EVE Search - A plan to give balance to cloaking (Images)

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

A plan to give balance to cloaking (Images)

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 636	Posted - 2011.10.18 06:51:00 - [1] - Quote GÇªand this is needed why, exactly? GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 636	Posted - 2011.10.18 08:40:00 - [2] - Quote Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Unbalanced. You cant destroy a cloaked contact regardless of the player is asleep, in school, etc. ...and why is that needed? You're just arguing in circles here. What is the problem? What are you trying to solve? Why is it unbalanced? GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 651	Posted - 2011.10.18 20:43:00 - [3] - Quote Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Just log off. Log back in and recloak. That is the way it is supposed to work not being able to go away from the client for hours or nearly a day at a time. Says who? Quote: This plan will address the issue. What issue? Quote: Other issues that arise from its implementation are minor in comparison. You mean breaking cloaking completely is a GÇ£minor issueGÇ¥ compared to the complete non-issue you're trying to solve? How so? GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 671	Posted - 2011.10.19 08:44:00 - [4] - Quote Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Thank you for revealing another reason to add risk to AFK cloaking. GÇ£AnotherGÇ¥? So that makes a total of one, then. Oh, and what was that reason? You didn't really say. So, I guess we're back to zero reasons. Quote: Don't like what someone dares to mention or debates on the forum? I don't like when people claim to debate something and then refuse to provide any arguments and reasons, and can't answer even the simplest question. Quote: The whole idea is removing the incentive to AFK. That includes wormholes which are plagued by the practice just as much. Why is that needed? What is this GÇ£plagueGÇ¥ you're talking about? What is the problem you're trying to solve? GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 671	Posted - 2011.10.19 09:28:00 - [5] - Quote Lucien Visteen wrote: Naria Kentaya wrote that you could find a cloaker through effort, yet afk cloaking takes no effort at all. GÇªand as it happens, AFK cloaking does nothing at all. So that seems like just about the right amount of effort. Quote: Also players seem to like the phrase risk versus reward. Yet no risk is placed in the hands of the afk cloaker. GÇªand no reward either. So the ratio is a rather fair 0:0. Quote: If you want to bait the cloaker out you have to place yourself at risk, and hope he/she bites. GÇªat which point we're no longer talking about AFK cloakers, and the risk vs. reward comes back into play: does he risk his ship against the reward of getting a kill against the risk of it being a trap against he reward of smacking you in local because your trap failed against the risk [etc]. Quote: My biggest concern with afk cloaking is that they dont use the cloak for its intended purpose. Staying hidden, you mean? Well, that's the thing: they can't use it for its intended purpose because there is this insanely broken intel tool called GÇ£localGÇ¥ that completely removes that possibility. So instead, they use if for a far more admirable purpose: to subvert that intel and make local less powerful. As long as local exists in its current iteration, AFK cloaking needs to exist as well since it is the only counter to that intel tool. Quote: The players that afk cloak wants a quick gank, or an easy kill. AFK cloaking is particularly worthless for quick ganks or easy kills since they require so much time to make people stop caring about that red/neutral in local and come out and play. The purpose of cloaking is to remain hidden. What the purpose of remaining hidden is varies. Yes, it can be to gather intel. It can also be to travel. It can also be to set a trap. It can also be to just evade capture. It can also be to explore. Killing is most certainly a part of it unless it contradicts whatever purpose you've set up for yourself. Oh, and those who gather intel most certainly stick aroundGÇª otherwise, they will miss the intel they're there to gather. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 673	Posted - 2011.10.19 16:21:00 - [6] - Quote Lucien Visteen wrote: I'm not talking about intel gathering in WH's here. That is done in a completely different manner cause of system mechanics. Im talking about intel gathering in 0.0, because of system mechanics. GÇªand you're breaking that intel gathering with your proposal. Quote: In a cov-op, with a cov-op cloak, you can get quite a lot of info without being detected. No you can't, for the simple reason that you are always detected. Local ensures this. Quote: Get what you need, and get out. GÇªand with your proposal, that is no longer possible because you want to enforce strict limits to how much you are allowed to GÇ£needGÇ¥. All for no sufficiently explained reason. Quote: The problem arises when players uses ships not intended for cov-ops roles. Such asGÇª? GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 673	Posted - 2011.10.19 16:55:00 - [7] - Quote Lucien Visteen wrote: To answer your question Tippia. Scanning for possible gank sites while being safe inside enemy systems. My only question was GÇ£[the problem arises when players uses ships not intended for cov-ops roles] such asGÇª?GÇ¥ so I presume this is what you mean? SoGÇª how is does that fall outside of the intended use of cloaks or non-covops ships? GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 676	Posted - 2011.10.19 17:50:00 - [8] - Quote Lucien Visteen wrote: If they used said cloak to hide only, then no, it wouldn't be a problem. But they scan too, quite actively, atleast for a moment. Then they wait for complacency. If non cov-ops could be prevented from scanning aswell, then no, it wouldn't be a problem. That doesn't really answer the question: how is does any of that fall outside of the intended use of cloaks or non-covops ships? What is the problem? GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 681	Posted - 2011.10.19 19:34:00 - [9] - Quote Endeavour Starfleet wrote: yes I am trying to break AFK cloaking. Why? Quote: The same argument you make can be made for the "need" of AFK cloaking in any space. "We NEED to counter local" "We NEED to get these (free) kills" Fun fact: AFK cloakers have never killed anyone. AFK cloaking does not give you free kills. You are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 687	Posted - 2011.10.20 09:11:00 - [10] - Quote Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Hell atleast some are trying to offer their views on the subject. Even if it is going to do nothing more than boost AFK cloaking rather than stop the incentive as mine can. GÇªexcept, of course, that yours does not stop the incentive to AFK cloak (nor does it offer any reason as to why it needs to), whereas the other suggestions do. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 688	Posted - 2011.10.20 10:37:00 - [11] - Quote [quote=Endeavour StarfleetI think after you AFK a few times in a hostile system. Get uncloaked by my probes, Get probed down with normal combat probes, then attacked you would have far less incentive to AFK cloak in a hostile system.[/quote]Not really, no, because you're not addressing the thing that actually provides an incentive to AFK cloak. If that's what you want to do, then guess what? The best solution is to go after that incentivising mechanic. Of course, you have yet to give much of a reason why it should be disincentivisedGÇª Quote: Others are too harsh such as fuel bays and random decloaks. GÇªand funnily enough, they don't GÇ£fixGÇ¥ AFK cloaking either, and most certainly do not disincentivise the activity. Quote: Still others are a stealth boost to AFK cloaking such as vanishing in local after cloak Maybe you should read the actual proposalGÇª Quote: Target only the incentive to AFK cloak and nothing else. YeahGÇª you're not doing that. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 688	Posted - 2011.10.20 11:10:00 - [12] - Quote Endeavour Starfleet wrote: I recognize a stealth boost to cloaking (And the usual "remove local" antics) when I see one Then, again, maybe you should read the actual proposalGÇª It completely removes the the entire concept of AFK cloaking, if you haven't noticed. Quote: I support my idea to remove the incentive to AFK cloak. Then why is it that you suggest something that does not address the incentive to AFK cloak, and instead goes after normal cloaking? If you are so adamant in the need to disincentivise AFK cloaking (which, I might add, you still have utterly failed to give any kind of reason for) then why are you equally adamant against a proposal that does exactly that? It not only disincentivises it GÇö it removes the practice entirely. Isn't that what you want? You're making less and less sense here. Instead, you're increasingly appearing as someone who simply wants cloaks removed and to pile on risks on others without accepting any of your own. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 689	Posted - 2011.10.20 11:46:00 - [13] - Quote Endeavour Starfleet wrote: If I wanted cloaks removed I would say something like "Make cloaks only work for one very quick cycle so nobody would fit them" Instead I say "If you walk away from your computer cloaked in a safespot or a "Hole" I want to be able to eventually find and destroy you if you dont return quickly and take action." And the problem is that your suggestion does the former, not the latter. You are not disincentivising AFK cloaking GÇö you are disincentivising cloaks. The incentive to AFK cloak is that it scares the locals. No local takes care of that problem. You do not want to see GÇ£no localGÇ¥, which means you're not actually interested in removing the incentive to AFK cloak. It's really that simple. No matter how much you dance around it and try to come up with reasons why this is bad for you, the fact remains: it is the solution to the problem you claim you're having. Yes, it may cause other issues, but those are easily solved by making it a double-blind system. Likewise, no matter how many times you repeat your suggestion, it doesn't get any less flawed. It doesn't stop breaking cloaking just because you say it n+1 times. It doesn't suddenly provide a reasoning why it's needed on its n:th iteration. It's just the same bad idea over and over again without any reasoning behind it; without any argument why it is better than the alternatives; and without any case for its implementation. Quote: If you normal cloak. Just get the frak off grid during the LONG scan cycles And the very very very very simple fact that you still somehow, miraculously, fail to grasp is that this breaks cloaking. It is a horribly bad idea. It is unbalanced like you wouldn't believe. And above all: it doesn't solve your problem (largely because the problem you claim you want to solve isn't the one you actually want to solve, which is why I keep asking you: what is the problem you want to solve?). Quote: Now there is leeway in this plan for adaptions. Here's a great adaption to the plan: throw it in the bin and instead remove the incentive to AFK cloak, and add in a double-blind system to make it balanced. So no. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from all of this is that you do not, in fact, and no matter what you say, want to remove the incentive to AFK cloak. What you do want is to remove cloaks. Your rhetoric does not match your suggestion. Your rhetoric does match other suggestions, but you reject them because they do not do the thing you want them to do GÇö instead, they do what you say you want to do. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 689	Posted - 2011.10.20 12:09:00 - [14] - Quote Endeavour Starfleet wrote: The point is removing local isn't going to remove AFK cloaking. Yes it is, because without local, AFK cloaking no longer exists. There is no longer any reason to do it, whatsoever (except maybe if you have problems logging in and don't want to deal with that process). Your request to remove the incentive to AFK cloak is 100% fulfilled. As an added bonus, nothing else is really affected. The threat of an enemy uncloaking next to you and doing nasty stuff is exactly the same as before. Whatever you did back then to prevent and/or mitigate it will work now. If you still have issues, then guess what: those issues are not related to AFK cloaking, and you should stop accusing AFK cloaking of being a cause of your problem GÇö in particular, your solutions should address the actual problem, rather than the imaginary one. So, without local, what issues would you say remain that would be in need of fixing? GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 689	Posted - 2011.10.20 12:25:00 - [15] - Quote Endeavour Starfleet wrote: And experienced cloaker will know how to warp off and back fast. GÇªwhich doesn't change the fact that he must leave his observation post, which means he cannot do his job. So that breaks cloaking. It doesn't particularly solve AFK cloaking either, since the locals will be just as afraid as before of those non-blues in local. Quote: I have given you all the benefit I can without removing the ability to attack those that are AFK. Why do you need that ability? Quote: The idea is here. Make the AFK ones able to be probed down and solve the issue. Solve what issue? GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.