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) |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
213
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 18:08:44 -
[9211] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:So no address to the inequality of the basic premise that one side should carry all of the burden while the other side has complete freedom. Got it.
The AFK cloaker does not have complete freedom. They have a very limited set of options: remain cloaked and do nothing but sit idle in space, or decloak and get killed by the defense fleet. And since most players don't want to commit suicide that means it's a single option: put their cloaked ship into a safespot and wait passively until the owners of the system decide to allow the cloaked ship to do anything else.
Quote:The issue is that the cloaked camper does not need to do anything to maintain his own safety. Where is his need to stay vigilant, keep friends nearby, stay on comms, or otherwise protect himself? What force can be brought to bear against him in a nonconsensual manner? That is the problem.
Yes, that's the entire point of having a cloak. If you are cloaked in a safespot you have 100% safety, but you can not activate any modules or commit any aggressive action. Contrast this with the active PvE player, who has a risk of being hunted down and killed but also the ability to farm PvE content and make ISK. Of course the two players should face different levels of risk.
Also, note that what you're saying only applies if the cloaker stays cloaked in a safespot. If they decide to attack they face all the risks of PvP and all the burdens of maintaining their own safety.
Quote:You want to focus on the target because you are only interested in the predators success, the easier the better. There is another side to things, a group putting out a lot of effort to 'counter' a threat, where hundreds of man hours of those efforts are being trivially circumvented with a single low cost module.
No, I have no investment in the predator's success. I am quite happy with the idea of an AFK cloaker trying to gank someone and getting splattered by a defense fleet. I'm happy with the idea of an AFK cloaker being frustrated and forced to stay cloaked until they give up and move on to easier prey in some other system. What I am against is coddling bad players who are too lazy to defend their space and want an "I win" button they can press to make an AFK cloaker go away.
Quote:Asymmetrical warfare is great and all, but if you think it represents balance you may need to look up a word or two.
EVE is not a balanced game, and was never meant to be a balanced game. It has always been easier to destroy the work of a group than to organize and build something, and that has been a deliberate design goal since day 1. This is what makes the accomplishments of the groups that are strong enough to build something worthy of respect, unlike the sad PvE-farming "accomplishments" of people in conventional MMOs.
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
213
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 18:13:43 -
[9212] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:A search of killboards will reveal many such kills each day, despite these claims of 100% safety. A simple experiment of sitting pretty much anywhere you like, ignoring traffic and not defending nor evading will reveal the falsehood of 100% safety for anyone not cloaked sooner or later.
Of course a killboard search will show dead PvE ships, because there are plenty of bad players in EVE. But this is like "proving" that a ship is bad by pointing to lossmails from a guy who forgot to fit any guns before undocking. If you are a good player and paying attention it is impossible to die in a PvE ship. If you are aligned at full speed to a station/safespot your ship will enter warp faster than any cloaked ship can get a lock on you, so as soon as they appear on overview you press the warp button and escape.
But of course this solution involves paying attention and putting effort into your own safety, not pressing the "I win" button to decloak and kill a camper, so you won't accept it. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1174
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 19:19:01 -
[9213] - Quote
There is no point where anyone in space without an active cloak can not be vigilant and still maintain his safety. Regardless of cloaked campers in system, a pilot not cloaked is at risk and must stay vigilant. I do not seek to change that in any way. Defense fleets and such do not go away just because the campers do- in fact, the camps exist because of the fleets, not the other way around. The arguments about people not defending their space are ridiculous fabrications, all the butt hurt about the need for camps exist because people defend their space.
100% safety is a hyperbolic lie, unless you are using a cloak.
All the hurf blurf false arguments about local fail in the face of local working the same for everyone, with the sole exception of loading time-- and a compromise on that was rejected out of hand as being immaterial.
Some equivalent of effort should exist for the cloaked ship as well, especially in the presence of active hunters. At no point should a ship operating in space be so safe that you can leave the keyboard secure in your invulnerability... Doing so should come at the expense of increased risk, not improved effectiveness. |
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale Black Marker
904
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 19:33:09 -
[9214] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:There is no point where anyone in space without an active cloak can not be vigilant and still maintain his safety. MWD interceptors in safe spots beg to differ. Try catching one when he burns away with 7+km/sec.
Mike Voidstar wrote:Defense fleets and such do not go away just because the campers do- in fact, the camps exist because of the fleets, not the other way around. Cloaky campers go after easy victims. People like you that are unable to defend themselves. If there is a active standing fleet and the hotdropper gets counterdropped, he'll go away because it isn't worth it. AFK cloakers are really only a problem to the worthless players that shouldn't be in nullsec in the first place.
Mike Voidstar wrote:The arguments about people not defending their space are ridiculous fabrications, all the butt hurt about the need for camps exist because people defend their space. Then I guess they're either pretty bad at it or so weak that they should not be able to hold that space in the first place. You're not entitled to sov space. You either can stand your ground, or a random group comes along and takes that space from you. Although they're rather using your obvious lack of strength to milk you for tears and easy kills over and over again instead of kicking you out.
Mike Voidstar wrote:100% safety is a hyperbolic lie, unless you are using a cloak. A cloaked ship can't activate any modules and can't leave the system. While he is "safe" he also cannot impose any risk and thus you are "safe" too. Cloaky ships are also considerably weaker than their non-cloaky counterparts, so they don't stand a chance in any even engagement. Unless the unfortunate victim is one such as you.
Mike Voidstar wrote:All the hurf blurf false arguments about local fail in the face of local working the same for everyone, with the sole exception of loading time-- and a compromise on that was rejected out of hand as being immaterial. The people that inhabit the space have a major advantage with intel networks, automated intel tools and intel bots. They see attackers already 30 to 40 jumps out and have sufficient time to react. The hunter only sees the people once he actually enters the system. So no, it doesn't work the same for everyone. The hunter is at a massive disadvantage and the only way to overcome that is turning those advantages against those that wish to opt out of PvP in a PvP zone by using afk cloaking.
When you don't know the difference between there, their, and they're, you come across as being so uneducated that your viewpoint can be safely dismissed. The literate is unlikely to learn much from the illiterate.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
6073
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 19:54:50 -
[9215] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:
I don't contest that.
What I contest is that the cloaked camper has no similar onus.
Of course not. He is cloaked, he is no threat until he decloaks at which point you are free to shoot you.
Player is in a cloaked ship: He cannot target, he cannot lock you. He can't really do anything besides scare you via local.
While cloaked you cannot target him nor can you shoot him. Local warns you he is there and that you should take precautions.
Balanced. Maybe not optimal, but that is what CCP is supposedly looking into with the observatory array.
"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
6073
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 19:56:28 -
[9216] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:And again.... 100% safety while in space exists only for cloaked ships.
Nullbears, or anyone, cannot ever be 100% safe without a cloak. They are in space, easily located, and generally easily targeted.
A search of killboards will reveal many such kills each day, despite these claims of 100% safety. A simple experiment of sitting pretty much anywhere you like, ignoring traffic and not defending nor evading will reveal the falsehood of 100% safety for anyone not cloaked sooner or later.
And as has been pointed out to you many pages back, that cloak comes with its own restrictions. It is not "free" no matter what you say.
"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
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
214
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 20:01:53 -
[9217] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:The arguments about people not defending their space are ridiculous fabrications, all the butt hurt about the need for camps exist because people defend their space.
No, those arguments are the uncomfortable truth that you don't want to admit. If people are actively defending their space then an AFK cloaker can not do anything but sit cloaked in a safespot, engaging a target is instant suicide. And at that point who cares if there's an AFK cloaker in system, they're just an irrelevant name in local that you can safely ignore. The only people who have anything to lose from AFK cloaking are garbage-tier alliances that are unable or unwilling to actively defend their space and think that they should be able to farm PvE content like it's highsec.
Quote:100% safety is a hyperbolic lie, unless you are using a cloak.
No, it's literal truth. The time to enter warp and become invulnerable (assuming you are smart and aligned already) is less than the recalibration delay plus lock time of a decloaking ship. The only way a cloaked ship will ever catch a target is if they get careless and fail to take appropriate defensive precautions.
Quote:Some equivalent of effort should exist for the cloaked ship as well, especially in the presence of active hunters. At no point should a ship operating in space be so safe that you can leave the keyboard secure in your invulnerability... Doing so should come at the expense of increased risk, not improved effectiveness.
And any proposal for such a system inevitably runs into the problem of being too effective against ATK cloaked ships. If your "I win" button can reveal and kill an AFK cloaked ship then it can do the same against someone who is ATK, and the value of a cloak is reduced to a temporary delay in dying while your enemies take a moment to press the "I win" button. |
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
1043
|
Posted - 2017.03.09 01:02:48 -
[9218] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:There is no point where anyone in space without an active cloak can not be vigilant and still maintain his safety.
A cloaked ship can't harm anyone. That's the balance behind it. This is a non-issue. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1174
|
Posted - 2017.03.09 16:42:46 -
[9219] - Quote
Sorry, not being capable of aggression isn't an excuse for being immune to aggression.
For instance, Pods and shuttles are very fragile, incapable of even mounting weapons, yet enjoy no similar protection. Mining ships, industrial ships, and freighters are also quite inoffensive, yet get no similar protection.
In fact, by your logic the targets the cloaked camper hunts should become immune to everything simply by taking their weapons offline- it's much more difficult and time consuming in the absence of a maintenance array from another ship or structure to bring those back up than it is to drop cloak and wait out the targeting delay. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
6111
|
Posted - 2017.03.09 16:51:59 -
[9220] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Sorry, not being capable of aggression isn't an excuse for being immune to aggression.
So all your talk of balance was a lie?
Quote:For instance, Pods and shuttles are very fragile, incapable of even mounting weapons, yet enjoy no similar protection. Mining ships, industrial ships, and freighters are also quite inoffensive, yet get no similar protection.
Pod's and shuttle's enter warp very fast so that killing them outside of bubbles is nearly impossible. Freighter's have a massive amount of EHP. Cloaked ships are nearly immune to attack while cloaked...but are also incapable of attacking.
Quote:In fact, by your logic the targets the cloaked camper hunts should become immune to everything simply by taking their weapons offline- it's much more difficult and time consuming in the absence of a maintenance array from another ship or structure to bring those back up than it is to drop cloak and wait out the targeting delay.
Nope. A cloaked ship is immune to all attackers while cloaked and at a safe. And all targets are safe. Your extrapolation is inappropriate in that another potential (not in a cloaked/cloaking ship) attacker entering system is not safe from all attackers nor should his targets be immune.
Nice try Mike, but your logic is just wrong.
"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
|
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
216
|
Posted - 2017.03.09 23:57:16 -
[9221] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:For instance, Pods and shuttles are very fragile, incapable of even mounting weapons, yet enjoy no similar protection. Mining ships, industrial ships, and freighters are also quite inoffensive, yet get no similar protection.
That's because you're creating a straw man that only combat ships should be vulnerable, when the actual argument is that active ships should be vulnerable. An industrial ship can not kill anything, but it is still actively moving stuff from place to place. A mining barge (probably) can't kill anything, but it is still actively mining and making you ISK. An AFK cloaked ship is doing none of those things, it's just sitting there.
Quote:In fact, by your logic the targets the cloaked camper hunts should become immune to everything simply by taking their weapons offline- it's much more difficult and time consuming in the absence of a maintenance array from another ship or structure to bring those back up than it is to drop cloak and wait out the targeting delay.
Or, instead of this ridiculous idea of taking weapons offline, they could just fit a cloak of their own if they want to be immune to attack while being unable to do anything but sit in space. In fact, there's another counter to cloaking: fit a cloak of your own, go AFK and do something else for a few hours, and wait for the cloaker to get frustrated with not being able to shoot you and move on to a new system. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1174
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 03:40:42 -
[9222] - Quote
Teckos, you know better. I understand why you want to warp logic like that though.
However, if it's activity that is the issue, we can compromise there. Make a cloaked ship unable to control probes, unable to see the overview or the grid in space, unable to use d-scan, and be immobile and available to be scanned down for the recalibration time since the cloaked ship comes out of cloak at an unknown point in space instead of a station. You can still maneuver blind while cloaked, and warp via autopilot.
You want o draw equivalency to being docked, let's provide equitable weaknesses. |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
216
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 04:24:36 -
[9223] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:However, if it's activity that is the issue, we can compromise there. Make a cloaked ship unable to control probes, unable to see the overview or the grid in space, unable to use d-scan, and be immobile and available to be scanned down for the recalibration time since the cloaked ship comes out of cloak at an unknown point in space instead of a station. You can still maneuver blind while cloaked, and warp via autopilot.
IOW, remove the entire point of covert ops cloaks and the ships that use them. No thanks. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1174
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 04:28:30 -
[9224] - Quote
So much for activity being the issue, and cloaked ships being inactive while cloaked. |
Torves
Western Industries
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 04:40:56 -
[9225] - Quote
This is a long topic so please understand if I didn't read most of the earlier post.
as far as AFK clocking I don't see a problem if it like AFK mining as the player isn't at his computer or not watching this eve client. I think the problem that people have is camping while clocked.
As far as my thought I think you need to remember that cloaking like all stealth technology is suppose to give you an advantage over others and we shouldn't do anything that will remove that fact just because it make thing difficult. Although reworking some of the clock mechanics maybe needed by the nature if stealth technology it will not be balanced. if you want to take away the advantage of a cloak than you might as well remove it from the game all together.
major changes aren't what is needed. a small change may make enough of a difference to give other ships a chance.
one of this changes my be adding a limit to how long you can stay clocked. it will still need to be long enough so not to destroy the game play. id say around 15 to 20 min with a 2 min cool down.
another way would be to introduce module designed to counter clocked ship with in reason. I would recommend two types of modules an active sensor the would send out a pose like a smart boom. this pulse would make a clocked ship look translucent for 20 sec and be able to be targeted for that time but the pulse would have limited range and long intervals. 5k for small 10k foe mid and 20k for large and a 90 sec interval. the fitting requirement would be similar to a booster of similar size and be mounted in a mid slot
a passive sensor would show sensor anomalies and allow you to target them with similar range as listed above but for every ship on grid there will be 2 to 5 anomalies depended on skill lv. the anomalies will have a signature radius of 5 so may take some time to target depending the ships sensor strength it will be fitting requirement would be half or a third of the active and be mounted in a low slot.
a clocked ship will know if a ship is using an active sensor duo to the visual effects but will only know about the passive when he is being targeted.
this may allow you to limit some of the power without removing the gameplay. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
6111
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 05:10:16 -
[9226] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Teckos, you know better. I understand why you want to warp logic like that though.
However, if it's activity that is the issue, we can compromise there. Make a cloaked ship unable to control probes, unable to see the overview or the grid in space, unable to use d-scan, and be immobile and available to be scanned down for the recalibration time since the cloaked ship comes out of cloak at an unknown point in space instead of a station. You can still maneuver blind while cloaked, and warp via autopilot.
You want o draw equivalency to being docked, let's provide equitable weaknesses.
If a cloaked ship has probes out you can see them on your overview and is a huge indicator the guy is NOT AFK.
And again, even if I am ATK at a safe and using d-scan that is part of the point of having a cloaking device. Get in there, get to safe, start collecting intel is one use of the covert ops cloaking device. I did that back when Goons turned off BoB's sov. I got into one of their staging systems and warped around and was looking for POS, titans, and so forth. Was I going to attack anyone? Nope, I was finding things out in the hopes somebody else might find it useful. But here you are wanting to remove that type of play...because you are simply bad at the game.
"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
6111
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 05:13:18 -
[9227] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:So much for activity being the issue, and cloaked ships being inactive while cloaked.
But as you have been made aware numerous times before, being active entails risk. Maybe not large risk, but risk none-the-less. If you use d-scan, find a POS and warp to it, you could be warping into an anchored bubble or warping next to an object in space and being decloaked.
The only way to maintain 100% safety is to sit a safe and use d-scan. Wow...horrible.
"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
6111
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 05:14:35 -
[9228] - Quote
Torves wrote:This is a long topic so please understand if I didn't read most of the earlier post.
as far as AFK clocking I don't see a problem if it like AFK mining as the player isn't at his computer or not watching this eve client. I think the problem that people have is camping while clocked.
As far as my thought I think you need to remember that cloaking like all stealth technology is suppose to give you an advantage over others and we shouldn't do anything that will remove that fact just because it make thing difficult. Although reworking some of the clock mechanics maybe needed by the nature if stealth technology it will not be balanced. if you want to take away the advantage of a cloak than you might as well remove it from the game all together.
major changes aren't what is needed. a small change may make enough of a difference to give other ships a chance.
one of this changes my be adding a limit to how long you can stay clocked. it will still need to be long enough so not to destroy the game play. id say around 15 to 20 min with a 2 min cool down.
another way would be to introduce module designed to counter clocked ship with in reason. I would recommend two types of modules an active sensor the would send out a pose like a smart boom. this pulse would make a clocked ship look translucent for 20 sec and be able to be targeted for that time but the pulse would have limited range and long intervals. 5k for small 10k foe mid and 20k for large and a 90 sec interval. the fitting requirement would be similar to a booster of similar size and be mounted in a mid slot
a passive sensor would show sensor anomalies and allow you to target them with similar range as listed above but for every ship on grid there will be 2 to 5 anomalies depended on skill lv. the anomalies will have a signature radius of 5 so may take some time to target depending the ships sensor strength it will be fitting requirement would be half or a third of the active and be mounted in a low slot.
a clocked ship will know if a ship is using an active sensor duo to the visual effects but will only know about the passive when he is being targeted.
this may allow you to limit some of the power without removing the gameplay.
Nope.
You should not be allowed to retain the benefits of local while further enhancing your safety.
"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
|
Torves
Western Industries
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 05:29:20 -
[9229] - Quote
what do you mean by retain the benefits of local? and how is me post improving the safety of the cloaked ship? |
Van Doe
31
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 06:29:56 -
[9230] - Quote
There's a counter to stealth. Drop cans in space to ensure a safety zone. Now stfu and htfu
I'm not trolling, I create content for everyone to enjoy.
afk cloaky in a system near you while posting in this forum.
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
6111
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 07:10:09 -
[9231] - Quote
Torves wrote:what do you mean by retain the benefits of local? and how is me post improving the safety of the cloaked ship?
Local is the primary intel system in NS. Further, local will give a person already in system advanced warning somebody has entered system.
Your suggestions for cloaking devices will make you safer. It not only makes it difficult t AFK cloak, but also ATK cloak.
"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
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1174
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 09:27:15 -
[9232] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Teckos, you know better. I understand why you want to warp logic like that though.
However, if it's activity that is the issue, we can compromise there. Make a cloaked ship unable to control probes, unable to see the overview or the grid in space, unable to use d-scan, and be immobile and available to be scanned down for the recalibration time since the cloaked ship comes out of cloak at an unknown point in space instead of a station. You can still maneuver blind while cloaked, and warp via autopilot.
You want o draw equivalency to being docked, let's provide equitable weaknesses. If a cloaked ship has probes out you can see them on your overview and is a huge indicator the guy is NOT AFK. And again, even if I am ATK at a safe and using d-scan that is part of the point of having a cloaking device. Get in there, get to safe, start collecting intel is one use of the covert ops cloaking device. I did that back when Goons turned off BoB's sov. I got into one of their staging systems and warped around and was looking for POS, titans, and so forth. Was I going to attack anyone? Nope, I was finding things out in the hopes somebody else might find it useful. But here you are wanting to remove that type of play...because you are simply bad at the game.
I agree with you there, which is why I would rather see a method of hunting cloaked ships put in place. It does not need to be quick, easy, or even especially cheap, but it should be possible and not out of reach for a small group.
However, since so many of you want to retain the current binary system while attempting to draw false equivalency to stations and such, then we can work that angle.
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
216
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 09:52:32 -
[9233] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:I agree with you there, which is why I would rather see a method of hunting cloaked ships put in place. It does not need to be quick, easy, or even especially cheap, but it should be possible and not out of reach for a small group.
But why? Why is a major nerf to cloaking required? Until you can answer that question any discussion of how to nerf cloaks is a solution in need of a problem. And you have utterly failed to provide a convincing answer besides "I really want to hunt cloaked ships".
|
Maria Dragoon
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
126
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 16:55:26 -
[9234] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Teckos, you know better. I understand why you want to warp logic like that though.
However, if it's activity that is the issue, we can compromise there. Make a cloaked ship unable to control probes, unable to see the overview or the grid in space, unable to use d-scan, and be immobile and available to be scanned down for the recalibration time since the cloaked ship comes out of cloak at an unknown point in space instead of a station. You can still maneuver blind while cloaked, and warp via autopilot.
You want o draw equivalency to being docked, let's provide equitable weaknesses. If a cloaked ship has probes out you can see them on your overview and is a huge indicator the guy is NOT AFK. And again, even if I am ATK at a safe and using d-scan that is part of the point of having a cloaking device. Get in there, get to safe, start collecting intel is one use of the covert ops cloaking device. I did that back when Goons turned off BoB's sov. I got into one of their staging systems and warped around and was looking for POS, titans, and so forth. Was I going to attack anyone? Nope, I was finding things out in the hopes somebody else might find it useful. But here you are wanting to remove that type of play...because you are simply bad at the game. I agree with you there, which is why I would rather see a method of hunting cloaked ships put in place. It does not need to be quick, easy, or even especially cheap, but it should be possible and not out of reach for a small group. However, since so many of you want to retain the current binary system while attempting to draw false equivalency to stations and such, then we can work that angle.
While you are at it, can you also put in a method for me to not have local scream my name out when I land inside a system?
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."
|
Van Doe
31
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 17:25:38 -
[9235] - Quote
Is anyone aware about that you can decloak someone already?
I'm not trolling, I create content for everyone to enjoy.
afk cloaky in a system near you while posting in this forum.
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1174
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 17:42:43 -
[9236] - Quote
Sure, you can decloak someone by getting within 2k of them. Not terribly useful unless you already know where they are. Utterly useless if they aren't on grid. Currently it's not even possible to get on grid unless they choose to lurk near something that can be found. Mounting a strong enough static defense to dissuade them is one method of dealing with the problem, but should not be the single option available, especially since the level of threat scales from a single newbie ship all the way to a fleet of over 200 titans with few indications where in that spectrum they are until they choose to reveal it.
This is EVE, hunting someone in space is all the reason anyone should need to have it be possible. Beyond that there's the whole defending space thing, being proactive in your own defense, denial of Intel, and any number of other reasons. You all love to tout the non-consensual nature of the PvP in EVE, but cannot accept someone may force anything on a cloaked ship by any means.
The suggestion to have the gate cloak keep you out of local until you break it yourself was already dismissed as being irrelevant, as being immune to enemy interaction indefinitely was deemed more important. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
6134
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 20:36:31 -
[9237] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Sure, you can decloak someone by getting within 2k of them. Not terribly useful unless you already know where they are. Utterly useless if they aren't on grid. Currently it's not even possible to get on grid unless they choose to lurk near something that can be found. Mounting a strong enough static defense to dissuade them is one method of dealing with the problem, but should not be the single option available, especially since the level of threat scales from a single newbie ship all the way to a fleet of over 200 titans with few indications where in that spectrum they are until they choose to reveal it.
This is EVE, hunting someone in space is all the reason anyone should need to have it be possible. Beyond that there's the whole defending space thing, being proactive in your own defense, denial of Intel, and any number of other reasons. You all love to tout the non-consensual nature of the PvP in EVE, but cannot accept someone may force anything on a cloaked ship by any means.
The suggestion to have the gate cloak keep you out of local until you break it yourself was already dismissed as being irrelevant, as being immune to enemy interaction indefinitely was deemed more important.
Awfully helpful if you have a bubble up....warp to whatever the bubble is providing some defense for from different celestials to make sure it is "working" and also to drop cans.
"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
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1174
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 20:47:38 -
[9238] - Quote
Because everyone always warps to and from celestials without ever making bookmarks in between, always warps to zero. It's just not possible to trivially avoid those kinds of obstacles with half a brain cell while drunk and only half looking at the screen. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
6134
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 20:54:13 -
[9239] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Because everyone always warps to and from celestials without ever making bookmarks in between, always warps to zero. It's just not possible to trivially avoid those kinds of obstacles with half a brain cell while drunk and only half looking at the screen.
It is possible to avoid them, and it is not trivial.
As usual we have Mike making everything he disapprove of super easy, while he and his kind bear all the burden.
Edit: And how can an AFK player warp around?
"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
|
Maria Dragoon
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
126
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 22:41:14 -
[9240] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Sorry, not being capable of aggression isn't an excuse for being immune to aggression.
For instance, Pods and shuttles are very fragile, incapable of even mounting weapons, yet enjoy no similar protection. Mining ships, industrial ships, and freighters are also quite inoffensive, yet get no similar protection.
In fact, by your logic the targets the cloaked camper hunts should become immune to everything simply by taking their weapons offline- it's much more difficult and time consuming in the absence of a maintenance array from another ship or structure to bring those back up than it is to drop cloak and wait out the targeting delay.
Guess with that logic I should beable to attack players in stations.
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."
|
|
|
|
|
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 |