| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
719
   |
Posted - 2014.05.27 17:05:00 -
[1] - Quote
Bland Inquisitor wrote:Any AFK action that can positively or negatively impact other players should be removed from the game and prevented at all costs. I believe CCP agrees with this, they already made tweaks to OGB, now they need to fix AFK cloaking.
Side note, removing Local would be a good move too.
AFK cloaking cannot negatively impact other players. Unless they're running some sort of bot, there's literally no action a cloaked player can take against you while AFK.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
722
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 18:55:00 -
[2] - Quote
Bland Inquisitor wrote:
Just a single cloaked neut in Sov space system will deny that entire system from potentially 100's of pilots.
If 100s of pilots are afraid of one AFK guy, the only thing that is going to solve their problem is some nice low wholesale pricing on extra-absorbent Huggies.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
722
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 19:08:00 -
[3] - Quote
Bland Inquisitor wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:Bland Inquisitor wrote:
Just a single cloaked neut in Sov space system will deny that entire system from potentially 100's of pilots.
If 100s of pilots are afraid of one AFK guy, the only thing that is going to solve their problem is some nice low wholesale pricing on extra-absorbent Huggies. It takes 3 minutes for a ratting carrier to be killed by blops hotdrop.
So what? You haven't described a game design problem - you've described a personal problem for a ratting carrier.
Is there an amazingly good reason why the carrier pilot shouldn't be expected to manage his risk by, e.g., not ratting in a carrier?
I can't think of one.
You're presenting this as if there's nothing the poor ratter could possibly do to to thwart the evil, OP afk cloaker. It's disingenuous at best, and a big fat lie at worst: He could try not being such an idiot.
I can't think of anything in Eve that inspires less sympathy than the plight of a solo capital ship ratter. Unsupported cap ships SHOULD get curbstomped.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
722
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 19:13:00 -
[4] - Quote
Bland Inquisitor wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:Bland Inquisitor wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:Bland Inquisitor wrote:
Just a single cloaked neut in Sov space system will deny that entire system from potentially 100's of pilots.
If 100s of pilots are afraid of one AFK guy, the only thing that is going to solve their problem is some nice low wholesale pricing on extra-absorbent Huggies. It takes 3 minutes for a ratting carrier to be killed by blops hotdrop. So what? You haven't described a game design problem - you've described a personal problem for a ratting carrier. Is there an amazingly good reason why the carrier pilot shouldn't be expected to manage his risk by, e.g., not ratting in a carrier? I can't think of one. your missing the point entirely. What is the risk taken by the cloaker? nothing. What is the overal impact, a substantially negative one which in my opinion is way too much power for someone who is essentially AFK/Alt tabbed.
There's also no reward for the AFK cloaker. Any reward incurred happens while he's actively playing the game and has to uncloak, thereby incurring the risk of being shot at.
I'm not missing your point. You just don't have one. It's the same garden-variety self-entitled mewling that has been going on for ages. "Boo ******* hoo, someone is making it dangerous for me to do something obscenely stupid, it's not fair!"
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
723
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 19:20:00 -
[5] - Quote
Bland Inquisitor wrote:His reward is being able to hide his activity, by being present all the time in the system you lack that information provided normally by local count increasing or decreasing.
The second-least sympathetic issue: People complaining that there is an edge-case where their otherwise 100% perfect intel tool is unreliable. 
You're on a roll.
Quote:An easier solution would be to have a inactivity logout timer or a method of seeing who is active, pilots that have not moved the cursor in 10 minutes (as an example) appear grayed out in local.
You would just be back here - probably in about a single 10 minute span - after a cloaker parked in an anomaly and "idled".
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
723
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 19:24:00 -
[6] - Quote
Willmahh wrote:Bland Inquisitor wrote:
Just a single cloaked neut in Sov space system will deny that entire system from potentially 100's of pilots.
If you had no local, you wouldn't even know he's there. ...and you would rat anyway with a watchful eye on D-scan... So you're saying that knowing he's there is what makes your [insert popular word for man-parts here] retreat into your body cavity.
Yes, it DOES seem like the complaint could be perfectly resolved by leaving cloaking entirely alone, and simply removing local, no?
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
724
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 19:37:00 -
[7] - Quote
Bland Inquisitor wrote:Willmahh wrote:Bland Inquisitor wrote:personally, I don't run anoms. I make money elsewhere in null/wh space. I've hotdropped many people in the past, plan to continue to do so in the future. My point is, D-Scanning is normally the way to detect threats, because you can scan down sites while cloaked without probes there is nothing to assist anom runners in preventing a hotdrop.
You can call it being a coward all you like, nobody of sane mind would risk expensive (300-5b) ratting ships with 0% chance of avoiding a loss.
so, you're saying people should be allowed to risk a (300-5b) ratting ship with no chance of loss? No, I'm saying there should be a risk. Not a guaranteed chance of death. The determining factor of loss isn't if they manage to catch you or not, its if they are active or not. An easy solution would be to make it so that all forms of scanning be classed as running active modules, requiring you to be uncloaked.
I'm pretty much fine with solo carriers having a near-100% mortality rate. If anything, the fact that people do this only serves as evidence that they're not NEARLY in enough danger.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
724
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 20:00:00 -
[8] - Quote
Bland Inquisitor wrote:
They are already looking to nerf combat scanning, I want this to also include the internal scanner.
Yeah, let's just rework arbitrary (and ALREADY RECENTLY REWORKED) systems because stupid people can't be bothered to manage their own risk by not ratting in carriers. That makes sense.
Quote:To say that all carriers should die is plain stupid, You NEED a carrier to live in Null, why not allow it to double up as a ratting ship.
Holy entitled whining, Batman! You don't NEED a carrier, and you certainly don't NEED to rat in one. These are not requirements. Plenty of players get by without the aid of a carrier every day.
It is allowed to double up as a ratting ship and, when it does so, it paints a nice big target on itself, which is exactly as it should be.
There's absolutely ZERO reason why ANY game mechanic should be changed to facilitate carrier ratting. You have the right to do stupid things. You do not have the right to have the game changed to take the edge off of your own stupidity, though.
Manage your own ******* risk like everyone else.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
725
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 20:17:00 -
[9] - Quote
Bland Inquisitor wrote:your focusing on a narrow tangent. Carrier, battleship,t3 or cruiser. They all encounter the exact same problem. Its not a risk reward argument if its not a risk, its suicide.
Bull ****. On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everything that undocks eventually drops to 0. The only concern should be whether or not your isk-earning activities outpace your isk-losing activities.
Quote:People just don't rat and wait for them to get bored. All I'm saying is, why allow someone who isn't at the keyboard so much influence over a larger number of players who are actually active?
Personal problems, again. If they're so risk averse that they simply can't bring themselves to rat with a cloaker in the system, too ******* bad. The influence is completely self-inflicted. Nobody is preventing them from ignoring the AFK cloaker. They're CHOOSING to treat ANY risk as if it were insurmountable.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
| |
|