Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 .. 343 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1113
|
Posted - 2015.12.24 04:48:47 -
[5071] - Quote
There are two people in the park on a sunny day.
Which of them owns the pleasant weather? |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4197
|
Posted - 2015.12.24 06:09:48 -
[5072] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:There are two people in the park on a sunny day.
Which of them owns the pleasant weather?
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1113
|
Posted - 2015.12.24 06:35:23 -
[5073] - Quote
That's what you are claiming when you say local is an asset for one side and not the other.
It's a condition of the playspace. You may as well claim the color of the nebulae as an asset, because certain hulls might blend in better. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4197
|
Posted - 2015.12.24 06:46:06 -
[5074] - Quote
Local provides a far greater benefit to the resident than the invader.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1113
|
Posted - 2015.12.24 08:47:35 -
[5075] - Quote
Far greater? You mean that second of load time?
Beyond that it's effects are identicle. You are mutually informed of each others existence.
Then we are talking even footing so long as you can be hunted as well... Face your hunter or leave space. |
Morrigan LeSante
Senex Legio The OSS
928
|
Posted - 2015.12.24 11:02:14 -
[5076] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Too many quotes.
It is perfectly available in null, you just won't because 'isk/hour'. Except it's OK in low because it suits you. Uh-huh, ok.
If you are posting from a phone, I feel your pain. The struggle is real. Let me help you out, since you apparently misread what I wrote: Mike Voidstar wrote:
No, I say it's an option. One that is unavailable against a cloaked ship. The issue is the inability to hunt cloaked ships, not the inability to stop them from interfering with ratters/miners.
Unavailable against a cloaked ship. Nothing was said about Null. It was a statement about the strength of cloaks. In low, nothing stops anyone from entering a station, verifying the pilot's location, and setting up a watch if such is deemed necessary. If that pilot is in that station, he is truly harmless. He isn't 15k away, acting as a warp in for a log off trap. He's not about to light a cyno. He's not providing specific intel. He is at a known location, with a specific undock, and if I don't like him I can watch and attempt to kill him when he leaves that station. If he is in a station, he is not in space. He is supposed to be safe. That's how EVE works.
No, sorry. Watching the station requires an alt so that doesn't fly. This is because if I can spare an alt to watch a station, I can spare an alt to sit in an instalocking ship to blap any covert ships in null.
So again, the problem remains. Why does lowsec work? |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1113
|
Posted - 2015.12.24 12:37:26 -
[5077] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Too many quotes.
It is perfectly available in null, you just won't because 'isk/hour'. Except it's OK in low because it suits you. Uh-huh, ok.
If you are posting from a phone, I feel your pain. The struggle is real. Let me help you out, since you apparently misread what I wrote: Mike Voidstar wrote:
No, I say it's an option. One that is unavailable against a cloaked ship. The issue is the inability to hunt cloaked ships, not the inability to stop them from interfering with ratters/miners.
Unavailable against a cloaked ship. Nothing was said about Null. It was a statement about the strength of cloaks. In low, nothing stops anyone from entering a station, verifying the pilot's location, and setting up a watch if such is deemed necessary. If that pilot is in that station, he is truly harmless. He isn't 15k away, acting as a warp in for a log off trap. He's not about to light a cyno. He's not providing specific intel. He is at a known location, with a specific undock, and if I don't like him I can watch and attempt to kill him when he leaves that station. If he is in a station, he is not in space. He is supposed to be safe. That's how EVE works. No, sorry. Watching the station requires an alt so that doesn't fly. This is because if I can spare an alt to watch a station, I can spare an alt to sit in an instalocking ship to blap any covert ships in null. So again, the problem remains. Why does lowsec work?
You don't have to like it. The difference is the ability to be offensive and proactive, or defensive and reactive.
Going on the offensive is how you force actions on another. Being defensive is having it forced on you.
All I have ever argued is that cloaks are too safe. If you are in space you are supposed to be vulnerable to other players actions. Cloaks are not.
You are litterally trying to support the position that you should be safe, but your opponent should remain vulnerable. That's not balanced. It's either ok that everyone be safe, or no one. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15619
|
Posted - 2015.12.24 12:41:12 -
[5078] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote: You don't have to like it.
That's my line.
It doesn't matter what someone like you thinks of cloaking devices. You aren't supposed to like them, they exist to bring risk and uncertainty to you where otherwise you would have none.
The goal of this game is not to let you carebear away obscenely farming all day long. Any mechanical change that makes you even the slightest bit safer is wrong, and you are wrong for asking for it.
Generating income in nullsec is not supposed to be safe, ever. Things that don't, like cloaks, don't even come into consideration in comparison.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Morrigan LeSante
Senex Legio The OSS
929
|
Posted - 2015.12.24 12:56:58 -
[5079] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Too many quotes.
It is perfectly available in null, you just won't because 'isk/hour'. Except it's OK in low because it suits you. Uh-huh, ok.
If you are posting from a phone, I feel your pain. The struggle is real. Let me help you out, since you apparently misread what I wrote: Mike Voidstar wrote:
No, I say it's an option. One that is unavailable against a cloaked ship. The issue is the inability to hunt cloaked ships, not the inability to stop them from interfering with ratters/miners.
Unavailable against a cloaked ship. Nothing was said about Null. It was a statement about the strength of cloaks. In low, nothing stops anyone from entering a station, verifying the pilot's location, and setting up a watch if such is deemed necessary. If that pilot is in that station, he is truly harmless. He isn't 15k away, acting as a warp in for a log off trap. He's not about to light a cyno. He's not providing specific intel. He is at a known location, with a specific undock, and if I don't like him I can watch and attempt to kill him when he leaves that station. If he is in a station, he is not in space. He is supposed to be safe. That's how EVE works. No, sorry. Watching the station requires an alt so that doesn't fly. This is because if I can spare an alt to watch a station, I can spare an alt to sit in an instalocking ship to blap any covert ships in null. So again, the problem remains. Why does lowsec work? You don't have to like it. The difference is the ability to be offensive and proactive, or defensive and reactive. Going on the offensive is how you force actions on another. Being defensive is having it forced on you. All I have ever argued is that cloaks are too safe. If you are in space you are supposed to be vulnerable to other players actions. Cloaks are not. You are litterally trying to support the position that you should be safe, but your opponent should remain vulnerable. That's not balanced. It's either ok that everyone be safe, or no one.
One more time. You're not addressing the issue of a docked lowsec player. The present an IDENTICAL effect and whatever works to deter them or protect form them, also works in null.
So based on "safety", I suppose you want a "kickout of station" button too?
And no, you've argued repeatedly that it's not fair you need to do *something* to look out for yourself whilst you rake in isk and over fist. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15619
|
Posted - 2015.12.24 13:00:08 -
[5080] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote: And no, you've argued repeatedly that it's not fair you need to do *something* to look out for yourself whilst you rake in isk and over fist.
Lets not forget the part where he said that being awake at all counts as significant effort in his eyes.
Anything more than that, such as actually playing the game, is "unreasonable."
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
0
|
Posted - 2015.12.24 13:28:20 -
[5081] - Quote
Romana Erebus wrote:People still crying over "someone cloaked in here and I can't rat!" Leave the cloaky AFK as is. Worst thing that will happen is you will need to fight someone
The philosophical issue relates to if someone "should" be undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe. Or the 4/4 for short.
In EvE, the answer to that "should" be no.
The projecting issues relate to afk cloaky camper players projecting their perceived need for absolute security and no risk onto others.
For example defending their need for absolute security by pretending someone else wants absolute security.
The practical issue relates to implicit threat or "pretty big psychological effect" as Fozie calls it. The nature of sov null sec has alliances and corps using 2 techniques to remove implicit threats. One is by removing access to staging bases used by cloaky camper support by expanding sov beyond what an alliance can reasonably use to create a buffer zone. The second is blueballing by ordering PvE players to dock up if reds or neuts are in system. In effect dont play until the reds go away.
Neither compensating techniques give desirable game play.
The sum of all this means that 4/4 is going to be phased out of EvE.
Entrenching on a lost position is silly. Seeking compensation based on a sense of entitlement is also silly.
The thread is over for all practical purposes. EvE wins.
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1113
|
Posted - 2015.12.24 14:54:34 -
[5082] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
One more time. You're not addressing the issue of a docked lowsec player. The present an IDENTICAL effect and whatever works to deter them or protect form them, also works in null.
So based on "safety", I suppose you want a "kickout of station" button too?
And no, you've argued repeatedly that it's not fair you need to do *something* to look out for yourself whilst you rake in isk and over fist.
Would you like my account info so you can log in as me and post my opinions for me, or should I go on speaking for myself?
You are setting up strawmen left and right. I said requiring escorts at all times cuts profits below reasonable levels if your goal is PvE, as you can make more per character in high sec with less effort or risk.
A character in the station does not represent the same risk. He is truely harmless and if you deem it needed he can be actively watched for activity.
The cloaked ship cannot be watched. It can be within scram range providing a warp in for friends. It can be providing precise Intel on fleet location and composition. It is too safe to be doing anything at all.
It's not about what it does or does not do to ratters and miners. It is about being immune to offensive action of other players. Nonconsent needs to apply to everyone.
My side of the argument has never asked for an undock button, though yours has many times. Structures are designed specifically to be safe. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15621
|
Posted - 2015.12.24 15:17:09 -
[5083] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote: The cloaked ship cannot be watched.
Yeah he can, you can watch him in local.
Which is the only way you even know about him, for that matter.
Quote: It's not about what it does or does not do to ratters and miners.
That's all it's about. You crying because you want it to have less effect on you.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Morrigan LeSante
Senex Legio The OSS
930
|
Posted - 2015.12.24 15:19:33 -
[5084] - Quote
Yes, you whine about escorts, but they're ok in lowsec, just not null, according to you.
A station toon presents exactly the same risk because, without eyes (you know, that alt/fleet you keep moaning will send everyone back to highsec) you're just as threatened. A recon could undock and dunk your ass and you'll never see it coming. It's not a strawman, it's a parallel to your "they are immune" argument (which is wrong, by the way).
Again, a cloaker is not immune. Sigh. How many times.
Structures AND cloaks are meant to be safe, it is fairly obvious given the crippling limitations of them.
You're going in circles:
There's no counterplay - move systems - doesnt count because They're immune - so is someone docked/POS'd - doesnt count because you can watch the station But you can't possibly have an alt/fleet with the ratting fleet back to highsec They're immune - so are you from them - nu-uh, they're scary.
You have options galore to hand, you just handwave away all of them because it doesn't suit. |
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
0
|
Posted - 2015.12.24 15:54:49 -
[5085] - Quote
Morrigan and karous You are actually going in circles by projecting afk cloaky risk aversion onto mike.
Its a waste of time. Your battle is lost.
Just as the battle for removing Concord's Player ID Service in null sec is lost unless the Devs are also contemplating removing Concord's gates in null sec. Given that those services are interconnected.
Though the amazing level of entitlement you have when viewed by the level of compensation you want for changes to the 4/4 is of course mind-boggling.
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4200
|
Posted - 2015.12.24 17:56:40 -
[5086] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
[snip]
You're going in circles:
There's no counterplay - move systems - doesnt count because They're immune - so is someone docked/POS'd - doesnt count because you can watch the station But you can't possibly have an alt/fleet with the ratting fleet back to highsec They're immune - so are you from them - nu-uh, they're scary.
You have options galore to hand, you just handwave away all of them because it doesn't suit.
Ahhh yes, the Mike Merry Go Round.
I like how Mike's escort fleet has to sit there bored out of their skulls. But he seems to steadfastly ignore the idea of having a ratting fleet or even a standing fleet in the same system. If you have 4-5 sanctums, up to 10 havens...you can easily have 10 people in there ratting at a single time. Yes, they could cyno in a 50 man fleet...but look at the in game map for crying out loud.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Morrigan LeSante
Senex Legio The OSS
931
|
Posted - 2015.12.24 19:02:43 -
[5087] - Quote
Yup. But no one does because a) better things for 50 guys to kill, b) 6-7k dps will **** up the incoming fleet and c) you can be counter dropped.
Meanwhile the ratting fleet makes better ticks and better escalation hits due to kill rate.
All of this of course explains why the CFC pulled up sticks and went to highsec years ago....oh...wait. |
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
0
|
Posted - 2015.12.24 20:10:36 -
[5088] - Quote
Morrigan and teklos
Why are you wasting everyone's time with theories on how Mike should fly his ship? Its pretty off-topic (I suppose you create a thread somewhere called "hey mike, this is how you could fly your ship").
The thread topic has narrowed down to "a pretty big psychological effect" stems from afk cloaky camping being
1. Undocked 2. In hostile space 3. Afk 4. Safe
Or 4/4 for short.
You will just have to live with 3/4 in the future. Without compensation.
Its very sad. Really.
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4202
|
Posted - 2015.12.24 22:20:34 -
[5089] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Yup. But no one does because a) better things for 50 guys to kill, b) 6-7k dps will **** up the incoming fleet and c) you can be counter dropped.
Meanwhile the ratting fleet makes better ticks and better escalation hits due to kill rate.
All of this of course explains why the CFC pulled up sticks and went to highsec years ago....oh...wait.
Or why they don't have a doctrine called Mazefleet...oh...never mind.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1113
|
Posted - 2015.12.24 22:46:45 -
[5090] - Quote
It's really not about the God forsaken isk. That is just where the main damage is done for afk camping, the subject of the thread. It's a complete side issue to the problem.
The problem is the inability to hunt cloaks proactively in any fashion. They are too safe. They don't present a challenge, they present a situation that has no win condition, only varying degrees of loss.
No, the guy in a station is not the same level of threat. If he is in the station you can go check that, and you know he isn't doing something else. Sure, if your goal was just PvE it's the same situation with profit as null, but that isn't and never was the problem. The problem was that the cloak is too safe as a module while the structure is not only designed for safety but also less safe.
You consent to PvP by pressing undock. That is one of the core concepts of the game. If you are outside a dock it is supposed to be possible to hunt and kill you. The cloak being as safe as it is would be fine if there was a way to force it into action so it could be caught. There is not. Cloaks are too safe because they allow 100% safety beyond even that of being docked for unlimited and uninterruptible periods of time.
|
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1113
|
Posted - 2015.12.24 22:51:15 -
[5091] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Yup. But no one does because a) better things for 50 guys to kill, b) 6-7k dps will **** up the incoming fleet and c) you can be counter dropped.
Meanwhile the ratting fleet makes better ticks and better escalation hits due to kill rate.
All of this of course explains why the CFC pulled up sticks and went to highsec years ago....oh...wait. Who the hell cares what the biggest alliance does. They have the manpower to do anything they want. Their size immunized them from most game balance considerations years ago. They won EvE, yippee for them. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15623
|
Posted - 2015.12.24 23:13:36 -
[5092] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:It's really not about the God forsaken isk.
You've demonstrated otherwise many times in this thread.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4202
|
Posted - 2015.12.25 00:59:27 -
[5093] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:
No, the guy in a station is not the same level of threat.
You're right...he is even more of a threat.
1. You don't know when he'll suddenly become active. 2. You don't know what ship he'll un-dock in...heck he could 20 or 30 ships to chose from! 3. He is totally immune. 4. He can see you in local. 5. You wont see him un-dock unless you spend all your time watching the station.
My God, CCP needs to nerf stations immediately. I insist on an un-dock button so I can eject the malcontents from their perfect safety and PvP them!! That will show them.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4202
|
Posted - 2015.12.25 01:02:08 -
[5094] - Quote
Oh...and I'll just leave this here,
Consent to PvP
[quote]
- You consent to PvP when you click "undock".
- You are not safe in 1.0 security space. CONCORD is there to punish, not to protect. Get used to the idea.
- In most cases, the only way to be 100% safe from agression inside the game is to be docked in a station. Being cloaked in a secret safespot could work too.[
/quote]
Link
So much for it not being intended.
Note to Mike: google is your friend.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1113
|
Posted - 2015.12.25 01:17:30 -
[5095] - Quote
That says it can work. Says nothing about should. But fair enough. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4202
|
Posted - 2015.12.25 03:21:10 -
[5096] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:
The problem is the inability to hunt cloaks proactively in any fashion.
Well, I think Thunder1971, Solaen Delan, Mykyl David, mordshoernchen and Flandre Scarlette might all disagree with that assertion.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
0
|
Posted - 2015.12.25 04:04:26 -
[5097] - Quote
Mike is talking about afk cloaky campers. You know, THE THREAD TITLE?
Does CCP award prizes for most off-topic in any thread?
You are a strong contender Teckos.
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1113
|
Posted - 2015.12.25 07:01:26 -
[5098] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:
The problem is the inability to hunt cloaks proactively in any fashion.
Well, I think Thunder1971, Solaen Delan, Mykyl David, mordshoernchen and Flandre Scarlette might all disagree with that assertion.
Eh? Should I know these people?
Also, know when you have won. Not sure who writes the EvE Wikia, but what the hell if they are going to advertise it as safe, then fine. The stance I will take is that they should be visible and targetable on grid, and probably should be on the overview, as well as unable to use Dscan or probes. If being equivalent to docked justifies it, then make it equivalent to docked.
If these people have some sort of secret sauce that is somehow allowing them to hunt cloaks against their will, I would be interested in knowing how.
If this is just more garbage about how you can smartbomb them at a gate, then it's just another example of a pilots poor decisions leading to their demise. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1113
|
Posted - 2015.12.25 07:09:06 -
[5099] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Mike is talking about afk cloaky campers. You know, THE THREAD TITLE?
Does CCP award prizes for most off-topic in any thread?
You are a strong contender Teckos.
Actually, my stance is that cloaks are too strong. AFK camping is just an emergent behavior from the cloaks not being properly balanced.
While I don't believe a ship having any sort of impact on others should be 100% safe outside of a dock, apparently that is supposed to happen. As such I will amend my position to say they should have no functionality whatsoever while cloaked. No Dscan, No Probes, and that they should be both visible and targetable when on grid. Showing on overview is debateable.
Thus unable to hunt in safety they will be at risk when actually being effective and no longer a concern if you can't actually see them. |
Sitting Bull Lakota
Careless Bears LLC
51
|
Posted - 2015.12.25 09:40:58 -
[5100] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Actually, my stance is that cloaks are too strong. AFK camping is just an emergent behavior from the cloaks not being properly balanced.
While I don't believe a ship having any sort of impact on others should be 100% safe outside of a dock, apparently that is supposed to happen. As such I will amend my position to say they should have no functionality whatsoever while cloaked. No Dscan, No Probes, and that they should be both visible and targetable when on grid. Showing on overview is debateable.
Thus unable to hunt in safety they will be at risk when actually being effective and no longer a concern if you can't actually see them. You're daft, mate. I have to assume your suggestion is meant to be funny, because it would do nothing to stop afk cloaking. AFK cloaking is a threat of attack. Your suggestion takes that threat and makes it impossible to fulfill. Your suggestion would completely eliminate actively flown cloaked ships as a means of pvp. Are you sure you're against afk cloaking? It seems to me that you are simply risk averse to the point of desiring to eliminate playstyles that might interfere with your own. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 .. 343 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |