting is and always have been an unsafe method to earn isk. More ratters have died to other pvp events then AFK campers and will do so even more when more people get back into belts with the illusion of safety without AFK campers. What idiot thinks its a valid tactic surviving for months in unsafe space AFK and undocked. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
153
|
Posted - 2016.12.29 19:50:50 -
[139] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:If that was the case dracvlad, afk cloaking wouldn't be the main way to catch ratters. People started afk cloaking BECAUSE roaming gangs are ineffective thanks to local.
Xcom, local was never intended to be used like it is either. Devs never sat down and said, this will be a way to keep intel on a system. And every proposed nerf to cloaks hurts the cloaky hunting you claim to be fine with one way or another. I never said local was or is working as planned, I also agree its overpowered. But its not part of the cloaking discussion, just an extension to the features cloaking touches. Your also right about a change having an adverse impact on cloaks in general. But that is perfectly fine as cloaks are overpowered too. Its the definition of a nerf and cloaking needs one. No one said to nerf it to the ground, just ever slightly to make it reasonably less safer then it is right now. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
153
|
Posted - 2016.12.30 06:41:06 -
[140] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:If that was the case dracvlad, afk cloaking wouldn't be the main way to catch ratters. People started afk cloaking BECAUSE roaming gangs are ineffective thanks to local.
Xcom, local was never intended to be used like it is either. Devs never sat down and said, this will be a way to keep intel on a system. And every proposed nerf to cloaks hurts the cloaky hunting you claim to be fine with one way or another.
I never said local was or is working as planned, I also agree its overpowered. But its not part of the cloaking discussion, just an extension to the features cloaking touches. Your also right about a change having an adverse impact on cloaks in general. But that is perfectly fine as cloaks are overpowered too. Its the definition of a nerf and cloaking needs one. No one said to nerf it to the ground, just ever slightly to make it reasonably less safer then it is right now. For the love of God, how can your literally write that without being in some sort of cognitive dissonance? You admit local is probably not working as intended (which I'll admit is not always a bad thing, but not always a good thing either, the use of the vindicator and webbing to catch jump freighters is an example of not working as intended being bad). You also admit it is overpowered. Then you say it is not part of the cloaking discussion....when it is local that tells you there is an AFK cloaker present (or even a regular cloaker). That is, local that has led to AFK cloaking. But it is not part of the discussion? Seriously? AFK cloaking and local are intertwined, and changing one without changing the other is likely going to cause imbalance, not balance. Now, please consider that last sentence carefully. It means we can't just change local. That is "off the table". Similarly, we can't just change cloaks. That too is, "off the table". So we change them together and hopefully we get more people out in space and more people caught by roaming gangs, and with more roaming gangs, more defense fleets. More fun, more excitement. What are you on about. Going AFK after cloaking can be done in space where local is not present. Why are you assuming that the two are directly linked when the cloaking module is a global module in all types of space while your just referring to the space that only concerns the 20% of players that can be impacted by the local + AFK cloaking terrorizing mechanic. The two are not directly linked where one would not be possible without the other. Its only one directional, locals only counter is AFK camping but AFK cloaking can be done without local. If you want a counter to local then OA is the solution, not keeping a broken mechanic as cloaking in the form where you can go AFK in. |
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
153
|
Posted - 2016.12.30 07:11:14 -
[141] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Jerghul wrote:Its not actually a god given right to be given tactical surprise at the whimsy of yolo roams. I have yet to see a coherent argument suggesting that pve players taking proper precautions and being attentively atk should be vulnerable to drunk roams.
Real time information should be enhanced, not nerfed. In the name of maintaining and improving activity.
Let human error give the kills. Its what all kills are ultimately based on without exploits anyway. I get the impression that they think that they should be able to get a kill on someone who does it right 100% of the time, it is quite laughable to be honest. What is wrong with having to have people make an error, do they have to have it given to them along with a dummy and a pair of nappies. This was the reason a great friend of mine left the game, as far as he was concerned hunting had been dumbed down and made too easy so he no longer saw Eve as a challenge as a hunter. I think you said it best. Same idiots who want to provocatively start arguments cause they get something out of it. I totally agree that it would just turn null sec barren and reduce population drastically if half the stuff these idiots suggest were to happen. Engagements aren't entitled, its earned. Cloaks should help not give you the right to get the jump on people. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
153
|
Posted - 2016.12.30 07:21:55 -
[142] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Afk cloaking is a complete non-issue without local or where local is useless because of false positives (i.e. wh and hi-sec).
But when you try to use local as intel, afk cloaking suddenly becomes a problem. Yes using local intel and afk cloaking are obviously linked. This is a logical fallacy. AFK cloaking refers to going AFK while cloaked. You can try it yourself, go to w-space and go AFK, its 100% safe. There is no local so its not possible stating that AFK cloaking is directly linked to local. Its your opinion that it's not a problem which is your subjective opinion. Objectively the two are not conditionally linked as one can be done without the other. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
155
|
Posted - 2016.12.30 11:24:08 -
[143] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Xcom wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Afk cloaking is a complete non-issue without local or where local is useless because of false positives (i.e. wh and hi-sec).
But when you try to use local as intel, afk cloaking suddenly becomes a problem. Yes using local intel and afk cloaking are obviously linked. This is a logical fallacy. AFK cloaking refers to going AFK while cloaked. You can try it yourself, go to w-space and go AFK, its 100% safe. There is no local so its not possible stating that AFK cloaking is directly linked to local. Its your opinion that it's not a problem which is your subjective opinion. Objectively the two are not conditionally linked as one can be done without the other. But the only reason you want it gone is because you don't want that red in local while you rat. AFK cloaking is the only counter to local based intel networks and you want that counter gone as well as wanting to destroy the entire point of a cloaking device which is to allow players to operate behind enemy lines for extended periods of time. Not really. I want it gone because its stupid having a system where a player have the ability to stay behind enemy lines indefinitely without effort. Cloaking impacts more then just null, basing the whole argument behind the one and only reason makes me think its justifiably reasonable removing that ability. The impact will be minimal for the global gained throughout eve, in all types of space for the betterment of general game balance reasons and overall game play perspective from more angles then the one single gameplay area. A minority will simply have to suffer by change and I would rather that be to the type of players that justify AFK along with PVP. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
161
|
Posted - 2016.12.30 17:18:27 -
[144] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Xcom wrote:This is a logical fallacy. AFK cloaking refers to going AFK while cloaked. You can try it yourself, go to w-space and go AFK, its 100% safe. There is no local so its not possible stating that AFK cloaking is directly linked to local. Its your opinion that it's not a problem which is your subjective opinion. Objectively the two are not conditionally linked as one can be done without the other. You've never lived in WHs, have you? In WHs you never assume you're alone, so it's not a big deal if someone is cloaked next to you. You're in PvP fit ships, in fleet and on comms with everyone else. If someone decloaks and shoots you, great, you get to fight back. That's the difference. Nullseccers want risk free PvE. The doctrine mining ships in WH corps more often than not call for a warp disruptor so you can hold the attacker on grid long enough for the defense fleet to show up The only way you guarentee you're alone in a system in a wormhole? Keep a dictor and insta-locker on every incoming connection 100% of the time (which happens often when safety is needed) I actually have lived in WS. Its the type of space I actually prefer to live out of besides empire. I don't really care much for null sec. Tried it way back and never got into it. But I don't know why my gaming preference have any merit to game balance ideology.
Do I need to get some kind of degree before I can voice my opinion on the forums? Does anyone in this thread have one? Did CCP have degrees or understanding of cloaks when they added them? Its not a question about merits. Its about gaming balance and mechanics. If you were to get hired tomorrow by CCP, the choices you would make would impact the game in either positive or negative either long or shorterm. The main problem with stupid comments like. Your opinion doesn't matter cause your not experienced enough is just stupid. By that logic CCP should be fired and we should hire baltec1 to ruin the game for us.
This game is not based around nulls ratting features. Its also not based out of "HTFU and always be ready for anything". If that was the case we would still have the total DD blasts on titans that could off grid nuke using cynos. Its about what makes this game better for more then the idiot who enjoys going AFK just to stick it to the people he is trying to grief. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
163
|
Posted - 2016.12.31 08:15:04 -
[145] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote:
What are you on about. Going AFK after cloaking can be done in space where local is not present. Why are you assuming that the two are directly linked when the cloaking module is a global module in all types of space while your just referring to the space that only concerns the 20% of players that can be impacted by the local + AFK cloaking terrorizing mechanic. The two are not directly linked where one would not be possible without the other. Its only one directional, locals only counter is AFK camping but AFK cloaking can be done without local. If you want a counter to local then OA is the solution, not keeping a broken mechanic as cloaking in the form where you can go AFK in.
Of course you can AFK cloak without local, but what is the point? Suppose you are in a system with no local. I come in, you won't see me unless you use d-scan. If I then cloak up and go AFK you'll never know I am there. So I will have no impact on you. None. It becomes pointless unless I'm going for a bio, food, answer the phone, etc. AFK cloaking only works because of local. No local, no AFK cloaking. Local is how you know a cloaked ship is there. Local is what lets you detect cloaked ships. Not enough to find them, but enough to know there is one in system. Local is the counter to cloaking...it lets you know that danger is there and you don't know where, so change your behavior. So by your definition the AFK cloaking concept is somehow related to null sec terrorizing? Its interlinked as cloaked ships only should or shouldn't change based on impact they have on other players? I don't know what you have been smoking but AFK cloaking by the accurate definition of the 2 words means going AFK while cloaked. Nothing to do with how it impacts other players.
Also in what stupid mindset do you have to have to think that AFK cloaking + null sec terror tactics / camping is a valid and good mechanic. It should be removed, not replaced. This type of mechanic is not constructive for null sec or any other type of space / game play. Just because it is used right now doesn't make it any good and shouldn't take a backseat to any local alterations. Its broken, not justified. Null ratting is not the center keystone of why cloaks shouldn't change.
Its so narrow minded and idiotic thinking that cloaks shouldn't change until something can replace something as so broken as AFK cloaking + null sec terrorizing. Your bitter old mindset regarding nulls "to safe" makes you really blind to the full scope of the module instead of exploring more options to the area your actually concerned about, null space. If you took the huge stick out of your ass and posted something constructive you might actually come up with an idea that might make the type of space your so bitter about change for the better instead of troll other threads that might even so much as touch null concepts. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
165
|
Posted - 2017.01.01 15:39:48 -
[146] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote: So by your definition the AFK cloaking concept is somehow related to null sec terrorizing? Its interlinked as cloaked ships only should or shouldn't change based on impact they have on other players? I don't know what you have been smoking but AFK cloaking by the accurate definition of the 2 words means going AFK while cloaked. Nothing to do with how it impacts other players.
No, I said local and cloaks should change together, or neither should change. Pick one, not mix and match. Either way you mix or match you create an imbalance. Quote:Also in what stupid mindset do you have to have to think that AFK cloaking + null sec terror tactics / camping is a valid and good mechanic. It should be removed, not replaced. This type of mechanic is not constructive for null sec or any other type of space / game play. Just because it is used right now doesn't make it any good and shouldn't take a backseat to any local alterations. Its broken, not justified. Null ratting is not the center keystone of why cloaks shouldn't change. Because it is NS. It is not supposed to be safe....or more accurately it is only as safe as you make it. If you group together, take sov, have outposts, conquerable stations and put down citadels, etc. Put together an intel channel and so forth, then you can make it safer...via effort. With more effort more safety. When there is the option for something to be player driven or CCP driven, the default option should be player driven. CCP appears to have forgotten this. Quote:Its so narrow minded and idiotic thinking that cloaks shouldn't change until something can replace something as so broken as AFK cloaking + null sec terrorizing. Your bitter old mindset regarding nulls "to safe" makes you really blind to the full scope of the module instead of exploring more options to the area your actually concerned about, null space. If you took the huge stick out of your ass and posted something constructive you might actually come up with an idea that might make the type of space your so bitter about change for the better instead of troll other threads that might even so much as touch null concepts. Cloaking in general is not broken. AFK cloaking in general is not broken either. It is, I think, arguably sub-optimal, but not broken. Multiple methods to deal with it are available. Seriously get some buddies, 3 of them. Have them get into procurors and skiffs. Have them tank them, omni tank them. Move them into a mining anomaly or even just a belt. You get into a cloaky nullified T3 and try to take 1...just 1 of them out before they take you out or force you off the field. The point is that against 3 such mining ships a single cloaking ship is in trouble. Two could probably take out one if he were dumb and off from the other 2. Funny, the complaint used to be 100s even 1,000s of players went and took sov, and 1 guy! 1 guy!!! Has foiled all the effort of all those people!!!! It is a goddamn travesty!!! But, you can't rat in a group? The response is, "What and ruin my ISK/hour!?!?!?!?!?" Why do you base every argument around null sec? Every mechanic according to you revolves around null. Cloaking is a module and as much as it impacts null it actually isn't based around making null what it is. Null will adapt and have adapted around cloaks. Cloaking though in on its own needs altered, regardless of how null will be impacted. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
166
|
Posted - 2017.01.02 03:31:24 -
[147] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote: Why do you base every argument around null sec? Every mechanic according to you revolves around null. Cloaking is a module and as much as it impacts null it actually isn't based around making null what it is. Null will adapt and have adapted around cloaks. Cloaking though in on its own needs altered, regardless of how null will be impacted.
You are literally, the only person to complain about cloaks in HS that I know of. Nobody else cares about cloaks outside of NS. Every complaint about cloaks usually boils down to people in sov NS not being able to rat--i.e. AFK cloaking is the complaint. Nothing else. Its not about complaints from players that drive updates. Every aspect should be balanced according to its own. Mechanics shouldn't be kept around just to serve other mechanics. Cloaking fixed or not wont change the fact that null will be balanced in due time. This is a discussion about cloaking fixes and not a null complaint thread or how cloaks are abused in null. If this was a complaint thread then your argument about null should have this or that prioritized would hold some merit. But right now barking at anyone suggesting interesting ideas is destructive and drives people out of this thread and generates meaningless discussions. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
167
|
Posted - 2017.01.02 06:03:45 -
[148] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:Xcom wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote: Why do you base every argument around null sec? Every mechanic according to you revolves around null. Cloaking is a module and as much as it impacts null it actually isn't based around making null what it is. Null will adapt and have adapted around cloaks. Cloaking though in on its own needs altered, regardless of how null will be impacted.
You are literally, the only person to complain about cloaks in HS that I know of. Nobody else cares about cloaks outside of NS. Every complaint about cloaks usually boils down to people in sov NS not being able to rat--i.e. AFK cloaking is the complaint. Nothing else. Its not about complaints from players that drive updates. Every aspect should be balanced according to its own. Mechanics shouldn't be kept around just to serve other mechanics. Cloaking fixed or not wont change the fact that null will be balanced in due time. This is a discussion about cloaking fixes and not a null complaint thread or how cloaks are abused in null. If this was a complaint thread then your argument about null should have this or that prioritized would hold some merit. But right now barking at anyone suggesting interesting ideas is destructive and drives people out of this thread and generates meaningless discussions. That's because there is no reason to "fix" cloaks. They already are a balanced and well working module. Most people in this thread disagree. That's why this thread exists. If you think its balanced and needs no change then your simply trolling this thread by posting here. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
168
|
Posted - 2017.01.02 14:53:29 -
[149] - Quote
Its pointless arguing honestly. Some people think that its ok to camp for weeks abusing the safety of cloaks. Others realize there should be balance where all the responsibility of safety shouldn't sit on pve activity. I guess going around in loops won't change much, people like techus and baltec are hell bent on making there ideas heard an top of everyone else. Like those loud people in a conference that won't shut up, forcing there ideas on others. Bitter vets I guess, would do them alot of good to quit eve and try something new. Same would go for the idiots who enjoy taking out there frustrations by camping. When you get to that point you should start thinking if its really worth spending that 15Gé¼ sub a month just to stick to some guy playing in a belt.
Overall economy of eve won't be altered much by the removal of the AFK portion of cloaking. Probably would impact it less then adding or removing new items like the drone AI module that caused a massive mission running rush. Change in some areas of this game would free up more activity. I don't think even those who are opposed to changing cloaks would mind having more players in null. More targets, more activity, more pvp more of everything.
I'm sure most people go into the cloaking discussion and just happen to gravitate towards one side. Then defend it with tooth and nail, not even hearing the opposing side or find actual concrete solutions. Just run around in circles trying to find another loophole in the post above. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
169
|
Posted - 2017.01.05 14:01:09 -
[150] - Quote
Thank you for your input, I disagree. The act of cloaking needs nerfed, I think its overpowered as there are no hard counters to balance it. End of the discussion. |
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
170
|
Posted - 2017.02.04 21:03:43 -
[151] - Quote
I wish it was possible to filter out useless commenters out of threads. Some individuals just spam useless comments that aren't constructive or even relevant to the topic. Just here to tare down any idea or discussion that might have leads to something more interesting then the regular idea bashing just for the sake of it.
This is a very interesting thread when the same idea bashers aren't here to give there input about cloaking, when in fact they rather not see it changed then proceeding forcing any discussion to the ground. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
172
|
Posted - 2017.04.18 09:57:10 -
[152] - Quote
This is a link to the game balance panel. youtube.com/watch?v=AkNHv7nEzGM&feature=youtu.be&t=1955 -Question was asked about active anti afk-cloaky camping. -Answer was dodged by the devs with a solid confirmation that its not even being looked into and most likely is so far down there priority list that it might just never happen. Its kinda funny how they also confirmed getting this question repeatedly.
Its so sad that they are dodging this particular topic as if they are seriously scared of it. Smells like someone bribed them to bury it. CCP sitting on the fence on this topic just fuels the fire that alienates everyone on either side of the fence.
At least we now know that this is sadly more of a feature then an unintended mechanic that will be around for a long time to come. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
172
|
Posted - 2017.04.18 11:47:19 -
[153] - Quote
@Caleb Seremshur this threads plagued by a very small and loud group that drowns any meaningful discussion on both sides of the stance. The issue is the actual decision making of CCP. They avoid anything unless its breaking the game directly and on a macro scale. Anything else flies even if its decremental to the overall gaming experience. They have a "don't fix what aint broke" mindset to an extent where even borderline exploits are abused to hell and back.
You won't get much of a meaningful discussion about this topic here sadly as most enjoy the trolling behaviour just trying to get the last word above the guy posting above. Even after you manage to come to an agreement over a particular point you find yourself back on the same topic after a while as people posting here are here to just post in a inflammatory remark just to scratch the itch they seam to have.
I would highly advice to not get into an argument with anyone in the thread as you might end up just going around in circles. It's a waste of everyone's time. Just find a way around the broken in-game mechanic instead of trying to find a solution to it. Neither CCP cares nor does anyone reading this thread, by now anyone who is affected by this mechanic sadly are forced to work around the problem.
TL.DR CCP is aware and they don't care. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
173
|
Posted - 2017.04.18 19:29:27 -
[154] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote:This is a link to the game balance panel. youtube.com/watch?v=AkNHv7nEzGM&feature=youtu.be&t=1955 -Question was asked about active anti afk-cloaky camping. -Answer was dodged by the devs with a solid confirmation that its not even being looked into and most likely is so far down there priority list that its not even in any plans they have for the future. Its basically tied to OA and that's stuff is way down the pipeline, most likely not in any of our lifetimes. Its kinda sad how they also joked getting this question repeatedly.
Its so sad that they are dodging this particular topic as if they are seriously scared of it. Smells like someone bribed them to bury it. CCP sitting on the fence on this topic just fuels the fire that alienates everyone on either side of the fence.
At least we now know that this is sadly more of a feature then an unintended mechanic that will be around for a long time to come. Maybe the Devs don't see the problem you see. The issue is you want to increase your safety without any effort--i.e. you want CCP to increase your safety. That is antithetical to the game's core philosophy. You want increased safety? Well go out there and do what you need to achieve that, stop whining to CCP to do what you can do for yourself. Watch the panel instead of babbling like a fool. They see it as a problem, just a very low priority one and somehow refuse to get involved, probably because of people like you. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
173
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 04:58:17 -
[155] - Quote
@Mike Voidstar I don't think the devs think like baltec or play eve like him. Its that they are super political about there words. Its as if they have been told to not give false positives or hints to anything. Agree with everyone and everything to not **** anyone off. I get why they do it, don't **** of the player base when you can sit on the fence on any stance. But at some point you just have to grow some balls and take action. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
173
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 05:20:19 -
[156] - Quote
Point in case. Pointless arguing when all people want to do is to stick it to the post above. Words and fragmented ideas taken out of context and hacked to pieces just to prove a point that won't even be constructive when twisted as much as it has. Why even try to prove your point when its wasted on people that don't agree, yet worse twist the ideas of the person who your responding to so the response isn't even reflecting the core idea that person is trying to convey. Waste of time! |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
176
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 10:43:56 -
[157] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Quote:Point in case. Pointless arguing when all people want to do is to stick it to the post above. Words and fragmented ideas taken out of context and hacked to pieces just to prove a point that won't even be constructive when twisted as much as it has. Why even try to prove your point when its wasted on people that don't agree, yet worse twist the ideas of the person who your responding to so the response isn't even reflecting the core idea that person is trying to convey. Waste of time! Your job is to convince people to agree with you, you are not privy to them just agreeing with you because you said something. Taking things out of context and trying to strawman your discussion, sure, but just because you have something to say doesn't mean it was a good idea. Also yes your point is in the case you're making, somewhere. You meant to say case in point which is to suggest that showing 1 example of an issue could be used as your whole case entirely. Trust me, keep posting in this thread and you will get what I'm trying to say. Even when people agree with you they have to find a new angle to keep the arguing rolling.
Its not that its bad arguing about a subject that is under revision. Its that every single idea in this thread is harassed and killed before anyone have a chance to revise and explore it. When you think about a cloaking thread you imagine that people come here to discuss ideas about a particular subject. Not that some fascist crowd shows up and starts beating down any idea that shows up just because its not in line with there "core philosophy".
After 460 pages its honestly better to close this thread and start a new one. One that is restricted around discussion around the cloaking concept and ban any loops that we are stuck in. Its not even worth having a discussion when the same 4-5 names takes over and keeps posting the same repeated "cloaking needs fixed", "no local needs priority" loop. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
178
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 11:21:00 -
[158] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Xcom wrote: Its not that its bad arguing about a subject that is under revision. Its that every single idea in this thread is harassed and killed before anyone have a chance to revise and explore it.
They get shot down because they are ****. First stumbling block is and always will be the fact that if you want to wipe out AFK cloaking you have to wipe out local chat as it is today. The two cannot be separated because afk cloaking is the only counter we have vs the intel systems based upon local chat. Exhibit A
Another attempt to drive the thread into the same loop. Yet another "local comes first" attempt.
Soon after another post will go. "No cloaking is not linked to local" or "AFK cant be justified".
Wow just wow.
Not even a idiot could have missed it by now. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
179
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 11:33:13 -
[159] - Quote
Its one thing when you show up and tell a joke ones and no one laughs. Its a completely different thing when you tell the joke another 10 more times thinking that people might get it and start laughing.
Yes, we all heard you. Thank you for pointing out that you think local is somehow linked and should take priority. Now please stop repeating it. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
179
|
Posted - 2017.04.20 07:35:38 -
[160] - Quote
I prefer smaller corps rather then larger ones. And sadly its the smaller corps who don't have a lot of nolife experience in the game with deep connections that directly get hurt by cheese mechanics like this. There are instances were smaller corps like the ones I have been in have suffered to the point of not logging in at all when losses would outway the risks. If active promoted pvp was an option and action could be taken then it would have been the natural result of anti cloak camping. But there is non and the game itself forces a stalemate of turning people to the last option, turn the game off and go do something else.
Local might be linked to cloaking in k-space but not in w-space. If it was an intel tool then its lacking in wormhole space and yet perma cloaking still ruins wormhole life as well. Fixes to cloaking in that regard can be added to w-space on its own and if it works out then it could emigrate to k-space.
I don't think it would ruin the aspect of cloaking if combat probing would make it possible to probe down cloaked ships in w-space. The only difference should be that you would get a larger random distance deviation on the target. It would be harder to pin there exact fixed location and you would have to rescan and attempt to warp to zero multiple times before you would get lucky. Without local you would still need a cov-ops ship to combat probe so it would be a dedicated role and not an instant counter to cloaking.
TL.DR. Make cloaked ships combat probable in w-space with a higher scan result distance deviation then non-cloaked ships. |
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
180
|
Posted - 2017.04.20 09:06:16 -
[161] - Quote
@Merin Ryskin Thank you for your utterly useless post. Cloaked and camping in w-space have benefits when you are aware that the system is active. Its taken into consideration and ignored for lack of relevancy to the subject at hand. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
180
|
Posted - 2017.04.20 09:22:13 -
[162] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:During fanfest a member of my alliance who I never even talked to on this subject asked about AFK cloaky camping and got the fob off. by CCP Was it during the balance panel he asked the question? It would be honestly interesting to hear CCPs honest view to know why they are ignoring this subject. At this point its all we can ask for. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
181
|
Posted - 2017.04.20 10:58:01 -
[163] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:The only reason someone would be cloaked and AFK in wormhole-space is to avoid being detected in directional scanner if you want to keep the element of surprise. AFK-cloaking itself has no use since there is no local. This is also the exalt same reason people use cloacks in w-space. D-sanner is the tool used in w-space.
If local is the counter to cloacking the its simply easy to se that without it cloacking should be probable. Cant have the cake and eat it too.
It is woth notind that your most likely going to surprice most people. Its only unike situations that some corp continuesly scans for new signatures. Its only when you have made your presense known that people most likely will respond. By then the cloack have served its use. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
181
|
Posted - 2017.04.20 11:07:36 -
[164] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:Xcom wrote:Wander Prian wrote:The only reason someone would be cloaked and AFK in wormhole-space is to avoid being detected in directional scanner if you want to keep the element of surprise. AFK-cloaking itself has no use since there is no local. This is also the exalt same reason people use cloacks in w-space. D-sanner is the tool used in w-space. If local is the counter to cloacking the its simply easy to se that without it cloacking should be probable. Cant have the cake and eat it too. Yet somehow in the 6 years I've lived in W-space, nobody has complained about cloaks. I've seen people set up traps to lure cloakers into, shut them out of their system when they are away, etc... Cloaks for some weird reason are a issue in nullsec, where you have even more tools to gather intel on the guy and get help to you if you are dropped. If that is the case then it wont be to much trubble adding this change. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
181
|
Posted - 2017.04.20 15:44:30 -
[165] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:Xcom wrote:Wander Prian wrote:Xcom wrote:Wander Prian wrote:The only reason someone would be cloaked and AFK in wormhole-space is to avoid being detected in directional scanner if you want to keep the element of surprise. AFK-cloaking itself has no use since there is no local. This is also the exalt same reason people use cloacks in w-space. D-sanner is the tool used in w-space. If local is the counter to cloacking the its simply easy to se that without it cloacking should be probable. Cant have the cake and eat it too. Yet somehow in the 6 years I've lived in W-space, nobody has complained about cloaks. I've seen people set up traps to lure cloakers into, shut them out of their system when they are away, etc... Cloaks for some weird reason are a issue in nullsec, where you have even more tools to gather intel on the guy and get help to you if you are dropped. If that is the case then it wont be to much trubble adding this change. If wormholers can deal with a cloak with the current tools without complaining, why cannot nullsec do the same with having more tools available for them? Why is a change needed if you already are able to deal with a cloaker? In what way would cloaked ships in w-space be nerfed to such an extent to ruin the use of them? You never specified how cloaking would actually be nerfed out of its intended mechanic.
I asked for change and also gave a clear reason behind it. Without any valid counter argument you imply that its bad doing any changes. Is it because you have a solid reasoning behind it, or that you simply want to disagree just to disagree. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
181
|
Posted - 2017.04.20 15:52:34 -
[166] - Quote
Marika Sunji wrote:You flat-out stated that the devs have likely been bribed to ignore the topic of afk cloaking. Excuse me for doubting your, ahem, clear reasoning Ya cause that wasn't sarcastic at all. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
181
|
Posted - 2017.04.20 16:30:24 -
[167] - Quote
Exactly 20 posts sense I posted a supposed alteration towards cloaking. It was somewhat descriptive to the reasoning and gave clear instruction on the changes and a supposed outcome of said changes. Sense then following have been posted and not one have even given any constructive feedback or a counter suggestion.
Marika Sunji - Have directly attacked my character by claiming the sarcastic post I posted earlier was a conspiracy theory. Even if the particular post I posted was logical and simple to follow and had nothing to do with my character.
Wander Prian - Have claimed he have not seen anyone complain about cloak camping in 6 years of living in w-space therefore any changes are plain mute. Then said that cloaking is dealt with easily by everyone in w-space (no idea where he got this from, maybe a hidden survey he did in his spare time). Claimed w-space dwellers deal with cloaks so null space should just man up and do the same. Not even responded to the idea or even given a reasoning behind any of his claims.
Merin Ryskin - Have responded by stating that cloaks in w-space can AFK or log out therefore somehow the proposed idea is mute. Not even sure how change to cloaking is linked to the idea of logging out or why it was worth mentioning or given a solid reason to how the two subjects are linked.
Teckos Pech - Have mentioned something in the line of consequences. Not sure what it means or what it has to do with cloaking alterations.
The rest have just been fluff responding to random responses. Not one have been about the suggestion of how to change cloaks in w-space that I posted earlier. Just shows that this thread is full of trolls. Sadly this subject have turned into a slugfest and not even worth getting into any more or even worth trying to fix. Probably that time again to take a step back and wonder why this thread haven't been closed. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
181
|
Posted - 2017.04.20 19:49:34 -
[168] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:Xcom wrote:Not even sure how change to cloaking is linked to the idea of logging out or why it was worth mentioning or given a solid reason to how the two subjects are linked. Since you're too stupid to get it the first time, let's try again. There are two possible situations here: 1) A player in a wormhole cloaks and goes AFK. Their ship can not be detected and the inhabitants have no way of knowing the cloaked ship is there, but the cloaked ship is not doing anything besides sitting idle in empty space. 2) A player in a wormhole logs off. Their ship is removed from the system, but the inhabitants have no way of knowing that the player has left the game instead of just cloaking. In both cases the situation is the same, no presence in local, no presence on d-scan. The only difference is that staying logged in means that you're vulnerable to a "cat walks across the keyboard and decloaks you" situation, so you might as well just log off if you aren't going to be actively playing the game. The reason people AFK cloak outside of wormholes is not that there's an inherent benefit to being cloaked instead of logged out while you're AFK, it's so that having a new name pop up in local doesn't broadcast a giant "THE THREAT HAS COME BACK FROM BEING AFK EVERYONE DOCK UP" warning to all the potential targets. If there is no local to give away your return from being AFK then there is no need to stay logged in. Yet again, what does it have to do with changing cloaks? Why do you even point this out? How is this relevant to cloak alterations? You don't seam to understand that your just stating random facts and then randomly claiming an idea is bad. Either you have to show us how AFK and cloaking in w-space alterations somehow have a link or stop posting. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
181
|
Posted - 2017.04.20 20:02:32 -
[169] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:And your suggestion: it would be terrible easy to camp entrances with a good prober and a bubble, leading to nearly impossible movement. Not to mention extremely easy to use as a early warning when you are running sites, leading to very low chances of actually catching anything as a cloaky ship. At least something relevant came out of all of it. Thank you for replying to the actual idea.
I agree that it would create an easy method to instant probe ships on grid. Specially when you know if the target is on grid. Some bombing runs would be ruined, specially when multiple bombers would be probed at the same location. But that is why there would be a significant deviation to the end result. Just a random number here, +/- 100km and you will probably have a very very low chance to ever catch a target on the first try. Even then in a cov-ops ship that is squishy.
But regarding the early warning issue. That would be a fair and justified drawback to have 1 person in fleet sit in a cov-ops ship instead of help out with whatever else that pilot would be doing. It's not exactly like larger corps already have the numbers to fend of cloaked ships. This would more or less help smaller corps fending off the one off camper or surprise attacker and it wouldn't be a bad thing. Sacrificing a pilot for a task that would need to get done constantly would be prone to a lot of human error and still leave opportunity. Cloaking would just not have the extreme surprise attack capability it has right now, which is far to easy for the cloaker. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
181
|
Posted - 2017.04.20 20:15:10 -
[170] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:Xcom wrote:Merin Ryskin wrote:Xcom wrote:Not even sure how change to cloaking is linked to the idea of logging out or why it was worth mentioning or given a solid reason to how the two subjects are linked. Since you're too stupid to get it the first time, let's try again. There are two possible situations here: 1) A player in a wormhole cloaks and goes AFK. Their ship can not be detected and the inhabitants have no way of knowing the cloaked ship is there, but the cloaked ship is not doing anything besides sitting idle in empty space. 2) A player in a wormhole logs off. Their ship is removed from the system, but the inhabitants have no way of knowing that the player has left the game instead of just cloaking. In both cases the situation is the same, no presence in local, no presence on d-scan. The only difference is that staying logged in means that you're vulnerable to a "cat walks across the keyboard and decloaks you" situation, so you might as well just log off if you aren't going to be actively playing the game. The reason people AFK cloak outside of wormholes is not that there's an inherent benefit to being cloaked instead of logged out while you're AFK, it's so that having a new name pop up in local doesn't broadcast a giant "THE THREAT HAS COME BACK FROM BEING AFK EVERYONE DOCK UP" warning to all the potential targets. If there is no local to give away your return from being AFK then there is no need to stay logged in. Yet again, what does it have to do with changing cloaks? Why do you even point this out? How is this relevant to cloak alterations? You don't seam to understand that your just stating random facts and then randomly claiming an idea is bad. Either you have to show us how AFK and cloaking in w-space alterations somehow have a link or stop posting. You need to first prove there is a need for the change you are advocating for. Change is subjective and never objective. Nothing in eve unless directly game breaking has to change. Proving something needs changed won't make sense in the least. You can't say why something has to change because of X or Y.
Change often comes in the form of popularity and if this thread was about changing peoples minds it would be in general discussion and not in the features and ideas. Its also shown that most people who are stubbornly holding on to there ideas even polarize more rather then start to get convinced to a common goal. 460 pages proves that, not one person have changed there stance on the subject.
In general it should be noted that it might have been more of a fault to the GMs to make sure this threads not about changing ideas of convincing people to vote for or against cloaking alterations. This is and always was a cloaking alteration discussion. Somehow its not been moderated and random garbage is posted in it. We shouldn't be talking about why cloaking should be changed in this thread rather then how, if it was, that's what general sub forum is about. |
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
181
|
Posted - 2017.04.20 20:40:54 -
[171] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:Xcom wrote:Wander Prian wrote:And your suggestion: it would be terrible easy to camp entrances with a good prober and a bubble, leading to nearly impossible movement. Not to mention extremely easy to use as a early warning when you are running sites, leading to very low chances of actually catching anything as a cloaky ship. At least something relevant came out of all of it. Thank you for replying to the actual idea. I agree that it would create an easy method to instant probe ships on grid. Specially when you know if the target is on grid. Some bombing runs would be ruined, specially when multiple bombers would be probed at the same location. But that is why there would be a significant deviation to the end result. Just a random number here, +/- 100km and you will probably have a very very low chance to ever catch a target on the first try. Even then in a cov-ops ship that is squishy. But regarding the early warning issue. That would be a fair and justified drawback to have 1 person in fleet sit in a cov-ops ship instead of help out with whatever else that pilot would be doing. It's not exactly like larger corps already have the numbers to fend of cloaked ships. This would more or less help smaller corps fending off the one off camper or surprise attacker and it wouldn't be a bad thing. Sacrificing a pilot for a task that would need to get done constantly would be prone to a lot of human error and still leave opportunity. Cloaking would just not have the extreme surprise attack capability it has right now, which is far to easy for the cloaker. Already it is common to have one pilot sitting in a covops looking for new signatures. It's been like that for many years. They would just be doinga double duty by looking out for cloaked ships near the PVE-fleet. Adding deviation is not going to fix the issues with picketing wormholes themselves as you can just drop the probes right on the wormhole with minimum range and with most players having good scanning skills, the end result would be dead cloaky ship. You give a way to find cloaked ships, we need to start talking about rebalancing all the ships again to reduce the drawbacks they have due to the ability to fit a covops-cloak. I think you miss the point of minimum deviation. It would mean that you have a spherical space of 100km radians that would be the absolute minimum deviation, even with the best stats, modules, implants and skills. That number could even be bigger, 150km. But even a 100km is a huge area of space. Getting the fixed location of a ship within 2km in a spherical diameter of 200km is less then 8/1000 000 or 0,0008%. Its not gonna de-cloak people on the first try or ruin anyone's favorit ship. It would also only work in w-space. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
181
|
Posted - 2017.04.20 21:34:14 -
[172] - Quote
Well yet again, it would need balance. But yet, mostly would be used to catch cloakers that leave there PCs for extended periods of time and scare tactics. Used with smart bombs and teamwork that small number would actually grow fast as well. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
181
|
Posted - 2017.04.20 23:57:22 -
[173] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:Xcom wrote:Well yet again, it would need balance. But yet, mostly would be used to catch cloakers that leave there PCs for extended periods of time and scare tactics. Used with smart bombs and teamwork that small number would actually grow fast as well. You still haven't shown why this is required. Cloaks are not an issue in wormholes. In most part its a non issue for larger corporations or mid sized ones. Small and low activity mid sized corps in w-space have issues with cloaked ships that harass activity's. Its to kill some time, to not just wait till the attacker leaves or to drive them out.
Larger corporations won't have the issues when it comes to scouting, or even care to because of the instant support number. But when your numbers are few then every man counts. Sacrificing a pilot for scouting is a choice and not a luxury. Some early-warning isn't bad for those who put effort into it. In most cases you won't be able to just enter a new system and not go noticed trying to probe down people. D-scan will give you away. Mostly it will prevent camping tactics where some individuals will force themself into a system and just endlessly camp.
Its mostly a win win for most, all but pilots who cloak of course. But as shown, the % are very small and mostly an issue with extreme luck or bad piloting (mostly AFK pilots). There might even be instances where you can pop the cov-ops and warp before support lands on grid even so it's not a total drawback. It won't be used ritualistically to destroy cloaking in general. Just tweak it to prevent the very edge case of removing camping. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
181
|
Posted - 2017.04.21 00:12:49 -
[174] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:Xcom wrote:Wander Prian wrote:Xcom wrote:Well yet again, it would need balance. But yet, mostly would be used to catch cloakers that leave there PCs for extended periods of time and scare tactics. Used with smart bombs and teamwork that small number would actually grow fast as well. You still haven't shown why this is required. Cloaks are not an issue in wormholes. In most part its a non issue for larger corporations or mid sized ones. Small and low activity mid sized corps in w-space have issues with cloaked ships that harass activity's. Its to kill some time, to not just wait till the attacker leaves or to drive them out. Larger corporations won't have the issues when it comes to scouting, or even care to because of the instant support number. But when your numbers are few then every man counts. Sacrificing a pilot for scouting is a choice and not a luxury. Some early-warning isn't bad for those who put effort into it. In most cases you won't be able to just enter a new system and not go noticed trying to probe down people. D-scan will give you away. Mostly it will prevent camping tactics where some individuals will force themself into a system and just endlessly camp. Its mostly a win win for most, all but pilots who cloak of course. But as shown, the % are very small and mostly an issue with extreme luck or bad piloting (mostly AFK pilots). There might even be instances where you can pop the cov-ops and warp before support lands on grid even so it's not a total drawback. It won't be used ritualistically to destroy cloaking in general. Just tweak it to prevent the very edge case of removing camping. It will be used and abused to make cloaks pretty much useless by being detected before you are in range to attack anything. Any change you do to make things easier for small corps will be able to be abused by larger ones. Your idea is a nightmare to balance and would add another exception to how different mechanics work (which CCP hates) You will have to explain this a bit better. I don't follow how it would ruin the approaching cloaker. You would still need to probe the ships before the cloaker could engage the target, that is a dead giveaway on D-scan. Unless the cloaky had BMs on the spots in that system, witch is a very nitch case, it wouldn't ruin the surprise.
As for absolute surprise attacks where you get a complete jump on a target. Even a small group of vigilant pilots that did take all precautions possible using ingame tools. That in by my viewpoint isn't balanced. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
181
|
Posted - 2017.04.21 01:09:09 -
[175] - Quote
Only cov-ops ships should be able to scan cloaked ships. Not any random ship. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
181
|
Posted - 2017.04.21 08:46:13 -
[176] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:Xcom wrote:Only cov-ops ships should be able to scan cloaked ships. Not any random ship. Does not matter how you limit it. It would become a mandatory ship to have in your fleet when you are doing PVE. The probes would be put around your fleet to give advanced warning for a cloaky being near. And that would be bad, because? |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
181
|
Posted - 2017.04.21 08:57:52 -
[177] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote:Well yet again, it would need balance. But yet, mostly would be used to catch cloakers that leave there PCs for extended periods of time and scare tactics. Used with smart bombs and teamwork that small number would actually grow fast as well. How? A sphere of 100km radius is a huge amount of space, more than 125,663 km3. I suppose you could spend a few hours trying to find the guy in that situation is going to take considerable work. So it becomes an early warning system. Who will be better able to leverage such a system? A 50-100 man corp or a 1,000 man corp? My guess is the latter. With the latter you'll be far more likely to have a guy who can park an alt in a cov ops and be the early warning system. The small group, the groups you prefer, will not have as many such options. And what about fleet combat. Now everyone will want one of these guys on grid with his probes out. Hey everyone bombers in the area, spread out and take the appropriate counter measures. This is not a good idea. Don't worry, I'm sure Dracvlad will like it. 1000 man corps don't see cloaked ships as a problem. There are no cynos in w-space so a cloaker would do at best a few appearances before dying miserably to a massive counter attack. Bombers would do there thing as well, just as before. As you said "I suppose you could spend a few hours trying to find the guy in that situation is going to take considerable work.". |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
181
|
Posted - 2017.04.21 14:23:52 -
[178] - Quote
I get it. According to you the moment of engagement aspect of cloaking is balancing itself out with the lower dps and tank of cloakers. I disagree as there lowered stats isn't a valid enough argument to justify total stealth capability. Total and absolute stealth is in my opinion imbalanced, witch is what we are seeing when people complain. I get that there always will be a group like you who won't agree and that is fine. You don't have too, like all subjects there will always be people of differed opinions.
I just hope CCP gives both sides of the argument a look and balances to a more neutral compromise. Enough have complained about this subject to just sweep it under the carpet. This particular idea have probably been the most neutral of the ones I have seen and the most simple to implement. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
181
|
Posted - 2017.04.21 16:27:42 -
[179] - Quote
Maria Dragoon wrote:Xcom wrote:I get it. According to you the moment of engagement aspect of cloaking is balancing itself out with the lower dps and tank of cloakers. I disagree as there lowered stats isn't a valid enough argument to justify total stealth capability. Total and absolute stealth is in my opinion imbalanced, witch is what we are seeing when people complain. I get that there always will be a group like you who won't agree and that is fine. You don't have too, like all subjects there will always be people of differed opinions.
I just hope CCP gives both sides of the argument a look and balances to a more neutral compromise. Enough have complained about this subject to just sweep it under the carpet. This particular idea have probably been the most neutral of the ones I have seen and the most simple to implement. You don't like total absolute stealth but fine with total absolute intel...... Okay Local is total absolute intel. A ship probing isn't. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
181
|
Posted - 2017.04.21 17:07:45 -
[180] - Quote
Maria Dragoon wrote:Xcom wrote: Local is total absolute intel. A ship probing isn't.
Cept most of the time ship probing is used in combination with local. Go back and read the original suggestion. This particular change would only be applied to w-space where no local exists. |
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
181
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 10:03:21 -
[181] - Quote
By the analogy of cloak ships not being able to do anything, therefore they have the right to be exempt from combat is the same as stating that shuttles should be invulnerable. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
181
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 18:50:06 -
[182] - Quote
Marika Sunji wrote:Merin Ryskin wrote:Xcom wrote:By the analogy of cloak ships not being able to do anything, therefore they have the right to be exempt from combat is the same as stating that shuttles should be invulnerable. Shocking news: an expensive combat ship has more powerful abilities than a dirt cheap ship whose sole purpose is to be a disposable one-way shield for your pod while you're moving between real ships. Technically it adds +2AU/s warp speed too, you know. It also gives you 10m3 of cargo hold.
We need to make the shuttle invulnerable to bring them in line with the same cloaking balance. Lack of ability's a ship has is obviously equivalent to buffed defences. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
181
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 07:47:38 -
[183] - Quote
Eve doesn't have stealth game play. Nothing about cloaking is a game then getting into cloaked state. If you don't want this type of game play to be ruined then you better come up with a damn good argument why you shouldn't be able to get killed when you are in cloaked state. Pre nerfed combat capability isn't a valid enough argument. Nothing in eve have been balanced around reduced capability because of cloaking. The reduced dps and tank is easily circumnavigated with workarounds.
There is no stealth game play in eve. Its a single module you turn on and if your not bumped within 1min your basically invulnerable. That is a joke if anyone calls it stealth gameplay. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
181
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 14:22:44 -
[184] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Nothing in space should be immune. Making an immune thing that should not be immune actually not be immune through effort does not remove all value for that thing from the game. It just corrects an overbalance introduced a long time ago. Hit the nail right on the head. Thank you!
Cloaks need a nerf and it is exactly what needs to happen. Just because effort reduces the value of absolute stealth don't mean cloaks will lose all there value. It will simply come in line with what should have been from the start, a direct counter mechanic to cloaked ships.
No matter how weak a cloaked ships stats are wont make up for the permanent cloaking that can be done on such extreme safety. They could just as easily do there job with a nerf to make them come in line with any other ship in eve doing there intended role. A ship that wont help getting ganked if the odds are stacked against you and enough people are making an effort in getting you killed.
It is so stupid hearing people talk about cloaks doing what they were intended for or in other words consensual-pvp while at the same time reading the same posts from the same people about empire ganks and hear them babble on about non-consensual-pvp. I would just ignore Techo's posts altogether in this thread cause the guy is just here to stir the pot, taking whatever side that causes the most drama. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
181
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 22:11:44 -
[185] - Quote
Maria Dragoon wrote:Xcom wrote: It is so stupid hearing people talk about cloaks doing what they were intended for or in other words consensual-pvp while at the same time reading the same posts from the same people about empire ganks and hear them babble on about non-consensual-pvp.
It also kinda stupid to hear people scream nerf cloaks when it clear they never used them before. So speaking of kettles. Cloaking V and done nothing but fly around in cov-ops before even stealth bombers were added. My favourite pastime in eve have been behind a cloak, in fact without the cloak I would probably never played as much eve. Even most of my pvp have revolved around staying cloaked and add support. I have used and abused the cloaking mechanic like the next guy. Done exploration to death, wormholes in nothing but cloaks left and right, flown around in deep null with cloaky T3 doing exploration, abused cloak MWD to the fullest, sat on wh-openings watching pvp and droped a bomb or 2 and more. Its the perfect small/solo tool promoting more carebear activity then anything. I have even gone AFK when cloaked knowing full well my internet connection would hold in deep null.
But at the same time I have been on the receiving end of camping cloakers as well. Known full well how stupidly safe cloaks I have more or less cringed with the knowledge of how stupid the mechanic really is. As much as I like cloaks I rather see it taken down a peg or two so it cant be abused.
ONLY by knowing full well how stupid the mechanic is why I'm here asking CCP to balance the module out to a reasonable level. I could just as well be an idiot and be pro-cloaks defending my play style but that's plain idiotic and childish. I rather play a balanced and fair game then promote my favourite play stile. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
181
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 09:54:54 -
[186] - Quote
@Linus Gorp He is right. A few names in this thread all are against consensual-pvp while at the same forget that it holds true to cloaked ships as well. Its a moral ambiguity when they provide countless arguments around the idea of PVE players should be at risk. Its somehow convenient for them to leave out that same hold for the cloaked ships. Its as if they think AFK-camping will be gone and everyone and there dog will hit the belts in nullsec and there will be no way to stop them.
Not even minor nerfs are accepted as to just keep things the way they are. Bunch of purist traditionalists. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
181
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 17:58:32 -
[187] - Quote
Citadels aren't safe. Same cant be said about cloaked ships.
And yet again, there is no silver bullet of proof regarding balance passes. It's only a popularity contest. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
181
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 09:41:26 -
[188] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:OK, I was told reliably that CCP are intending to set up the uncloaking wave idea within a system with a long cooldown attached to a citadel, so that active campers will have no issues but those that are AFK will be uncloaked and can then be probed down.
That is good news even if it screws up cloaks for casual players who get called away.
I think that this is a good solution and it makes me very happy. Good job CCP, don't back away from it. Source? This is great news. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
182
|
Posted - 2017.05.04 05:56:02 -
[189] - Quote
It takes a very special snowflake to exploit the cloaking mechanic to the point of logging in for months just to stick it to the other guy at the end of the barrel. Why would such a disgusting nolife behavior even be defended. I'm surprised how some people jump to defend quite literally what I would explain as, digital harassment supported by loophole mechanics.
Get a life and to whoever defends this sick exploit, turn off your pc and enjoy your life, you need it. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
182
|
Posted - 2017.05.09 00:56:47 -
[190] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:Xcom wrote:It takes a very special snowflake to exploit the cloaking mechanic to the point of logging in for months just to stick it to the other guy at the end of the barrel. Why would such a disgusting nolife behavior even be defended. I'm surprised how some people jump to defend quite literally what I would explain as, digital harassment supported by loophole mechanics.
Get a life and to whoever defends this sick exploit, turn off your pc and enjoy your life, you need it. TL;DR: WAAAAAAAAAH MOMMMY MOMMY THAT BAD PERSON HURT ME WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!!!!1!!!!!!11!!! This is EVE, you sad piece of ****. There is no such thing as "disgusting no-life behavior" in EVE. Dirty tricks, dishonorable tactics, etc, are encouraged both by the game mechanics and the developers. If someone is going AFK in your system for months at a time and shutting down your activities then the problem is not the cloaked ship, it's that you're too pathetic to fight back, even against a ship that is literally AFK and harmless.
Look children, this is what happens when you play to much PC games. Its an addiction that is plaguing the new century. If you ever end up playing a PC game to the point where you have to keep your PC running for months just to win in a virtual reality then sh*ts gotten real. You should immediately seek medical and psychological attention before you end up like this guy. |
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
182
|
Posted - 2017.05.09 10:04:03 -
[191] - Quote
Suggestions to close the thread have been made multiple times. Or at least some enforced rules to shut down the trolling or at least set up some inishiall pointers in the OP to prevent repetitive loops of identical arguments.
I think this threads just here to catch all the trolls and keep them bizzy while the people who want to actually want some real change get ignored in the slur that this threads turned into. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
182
|
Posted - 2017.05.09 10:25:45 -
[192] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:Xcom wrote:Look children, this is what happens when you play to much PC games. Its an addiction that is plaguing the new century. If you ever end up playing a PC game to the point where you have to keep your PC running for months just to win in a virtual reality then sh*ts gotten real. You should immediately seek medical and psychological attention before you end up like this guy. I would suggest getting a real job so that keeping your PC on for months at a time is so cheap that you don't need to bother thinking about it, but your posts here pretty clearly demonstrate that the only career choice you're likely to make is between scrubbing toilets and flipping burgers. At this day and age every individual have the privilege to a PC, internet and electricity you fool. Its what you do with it that matters. Its only when you distance yourself to eve as an actual game you realize how pathetic and small you have to be to get enjoyment from camping for months. When you have to get enjoyment from stomping on other people in a PC game in a manner of camping like the AFK camping, keeping a PC running for days, logging in right after DT just to maximize your efforts, spend hours and hours for either a cheep cheesy kill or in general for harassment you really have hit rock bottom as a true game addict.
You as the defender of this nolife crap mechanic have hit an even lower standard. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
185
|
Posted - 2017.05.10 13:53:08 -
[193] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:Xcom wrote:At this day and age every individual have the privilege to a PC, internet and electricity you fool. Its what you do with it that matters. Its only when you distance yourself to eve as an actual game you realize how pathetic and small you have to be to get enjoyment from camping for months. When you have to get enjoyment from stomping on other people in a PC game in a manner of camping like the AFK camping, keeping a PC running for days, logging in right after DT just to maximize your efforts, spend hours and hours for either a cheep cheesy kill or in general for harassment you really have hit rock bottom as a true game addict.
You as the defender of this nolife crap mechanic have hit an even lower standard. Where did you get this bizarre idea that AFK camping means making some kind of life sacrifices? You just don't bother logging out when you play EVE, people aren't setting an alarm clock to log on the moment downtime finishes or giving up on more important things in life. In fact, given the time savings of not having to log back in when you come back later, there's no reason not to go AFK while cloaked. And even if you're logging in first thing in the morning, that's what, 30 seconds at most that it takes? Hardly a major sacrifice there... Are you actually kidding yourself, the simple act of subbing and going through the trouble of setting up a hot drop then going through the trouble or afking in that system is just as dumb as there even being a mechanic that allows for it.
You either have to be really stupid to not seeing it or you really like the idea of sticking it to the anti AFK cloaking crowd. This mechanic is so stupid by any standard, both from the viewpoint of the person AFK cloaking, the mechanic that actually allows for it and the idiots who think this is somehow logically making sense in that it balances out some other area of the game.
There is no amount of stupid in this world. Specially when there are fools on this earth deluding themselves to the point where the twisted bizarre nature of something as bad as this s**t mechanic somehow fills a role. The only role this mechanic fills is what I would simply describe as a massive f**kup when implementing the cloaking mechanic.
What kind of an idiot thinks that camping a PC game for months, not hours or days, MONTHS is logically sane, then defend it with tooth and nail. Its probably something some psychologist should write a paper on. Should call it the Critical point of game addiction. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
186
|
Posted - 2017.05.11 06:46:52 -
[194] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote: What kind of an idiot thinks that camping a PC game for months, not hours or days, MONTHS is logically sane, then defend it with tooth and nail. Its probably something some psychologist should write a paper on. Should call it the Critical point of game addiction.
My guess is the AFK campers is more sane than those raging against it. He logs in, activates his cloak. Then goes and reads a book, goes to see a movie. Make dinner. Go to work. Hang out with friends. Periodically checking to see if some other player is foolish enough to start ratting. If so, they sends out a ping for a fleet, if not he goes outside and walks his dog. Or he goes to the beach, grocery shopping, or any other myriad of things that occupy our lives. In the mean time there is a carebear rage posting on the forums about that psychopathic AFK cloaky camper. lol, you just trapped yourself in a really stupid post here sunny.
Why not just turn of the game and just play something else if your not playing. And why should you be allowed to impact the ones that do when your not even playing.
Its like that fat kid who rather smash the toys so others cant play if he's not. Funny how some idiots rather give the fat kid a cookie for the misbehavior. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
187
|
Posted - 2017.05.11 07:10:56 -
[195] - Quote
Linus Gorp wrote:Xcom wrote:Why not just turn of the game and just play something else if your not playing. And why should you be allowed to impact the ones that do when your not even playing.
Its like that fat kid who rather smash the toys so others cant play if he's not. Funny how some idiots rather give the fat kid a cookie for the misbehavior. How can someone that's not there affect anyone else? Because
Teckos Pech wrote:Periodically checking to see if some other player is foolish enough to start ratting. If so, they sends out a ping for a fleet By your analogy you advocate AFK play. By coincidence, do you advocate botting as well? They both do the same thing. Play the game without being at the keyboard. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
187
|
Posted - 2017.05.11 07:14:31 -
[196] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote: What kind of an idiot thinks that camping a PC game for months, not hours or days, MONTHS is logically sane, then defend it with tooth and nail. Its probably something some psychologist should write a paper on. Should call it the Critical point of game addiction.
My guess is the AFK campers is more sane than those raging against it. He logs in, activates his cloak. Then goes and reads a book, goes to see a movie. Make dinner. Go to work. Hang out with friends. Periodically checking to see if some other player is foolish enough to start ratting. If so, they sends out a ping for a fleet, if not he goes outside and walks his dog. Or he goes to the beach, grocery shopping, or any other myriad of things that occupy our lives. In the mean time there is a carebear rage posting on the forums about that psychopathic AFK cloaky camper. lol, you just trapped yourself in a really stupid post here sunny. Why not just turn of the game and just play something else if your not playing. And why should you be allowed to impact the ones that do when your not even playing. Its like that fat kid who rather smash the toys so others cant play if he's not. Funny how some idiots rather give the fat kid a cookie for the misbehavior. Because that is the way local works. It reports you if you are ATK or AFK. It is the one thing that renders local less than perfect. It is a good thing. It undermines local...it is the only thing that undermines local. Every other suggestion here has generally been along those lines save for a few. There is no way you can justify AFK play. Unless you somehow at the same time support botting as well. Local is a desperate excuse, nothing can justify AFK play. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
189
|
Posted - 2017.05.11 07:24:26 -
[197] - Quote
I suspect they bot on one account and AFK cloak on the other one. When people post in this thread it rattles there favorite dopamine kick playstyle. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
190
|
Posted - 2017.05.11 08:04:22 -
[198] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote:Linus Gorp wrote:Xcom wrote:Why not just turn of the game and just play something else if your not playing. And why should you be allowed to impact the ones that do when your not even playing.
Its like that fat kid who rather smash the toys so others cant play if he's not. Funny how some idiots rather give the fat kid a cookie for the misbehavior. How can someone that's not there affect anyone else? Because Teckos Pech wrote:Periodically checking to see if some other player is foolish enough to start ratting. If so, they sends out a ping for a fleet By your analogy you advocate AFK play. By coincidence, do you advocate botting as well? They both do the same thing. Play the game without being at the keyboard. I advocate being able to render local less than perfect. This has nothing to do with botting at all. Being AFK does not let one acquire resources. However botting does. The "botting argument" has been brought up and thoroughly rejected as just plain old stupid and desperate. Resources has nothing to do with it. AFK is valid enough argument to reject anything else that comes after it. If your not playing then you don't have the right to influence the game. Simple
Its a slippery slope going down the AFK meta. If we are somehow allowed to do stuff AFK because of this or that. Dono what the end of it would be. Maybe we should just all AFK and kick in tidi cause stations are to safe, AFK because falcon is to OP, AFK because my gramma called me and I should be safe while I get the call. F**k that, you AFK you die.
If you don't show up then you lose by default IN ANY GAME sense the stone age. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
191
|
Posted - 2017.05.11 08:16:44 -
[199] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote: Resources has nothing to do with it. AFK is valid enough argument to reject anything else that comes after it. If your not playing then you don't have the right to influence the game. Simple
Its a slippery slope going down the AFK meta. If we are somehow allowed to do stuff AFK because of this or that. Dono what the end of it would be. Maybe we should just all AFK and kick in tidi cause stations are to safe, AFK because falcon is to OP, AFK because my gramma called me and I should be safe while I get the call. F**k that, you AFK you die.
If you don't show up then you lose by default IN ANY GAME sense the stone age.
Having another melt down I see. AFK has always been in the game, especially since cloaks were introduced. And you clearly don't know what botting is, it is the gathering of resources. Sitting in game while logged in and not gathering resources is not botting. Botting is bad because it influences the game while a player isn't playing the game. It doesn't matter what the activity is. You might as well use bots to scout. Which is probably what AFK cloakers also do. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
191
|
Posted - 2017.05.11 08:22:28 -
[200] - Quote
Linus Gorp wrote:Xcom wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote: Resources has nothing to do with it. AFK is valid enough argument to reject anything else that comes after it. If your not playing then you don't have the right to influence the game. Simple
Its a slippery slope going down the AFK meta. If we are somehow allowed to do stuff AFK because of this or that. Dono what the end of it would be. Maybe we should just all AFK and kick in tidi cause stations are to safe, AFK because falcon is to OP, AFK because my gramma called me and I should be safe while I get the call. F**k that, you AFK you die.
If you don't show up then you lose by default IN ANY GAME sense the stone age.
Having another melt down I see. AFK has always been in the game, especially since cloaks were introduced. And you clearly don't know what botting is, it is the gathering of resources. Sitting in game while logged in and not gathering resources is not botting. Botting is bad because it influences the game while a player isn't playing the game. It doesn't matter what the activity is. You might as well use bots to scout. Which is probably what AFK cloakers also do. No, that's actually what people like you do. Abusing local even more with intel bot networks. Explain to me how that is? How can one "intel bot network" while playing the game at the same time? |
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
193
|
Posted - 2017.05.11 08:40:33 -
[201] - Quote
Linus Gorp wrote:Xcom wrote:Linus Gorp wrote:Xcom wrote:Teckos Pech wrote: Having another melt down I see.
AFK has always been in the game, especially since cloaks were introduced.
And you clearly don't know what botting is, it is the gathering of resources. Sitting in game while logged in and not gathering resources is not botting.
Botting is bad because it influences the game while a player isn't playing the game. It doesn't matter what the activity is. You might as well use bots to scout. Which is probably what AFK cloakers also do. No, that's actually what people like you do. Abusing local even more with intel bot networks. Explain to me how that is? How can one "intel bot network" while playing the game at the same time? Bots in random systems that automatically report any non-blue that shows up in local. Drone region space is full with them. You mean a bunch of AFK and cloaked characters in most systems in drone space? |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
193
|
Posted - 2017.05.11 08:44:05 -
[202] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote: Resources has nothing to do with it. AFK is valid enough argument to reject anything else that comes after it. If your not playing then you don't have the right to influence the game. Simple
Its a slippery slope going down the AFK meta. If we are somehow allowed to do stuff AFK because of this or that. Dono what the end of it would be. Maybe we should just all AFK and kick in tidi cause stations are to safe, AFK because falcon is to OP, AFK because my gramma called me and I should be safe while I get the call. F**k that, you AFK you die.
If you don't show up then you lose by default IN ANY GAME sense the stone age.
Having another melt down I see. AFK has always been in the game, especially since cloaks were introduced. And you clearly don't know what botting is, it is the gathering of resources. Sitting in game while logged in and not gathering resources is not botting. Botting is bad because it influences the game while a player isn't playing the game. It doesn't matter what the activity is. You might as well use bots to scout. Which is probably what AFK cloakers also do. No, influencing the game can happen even when a player is not logged in. Botting is about resources. Teckos your intellectual prowess is truly showing here. Thank you for this post, you made my day. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
196
|
Posted - 2017.05.11 08:56:01 -
[203] - Quote
Linus Gorp wrote:Xcom wrote:Linus Gorp wrote: Bots in random systems that automatically report any non-blue that shows up in local. Drone region space is full with them.
You mean a bunch of AFK and cloaked characters in most systems in drone space? Truly mind-boggling how someone that manages to play EVE can be so stupid. I reckon you'd even drag the average WoW-player intelligence level down the drain. EVE is a pvp-focused sandbox, not a game. Nullsec is a explicit pvp region in said pvp-focused sandbox. Questions:
- Why do you think your playstyle is in any way more valid than somebody elses?
- Why do you think you're entitled to 100% risk-free ISK making in a specific PvP zone?
- If you truly think you are entitled to it, how do you want to balance out the retardedly skewed ISK/Reward balance?
- Do you think you're entitled to the increased rewards without also taking the (currently non-existent) increased risk?
You somehow forgot to answer the question I posted earlier. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
196
|
Posted - 2017.05.11 09:02:07 -
[204] - Quote
You said that I support bot networks. Then pointed out that drone region is full of AFK characters that report anyone who enters there system. I asked, are those same characters AFK and cloaked? |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
198
|
Posted - 2017.05.11 09:26:41 -
[205] - Quote
Linus Gorp wrote:Xcom wrote:You said that I support bot networks. Then pointed out that drone region is full of AFK characters that report anyone who enters there system. I asked, are those same characters AFK and cloaked? That's not a question, that's some pathetic attempt at twisting my words around. Although, on second thought, that would require a level of intelligence you have shown time and again to lack. An afk cloaker that's there to annoy the locals wouldn't sit in empty systems and report any non-blue players in their intel networks automatically. So you mean that sitting in an empty system AFK and bot network reporting is bad, and AFK bot network in enemy staging system is good? |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
198
|
Posted - 2017.05.11 14:28:13 -
[206] - Quote
If there is truth about random characters spread around drone space logging traffic. Then it would make AFK cloaking an even worse mechanic. Without a single input into the client to stay cloaked would make it extremely easy to create monitoring bots which would be impossible to detect. Double edged sword that basically piggybacks on AFK cloaking.
Cloaking is by far the most destructive feature that punishes active gameplay. Only people that benefits are the ones abusing it, the type of players that abuse passive AFK gameplay. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
198
|
Posted - 2017.05.12 04:50:25 -
[207] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Linus Gorp wrote:Xcom wrote:If there is truth about random characters spread around drone space logging traffic. Then it would make AFK cloaking an even worse mechanic. Without a single input into the client to stay cloaked would make it extremely easy to create monitoring bots which would be impossible to detect. Double edged sword that basically piggybacks on AFK cloaking.
Cloaking is by far the most destructive feature that punishes active gameplay. Only people that benefits are the ones abusing it, the type of players that abuse passive AFK gameplay. Without local intel, intel bots wouldn't work and we wouldn't have to resort to afk cloaking to beat a perfect intel tool and said intel bots. Local is the problem and CCP knows it. CCP not dealing with bots is the problem... Its technically impossible to detect client side bots that don't send any packets to the server. If you only monitor what the client receives then your 100% safe from detection. Just SS, cloak and start monitoring the packets received from the server. Just use any packet sniffing tool like Wireshark or any external tool that doesn't even involve modifying the client. All you would have to figure out is how to decrypt the packets, which any botter would be able to figure out with a de-compiled client.
AFK cloaking is literally a perfect botting mechanic to mentor over a system, 100% undetectable. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
198
|
Posted - 2017.05.12 07:31:51 -
[208] - Quote
Linus Gorp wrote:Thanks for letting us know that you have zero understanding about cryptography either. lol there is no cryptography involved. A decompiled client is all you need, but sure your the expert right? |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
198
|
Posted - 2017.05.12 07:36:43 -
[209] - Quote
Maria Dragoon wrote:Xcom wrote: Its technically impossible to detect client side bots that don't send any packets to the server. If you only monitor what the client receives then your 100% safe from detection. Just SS, cloak and start monitoring the packets received from the server. Just use any packet sniffing tool like Wireshark or any external tool that doesn't even involve modifying the client. All you would have to figure out is how to decrypt the packets, which any botter would be able to figure out with a de-compiled client.
AFK cloaking is literally a perfect botting mechanic to mentor over a system, 100% undetectable.
A: Your client sends and receives packets as soon as it connects, if they arn't then guess what. "You are disconnected mate, please check your internet connection and try again." B: All bots...Are client side. C: So....What are your saying is reverse engineer the software. (Which breaks TOS.) D: Symmetric key algorithms are like the worst encryption keys you can deal with, asymmetric keys are far more fun, and far harder to decrypt. (Which means the encryption key for the server, and the encryption key for the client are two different keys.) E: Also the server doesn't tell your client everything, it only shares information that it feels in needed for you to interface, so you know... Your client isn't actually receiving information about said cloaker, because the server calculations say, by all accounts, you can't see him/her. F: Stop spouting out drivel if you don't actually know what you are talking about. :) Dude what are you on about. The client sits in space cloaked and acts as a dummy client. You just have to either use packets or direct data from the client to figure out whos in local. You don't need to do any decryption. There are enough bots in the game and a bunch of random characters in drone space to hint that this is actually being done already. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
198
|
Posted - 2017.05.12 08:03:36 -
[210] - Quote
Does the client receive data from the server on who is in local? Yes or no. If that data is presented to the client. Cant a 3rd party tool use that data somehow? or am I wrong? Is it then possible to link the 3rd party tool to gather accurate intel in a system? intel that is used nonstop 237.
It sounds more like you just talk nonsense to confuse the matter. |
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
198
|
Posted - 2017.05.12 08:18:55 -
[211] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Maria Dragoon wrote:Xcom wrote: Dude what are you on about. The client sits in space cloaked and acts as a dummy client. You just have to either use packets or direct data from the client to figure out whos in local. You don't need to do any decryption. There are enough bots in the game and a bunch of random characters in drone space to hint that this is actually being done already.
Refer back to F: Now to answer your question, the client doesn't figure this stuff out, the client doesn't use packets to directly figure out who is in local, the SERVER handles that, when some cloaks, someone clicks an interface on the client, the client sends a packet to the server that says. "Hey! Client:Joe smo clicked: Action=ElmoCookies" The server then says. "What function is ElmoCookies?" The server checks the program and goes "HEY! I found ElmoCookies function, performing calculations inside Function(ElmoCookies)[code here]. Then the server says. "Hey! Send packet to Client: Joe smo to perform interface update=Cloak overlay" Now this is like a SUPER OVER SIMPLIFIED version, but I do hope this educates you better on the simple life of server coding and game coding. Specially coding mmo games that do server side calculations (opposed to games that do client side calculations.) Also even if you don't interface with your client at all, it still "talks" to the server and vis-versa, the server providing periodic packet updates. Not to get too far off the subject matter, this is not a trick question or anything like that, and I have no real idea what is involved in hacks, bots etc., but on three occasions I have been on grid with characters run by Russian players who are not reported in local, how would you say they did that. And please note that they have a decompiled copy of the client. There probably was a server side bug. I don't think it would be possible to disappear from local using hacks without knowing the server code, which they don't have access too. Using any hacks in that manner would also lead to a swift ban with CCP logging and monitoring clients that behave odd. I am sure that they have safeguard that check for irregularity that might mean someones trying to send the server packets that the client usually doesn't send just to figure out what works and what doesn't. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
198
|
Posted - 2017.05.12 08:25:15 -
[212] - Quote
Maria Dragoon wrote:Xcom wrote:Does the client receive data from the server on who is in local? Yes or no. If that data is presented to the client. Cant a 3rd party use that data somehow? or am I wrong? Is it then possible to link the 3rd party tool to gather accurate intel in a system? intel that is used nonstop 237.
It sounds more like you just talk nonsense to confuse the matter. What you are asking is a loaded question. The client receives the Server's interpretation of local. That means that the client sending information to the server that revolves around local will not be the same interpretation of the information it is receiving from the mechanic. The second part "Can a 3rd party program use the data somehow?" Yes an no, at the same time. If you make a program from scratch, and demand information from the server, and the server is unable to recognize the program, the server will refuse to communicate with the server. (After all, allowing communication with an uncertified program is like.... A really big ******* security breach.) Is it then possible to link the 3rd party tool to gather accurate intel in a system non-stop? Then answer is, without the client, No. With the client, only until you get caught, because the client, and the server can monitor the information that passes through it, to use chat, you are sending packets to the server, an someone that is sending generic copy and paste information through a chat channel every time a non-blue shows up in local, is highly likely to get you flagged as a bot. I honestly don't know what your trying to get to. Its simple, turn on the client. Client gets data from server, use the data to make monitoring bots. Easy and simple. No need to send the server anything. Thats why its bad having AFK clients logged in.
Stop trying to impress anyone with babble. Its not hard figuring out what data from the server is related to local. You isolate that data and use it. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
198
|
Posted - 2017.05.12 18:17:53 -
[213] - Quote
Linus Gorp take your medicine. We don't want to put you back in the cage, do we? |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
198
|
Posted - 2017.05.12 18:20:24 -
[214] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:maniac69uk wrote:what good is that if people get fed up with afk cloakers and quit? Nothing of value is lost in that case. If you're the kind of pathetic failure that can't deal with AFK cloaking then you don't belong in EVE. Goodbye. I hope you quit when they fix AFK cloaking. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
198
|
Posted - 2017.05.12 20:16:07 -
[215] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote:Merin Ryskin wrote:maniac69uk wrote:what good is that if people get fed up with afk cloakers and quit? Nothing of value is lost in that case. If you're the kind of pathetic failure that can't deal with AFK cloaking then you don't belong in EVE. Goodbye. I hope you quit when they fix AFK cloaking. I am pretty sure that Black Pedro is right. That CCP may change how cloaking works--i.e. in certain contexts you can scan them down, but along with that local will no longer work as it does. We will all rejoice when it happens. Till then this thread will drag the quality of eve forums ever so further closer to 4chan thanks to people like Linus Gorp. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
198
|
Posted - 2017.05.13 06:34:14 -
[216] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:Xcom wrote:I hope you quit when they fix AFK cloaking. It could happen. Not because I do much AFK cloaking myself (I don't), but because nerfing AFK cloaking would be a step in the direction of destroying EVE's core principles in favor of coddling weak carebears who insist on mindlessly farming everything at maximum efficiency and have zero ability to adapt to adversity. And taking steps in that direction would suggest that EVE's developers are no longer concerned with maintaining the things that make EVE special, and have shifted to a business plan of attempting to milk the cash cow of WoW addicts with "level your Raven" gameplay as the new priority. I think you got it backwards. AFK cloaking helps create intel networks, as well as AFK camping, that prevent active pvp to be promoted forcing passive pvp. It prevents the game from evolving being the opposite of "zero ability to adapt to adversity" which is what could be said about purists like you, holding on to old principles and philosophy of your deluded idea of what eves philosophy is. Change is needed in active pvp and gameplay which AFK cloaking directly is harming. Basic gist, AFK cloaking being carebear pvp done by hot droppers pvping at "maximum efficiency" with minimal risk, pointing fingers at there pray as them being the carebear min maxers while doing the same. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
200
|
Posted - 2017.05.13 09:00:56 -
[217] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote:Merin Ryskin wrote:Xcom wrote:I hope you quit when they fix AFK cloaking. It could happen. Not because I do much AFK cloaking myself (I don't), but because nerfing AFK cloaking would be a step in the direction of destroying EVE's core principles in favor of coddling weak carebears who insist on mindlessly farming everything at maximum efficiency and have zero ability to adapt to adversity. And taking steps in that direction would suggest that EVE's developers are no longer concerned with maintaining the things that make EVE special, and have shifted to a business plan of attempting to milk the cash cow of WoW addicts with "level your Raven" gameplay as the new priority. I think you got it backwards. AFK cloaking helps create intel networks, as well as AFK camping, that prevent active pvp to be promoted forcing passive pvp. It prevents the game from evolving being the opposite of "zero ability to adapt to adversity" which is what could be said about purists like you, holding on to old principles and philosophy of your deluded idea of what eves philosophy is. Change is needed in active pvp and gameplay which AFK cloaking directly is harming. Basic gist, AFK cloaking being carebear pvp done by hot droppers pvping at "maximum efficiency" with minimal risk, pointing fingers at there pray as them being the carebear min maxers while doing the same. This whole s**t needs to go. No. An intel network is valuable also for ATK cloakers and even ATK non-cloakers. I find your arguments of using friendly AFK cloakers as bot intel network nonsense. Why not just use players in station? No, this is just another pathetic attempt to try and link cloaks to botting and thereby justify nerfing them. There are no stations in null so I don't get what your on about. And ATK cloaker intel networking is just as bad as bot networking when there is no drawback. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
201
|
Posted - 2017.05.13 20:09:40 -
[218] - Quote
With moon mining goes into asteroids and citadels AFK camping will become an even bigger pain. It shouldn't be long till every dispo moon will have 20 campers sitting on top.
Conquerables and POS are all on the chopping board so wont be long till everything in null is mutable. If you have a problem with people being safe then do like everyone else in null. Go take there space. Don't be cowered camper. |
|
|
|