Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 .. 343 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1191
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 08:34:33 -
[9661] - Quote
Really?
So the cloaked ship should have to go back to his own home system upon decloaking then? I somehow doubt your 'logic' is going to work out.
You keep running into issues trying to justify the power of the cloaks because it's simply not justified.
Merin's arguments are old, and long ago dealt with. Weak ships should not be immune. Expense has never been a major balance factor and especially should not be immune. Shutting your modules off should not make you immune.
Nothing in space should be immune. Making an immune thing that should not be immune actually not be immune through effort does not remove all value for that thing from the game. It just corrects an overbalance introduced a long time ago.
Just because people have a different playstyle does not mean they are bad, garbage, or otherwise less than you. It does not mean their playstyle should be less supported in a 'sandbox' than yours. This is especially true in this game, where 'sandbox' is the key selling feature.
Just because the way you think of doing stealth isn't supported by the engine does not mean stealth isn't possible. There is plenty of data already sent to your UI that could be used, like distance, signature size, proximity to other objects, speed, active module effects, etc. It does not have to be elegant and fully realized so that you can dodge in an out of asteroids, just giving a bonus because there are asteroids near would be better than what we have.
You don't have to be a troll to point out the inconsistencies of logic in the Pro-Cloak arguments. ;The thread is badly misnamed, the problem isn't AFK, the problem is the cloaks themselves. |
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6416
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 08:44:14 -
[9662] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Really?
So the cloaked ship should have to go back to his own home system upon decloaking then? I somehow doubt your 'logic' is going to work out.
You keep running into issues trying to justify the power of the cloaks because it's simply not justified.
There is no power to cloaks other than giving the player using such ships the initiative. While that can be a powerful advantage that is not always the case. Depends on the group you are engaging. A good group will send in help ASAP. A bad group is one that does not have a standing fleet, nobody on comms and lets the poor sod die alone in the void.
Quote:Merin's arguments are old, and long ago dealt with. Weak ships should not be immune. Expense has never been a major balance factor and especially should not be immune. Shutting your modules off should not make you immune.
No, ships not interacting with the environment should be immune. If your barge has just hoovered up a bunch of rocks it has interacted with the environment. It has had an effect. Making it immune because it turns off all of it's modules and warps to station will let it continue to have a direct effect in game by hauling those rocks to station for refining and sale on the market.
You keep wanting it to be "weak" when Merin is quite clear it is "effect".
Quote:Nothing in space should be immune. Making an immune thing that should not be immune actually not be immune through effort does not remove all value for that thing from the game. It just corrects an overbalance introduced a long time ago.
The correct phrase is nothing in space interacting with the game environment should be immune. A cloaked ship is not mining rocks. It is not shooting rats. It is not hauling stuff. It is, in effect, not able to do anything that can't be done in a station, citadel or POS.
Quote:Just because people have a different playstyle does not mean they are bad, garbage, or otherwise less than you. It does not mean their playstyle should be less supported in a 'sandbox' than yours. This is especially true in this game, where 'sandbox' is the key selling feature.
I do not disagree with this. If you want to just shoot rocks....fine. I couldn't give a ****. But that does not mean you should be exempt from interacting with me...whether you want to or not.
Quote:You don't have to be a troll to point out the inconsistencies of logic in the Pro-Cloak arguments. ;The thread is badly misnamed, the problem isn't AFK, the problem is the cloaks themselves.
It only appears to be an inconsistency because you keep changing "weak" for "effect". You are basically setting up a straw man and knocking it down, and then accusing us of using logical fallacies (poisoning the well fallacy). You are the one using fallacies Mike.
"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
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1191
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 08:57:14 -
[9663] - Quote
Well, it's nice to see you change your argument a little, but it still does not hold water.
To make your statement true, there would need to be some kind of flag on every ship that undocks. As soon as the ship moves or takes any other action the flag clears and you are now a valid target.
Of course, cloaked ships would have lost that flag as soon as they moved too. In space means being subject to non-consent. You don't get a magic button to just be immune whenever you feel like it. Or at least you shouldn't.
That cloaked ship could have also had a miner on it, and cloaking after shooting a rock would still render it effectively immune to interaction, though I suppose you will be pedantic and point out it would have to move a short distance from the rock to pull that off and if it was near a rock someone might possibly come along and bump into it accidently if it stayed right there.
I'd then point out that the need to move around a little to avoid hunters is all I've asked for.
FFS, at minimum just giving the scanning bookmarks a margin of error so it's very unlikely to land directly on the cloaked ship would be enough. No one really needs the exact location of the ship to have a chance at finding it, and a chance is all that's asked for. It's just not that hard to make things be more reasonable. |
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6416
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 09:01:27 -
[9664] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Well, it's nice to see you change your argument a little, but it still does not hold water.
To make your statement true, there would need to be some kind of flag on every ship that undocks. As soon as the ship moves or takes any other action the flag clears and you are now a valid target.
Of course, cloaked ships would have lost that flag as soon as they moved too. In space means being subject to non-consent. You don't get a magic button to just be immune whenever you feel like it. Or at least you shouldn't.
That cloaked ship could have also had a miner on it, and cloaking after shooting a rock would still render it effectively immune to interaction, though I suppose you will be pedantic and point out it would have to move a short distance from the rock to pull that off and if it was near a rock someone might possibly come along and bump into it accidently if it stayed right there.
I'd then point out that the need to move around a little to avoid hunters is all I've asked for.
FFS, at minimum just giving the scanning bookmarks a margin of error so it's very unlikely to land directly on the cloaked ship would be enough. No one really needs the exact location of the ship to have a chance at finding it, and a chance is all that's asked for. It's just not that hard to make things be more reasonable.
No there doesn't.
Look a ship that warps to a secret safe and cloaks is essentially exempting itself from all game play that cannot be done in station.
All other ships not doing the same thing are not exempting themselves from that game play.
There. Done.
"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
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
350
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 09:09:23 -
[9665] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:I'd then point out that the need to move around a little to avoid hunters is all I've asked for.
FFS, at minimum just giving the scanning bookmarks a margin of error so it's very unlikely to land directly on the cloaked ship would be enough. No one really needs the exact location of the ship to have a chance at finding it, and a chance is all that's asked for. It's just not that hard to make things be more reasonable.
And now we're at the "completely pointless" part of the cycle between "pointless" and "remove cloaks from the game". Forcing a cloaked ship to warp between safespots is not going to allow you to catch it, nor does it require any meaningful skill from the cloaked ship. You just wait until you see someone discover your safespot and threaten to get into position to kill you, and then you instantly warp (you are aligned because you aren't stupid) to your next safespot to repeat the process. The "chance of finding it" is ZERO. It might make you feel better that your idiotic obsession with being theoretically able to shoot at a cloaked ship has been pandered to, but you are never going to catch a cloaked ship with even a marginally competent pilot.
The ONLY time this system of probe results with a significant margin of error will let you catch a cloaked ship is when the cloaked ship is AFK and unable to move to new safespots. And, as we have already established, the only alliances that are hurt by AFK cloaked ships are garbage-tier failures that need to be booted back to highsec and deserve no sympathy at all. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1191
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 09:09:48 -
[9666] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Well, it's nice to see you change your argument a little, but it still does not hold water.
To make your statement true, there would need to be some kind of flag on every ship that undocks. As soon as the ship moves or takes any other action the flag clears and you are now a valid target.
Of course, cloaked ships would have lost that flag as soon as they moved too. In space means being subject to non-consent. You don't get a magic button to just be immune whenever you feel like it. Or at least you shouldn't.
That cloaked ship could have also had a miner on it, and cloaking after shooting a rock would still render it effectively immune to interaction, though I suppose you will be pedantic and point out it would have to move a short distance from the rock to pull that off and if it was near a rock someone might possibly come along and bump into it accidently if it stayed right there.
I'd then point out that the need to move around a little to avoid hunters is all I've asked for.
FFS, at minimum just giving the scanning bookmarks a margin of error so it's very unlikely to land directly on the cloaked ship would be enough. No one really needs the exact location of the ship to have a chance at finding it, and a chance is all that's asked for. It's just not that hard to make things be more reasonable. No there doesn't. Look a ship that warps to a secret safe and cloaks is essentially exempting itself from all game play that cannot be done in station. All other ships not doing the same thing are not exempting themselves from that game play. There. Done.
So go to a station and enjoy the benefits and suffer the drawbacks of doing so. In Null that means you might have to gather your friends and take the system, just like the current owners did, in order to use the station.
If you are going to be in space, you should have to deal with others forcing non-consensual gameplay upon you. That should mean having to actively ensure your own safety if someone decides to hunt you, just like everyone else. |
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6416
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 09:14:05 -
[9667] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:
So go to a station and enjoy the benefits and suffer the drawbacks of doing so. In Null that means you might have to gather your friends and take the system, just like the current owners did, in order to use the station.
If you are going to be in space, you should have to deal with others forcing non-consensual gameplay upon you. That should mean having to actively ensure your own safety if someone decides to hunt you, just like everyone else.
Why? I am not having a direct effect on the game and I am using a module CCP put into the game where they knew this kind of behavior was a distinct possibility.
"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
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
350
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 09:20:46 -
[9668] - Quote
Xcom wrote:Eve doesn't have stealth game play. Nothing about cloaking is a game then getting into cloaked state.
Lolwut? Cloaks are stealth gameplay. They allow you to sneak up on a target and engage by careful positioning and ambush tactics. I have no idea how you can say that cloaking is not stealth gameplay.
Quote:If you don't want this type of game play to be ruined then you better come up with a damn good argument why you shouldn't be able to get killed when you are in cloaked state.
Because the whole point of a cloak is that you are invisible. If you can kill a cloaked ship then there's no point in taking a cloaked ship that pays a high price in combat power to get that cloak, and you might as well remove them from the game.
Quote:Pre nerfed combat capability isn't a valid enough argument. Nothing in eve have been balanced around reduced capability because of cloaking. The reduced dps and tank is easily circumnavigated with workarounds.
Lolwut? Are you ****ing kidding? Do you even play this game? Even a casual glance at ship stats will tell you that they have reduced capability. Covops frigates have zero combat ability, stealth bombers are one-dimensional glass cannons that get slaughtered 1v1 by pretty much any combat ship, force recons are worse in every way than combat recons, a Stratios is just an Ishtar with weaker drones and T1 resists, and even cloaky T3s have much worse firepower than pure combat T3s. There is no workaround that is going to let a covert ops cloaking ship compare favorably with equivalent non-cloaking ships once the cloak is off and the shooting begins.
Now, non-covert ops ships can fit cloaks without a significant combat penalty (as long as they have a utility high slot available), but those cloaks are a joke in PvP. You can't warp cloaked and the recalibration delay is long enough for pretty much any target to align out and escape, so there's no point in attempting to use them in combat. The only things they're good for are the cloak + MWD trick at gatecamps and cloaking up in a safespot when a station isn't available.
Quote:There is no stealth game play in eve. Its a single module you turn on and if your not bumped within 1min your basically invulnerable. That is a joke if anyone calls it stealth gameplay.
You're only invulnerable as long as you never do anything. Want to shoot at something? Want to run a PvE site? Want to mine? Want to capture a FW site or entosis a structure? Now you're just as visible as any other ship, and because you paid the price to get that cloak you're at a disadvantage compared to a non-cloaking ship. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1191
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 09:23:22 -
[9669] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:
So go to a station and enjoy the benefits and suffer the drawbacks of doing so. In Null that means you might have to gather your friends and take the system, just like the current owners did, in order to use the station.
If you are going to be in space, you should have to deal with others forcing non-consensual gameplay upon you. That should mean having to actively ensure your own safety if someone decides to hunt you, just like everyone else.
Why? I am not having a direct effect on the game and I am using a module CCP put into the game where they knew this kind of behavior was a distinct possibility.
Are you asking why you should be subject to non-consent while in space? It's EVE. It does not matter why you undocked or what affect you can or will have while out in space--- if you are in space you should be subject to non-consent. It's the most basic concept in the game. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1191
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 09:27:40 -
[9670] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:Xcom wrote:Eve doesn't have stealth game play. Nothing about cloaking is a game then getting into cloaked state. Lolwut? Cloaks are stealth gameplay. They allow you to sneak up on a target and engage by careful positioning and ambush tactics. I have no idea how you can say that cloaking is not stealth gameplay. Quote:If you don't want this type of game play to be ruined then you better come up with a damn good argument why you shouldn't be able to get killed when you are in cloaked state. Because the whole point of a cloak is that you are invisible. If you can kill a cloaked ship then there's no point in taking a cloaked ship that pays a high price in combat power to get that cloak, and you might as well remove them from the game. Quote:Pre nerfed combat capability isn't a valid enough argument. Nothing in eve have been balanced around reduced capability because of cloaking. The reduced dps and tank is easily circumnavigated with workarounds. Lolwut? Are you ****ing kidding? Do you even play this game? Even a casual glance at ship stats will tell you that they have reduced capability. Covops frigates have zero combat ability, stealth bombers are one-dimensional glass cannons that get slaughtered 1v1 by pretty much any combat ship, force recons are worse in every way than combat recons, a Stratios is just an Ishtar with weaker drones and T1 resists, and even cloaky T3s have much worse firepower than pure combat T3s. There is no workaround that is going to let a covert ops cloaking ship compare favorably with equivalent non-cloaking ships once the cloak is off and the shooting begins. Now, non-covert ops ships can fit cloaks without a significant combat penalty (as long as they have a utility high slot available), but those cloaks are a joke in PvP. You can't warp cloaked and the recalibration delay is long enough for pretty much any target to align out and escape, so there's no point in attempting to use them in combat. The only things they're good for are the cloak + MWD trick at gatecamps and cloaking up in a safespot when a station isn't available. Quote:There is no stealth game play in eve. Its a single module you turn on and if your not bumped within 1min your basically invulnerable. That is a joke if anyone calls it stealth gameplay. You're only invulnerable as long as you never do anything. Want to shoot at something? Want to run a PvE site? Want to mine? Want to capture a FW site or entosis a structure? Now you're just as visible as any other ship, and because you paid the price to get that cloak you're at a disadvantage compared to a non-cloaking ship.
Are you in space not doing anything? If so, you should be subject to non-consensual pvp by others. Does not matter if you choose to do something or not. Does not matter if you choose to do it in a shuttle or a Titan.
Simply being able to get on grid with a cloaked ship does not remove cloaking from the game, histrionics to the contrary not withstanding.
And it's not true that you can never do anything. You just can't do it with someone on grid that can see where you are and reach your position before you move off. |
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
351
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 10:02:08 -
[9671] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Are you in space not doing anything? If so, you should be subject to non-consensual pvp by others. Does not matter if you choose to do something or not. Does not matter if you choose to do it in a shuttle or a Titan.
And, as has been pointed out, this rule is sheer stubborn idiocy. It is entirely reasonable for there to be situations where a ship is, for all practical purposes, immune to PvP. Those situations should not involve being able to make money, engage PvP targets, etc, but there is no blanket principle that would prevent situational invulnerability from existing when it fulfills a design goal.
But of course you'll keep repeating this argument, because it's the only one you have. If you lose the blanket "I MUST BE ABLE TO PVP EVERYTHING" rule then you have no further argument against cloaking.
Quote:Simply being able to get on grid with a cloaked ship does not remove cloaking from the game, histrionics to the contrary not withstanding.
No, of course it doesn't, that's why I filed that proposal in the "useless" category. Merely being able to get an inaccurate probe result on grid with a cloaked ship accomplishes nothing, because the cloaked ship will immediately warp to a new safespot if you get anywhere near it. All you've accomplished is adding more buttons to press without adding any meaningful gameplay decisions or interactions. And that's **** design.
For your proposal to have any practical effect you have to combine it with some kind of anti-cloak mechanic that deactivates the cloak and allows you to see the cloaked ship. And such an ability will immediately be exploited to provide instant warning of a cloaked ship on-grid with you, giving a target plenty of time to warp out before the cloaked ship can get into position to make an attack. So if you're going to have very little benefit from being cloaked you might as well just bring a HAC instead of a recon and hope you get lucky enough to land within tackle range when you warp in.
Quote:And it's not true that you can never do anything. You just can't do it with someone on grid that can see where you are and reach your position before you move off.
Uh, what? You might want to re-read that post and try to understand the context. The current situation is that cloaking doesn't let you do anything while you're invulnerable. You become invulnerable, but only at the cost of being unable to activate any modules. If you want to accomplish anything besides sitting idle in space you have to decloak and give up your invulnerability, at which point you can be killed just like anything else. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
181
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 14:22:44 -
[9672] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Nothing in space should be immune. Making an immune thing that should not be immune actually not be immune through effort does not remove all value for that thing from the game. It just corrects an overbalance introduced a long time ago. Hit the nail right on the head. Thank you!
Cloaks need a nerf and it is exactly what needs to happen. Just because effort reduces the value of absolute stealth don't mean cloaks will lose all there value. It will simply come in line with what should have been from the start, a direct counter mechanic to cloaked ships.
No matter how weak a cloaked ships stats are wont make up for the permanent cloaking that can be done on such extreme safety. They could just as easily do there job with a nerf to make them come in line with any other ship in eve doing there intended role. A ship that wont help getting ganked if the odds are stacked against you and enough people are making an effort in getting you killed.
It is so stupid hearing people talk about cloaks doing what they were intended for or in other words consensual-pvp while at the same time reading the same posts from the same people about empire ganks and hear them babble on about non-consensual-pvp. I would just ignore Techo's posts altogether in this thread cause the guy is just here to stir the pot, taking whatever side that causes the most drama. |
Maria Dragoon
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
139
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 15:51:52 -
[9673] - Quote
Xcom wrote: It is so stupid hearing people talk about cloaks doing what they were intended for or in other words consensual-pvp while at the same time reading the same posts from the same people about empire ganks and hear them babble on about non-consensual-pvp.
It also kinda stupid to hear people scream nerf cloaks when it clear they never used them before. So speaking of kettles.
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
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6418
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 18:18:02 -
[9674] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:
So go to a station and enjoy the benefits and suffer the drawbacks of doing so. In Null that means you might have to gather your friends and take the system, just like the current owners did, in order to use the station.
If you are going to be in space, you should have to deal with others forcing non-consensual gameplay upon you. That should mean having to actively ensure your own safety if someone decides to hunt you, just like everyone else.
Why? I am not having a direct effect on the game and I am using a module CCP put into the game where they knew this kind of behavior was a distinct possibility. Are you asking why you should be subject to non-consent while in space? It's EVE. It does not matter why you undocked or what affect you can or will have while out in space--- if you are in space you should be subject to non-consent. It's the most basic concept in the game.
But you yourself have noted that using a cloak at a secret safe is pretty much equivalent to being docked. So...okay, you get the same level of security provided you do nothing at all aside from what you can do while docked.
"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
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6418
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 18:35:47 -
[9675] - Quote
Xcom wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Nothing in space should be immune. Making an immune thing that should not be immune actually not be immune through effort does not remove all value for that thing from the game. It just corrects an overbalance introduced a long time ago. Hit the nail right on the head. Thank you! Cloaks need a nerf and it is exactly what needs to happen. Just because effort reduces the value of absolute stealth don't mean cloaks will lose all there value. It will simply come in line with what should have been from the start, a direct counter mechanic to cloaked ships. No matter how weak a cloaked ships stats are wont make up for the permanent cloaking that can be done on such extreme safety. They could just as easily do there job with a nerf to make them come in line with any other ship in eve doing there intended role. A ship that wont help getting ganked if the odds are stacked against you and enough people are making an effort in getting you killed. It is so stupid hearing people talk about cloaks doing what they were intended for or in other words consensual-pvp while at the same time reading the same posts from the same people about empire ganks and hear them babble on about non-consensual-pvp. I would just ignore Techo's posts altogether in this thread cause the guy is just here to stir the pot, taking whatever side that causes the most drama.
Nope. Cloaks are fine. What can you do while the cloak is active and you are at a safe spot? Here is a partial list:
PI, Contracts, Market orders if I am in range, D-scan.
In that list, and add more if I have missed any, the only one you can't do in station is D-scan. However, when in station you can also,
Use jump clones (totally safe and invulnerable instantaneous travel between vast distances, Access the corp hangar (if there is one and you have access rights), Trade with other characters, Access station services. With a citadel you can even undock, remain tethered and use D-scan and remain pretty much invulnerable as if you were docked.
So the general rule is this:
When playing the game you are, generally speaking, at risk. There are exceptions. These are when docked, tethered, temporarily when in a POS shields, and when cloaked at a secret safe.
Edit:
You also might want to have a think about what it means when there is non-consensual PvP. In non-consensual PvP one side is "consenting". If both sides are not consenting there why are they fighting? Why aren't both players warping off? Or staying there and doing stuff other than shooting each other?
"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
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
181
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 22:11:44 -
[9676] - Quote
Maria Dragoon wrote:Xcom wrote: It is so stupid hearing people talk about cloaks doing what they were intended for or in other words consensual-pvp while at the same time reading the same posts from the same people about empire ganks and hear them babble on about non-consensual-pvp.
It also kinda stupid to hear people scream nerf cloaks when it clear they never used them before. So speaking of kettles. Cloaking V and done nothing but fly around in cov-ops before even stealth bombers were added. My favourite pastime in eve have been behind a cloak, in fact without the cloak I would probably never played as much eve. Even most of my pvp have revolved around staying cloaked and add support. I have used and abused the cloaking mechanic like the next guy. Done exploration to death, wormholes in nothing but cloaks left and right, flown around in deep null with cloaky T3 doing exploration, abused cloak MWD to the fullest, sat on wh-openings watching pvp and droped a bomb or 2 and more. Its the perfect small/solo tool promoting more carebear activity then anything. I have even gone AFK when cloaked knowing full well my internet connection would hold in deep null.
But at the same time I have been on the receiving end of camping cloakers as well. Known full well how stupidly safe cloaks I have more or less cringed with the knowledge of how stupid the mechanic really is. As much as I like cloaks I rather see it taken down a peg or two so it cant be abused.
ONLY by knowing full well how stupid the mechanic is why I'm here asking CCP to balance the module out to a reasonable level. I could just as well be an idiot and be pro-cloaks defending my play style but that's plain idiotic and childish. I rather play a balanced and fair game then promote my favourite play stile. |
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
1151
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 23:50:22 -
[9677] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:No, the point is that Local isn't some omniscient all inclusive intel.
Local doesn't tell you who is an enemy in sov null 100% of the time and give you enough time to get away from a neutral or red 100% of the time in sov null?
Since when? I missed that patch. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1192
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 07:09:16 -
[9678] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:
So go to a station and enjoy the benefits and suffer the drawbacks of doing so. In Null that means you might have to gather your friends and take the system, just like the current owners did, in order to use the station.
If you are going to be in space, you should have to deal with others forcing non-consensual gameplay upon you. That should mean having to actively ensure your own safety if someone decides to hunt you, just like everyone else.
Why? I am not having a direct effect on the game and I am using a module CCP put into the game where they knew this kind of behavior was a distinct possibility. Are you asking why you should be subject to non-consent while in space? It's EVE. It does not matter why you undocked or what affect you can or will have while out in space--- if you are in space you should be subject to non-consent. It's the most basic concept in the game. But you yourself have noted that using a cloak at a secret safe is pretty much equivalent to being docked. So...okay, you get the same level of security provided you do nothing at all aside from what you can do while docked.
It really is refreshing to see you switching up your game, and then you do this.
Cloaks aren't stations. The only time I have pointed out that cloaks provide safety comparable (in fact, superior) to stations is to point out how broken cloaks are for doing so. You see, stations are meant to provide safety by taking your out of space and providing a place to accumulate assets so as to give gameplay meaning. This was actually covered in a Dev Blog when they talked about how Citadels handle your stuff when destroyed. This is why stations even exist in the first place.
Your much vaunted Golden Rules are actually contradictory on this point. They state that anything in space is supposed to be at risk, and then point out that being cloaked at a safespot is also safe. I personally hold the view that the exception is an emergent oversight to a bad decision. You disagree. The difference is that I go on to support my view with logic, and you go on to support your view with numerous fallacies, empty dogma and inconsistent standards applied through bias.
So while you can draw a superficial comparison between what stations do and what cloaks allow, they are not *supposed* to be comparable. One is a necessary fundamental game condition, the other is a ships module. Ships in space are supposed to be subject at all times to non-consensual interactions. Cloaks do not meet that most basic standard of gameplay if there is at any time a circumstance that allows the ship to be completely immune to non-consensual interactions. Adjustments to the mechanics surrounding cloaking need adjusting until they do meet that standard.
The answer to your little double-think concerning non-consent is pretty simple. The cloak user is not consenting except in circumstances that he chooses. This is why cloaks need adjustment, there needs to be some way to force action upon a cloaked ship simply because that is the most fundamental aspect of the game. You can limit an opponents options, but the control of those options cannot be in the hands of the cloaked player, as it currently is, or you can never have non-consent. That is the whole core of the problem- The cloaked player *can* easily find a fight, he just can't easily find one on his terms. If he were to start crashing gates he would soon find himself confronted by those looking to defend the space. He does not consent to that fight, and so uses his cloak. Fair enough, except that there is now no way to bring force of any kind to bear upon the cloaked player. He has opted out of danger entirely, except he is still in space in contradiction to that most basic tenet of the game.
|
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale Black Marker
1312
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 09:13:10 -
[9679] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Your much vaunted Golden Rules are actually contradictory on this point. They state that anything in space is supposed to be at risk, and then point out that being cloaked at a safespot is also safe. I personally hold the view that the exception is an emergent oversight to a bad decision. You disagree. The difference is that I go on to support my view with logic, and you go on to support your view with numerous fallacies, empty dogma and inconsistent standards applied through bias. https://i.giphy.com/Vg0JstydL8HCg.gif
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.
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
181
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 09:54:54 -
[9680] - Quote
@Linus Gorp He is right. A few names in this thread all are against consensual-pvp while at the same forget that it holds true to cloaked ships as well. Its a moral ambiguity when they provide countless arguments around the idea of PVE players should be at risk. Its somehow convenient for them to leave out that same hold for the cloaked ships. Its as if they think AFK-camping will be gone and everyone and there dog will hit the belts in nullsec and there will be no way to stop them.
Not even minor nerfs are accepted as to just keep things the way they are. Bunch of purist traditionalists. |
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
354
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 10:28:18 -
[9681] - Quote
Ever hear the phrase "solution in need of a problem"? The fact that things are fine as they are now is enough of a reason, the burden of proof is on the anti-cloaking side to establish that enough of a problem exists to justify major nerfs* to cloaking. And so far nobody has been able to make a compelling argument for that. There's lots of whining from carebears about how nullsec PvE isn't safe like highsec, and some weird arguments inventing general "I WANT TO PVP THIS" rules that do not come from CCP, but none of that is at all convincing.
*And yes, they are major nerfs that effectively remove cloaking from the game, when they aren't completely ineffective and a waste of development resources. |
Wander Prian
Art Of Explosions Hole Control
438
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 13:48:17 -
[9682] - Quote
I think the biggest reason why cloaks aren't a issue in W-space is to player attitude. Wormholers tend to go with "How can WE deal with the cloaker" where as nullsec the thought is "How can I deal with a cloaker"
The problem is, cloaky-ships excel at hunting solo targets. The best defence against s cloaky ship is teamwork.
Wormholer for life.
|
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale Black Marker
1319
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 14:07:59 -
[9683] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:I think the biggest reason why cloaks aren't a issue in W-space is to player attitude. Wormholers tend to go with "How can WE deal with the cloaker" where as nullsec the thought is "How can I deal with a cloaker"
The problem is, cloaky-ships excel at hunting solo targets. The best defence against s cloaky ship is teamwork. You can find a response like yours on almost every page of this thread at least once. The 468 pages that this thread is now long can be compressed into 10 pages at most, the rest is just rehashing the same crying over and over with the same debunking of their "arguments" over and over, which always results in more crying and more baseless arguments.
Xcom wrote:@Linus Gorp He is right. A few names in this thread all are against consensual-pvp while at the same forget that it holds true to cloaked ships as well. Its a moral ambiguity when they provide countless arguments around the idea of PVE players should be at risk. Its somehow convenient for them to leave out that same hold for the cloaked ships. Its as if they think AFK-camping will be gone and everyone and there dog will hit the belts in nullsec and there will be no way to stop them. That works both sides. Give them the means to decloak cloaked ships and give us the means to un-tether tethered ships and forcefully undock them from stations and citadels.
Mike has been rehashing his same bullshit for so long that I couldn't even be bothered anymore showing him where he's wrong because he either refuses to accept logic or utterly fails to understand it. The only appropriate response short of telling him what an idiot he is was posting that gif.
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.
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
181
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 17:58:32 -
[9684] - Quote
Citadels aren't safe. Same cant be said about cloaked ships.
And yet again, there is no silver bullet of proof regarding balance passes. It's only a popularity contest. |
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale Black Marker
1320
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 18:46:53 -
[9685] - Quote
Xcom wrote:Citadels aren't safe. Same cant be said about cloaked ships.
And yet again, there is no silver bullet of proof regarding balance passes. It's only a popularity contest. Then tell me how I can kill someone inside a citadel, or someone that's tethered to said citadel? I can't. How can a cloaked ship kill anyone or interact with anyone at all? It can't.
Q.e.d.
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.
|
Vic Jefferson
Brand Newbros Test Alliance Please Ignore
1238
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 19:13:31 -
[9686] - Quote
Linus Gorp wrote: Give them the means to decloak cloaked ships and give us the means to un-tether tethered ships and forcefully undock them from stations and citadels.
What? If you give people the means to decloak things, the counter-balance is making the cloak meaningful in the first place - I.E. actually hiding the ship, including from local.
The cloak is a purely defensive module currently, as it hides nothing. Hunting would be many times more engaging if the cloak actually hid you, but in turn was subject to counter-play. Local removes the entire idea of a cloaked ship.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1193
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 01:56:04 -
[9687] - Quote
Linus Gorp wrote:Wander Prian wrote:I think the biggest reason why cloaks aren't a issue in W-space is to player attitude. Wormholers tend to go with "How can WE deal with the cloaker" where as nullsec the thought is "How can I deal with a cloaker"
The problem is, cloaky-ships excel at hunting solo targets. The best defence against s cloaky ship is teamwork. You can find a response like yours on almost every page of this thread at least once. The 468 pages that this thread is now long can be compressed into 10 pages at most, the rest is just rehashing the same crying over and over with the same debunking of their "arguments" over and over, which always results in more crying and more baseless arguments. Xcom wrote:@Linus Gorp He is right. A few names in this thread all are against consensual-pvp while at the same forget that it holds true to cloaked ships as well. Its a moral ambiguity when they provide countless arguments around the idea of PVE players should be at risk. Its somehow convenient for them to leave out that same hold for the cloaked ships. Its as if they think AFK-camping will be gone and everyone and there dog will hit the belts in nullsec and there will be no way to stop them. That works both sides. Give them the means to decloak cloaked ships and give us the means to un-tether tethered ships and forcefully undock them from stations and citadels. Mike has been rehashing his same bullshit for so long that I couldn't even be bothered anymore showing him where he's wrong because he either refuses to accept logic or utterly fails to understand it. The only appropriate response short of telling him what an idiot he is was posting that gif.
You don't agree that ships in space should be subject to non-consensual interaction?
How do you justify having any issue at all with ships evading you then? Every single PvP whine falls completely in the face of that, from people docking up to WCS farmers in faction war, to complaining about the AI changes that made hunters start tanking against the rats shooting their targets.
Before asking for ways to kick people from stations you should probably check on a couple of things. For instance, are you trying to balance core game fundamentals with the operation of a module? Do you have a way to make achieving any goal meaningful once you remove everyone's ability to aquire anything?
And yeah, Citadels are more at risk than a cloaked ship. They can be found and force brought to bear to interfere or destroy them. It's not a casual endeavor, but it's possible, which is more than you can say for a cloaked ship. |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
354
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 02:44:08 -
[9688] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:How do you justify having any issue at all with ships evading you then? Every single PvP whine falls completely in the face of that, from people docking up to WCS farmers in faction war, to complaining about the AI changes that made hunters start tanking against the rats shooting their targets.
The difference you keep ignoring is that those people are actively making ISK while being safe, while a cloaked ship is just sitting there. A FW farmer with lows full of WCS is turning a PvP combat system into another mindless PvE farming opportunity, continuing to make ISK at maximum effectiveness with near-zero risk because WCS have no penalty. The AI changes are stupid because why should the NPCs attack someone who came in to kill the person who has been killing them? And nobody is complaining that people dock up instead of going into suicidal fights or demanding changes to the docking mechanics.
Quote:And yeah, Citadels are more at risk than a cloaked ship. They can be found and force brought to bear to interfere or destroy them. It's not a casual endeavor, but it's possible, which is more than you can say for a cloaked ship.
When the effort involved requires weeks of work from a major PvP force, and it's virtually impossible to keep the players docked inside from escaping at some point before the citadel is destroyed, the idea that being docked in a citadel isn't 100% safe is pretty insane. |
Dracvlad
Tactically Challenged Tactical Supremacy
3088
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 07:09:15 -
[9689] - Quote
OK, I was told reliably that CCP are intending to set up the uncloaking wave idea within a system with a long cooldown attached to a citadel, so that active campers will have no issues but those that are AFK will be uncloaked and can then be probed down.
That is good news even if it screws up cloaks for casual players who get called away.
I think that this is a good solution and it makes me very happy. Good job CCP, don't back away from it.
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin
|
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6423
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 07:11:51 -
[9690] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:OK, I was told reliably that CCP are intending to set up the uncloaking wave idea within a system with a long cooldown attached to a citadel, so that active campers will have no issues but those that are AFK will be uncloaked and can then be probed down.
That is good news even if it screws up cloaks for casual players who get called away.
I think that this is a good solution and it makes me very happy. Good job CCP, don't back away from it.
If true, it shows that CCP have not learned anything when it comes to their player base.
"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
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
|
|
|
|
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 |