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) |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
2468
|
Posted - 2016.11.28 19:34:53 -
[8041] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Dracvlad wrote:You seem to have a beef with local... It's the single biggest thing in sov null preventing people from creating content. It's the only mechanic in the game with no counter. Dracvlad wrote:AFK mine in 0.0 what a laugh, you seriously believe that people AFK mine in 0.0... Well I never, some times people just amaze me with their lack of clairty... Stop trolling. I've jumped out of a WH into null and sat there watching 30 man mining fleets take 30 minutes to even realize I am there as a hostile.
Well OK there are some who do, but the alliances I have been in did not, was it the Goons by any chance or Russians?
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
52
|
Posted - 2016.11.28 19:36:29 -
[8042] - 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. |
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
817
|
Posted - 2016.11.28 20:18:15 -
[8043] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Well OK there are some who do, but the alliances I have been in did not, was it the Goons by any chance or Russians?
NS entities run together in my mind. I don't follow NS politics really. I've seen it everywhere though.
Xcom wrote: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.
It's impossible to suggest nerfs to cloaking without addressing local in null. Sov null is the only part of space that complains about cloaks.
You brought up citadels first, not me. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5539
|
Posted - 2016.11.28 20:23:00 -
[8044] - Quote
Xcom wrote: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.
You still haven't explained how an AFK cloaker makes ISK.
I think you can't and you simply cannot admit you were wrong.
And I'll push it even further, not only do you not make ISK, AFK cloaking comes with a cost. That cost is the foregone ISK making opportunities--i.e. opportunity cost.
In other words, you could not be more wrong on this point.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5539
|
Posted - 2016.11.28 20:26:39 -
[8045] - Quote
Xcom wrote: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 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.
Gathering intel with a cloak is cloaks working as intended. You want to prevent that? Anchor bubbles, set up gate camps, etc. Expecting CCP to change cloaks so that you can do it by being lazy? No. And as I have pointed out, cloaking ships die all the time, usually at gates to camps. If you won't protect your space, well is it any wonder people are running around at will gathering intel?
And nobody is locking a player into a system, especially by an AFK cloaked pilot. The player has locked himself in. Grow a pair and jump into the next system and do something in that system.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5539
|
Posted - 2016.11.28 20:29:45 -
[8046] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Dracvlad wrote:....when a AFK cloaky camper goes any where near me.... Never ever happened. I have seen people get upset over AFK cloaky camping in NPC 0.0, I have seen people in your own alliance get upset over the camping of XZH-4X when EVOKE tried to make a come back and then die to them continuously while I just went to a less valuable system and was not bothered at all. Well I have blown up a number of AFK cloaky campers, though only one of them was AFK and cloaked, and that was because I worked out his hiding place and was on grid cloaked when he logged on before heading to work and the silly plonker did not even bother to move in a random direction. I have killed one who was using his Mobile Depots to taunt us in local so I kept RF'ing them then let him pick them up and put them down again. He got into a pattern and then I had an interceptor waiting for him and boooooom. Another tried to kill my Raven three times but it was Omi tanked and I was kiting teh rats, oh dear, I then took the pee out of him so he decided to leave, but I was waiting for him at the gate iwith a bubble and things to decloak him in the spot aligned to his normal safe spot and boooooom. All fun and games mate.
Right over your head apparently. AFK cloaked pilots don't do anything. They are AFK and cloaked, by definition they are powerless aside from scaring people via local. That is, literally, all they can do.
So no AFK cloaker has ever come near you. An ATK cloaker...sure, but not AFK.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5539
|
Posted - 2016.11.28 20:31:53 -
[8047] - Quote
John Amton wrote:Oh deer.Me thinks the biggest issue originates from a Cyno/Cloak fit. Make it either/or so people can still cyno but have to atctualy do it fast since a cloaky cyno is actually a threat noone can predict and currently noone can counter. Or do it like this: Implement a activateable jammer that, when activated, instantly deactivates the cloak of every ship with a cyno on in the current system and blocks it for a certain amount of time, however this uses some sort of fuel. I mean, there are people who argue that this removes the surprise-buttsekcs aspect of a cyno, but imo this should be limited to hit&run tactics since a surprise is something you didn't see coming, however with a perma cloaker you never know what's going to happen. In addition (to stop a Gaben), you can always hinder people to make ISK by simply either drop into their systems with some mass or invade it with your own alliance. I for my part got shot down by a non-cloaky dropper corp and I think that's actually quite fair play since I had time to react but didn't, so my shiny ship went poof. TL;DR: AFK players don't kill people, that's right. AFK cynos however kill the fairness.
Nobody who is AFK has ever lit a cyno. Ever.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5539
|
Posted - 2016.11.28 20:34:23 -
[8048] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Sonya Corvinus wrote:So the real question it seems is why are people PvE-ing solo in null? So why do people solo in WH space? Local in sov null will be controlled by an OA which you can shoot to remove it, don't like local shoot it, simple as. Lillith Sakatanull sec and lowsec are subject to hot drops, instant I win button with instant delivery, in your WH you can take steps to block them with bubbles and collapse WH's, you have scouts to watch in the next door WH, which gives you some warning, and they still have to burn to you. It is not instant, so there is a chance for good players to strip away the tackle and GTFO, not so with a hot drop, unless you are aligned and ready to warp as soon as someone uncloakeds which of course people like me do. But I cannot interdict the hotdrop unless I know where they are sitting ready to jump and bubble them at the right moment giving me time to clear the tackle and get away. And it is what comes in on you that really hurts and it is instant, so in effect you compare apples to pears, I don't presume to insist on normal space being applied to WH space, WH is different and fun in it's own right, but the majority of WH players go all weak kneeded at being reported in local, stop whining and live with it.
Anyone using the term "I win button" should be ignored as a complete fool.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5539
|
Posted - 2016.11.28 20:43:11 -
[8049] - Quote
Xcom wrote: 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.
Nobody has said it is a fix it all thread. What they have said is that it AFK cloaking is a direct result of local. So long as local is there people will try to find a way to show up in local and also be AFK for the effect this can have on ratting, mining, etc.
You complain about people using cloaks to gather intel "risk free" (and that is a blatant falsehood by the wat), but you say nothing about local which is the primary method of gathering intel by everyone (cloaked, uncloaked, non-cloaking, etc.). It is literally free, perfect, and cannot be subverted or removed in anyway. You can try and catch a guy in a cloaked ship on gates, or by anchoring bubbles with cans near various things he might warp too, but there is literally nothing one can do about local.
So you look like a total and complete hypocrite whining about how broken cloaks are when in fact, the underlying problem is actually local.
Funny how everyone wants to nerf cloaks always tries to come up with all these convoluted arguments to justify keeping the one thing that keeps them safe, and remove the one thing that can subvert that safety. Gee...pushing an agenda much?
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Lillith Sakata
Nobody in Local Of Sound Mind
45
|
Posted - 2016.11.28 20:53:28 -
[8050] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote: /stuff It's impossible to suggest nerfs to cloaking without addressing local in null. Sov null is the only part of space that complains about cloaks.
I agree. I do think that there should be ways to deal with perma cloaked afk people, even though in the process I'd lose my afk alt cloaky eyes. But since I left kspace, and went to wspace, I find that I don't miss local one bit.
The lack of local is actually helpful. I pay attention more, I'm more invested in the time that I'm playing the game.
But... I do also agree that it feels like we're doing the same thing I used to complain about, derailing the thread a bit.
There does need to be some way to 'break' a cloak, even if its a temporary thing. The only answer I like so far is the one I came up with a few years back with a cloak detection/disruption probe, and the only other decent post was about a timer on cloaking modules, or fuel, but both of those options make cloaking a PITA and would require every cloak-able ship to get a storage buff or something, especially covops ships that are paper thin and designed to stay cloaked until they find a target.
But even my cloak breaking probe idea is fairly messed up when I figure how quickly I've learned to scan down ships. Combat scanning if anything like cloak scanning would be too easy, and just seeing a red in local would be instant anti-cloaking probes deployment.
So really the AFKloak is not really able to be dealt with unless local goes away. |
|
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
820
|
Posted - 2016.11.28 21:31:21 -
[8051] - Quote
Lillith Sakata wrote:I agree. I do think that there should be ways to deal with perma cloaked afk people, even though in the process I'd lose my afk alt cloaky eyes. But since I left kspace, and went to wspace, I find that I don't miss local one bit.
The lack of local is actually helpful. I pay attention more, I'm more invested in the time that I'm playing the game.
But... I do also agree that it feels like we're doing the same thing I used to complain about, derailing the thread a bit.
There does need to be some way to 'break' a cloak, even if its a temporary thing. The only answer I like so far is the one I came up with a few years back with a cloak detection/disruption probe, and the only other decent post was about a timer on cloaking modules, or fuel, but both of those options make cloaking a PITA and would require every cloak-able ship to get a storage buff or something, especially covops ships that are paper thin and designed to stay cloaked until they find a target.
But even my cloak breaking probe idea is fairly messed up when I figure how quickly I've learned to scan down ships. Combat scanning if anything like cloak scanning would be too easy, and just seeing a red in local would be instant anti-cloaking probes deployment.
So really the AFKloak is not really able to be dealt with unless local goes away.
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. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
52
|
Posted - 2016.11.29 01:36:39 -
[8052] - 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 -
[8053] - 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? |
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
821
|
Posted - 2016.11.29 01:43:45 -
[8054] - Quote
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. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
52
|
Posted - 2016.11.29 01:47:44 -
[8055] - 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. |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony Mordus Angels
873
|
Posted - 2016.11.29 01:52:10 -
[8056] - Quote
Xcom wrote: Value is generated when a player logs in and spends time in EvE.
That is actually a nice, compact way of putting it: value is created. Be it ISK, intel, or PvP content. I'll be sure to remember that! |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony Mordus Angels
873
|
Posted - 2016.11.29 01:59:59 -
[8057] - 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.
Except that wouldn't work the way you want it to (assuming you wanted less safety for the alleged 'nullbears') :
the sov holder, henceforth known as "the bear", would have this structure up and would therefore have local the way they do now, PLUS cloak hunting capabilities.
The cloaky camper on the other hand, will not have this structure and would therefore have NO local at all.
The result?
The AFK cloaker is rendered vulnerable; perfect local chat intel still exists protecting the space from roaming gang, and what have you got? Bubkes!
If that is what you wanted, you should have just upvoted Mike Voidstar because you've just created the perfect ISK printer. Congratulations, I guess? |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
52
|
Posted - 2016.11.29 02:18:13 -
[8058] - 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. |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony Mordus Angels
873
|
Posted - 2016.11.29 02:46:18 -
[8059] - Quote
Yea, I love a good troll as much as the next guy but the influx of wormholers is getting a bit thick. It's quite simple, really: if you don't want local, go live in a WH. There's a reason those things are mostly uninhabited; and since we're not telling them how to wormhole I don't see why they keep poking their heads in here to tell us how to nullsec?
Not to mention some of these "hardcore" players have absolutely no killboard to back up any of their claims, and keep throwing "be on comms and rat in a fleet" around as if that means something to me. Do I strike you as the ratting type?
Endless bickering back-and-forth about bob-knows-what, craftily dodging the main issue raised by many people from various backgrounds since page one: unlimited invulnerability.
I've seen good points raised from either side of the fence, but it's truly looking for diamonds in a pig farm. Keep posting those ideas, boys, keep 'em coming ... we'll get there (eventually) |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5539
|
Posted - 2016.11.29 05:40:57 -
[8060] - Quote
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.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5539
|
Posted - 2016.11.29 05:46:48 -
[8061] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote: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.
Except that wouldn't work the way you want it to (assuming you wanted less safety for the alleged 'nullbears') : the sov holder, henceforth known as "the bear", would have this structure up and would therefore have local the way they do now, PLUS cloak hunting capabilities. The cloaky camper on the other hand, will not have this structure and would therefore have NO local at all. The result?The AFK cloaker is rendered vulnerable; perfect local chat intel still exists protecting the space from roaming gang, and what have you got? Bubkes! If that is what you wanted, you should have just upvoted Mike Voidstar because you've just created the perfect ISK printer. Congratulations, I guess?
What part about destroying did you not get. Go in and knock out their intel infrastructure and then they don't know if you are still there or gone. Most of the whiners in this thread probably would not undock until somebody with a pair came along and anchored a new one. And if these players keep letting their intel infrastructure get knocked out...guess who your next target for a more intensive bit of visiting would be? The guys who dock up when you start knocking down their intel systems? Then when docked up go around and start hitting other sov structures while they fret in their outposts and stations.
Edit: Personally, I'd modify Sonya's idea this way: when disabled it looks like local is still there it just doesn't show you who is in system. Could be empty or it cold have 200 hostiles in system shitting all over your lawn.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
2468
|
Posted - 2016.11.29 08:49:58 -
[8062] - Quote
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.
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.
Just quoting that for your understanding of the issue and blasting that fool Teckos's stupid troll comment so well. Nice one!!!!
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
54
|
Posted - 2016.11.29 08:51:12 -
[8063] - 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? |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5539
|
Posted - 2016.11.29 09:03:05 -
[8064] - Quote
Xcom wrote: 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?
Catch a clue dude: I have been in favor of something like the OA for over 3 years. Getting rid of local and replacing it with an anchorable structure that would let players get back some level of the intel that local provides.
And stop being dense. If you have 6-7 guys running anomalies in a system plus the periodic escalation you'll still make pretty damn good ISK. Granted you might have to move from one system to the next periodically, but you should make pretty good ISK even compared to HS.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
2468
|
Posted - 2016.11.29 09:26:14 -
[8065] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote: 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?
Catch a clue dude: I have been in favor of something like the OA for over 3 years. Getting rid of local and replacing it with an anchorable structure that would let players get back some level of the intel that local provides. And stop being dense. If you have 6-7 guys running anomalies in a system plus the periodic escalation you'll still make pretty damn good ISK. Granted you might have to move from one system to the next periodically, but you should make pretty good ISK even compared to HS. Edit: BTW Dracvlad is too daft to have realized that I have been favoring something like the OA far longer than he has (I'll note he did not respond to my post calling him out on this point). Was he discussing these things in 2013? Not in my thread on the topic. Seriously, here is my position: 1. Remove local. 2. Let players "claw back" aspects of local via the OA. 3. Let the OA, if the right module is fitted, allow players to scan down cloaked ships. AFK cloaking is dead. The perfect and impervious and free intel provided by local is now vulnerable to attack. WTF....where is the problem? Oh...wait, I know you won't have your perfect unassailable intel system anymore and may face increased risk based on fitting decisions when deploying the OA. Yeah, no agenda there. Tell us again how you are oh so concerned about game balance. Have you even stopped to consider this...if you anchor an OA....it is YOUR OA, not mine? It should give intel to YOU and NOT me. Did you think of that? Well?
This is not your thread dude, though you treat it as if you are some sort of guardian of HTFU thought. Yes I was aware of your OA approach and the difference for me was that I did not want to impact the cloaks which is why I went for the AFK flag idea via an OA. The simple fact is that I am prepared to accept some sort of temporary de-cloaking which takes effort and has a cost, I don't want an I win button on this (I hope the use of 'I win' annoys you further.)
You troll this thread but that does not mean your viewpoint as detailed above does not have merit, I just wanted to protect casual players who get called away due to RL and my focus was on the smaller groups or solo players that operate often in very hostile space and have a gameplay that is completely ignored by CCP. But you are too up yourself to notice that.
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5539
|
Posted - 2016.11.29 09:36:20 -
[8066] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
This is not your thread dude, though you treat it as if you are some sort of guardian of HTFU thought. Yes I was aware of your OA approach and the difference for me was that I did not want to impact the cloaks which is why I went for the AFK flag idea via an OA. The simple fact is that I am prepared to accept some sort of temporary de-cloaking which takes effort and has a cost, I don't want an I win button on this (I hope the use of 'I win' annoys you further.)
You troll this thread but that does not mean your viewpoint as detailed above does not have merit, I just wanted to protect casual players who get called away due to RL and my focus was on the smaller groups or solo players that operate often in very hostile space and have a gameplay that is completely ignored by CCP. But you are too up yourself to notice that.
I never said this was my thread.
As for not impacting cloaks that is hilarious given how far you are sticking your nose up Xcom's posterior in this thread and that he does want to impact cloaks literally everywhere. But then again that just shows your complete intellectual dishonesty.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
2468
|
Posted - 2016.11.29 09:57:31 -
[8067] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
This is not your thread dude, though you treat it as if you are some sort of guardian of HTFU thought. Yes I was aware of your OA approach and the difference for me was that I did not want to impact the cloaks which is why I went for the AFK flag idea via an OA. The simple fact is that I am prepared to accept some sort of temporary de-cloaking which takes effort and has a cost, I don't want an I win button on this (I hope the use of 'I win' annoys you further.)
You troll this thread but that does not mean your viewpoint as detailed above does not have merit, I just wanted to protect casual players who get called away due to RL and my focus was on the smaller groups or solo players that operate often in very hostile space and have a gameplay that is completely ignored by CCP. But you are too up yourself to notice that.
I never said this was my thread. As for not impacting cloaks that is hilarious given how far you are sticking your nose up Xcom's posterior in this thread and that he does want to impact cloaks literally everywhere. But then again that just shows your complete intellectual dishonesty.
Read what is in the quotes dude, I said what I wanted for cloaks, what I liked was Xcom's value comment which pointed out the intellectual dishonesty of your ATK / AFK sleight of hand. He pretty much whooped your ass with tha post and by your replies I can see it got up your nose!!!
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18428
|
Posted - 2016.11.29 11:46:57 -
[8068] - Quote
An AFK flag basically gives everyone free intel in the same way local already does. This means our only counter to local is removed.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
2468
|
Posted - 2016.11.29 11:48:53 -
[8069] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:An AFK flag basically gives everyone free intel in the same way local already does. This means our only counter to local is removed.
Not if you shoot the OA that gives local when that is implemented, then you will simply be able to remove local rather than moan about it.
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18428
|
Posted - 2016.11.29 12:28:38 -
[8070] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:baltec1 wrote:An AFK flag basically gives everyone free intel in the same way local already does. This means our only counter to local is removed.
Not if you shoot the OA that gives local when that is implemented, then you will simply be able to remove local rather than moan about it.
And how do you do this as a solo bomber? No doubt it will inform the residence that it is under attack and it is not going to be a soft target. It will also most likely be getting a reinforce timer like every other corp level structure.
This plan of yours kills off solo play in a system where the only way to catch anything is to AFK cloaky camp it for a few days/weeks. |
|
|
|
|
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 |