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) |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.10 20:47:52 -
[5461] - 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. |
Maria Dragoon
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
100
|
Posted - 2016.01.10 22:04:19 -
[5462] - Quote
Xcom wrote: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. The side effects of such change will be negligible such as the influx of nullsec farming. 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. Because anything posted by anyone here is no more then just opinions as nothing can be backed by any data.
"I think the game will become better for everyone if cloaking were to be made less unbalanced." Cloaking is perhaps the most balanced mechanic in eve online to date, this is perhaps it has recieved so little change regardless of the number of threads cropping up demanding that cloaking be nerfed. An in any case, when you change the balance of something, you must make sure that both sides of the equation are properly adjusted, or things will break. It bad game design to not take this into account.
"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. Because anything posted by anyone here is no more then just opinions as nothing can be backed by any data"
Do you need me to start posting killboard records on how cloaking ships die all the time, and in fact are not the invincible ships that you and a few others claim they are? That proof, as for other data, making up data is a bad practice to tolerate, and calling people out on making up bad or false data does not bring any hubris upon's one own opinion. It one thing to have opinion, it a total another thing to try and back up that opinion with data that you pulled out of thin air, and is in fact non-existent or false.
Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated. Confucius
"A man who talks to people who aren't real is crazy. A man who talks to people who aren't real and writes down what they say is an author."
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4304
|
Posted - 2016.01.10 23:32:15 -
[5463] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Teckos You fail to appreciate that afk cloaky camping is free for optimizing players, and that afk cloaky camping predominantly targets newer players that rely on ratting and mining to fund their peak time pvp activity.
For established players, isk revenue per active account is easily higher than the plex the account costs. Isk revenue scales infinitely for an individual player on Tranquility. It is capped only by real life time. Afk cloaky camping is something to do with excess pilots once time is insufficient to manage all pilots actively.
Which is why afk cloaky camping is an established multiple account entitlement.
Afk cloaky camping is a bad game practice that should be ended without compensation.
Just ended. Snap of fingers. Gone.
It is not free. What does AFK cloaking get in the way of ore, minerals, modules, ISK or any other in game resource? Answer: nothing. Could that character be used to acquire such resources? Yes. Those forgone resources are the opportunity cost.
Your argument that I don't have any time to use him for certain things is invalid. People have played with quite a few accounts. I have ratted on 2 accounts at the same time, using 3 accounts at the same time is not a problem. Doing PI on several of my accounts does not take much time beyond the initial set up (which is a sunk cost and thus irrelevant). Station trading is not going to eat up vast swaths of your time unless you are going to sit and monitor your orders and 0.01 all damn day. Invention is also can be done fairly quickly as well. I can usually deliver all the jobs and install 20 more in less than 10 minutes/character.
And even if this were true there is still yet another form of opportunity cost. I am taking time to train a character that will be completely and totally unproductive. Time I could have used training characters who are productive.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4304
|
Posted - 2016.01.10 23:42:50 -
[5464] - Quote
Xcom wrote: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. The side effects of such change will be negligible such as the influx of nullsec farming. 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. Because anything posted by anyone here is no more then just opinions as nothing can be backed by any data.
No Xcom, if you think I am opposed to change you have run off the rails right there. Further discussion is not possible till you get back on the rails.
And cloaks are very well balanced. Cloaked ships are safe while cloaked....and ships are safe from cloaked ships while cloaked ships are cloaked. When the cloak is turned off, then they can each attack each other. Seems pretty balanced.
Wanting to shoot a ship that cannot shoot back...that is not balanced.
Yes, you cannot "force" a fight on a cloaked ship very often, but at the same time ships that can fit a cloak effectively (i.e. force recons, stealth bombers, etc.) are not robust combat ships. Their primary advantage is stealth and their role is a support role. So their stealth is counter-balanced by lowered combat ability.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1114
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 01:47:05 -
[5465] - Quote
Lack of action from the Devs on cloaks isn't evidence that they are balanced.
They freely admit the issues, and give them a pass because they consider the impact on the prey professions to be more important than balance. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4304
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 02:44:16 -
[5466] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Lack of action from the Devs on cloaks isn't evidence that they are balanced.
They freely admit the issues, and give them a pass because they consider the impact on the prey professions to be more important than balance.
Yes it is. It may not be conclusive evidence, but it is evidence that cloaks are in their view balanced or close to it. Throw in local and it may be a different question/answer. I think that is balanced too, but could be better.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 07:19:55 -
[5467] - 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. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4304
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 08:18:03 -
[5468] - Quote
Xcom wrote: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.
That post is a load of Bravo Sierra. AFK ships never gather any intel. And an active cloaking ship to gather intel is completely legitimate. If anything you should welcome the changes to local and the OA since it will make gathering intel very different and much different than it is now.
Please list the benefits of AFK cloaking.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 08:26:30 -
[5469] - 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. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4305
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 08:29:35 -
[5470] - Quote
Xcom wrote: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.
AFK cloaking is only viable because of local...no local, no AFK cloaking.
Revamping how intel works in the game can address AFK cloaking an other issues.
Focusing on just cloaks is wrong.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
|
Morrigan LeSante
Senex Legio The OSS
1009
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 08:46:13 -
[5471] - Quote
Xcom wrote: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. The side effects of such change will be negligible such as the influx of nullsec farming. 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. Because anything posted by anyone here is no more then just opinions as nothing can be backed by any data.
You don't need a masters in game design to understand that if you alter X, everything related to X also changes.
You talk of changing cloaks and other peoples hubris yet fail to address:
Non covert cloaks Cloak & MWD to keep haulers safer Wormholes The weaknesses/trade offs attached to cloaks and the ships which can sport covert cloaks How it will work in all areas of space
You just demand it be changed without so much as a word to the related activities and events. You are the one driving for a change, you are the one the responsibilities rests upon to show that none of the related events will be harmed by your plans or that they are also "overpowered" or "broken" alongside your original complaint.
But you have done none of these things, you've thrown your arms in the air and went "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA FIX IT I DON'T LIKE IT!" and followed up by telling people who question it they are arrogant.
You don't even make an effort to allay concerns about other cloak related activity, like everyone else who hates them, "just nerf them to be how I want, and do it now".
So don't just whine about it, 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. To date, this has not been done (captcha style and minigames are just a horrid idea). |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 09:02:57 -
[5472] - 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. |
Morrigan LeSante
Senex Legio The OSS
1009
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 09:09:46 -
[5473] - Quote
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. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4305
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 09:37:47 -
[5474] - Quote
Xcom wrote:
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.
Translation: Hi my name is Xcom, I don't know what is going on in terms of up coming changes but I'll spout off anyways....
Maybe you should go read up on the changes to POS...Player Owned Structures vs. spouting off from a position of ignorance.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4305
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 09:38:35 -
[5475] - Quote
Xcom wrote:If cloaks were properly introduced into the game with there counter...
Oh, and the counter to cloaks has been and will be local, until CCP changes POS.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 10:10:31 -
[5476] - 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. |
Morrigan LeSante
Senex Legio The OSS
1009
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 10:48:07 -
[5477] - Quote
Details, we need details.
How long is too long? What makes you arrive at this value? How are you to implement it? What about scouts watching a POS for a drop as a simple use case? How fast do you think that could be macro'd so only real people are hit?
Of course no change is possible without consequence, that's why the first thing about change needs a solid reason behind the rationale for the change.
My counterpoint at this stage is: "No. You've failed to demonstrate a problem beyond 'I don't like it' and your solution is nothing more than "just nerf it, don't care how".
I mean, if it's "not that hard", then furnish us with the details. You'll make generations of whiners happy if you have the silver bullet. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 11:31:09 -
[5478] - 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. |
Morrigan LeSante
Senex Legio The OSS
1009
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 11:39:54 -
[5479] - Quote
And why is that? You've not brought a single thing to the table. Nothing. Your contribution is "It's not fair I get ganked by cloakies", "It just needs nerfed, and everyone else can suck it up"
So if you want a "proper" discussion, start acting like it. Currently you've brought absolutely nothing up for debate.
You keep saying you think it is unbalanced, you've not demonstrated or even attempted to demonstrate why they are unbalanced. You've also flip flopped from cloaks as a whole being overpowered to afk cloaking. Pick one.
You've not even attempted to discuss all the various counters to a neut in system and why they are not good enough. You've not discussed why only nullbears cry about the cloakers. Nothing, what you've done is roll up and go "yeah, they're totally OP and should be nerfed now and all that collateral damage is just 'opinions' " |
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
20954
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 12:30:31 -
[5480] - Quote
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?
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 13:37:12 -
[5481] - 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. |
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
20955
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 13:39:44 -
[5482] - Quote
Xcom wrote: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. So the whole AFK thing is a side issue for you? You just want to nerf cloaks?
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
38
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 13:42:30 -
[5483] - Quote
Yes |
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
20955
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 13:45:29 -
[5484] - Quote
Two things. You've not yet shown why this approach would be balanced. You're in the wrong thread anyway.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Morrigan LeSante
Senex Legio The OSS
1014
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 13:46:25 -
[5485] - Quote
Why are you letting them in? Kill them in transit. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15700
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 14:43:40 -
[5486] - Quote
Xcom wrote: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.
Your stating a complete lie as an emphatic doesn't make it any less of a lie.
"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
4313
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 15:49:11 -
[5487] - Quote
Xcom wrote: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.
Then you got nothing. Good to know.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4313
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 15:53:35 -
[5488] - Quote
So today we have learned the following:
Xcom is in the wrong thread. Xcom wants to nerf all cloaks. Xcom can't articulate an actual problem with them other than he can't shoot them while the cloak is active.
Typical of the people posting in AFK cloaking threads.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
6
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 15:56:27 -
[5489] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Jerghul wrote:Teckos You fail to appreciate that afk cloaky camping is free for optimizing players, and that afk cloaky camping predominantly targets newer players that rely on ratting and mining to fund their peak time pvp activity.
For established players, isk revenue per active account is easily higher than the plex the account costs. Isk revenue scales infinitely for an individual player on Tranquility. It is capped only by real life time. Afk cloaky camping is something to do with excess pilots once time is insufficient to manage all pilots actively.
Which is why afk cloaky camping is an established multiple account entitlement.
Afk cloaky camping is a bad game practice that should be ended without compensation.
Just ended. Snap of fingers. Gone. It is not free. What does AFK cloaking get in the way of ore, minerals, modules, ISK or any other in game resource? Answer: nothing. Could that character be used to acquire such resources? Yes. Those forgone resources are the opportunity cost. Your argument that I don't have any time to use him for certain things is invalid. People have played with quite a few accounts. I have ratted on 2 accounts at the same time, using 3 accounts at the same time is not a problem. Doing PI on several of my accounts does not take much time beyond the initial set up (which is a sunk cost and thus irrelevant). Station trading is not going to eat up vast swaths of your time unless you are going to sit and monitor your orders and 0.01 all damn day. Invention is also can be done fairly quickly as well. I can usually deliver all the jobs and install 20 more in less than 10 minutes/character. And even if this were true there is still yet another form of opportunity cost. I am taking time to train a character that will be completely and totally unproductive. Time I could have used training characters who are productive.
Teckos You are not appreciating that for ESTABLISHED, OPTIMIZING PLAYERS there is not cost to afk cloaky camping. Its done in addition to all the active pilots they have real life time to manage and who in turn are easily able to fund all accounts any ESTABLISHED, OPTIMIZING PLAYER might care to have.
Other players can of course afk cloaky camp if they are willing to pay absurd opportunity costs to do it and after they have paid the initial 2 isk skill investment (which is a significant barrier). Bringing us back to:
Which is why afk cloaky camping is an established multiple account entitlement.
Afk cloaky camping is a bad game practice that should be ended without compensation.
Just ended. Snap of fingers. Gone.
" 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)
|
Wander Prian
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
175
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 17:13:55 -
[5490] - Quote
So you are butthurt that you cannot afford to AFK-cloak is that it? Because I cannot see a gameplay issue in your post of whining |
|
|
|
|
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 |