Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Nag'o
Scorpion on a Stick
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 12:16:00 -
[301] - Quote
Maximus Aerelius wrote:This post: ... Not that I'm a fan of EVENews24 but they got that shizz right. Again, this guy is only addressing the particular issues of nullsec PvE players vs. afk cloakers. Being cloaked afk is a problem in lowsec and affects other people than PvE players too. I said it before but you seem to be just ignoring that.
|
Evanga
Way So Mad Axiomatic Dominion
73
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 12:20:00 -
[302] - Quote
Nag'o wrote:Evanga wrote:Nag'o wrote:Evanga wrote:is this again about bots not being able to make you isk??
GET OUT and stop making these shitthreads about cloaks. It's fine as it is. Just because afk cloaking is a marginal solution for mining bots it doesn't mean it's not a problem too. You are again making the auto assumption that all cloakers are afk. get your head out of the arse of the guy who once said all cloakers are afk and use your own brains. Cloaks are fine, you should look into the insta intel called "Local" channel.. If they are not going afk then what the **** is your problem with this thread?
no no..you are making the constant assumption that all cloakers are afk. Otherwise you do not refer to them as Afk cloakers.
my point being that cloaking devices are fine is still being neglected as you only care about the fact you are unable to make iskies. You and your bots. |
Nag'o
Scorpion on a Stick
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 12:24:00 -
[303] - Quote
The point of removing afk cloaking is not to remove risk. The point is reducing the uncertaintity threshold of the cloaked pilot being afk or not. Cloak should not be meant to be a mechanic for adding uncertaintity about player activity. Cloak is to add uncertaintity of ship location.
And you will say: bleh, remove local. Yes, removing local would solve it. I do support removing local in nullsec, I don't support removing local in lowsec, hence the problem wouldn't be completely solved. Restraining cloak time would solve the problem BOTH in nullsec and lowsec. You can still remove local in null if you want, I'm not against it. In fact I think it would be quite cool. The thing is THIS IS NOT THE POINT OF THIS THREAD. |
Nag'o
Scorpion on a Stick
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 12:25:00 -
[304] - Quote
Evanga wrote:Nag'o wrote:Evanga wrote:Nag'o wrote:Evanga wrote:is this again about bots not being able to make you isk??
GET OUT and stop making these shitthreads about cloaks. It's fine as it is. Just because afk cloaking is a marginal solution for mining bots it doesn't mean it's not a problem too. You are again making the auto assumption that all cloakers are afk. get your head out of the arse of the guy who once said all cloakers are afk and use your own brains. Cloaks are fine, you should look into the insta intel called "Local" channel.. If they are not going afk then what the **** is your problem with this thread? no no..you are making the constant assumption that all cloakers are afk. Otherwise you do not refer to them as Afk cloakers. my point being that cloaking devices are fine is still being neglected as you only care about the fact you are unable to make iskies. You and your bots.
I'm refering to AFK cloakers as a specific type of cloaker?
|
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
361
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 12:28:00 -
[305] - Quote
Nag'o wrote:The point of removing afk cloaking is not to remove risk. The point is reducing the uncertaintity threshold of the cloaked pilot being afk or not. Cloak should not be meant to be a mechanic for adding uncertaintity about player activity. Cloak is to add uncertaintity of ship location.
And you will say: bleh, remove local. Yes, removing local would solve it. I do support removing local in nullsec, I don't support removing local in lowsec, hence the problem wouldn't be completely solved. Restraining cloak time would solve the problem BOTH in nullsec and lowsec. You can still remove local in null if you want, I'm not against it. In fact I think it would be quite cool. The thing is THIS IS NOT THE POINT OF THIS THREAD.
The uncertainty is the risk so if you remove that then you remove the risk. Now if you nerf cloaks for "AFK Cloakers" (not that there is such a thing) then you also nerf it for Cov-Ops\Cloakers...it's one and the same mate...it's the Cloaking Mechanic\Ability.
Oh and Cloaking is used to to add uncertainty about ship, location, mission, objectives and fleet objectives or composition. Hence why they cloak and don't appear on D-Scan.
I highlight in your quote the part that is really relevant. Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee" Undocking - More Routes Out of Station Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up! |
Evanga
Way So Mad Axiomatic Dominion
73
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 12:34:00 -
[306] - Quote
i think i should be able to tractor beam possed up afk marauders and afk ratting carriers from their posses and kill them. |
Nag'o
Scorpion on a Stick
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 12:35:00 -
[307] - Quote
Evanga wrote:i think i should be able to tractor beam possed up afk marauders and afk ratting carriers from their posses and kill them. make a new thread about it |
Evanga
Way So Mad Axiomatic Dominion
73
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 12:40:00 -
[308] - Quote
Nag'o wrote:Evanga wrote:i think i should be able to tractor beam possed up afk marauders and afk ratting carriers from their posses and kill them. make a new thread about it
no - as it is as much of a ****** idea as changing cloaks. |
Nag'o
Scorpion on a Stick
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 12:40:00 -
[309] - Quote
Maximus Aerelius wrote:Nag'o wrote:The point of removing afk cloaking is not to remove risk. The point is reducing the uncertaintity threshold of the cloaked pilot being afk or not. Cloak should not be meant to be a mechanic for adding uncertaintity about player activity. Cloak is to add uncertaintity of ship location.
And you will say: bleh, remove local. Yes, removing local would solve it. I do support removing local in nullsec, I don't support removing local in lowsec, hence the problem wouldn't be completely solved. Restraining cloak time would solve the problem BOTH in nullsec and lowsec. You can still remove local in null if you want, I'm not against it. In fact I think it would be quite cool. The thing is THIS IS NOT THE POINT OF THIS THREAD. The uncertainty is the risk so if you remove that then you remove the risk. Now if you nerf cloaks for "AFK Cloakers" (not that there is such a thing) then you also nerf it for Cov-Ops\Cloakers...it's one and the same mate...it's the Cloaking Mechanic\Ability. Oh and Cloaking is used to to add uncertainty about ship, location, mission, objectives and fleet objectives or composition. Hence why they cloak and don't appear on D-Scan. I highlight in your quote the part that is really relevant. The uncertainty of ship or fleet location, type, etc. is not removed by removing afk cloaking, hence the risk they add is still the same.
|
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
362
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 12:51:00 -
[310] - Quote
Nag'o wrote:Maximus Aerelius wrote:Nag'o wrote:The point of removing afk cloaking is not to remove risk. The point is reducing the uncertaintity threshold of the cloaked pilot being afk or not. Cloak should not be meant to be a mechanic for adding uncertaintity about player activity. Cloak is to add uncertaintity of ship location.
And you will say: bleh, remove local. Yes, removing local would solve it. I do support removing local in nullsec, I don't support removing local in lowsec, hence the problem wouldn't be completely solved. Restraining cloak time would solve the problem BOTH in nullsec and lowsec. You can still remove local in null if you want, I'm not against it. In fact I think it would be quite cool. The thing is THIS IS NOT THE POINT OF THIS THREAD. The uncertainty is the risk so if you remove that then you remove the risk. Now if you nerf cloaks for "AFK Cloakers" (not that there is such a thing) then you also nerf it for Cov-Ops\Cloakers...it's one and the same mate...it's the Cloaking Mechanic\Ability. Oh and Cloaking is used to to add uncertainty about ship, location, mission, objectives and fleet objectives or composition. Hence why they cloak and don't appear on D-Scan. I highlight in your quote the part that is really relevant. The uncertainty of ship or fleet location, type, etc. is not removed by removing afk cloaking, hence the risk they add is still the same.
There isn't such a thing as AFK Cloaking, which part of that are you not getting? If there was I'd train it to Level 15 and be done with it
You nerf cloaks = you nerf cloaks...it really is that simple. Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee" Undocking - More Routes Out of Station Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up! |
|
Nag'o
Scorpion on a Stick
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 12:54:00 -
[311] - Quote
Maximus Aerelius wrote: There isn't such a thing as AFK Cloaking
That's a winner.
|
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Ex Cinere Scriptor
2442
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 12:58:00 -
[312] - Quote
Nag'o wrote:The point of removing afk cloaking is not to remove risk. The point is reducing the uncertainty threshold of the cloaked pilot being afk or not. Cloak should not be a mechanic for adding uncertainty about player activity. Cloak should add uncertainty of ship location.
And you will say: bleh, remove local. Yes, removing local would solve it. I do support removing local in nullsec, I don't support removing local in lowsec, hence the problem wouldn't be completely solved. Restraining cloak time would solve the problem BOTH in nullsec and lowsec. You can still remove local in null if you want, I'm not against it. In fact I think it would be quite cool. The thing is THIS IS NOT THE POINT OF THIS THREAD. Underlined for specifics.
Actually, that is EXACTLY what cloaking is intended to do.
You don't know anything about their actions, except that they are in your system.
They could be scouting, watching an outpost for traffic, cataloging ships visible at a POS, making warp in points at a hidden ore belt, creating a safe spot for a covert cyno, making bombing run book marks across a bottleneck gate....
Or they could be using the bathroom, walking the dog, having wild intercourse with a spouse since their child took a nap, making a fajita sandwich, or even catching up on their alliance forums.... pant... pant.....
The fact that you even know they are present, with NO effort, demonstrates an absurd lowering of the intel bar across the board.
You already know too much, and it makes PvE too safe. Now you want it even safer.
Bad idea stays bad. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what? |
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
364
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 13:02:00 -
[313] - Quote
Back on topic:
Scenario 1:
So you're Alliance\Corp\Fleet is forming up a Cov-Ops Fleet and are heading to the system say 30 Jumps out...all Cov-Ops so all requiring fuel for their cloaking devices. The fleet size is 1000 ships and is coming from all corners of the EVE universe. Now you have to bring in Jump and\or Frieghters\Orca's\Blockade Runners\Deep Space Transports to feed all those cloaked ships with fuel.
Now the people in Local will see everyone arrive and if they get within D-Scan as they drop cloak to refuel will have an idea of what ships are in the fleet...even though everyone is active AKA Non-AFK Mode and trying ot be all sneaky.
Scenario 2:
No one uses Cov-Ops because it is now so limited it's pointless. Hot Drops are the future or just plain blob wars. Explorers won't stray far from Hi-Sec so that they can keep fuel supplies up. Null Sec get's safer and the rewards get less because guess what? If you can't get fuel you won't get cloakers. Nullbears rejoice People using Blockade Runners for picking up\dropping of goods to Low-Sec, PI or other manufacturing or resupply now have to use up space in their limited cargoholds for fuel...and on a ship that is specialised in operating Covert Ops Cloaking technology.
Cov-Ops dies and everyone demands Skill-Point reimbursement drowning the forums in threads similar to ones like this.
Which part of this kills Cloaking don't you get yet with 16 pages? Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee" Undocking - More Routes Out of Station Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up! |
seany1212
Tides of Silence Care Factor
210
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 13:05:00 -
[314] - Quote
Nag'o wrote:
WH residents already have to haul POS fuel, so invisible juice will just be another asset on their trips to highsec. Or it could be some stuff they find in the WH already, who knows? I'm just considering the general idea, balancing stuff is dev job.
"I FEEL THIS IS BROKEN, FIX IT FOR ME"
as quoted from page 3 of this thread...
Nag'o wrote:
This is about adding depth to the mechanic, not making it more realistic.
If it's not about making it more realistic, then why does it need changing?
The only people that i see complaining about this issue are null-sec entitlists who feel they should be able to achieve higher levels of isk without the risk. The fact you don't even have a viable solution other than "I'm just considering the general idea, balancing stuff is the dev job" just shows how little intelligence you have on the matter.
If you're not one of those then explain 'HOW' AFK cloakers are affecting you 'DIRECTLY'...
|
Nag'o
Scorpion on a Stick
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 13:21:00 -
[315] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote: Underlined for specifics.
Actually, that is EXACTLY what cloaking is intended to do.
You don't know anything about their actions, except that they are in your system.
They could be scouting, watching an outpost for traffic, cataloging ships visible at a POS, making warp in points at a hidden ore belt, creating a safe spot for a covert cyno, making bombing run book marks across a bottleneck gate....
Or they could be using the bathroom, walking the dog, having wild intercourse with a spouse since their child took a nap, making a fajita sandwich, or even catching up on their alliance forums.... pant... pant.....
The fact that you even know they are present, with NO effort, demonstrates an absurd lowering of the intel bar across the board.
You already know too much, and it makes PvE too safe. Now you want it even safer.
Bad idea stays bad.
The character in the game and the player are two different entities. Consider everyting I said with that in mind.
|
Nag'o
Scorpion on a Stick
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 13:24:00 -
[316] - Quote
seany1212 wrote: If it's not about making it more realistic, then why does it need changing?
The only people that i see complaining about this issue are null-sec entitlists who feel they should be able to achieve higher levels of isk without the risk. The fact you don't even have a viable solution other than "I'm just considering the general idea, balancing stuff is the dev job" just shows how little intelligence you have on the matter.
If you're not one of those then explain 'HOW' AFK cloakers are affecting you 'DIRECTLY'...
For balancing of strategical aspects of the game.
I'm not a nullsec whatever and I'm complaining about it. Considering you have not read anything after the third page of the thread I must disregard your intelligence on the matter.
|
seany1212
Tides of Silence Care Factor
211
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 13:29:00 -
[317] - Quote
Nag'o wrote:seany1212 wrote: If it's not about making it more realistic, then why does it need changing?
The only people that i see complaining about this issue are null-sec entitlists who feel they should be able to achieve higher levels of isk without the risk. The fact you don't even have a viable solution other than "I'm just considering the general idea, balancing stuff is the dev job" just shows how little intelligence you have on the matter.
If you're not one of those then explain 'HOW' AFK cloakers are affecting you 'DIRECTLY'...
For balancing of strategical aspects of the game. I'm not a nullsec whatever and I'm complaining about it. Considering you have not read anything after the third page of the thread I must disregard your intelligence on the matter.
But why does it need balancing if it's not about being realistic..?
I have read the entire thread, what you posted on page 3 is what stuck with me the most, the fact you demand it changing yet have not stated (STILL) how it affects you directly and a viable alternative. |
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
364
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 13:33:00 -
[318] - Quote
Nag'o wrote:Considering you have not read anything after the third page of the thread I must disregard your intelligence on the matter.
Now you've assumed that seany1212 hasn't read anything else but you don't know just like you assume that that person is a system with you is AFK and or Cloaked.
You're assuming a lot it would seem. Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee" Undocking - More Routes Out of Station Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up! |
Nag'o
Scorpion on a Stick
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 13:35:00 -
[319] - Quote
seany1212 wrote:
But why does it need balancing if it's not about being realistic..?
I have read the entire thread, what you posted on page 3 is what stuck with me the most, the fact you demand it changing yet have not stated (STILL) how it affects you directly and a viable alternative.
Because it's science fiction, it doesn't have to be realistic, it just have to make sense. By making sense cloaking should'nt be do things like turn your ship into an unicorn and jump you to Jita. Cloaking itself is not realistic. If you read past the third page you will se that I already rebated the submarine analogy by saying you can't fit a nuclear reactor in a thip and just make it submergible. So let's scrap out the 'realistic' real world analogies and think about things that make sense to the game.
|
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Ex Cinere Scriptor
2442
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 13:39:00 -
[320] - Quote
Nag'o wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote: Underlined for specifics.
Actually, that is EXACTLY what cloaking is intended to do.
You don't know anything about their actions, except that they are in your system.
They could be scouting, watching an outpost for traffic, cataloging ships visible at a POS, making warp in points at a hidden ore belt, creating a safe spot for a covert cyno, making bombing run book marks across a bottleneck gate....
Or they could be using the bathroom, walking the dog, having wild intercourse with a spouse since their child took a nap, making a fajita sandwich, or even catching up on their alliance forums.... pant... pant.....
The fact that you even know they are present, with NO effort, demonstrates an absurd lowering of the intel bar across the board.
You already know too much, and it makes PvE too safe. Now you want it even safer.
Bad idea stays bad.
The character in the game and the player are two different entities. Consider everyting I said with that in mind. An utterly meaningless distinction, as one is controlling the other.
My point stands, you have no business having effortless intel on the actions, or lack thereof, of a cloaked pilot. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what? |
|
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
1682
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 13:42:00 -
[321] - Quote
Nag'o wrote:What I said about loggin off was a suggestion. You may as well just leave your ship vulnerable in space and risk losing it. But hey, isn't that exactly what cloaked pilots don't have? Risk? Instead they are rewarded with the possibility of doing whatever they want afk while their character online has the exact same tactical value to people playing the game as if he was playing the game.
Except active cloaked players do have plenty of risk. Their ships are inherently limited as far as tank and dps, they have to obviously move about to get to systems, the minute they actually want to do something they have to drop cloak and expose themselves. Etc. You keep refusing to acknowledge the fact that they are at risk, and that there are things that balance out the cloaks abilities. They aren't rewarded with anything by being cloaked unless you explicitly decide to reward them by changing your playstyle.
Nag'o wrote:By adding something like capacitor drain to cloak the cov-ops will not be able to leave their uncommanded ships in space indefinitely because there will be a RISK involved in doing so.
By adding something like capacitor drain you absolutely destroy countless ACTIVE PLAYERS playstyles. I'll repeat them AGAIN because you keep deliberately ignoring them: Active pilots doing reconnaissance - they can't do what they do without running out of cap or fuel or whatever. People on bombing runs can't set up without being exposed or having to leave. People setting up tactical warp ins. Every single player in wormhole space. Again you keep deliberately ignoring the massive detrimental effects your awful idea would have to countless ACTIVE players.
If you want your "its about afks!" smokescreen to be taken seriously, then you need to bloody address how horrendous your idea is to ACTIVE players. But we all know it's just a smokescreen, and what you really want is to remove uncertainty and risk for yourself. The nature of the ideas themselves demonstrate this, your posting demonstrates this, and your constant attempts at changing what the issue and goals are demonstrate this.
Nag'o wrote:I don't want to remove risk to dangerous secs PvE pilots, or to anyone else as a matter of fact. PvE is not even my main activity when I'm in dangerous space. Jeez, I'm not even playing low/nullsec right now because I don't have the time for stuff like keep waiting to find out if a hostile in space is disposed to fight or he is just afk.
Even if I believed your goal wasn't to remove uncertainty and risk - and I don't believe that at all - you have to face the fact that this is what the ideas proposed actually do. They remove uncertainty and risk, with no balance in the other direction, and that's the ONLY thing they do, they don't increase activity or the GUDFITES or anything else, all they do is remove risk and make null safe and boring and awful.
|
Nag'o
Scorpion on a Stick
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 13:48:00 -
[322] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Nag'o wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote: Underlined for specifics.
Actually, that is EXACTLY what cloaking is intended to do.
You don't know anything about their actions, except that they are in your system.
They could be scouting, watching an outpost for traffic, cataloging ships visible at a POS, making warp in points at a hidden ore belt, creating a safe spot for a covert cyno, making bombing run book marks across a bottleneck gate....
Or they could be using the bathroom, walking the dog, having wild intercourse with a spouse since their child took a nap, making a fajita sandwich, or even catching up on their alliance forums.... pant... pant.....
The fact that you even know they are present, with NO effort, demonstrates an absurd lowering of the intel bar across the board.
You already know too much, and it makes PvE too safe. Now you want it even safer.
Bad idea stays bad.
The character in the game and the player are two different entities. Consider everyting I said with that in mind. An utterly meaningless distinction, as one is controlling the other. My point stands, you have no business having effortless intel on the actions, or lack thereof, of a cloaked pilot.
Removing the afk cloaking will not give me any intel on the player actions other than the fact that he is playing the game. My point is people in space must be playing the game. What they do outside it is not my problem.
|
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
367
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 13:55:00 -
[323] - Quote
Nag'o wrote:My point is people in space must be playing the game. What they do outside it is not my problem.
Then everyone requires fuel because then and only then can you ensure that everyone is playing the game. And you are just assuming by the way as you have countless times in this thread that so-and-so didn't read past Page 3,
Just who do you think you are to demand that everyone be actively playing the game? Is the person sat in system for four hours at a safe spot waiting for his friends to show up and add to a gate-camp active? No, he isn't he's just sat there and watching YouTube but you don't want him to use fuel do you?
But you DO want Cloaked ships to use fuel...now why is that? Ah yes, because you fear the cloaker, you have the sense that you are not alone and you are not alone, he maybe there cloaked or he may just be there in a non-cloaked ship, you don't know where he is but he's there or maybe he isn't. Maybe he's AFK but you don't like the fear and it runs deep within you.
You don't want to dock\safespot up or move systems or have buddies on standby or even change your Max ISK\PH fit for a little extra security so you "Forum Whine" and complain "NERF CLOAKS MOAR".
EDIT: The only reason you know you are not alone is...aww here we go again: Local. Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee" Undocking - More Routes Out of Station Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up! |
seany1212
Tides of Silence Care Factor
212
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 13:56:00 -
[324] - Quote
Nag'o wrote:seany1212 wrote:
But why does it need balancing if it's not about being realistic..?
I have read the entire thread, what you posted on page 3 is what stuck with me the most, the fact you demand it changing yet have not stated (STILL) how it affects you directly and a viable alternative.
Because it's science fiction, it doesn't have to be realistic, it just have to make sense. By making sense I mean cloaking should'nt be do things like turn your ship into an unicorn and jump you to Jita. Cloaking itself is not realistic. If you read past the third page you will se that I already rebated the submarine analogy by saying you can't just fit a nuclear reactor to a ship and make it submergible. So let's scrap out the 'realistic' real world analogies and think about things that make sense to the game.
Exactly, it doesn't have to be realistic, so permanently being able to cloak is a non-issue in realism. Cloaking itself is becoming a reality, search "bending light cloak" in google but it's an unrealistic idea with current technology. I did read your submarine analogy, funny thing is EvE is based on fluid dynamics so there's some form of irony you trashing the submarine analogy.
It only doesn't make sense to the game because it appears it works against your ideas and play style, there are many within the game that would think that maybe it does make sense, but I'm still waiting on the answer of 'how it affects you directly' and that was 2 posts ago... |
Nag'o
Scorpion on a Stick
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 13:57:00 -
[325] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:Nag'o wrote:What I said about loggin off was a suggestion. You may as well just leave your ship vulnerable in space and risk losing it. But hey, isn't that exactly what cloaked pilots don't have? Risk? Instead they are rewarded with the possibility of doing whatever they want afk while their character online has the exact same tactical value to people playing the game as if he was playing the game. Except active cloaked players do have plenty of risk. Their ships are inherently limited as far as tank and dps, they have to obviously move about to get to systems, the minute they actually want to do something they have to drop cloak and expose themselves. Etc. You keep refusing to acknowledge the fact that they are at risk, and that there are things that balance out the cloaks abilities. They aren't rewarded with anything by being cloaked unless you explicitly decide to reward them by changing your playstyle. Nag'o wrote:By adding something like capacitor drain to cloak the cov-ops will not be able to leave their uncommanded ships in space indefinitely because there will be a RISK involved in doing so. By adding something like capacitor drain you absolutely destroy countless ACTIVE PLAYERS playstyles. I'll repeat them AGAIN because you keep deliberately ignoring them: Active pilots doing reconnaissance - they can't do what they do without running out of cap or fuel or whatever. People on bombing runs can't set up without being exposed or having to leave. People setting up tactical warp ins. Every single player in wormhole space. Again you keep deliberately ignoring the massive detrimental effects your awful idea would have to countless ACTIVE players. If you want your "its about afks!" smokescreen to be taken seriously, then you need to bloody address how horrendous your idea is to ACTIVE players. But we all know it's just a smokescreen, and what you really want is to remove uncertainty and risk for yourself. The nature of the ideas themselves demonstrate this, your posting demonstrates this, and your constant attempts at changing what the issue and goals are demonstrate this. Nag'o wrote:I don't want to remove risk to dangerous secs PvE pilots, or to anyone else as a matter of fact. PvE is not even my main activity when I'm in dangerous space. Jeez, I'm not even playing low/nullsec right now because I don't have the time for stuff like keep waiting to find out if a hostile in space is disposed to fight or he is just afk. Even if I believed your goal wasn't to remove uncertainty and risk - and I don't believe that at all - you have to face the fact that this is what the ideas proposed actually do. They remove uncertainty and risk, with no balance in the other direction, and that's the ONLY thing they do, they don't increase activity or the GUDFITES or anything else, all they do is remove risk and make null safe and boring and awful.
The cap drain can't be drastic to the point it ruin the active players game, just something that add the risk of module deactivation if people just ignore the fact that their character is online and in dangerous space. Maybe just 1 tick above cap recharge.
For adding risk to nullbears there's already the remove local idea. I approve it. It doesn't change the problem of afk cloaking in lowsec though hence I chose to address this problem. We good?
|
Debora Tsung
The Investment Bankers Guild
272
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 13:58:00 -
[326] - Quote
You guays are still at it?
My signature is itching like mad... There's nothing a million chinese guys can't do cheaper.
Also This --> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=216699 Please stop making "afk cloak" threads, thanks in advance. |
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
367
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 13:59:00 -
[327] - Quote
Nag'o wrote:The cap drain can't be drastic to the point it ruin the active players game, just something that add the risk of module deactivation if people just ignore the fact that their character is online and in dangerous space. Maybe just 1 tick above cap recharge.
For adding risk to nullbears there's already the remove local idea. I approve it. It doesn't change the problem of afk cloaking in lowsec though hence I chose to address this problem. We good?
1 tick above flat out no cap you mean? And how would that not destroy cloaking for the active player i.e. Me!? Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee" Undocking - More Routes Out of Station Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up! |
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
367
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 14:00:00 -
[328] - Quote
Debora Tsung wrote:You guays are still at it? My signature is itching like mad...
Some people just can't admit that Cloaking isn't broken, peoples attitudes to it are and that Local is the problem and with it the absolutely faultless intel it provides.
Could be here some time even though Nag'o has said twice he was going never to return but just went all "AFK Cloaked" in the thread. How ironic! Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee" Undocking - More Routes Out of Station Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up! |
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
1683
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 14:05:00 -
[329] - Quote
Even the slightest cap requirement acts as a hindrance to active players - infinitely more so than it does afk players, obviously, since active players will be doing things like warping around which eats cap.
And how do you propose the cap usage of a covert ops cloak is balanced? The cap reserve and recharge available in a cheetah is different to that available on a pilgrim or sin. How can you balance that modules cap usage across every size class of ship? How do you balance it across different fits - what if people load up on cap rechargers to counter it?
The idea that the requirements of the module would vary so wildly and the only consistency would be that it's mechanically made to always defeat whatever you do is just horrific and doesn't fit in with the game at all. Nothing else comes close to functioning like that, because it's a horrible and very clunky, artificial feeling limit. |
Nag'o
Scorpion on a Stick
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 14:07:00 -
[330] - Quote
seany1212 wrote:Nag'o wrote:seany1212 wrote:
But why does it need balancing if it's not about being realistic..?
I have read the entire thread, what you posted on page 3 is what stuck with me the most, the fact you demand it changing yet have not stated (STILL) how it affects you directly and a viable alternative.
Because it's science fiction, it doesn't have to be realistic, it just have to make sense. By making sense I mean cloaking should'nt be do things like turn your ship into an unicorn and jump you to Jita. Cloaking itself is not realistic. If you read past the third page you will se that I already rebated the submarine analogy by saying you can't just fit a nuclear reactor to a ship and make it submergible. So let's scrap out the 'realistic' real world analogies and think about things that make sense to the game. Exactly, it doesn't have to be realistic, so permanently being able to cloak is a non-issue in realism. Cloaking itself is becoming a reality, search "bending light cloak" in google but it's an unrealistic idea with current technology. I did read your submarine analogy, funny thing is EvE is based on fluid dynamics so there's some form of irony you trashing the submarine analogy. It only doesn't make sense to the game because it appears it works against your ideas and play style, there are many within the game that would think that maybe it does make sense, but I'm still waiting on the answer of 'how it affects you directly' and that was 2 posts ago...
Cloak turning your ship in an unicorn doesn't make sense to the game. I was just making a differentiation of what means to be realistic and what means to make sense to tell you why it does not need to be necessarily more realistic to make sense. I don't want to talk about sciece or science fiction in this thread. I find all this stuff really cool and it does interest me but I'm focused in the game mechanics here. Being cloaked a whole day can make sense in the fiction aspect but it does not make sense in the strategic aspect of the game. It is unballanced strategically. I already made a lot of points of why it is so. If you want to adress these points or add a new one we haven't discussed yet I will gladly consider it too.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |