EVE Search - Sticky:AFK CloakingGäó: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:AFK CloakingGäó: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals

» 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)
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 10	Posted - 2015.01.12 23:24:54 - [1] - Quote My own personal issue with cloaking is the fact that I cant hunt a cloaky. Once a camper is in a system, they can stay as long as they want. You have to bait the player out and often that doesn't really work. I know people dont like this idea but I have always liked the idea of a frigate class ship that can hunt cloakies. It would take some balancing, likely the removal of local. Though the above idea is unlikely to happen, I do think a simple solution could be to simply remove the color coding of players in local. Make it so that only colors show up on the overview. This gives the PVP player more time to get to a target, and makes it so that a PVE player must pay more attention. Just some thoughts.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 11	Posted - 2015.01.13 20:41:36 - [2] - Quote Leave local. Leave cloak. Remove colors from local chat. Remove ability to look at player info unless in station. All you can see is a list of players in local. You will have to depend on coms, ingame channels, or whatever for intel. Only show standing for a pilot if they are on grid with you. The ability to instantly look at local and see standing is what leads to people insta docking. Make it so they have to know players or RISK staying in space.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 11	Posted - 2015.01.14 17:58:33 - [3] - Quote I wish people would be more honest about this topic. A guy afk cloaked in a system for a hour or a day. Not a big deal. PVE players should learn to deal with it. A cloaked ship flying thru high/low sec moving from point a to b. Again. Not a big deal. Cloaking in general is not a bad thing. Almost every genre of sci fi has it and most games of this nature have it. I have voiced in the past my dislike of prolonged system camping. The potential for a hot drop is a big deal when you are putting millions of isk worth of ships on the field, OR if your ISK income is based on manufacturing items. PVPers tend to forget the ship they are in was built by someone. These ships and modules dont just rain down from the sky. Someone farmed them from rats or built them. So all the 11 pages of fluff so far is just that, fluff. So stop it. So what I personally think is a problem is that person that chooses to spend weeks in a system camping it. This is something that needs to be addressed. Though a completely valid tactic to disrupt operations in the system, it is very one sided. Once a camper enters a system, removal of that player is IMPOSSIBLE unless that player chooses to be removed, either by leaving or by making a mistake with a chosen target. This in itself is not balance. There should be a way to confront this player and remove them from space. Now I like the idea of being able to probe down a cloak with special probes. It takes skills, time, and it doesnt give 100% flawless info, especially if the person moves. This would leave all valid forms of current cloaking intact. You couldnt probe down a cloaky squad, or a moving target. This would really only work for prolonged campers in a system. CCP has admitted that cloaking is not perfect. This thread being sticky shows that they are looking at the community for information. Original intentions of cloaking no longer matter. ISBoxer was originally considered perfectly acceptable yet, now its functionality has been reduced greatly. CCP can change their minds, so arguments quoting CCPs original ideas are no longer valid. PVE players need to realize that PVP players are going to hunt them down. Life in EVE is not safe. If you cant handle that, play some other game. PVP players need to realize that PVE players are going to build things. Those things are needed for EVE to survive. You can not look down on PVE players simply cause you find mining or ratting boring. Removing local is not an answer. Local is a necessary evil for the game. People need to chat. Even if local was removed, intel channels would take it's place. WH players have little say in the arguments of Null sec AFK cloaking. The mechanics of WH space are not the same as null. comparing the two is not even close.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 12	Posted - 2015.01.14 19:37:34 - [4] - Quote Nikk you assume too much in my post. PVE players are not helpless. My point is they shouldnt be looked down on by PVP players simple cause they choose to play a different way. Same applies to PVE players that need to realize that PVP players are going to hunt them down. It's what they do. Often both sides will critize the other side for these activities when it's completely childish to do so. No. I said its fluff cause people keep rehashing the same points and many are simply pointless. WH's talking about how their is no local and they do just fine, without even mentioning that a person cant cyno in a WH and that the mechanics of the system are different is just an example. For removal of a player in system. I never once mentioned AFK in that statement. I dont care if they are active or not. What I do see as an imbalance in the game is the inablity to remove that player from the system. It is impossible to do anything once they gain access to the system. I personally find this to be an issue that needs to be addressed when it allows a player to occupy a system forever without being contested. Even if the player has no intention of fighting and is strictly watching the undock to see players and ships. The people being camped should be able to combat this threat instead of just sitting on their hands and not being able to do anything. I am ok with the removal of standings in local. I mentioned this on page 10 and you personally upvoted the idea. Your response is a good example on why this topic never goes anywhere. Most of your assumptions of my statements are simply wrong.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 12	Posted - 2015.01.14 20:40:40 - [5] - Quote Nikk, you have poorly understood my post. Never have I implied that PVE players are meaningless or of less value. Not honestly sure how you come to this conclusion. Nothing about my statements say this. I have no strayed from the topic. As you stated "Regardless of this distinction, cloaked play over extended periods of time is frequently described as AFK, based on the perception of the opposing players". My point was covering this plus more. Even if a player is active. While cloaked, they are invulnerable. They could be sleeping, eating, market trading, or watching the undock. One does not know. That in itself is fine, however there is zero counter to it. I would think that most players would like to have a chance to do something about this, however if you are the person being camped, all you can do is sit on your hands. Again I state this is not balance. It almost seems like you are attempting to be combative in your statements in an attempt to twist what I am saying, just to invalidate it. For example your #4 statement. We both agree on it, you have upvoted my post on the exact same thing just 2 pages ago. So I dont understand the need for even rehashing it. No. I believe that there is a flaw in cloak cause it allows for situations that a player can become completely invulnerable. The only other comparision is hidding in a station in high sec. Null sec stations and towers can be destroyed. This invulverablity is an unfair advantage to the cloaker.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 12	Posted - 2015.01.14 20:43:02 - [6] - Quote Mario Putzo wrote: Haywoud Jablomi wrote: Removing local is not an answer. Local is a necessary evil for the game. People need to chat. Even if local was removed, intel channels would take it's place. You do realize when people say remove local they don't actually mean remove it. They mean make it so you don't automatically show up in local when you enter a system. Just like in WH space. It will still be there for you to talk in if you want to...but doing so broadcasts your information in local. If local functioned this way then AFK cloaking instantly disappears. Why? Because you don't know if anyone is there. Problem solved with minimal effort. I would be ok with this too, however its a bit overboard. Unlike in WH space, there are many things like stations and gates that via lore are what provide system information. Of course this can change but I am more of a fan of leaving people in local but stripping them of their standing colors and all player information unless in station, and only show standing if they are on grid. Either works though
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 12	Posted - 2015.01.14 21:45:53 - [7] - Quote Mag's wrote: You at least try and assemble good points and argue them rather well. Many don't do that and come out with the same poor ideas over and over. First off. Thank you. I have read many of your posts and feel the same way. Mag's wrote: Such as your talk of invulnerability for the cloaker when cloaked. What you don't mention is it goes both ways. For the most part this is the only stance I disagree with. See from my point of view, when a player enters a system and decides to camp that system. They can go to a safe point and cloak. At this point there is NOTHING that any player can do to decloak this person unless they chose to be decloaked. If the balance to this is local, there are plenty of good suggestions that would fix this, however none will solve the issue with a camper just sitting in system. Even with 0 local, you still cant decloak the player. If the balance this is more direct, that a player can safe in a POS or dock up. In null those choices are not infinite, where as a cloak is. Sov on a system can be lost. A POS can be destroyed. However nothing in the game allows you to find a cloak player unless they choose to be found. Be it hunting, or just travelling. That is where I see the flaw in cloaks.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 13	Posted - 2015.01.14 23:39:05 - [8] - Quote Mag's wrote: ....They cannot hurt me and I them...... This I feel is not exactly true. No they can not blow up your ship. However they can collect as much intel as they need, watch undock or gather info on possible Titan pilots. I dont understand why people say that Null is too safe. Null is a lawless area and its meant to be fought over, however that does not mean that there can not be areas of safety. If an alliance builds stations, puts in POSs and other things, why should this area not be safe in your home area? It's like flying a plane into foreign air space and looking for a convoy to bomb and being shocked that all the convoys are safely in bunkers cause you were spotted. The UN wont be showing up to defend against you but the locals will and they are going to have a massive advantage cause they have a well established infrastructure. So the idea that cloak is helping provide conflict in null and this should be left as is seems a bit odd to me. I dont advocate 100% safety but I do feel that alliances should be able to create safety with the right work. Which in itself leads back to why I say that a player should be able to remove a camper from a system. Where as a PVPer may view a POS or a Station as some 'tent' that a PVE player runs to for safety when PVPers show up, I dont see it that way. That tent is my home. My castle that my corp built that is used for my livelihood in EVE. I see no reason why anyone should be forced to allow a swatter to sit in system and disrupt my activities for weeks on end. It would be one thing if a great force occupied my system and I was unable to do anything, but that is not the case. As it stands now. I have to sit on my hands and just hope the camper wishes to leave at some point. No. I dont think that is fair to the players that have spent so much time and effort into building and owning the space they have.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 13	Posted - 2015.01.15 02:59:45 - [9] - Quote Delegate wrote: So after these many, many words we came to an oh so predictable conclusion - you in fact believe that your null home should be your safe heaven. Please take the time to go back and re read my posts. While I do believe that a a persons home station should be safer than if they are just roaming thru null all willy nilly, I never once stated it should be 100%. I completely understand that the black ops ships are meant to disrupt this, and I am perfectly ok with this. However if you had actually read what I stated my concern with cloak is the flaw in that a person can sit in a system for weeks on end and there is nothing anyone can do about it. I feel this is a flaw in the cloak. My statement to Mag's about the safety provided by a home system is to point out why I believe that something needs to be done. If you had taken the time to read my posts you made of understood this. Nendail Smith wrote: Haywoud Jablomi wrote: Though a completely valid tactic to disrupt operations in the system, it is very one sided. Once a camper enters a system, removal of that player is IMPOSSIBLE unless that player chooses to be removed, either by leaving or by making a mistake with a chosen target. This in itself is not balance. Yeah... You lost me here... One word: Bait. Haywould Jablomi wrote: .....IMPOSSIBLE unless that player chooses to be removed, either by leaving or by making a mistake with a chosen target....... Making a mistake while choosing a target would be the end result of being baited.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 13	Posted - 2015.01.15 03:16:37 - [10] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: Haywoud Jablomi wrote: CCP has admitted that cloaking is not perfect. This thread being sticky shows that they are looking at the community for information. Oh this is not true, this thread was posted because ISD were locking every thread about AFK cloaking, most often before 10 posts were able to get in. CCP has stated in the CSM 9 minutes that AFK cloaking is a non-issue. "AFK cloaking is an entirely social form of power. To me, it is the equivalent of posting on the forums until someone stops ratting." - CCP Fozzie, CSM 9 Summer Minutes CCP has also said before that ISBoxer and other programs of its type are ok, yet they just changed their minds about it and reduced its functionality.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 13	Posted - 2015.01.15 03:49:53 - [11] - Quote Daichi Yamato wrote: Haywoud Jablomi wrote: CCP has also said before that ISBoxer and other programs of its type are ok, yet they just changed their minds about it and reduced its functionality. yeah...they didnt open a thread about it and say: 'Sorry we keep locking your repetitive threads. put all your crap here. seven threads less to close per week' edit- and as far as i can tell, ISD made this thread. Not CCP. True, however it is still in the F&I forums. I would hope that CCP would be paying attention.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 13	Posted - 2015.01.15 06:07:33 - [12] - Quote Well that may be true. With so many pages of dialog on the topic. It would seem fair to guess that a decent amount of the player base feels this is an issue. Even CCP Fozzie's statement shows a lack of non commitment to the topic. His statement stands remarkably neutral on the issue. Even if you take back my statement on CCPs views, there is still plenty of valid points on both sides to show there are flaws on both sides.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 13	Posted - 2015.01.15 14:20:05 - [13] - Quote Delegate wrote: Haywoud Jablomi wrote: Delegate wrote: So after these many, many words we came to an oh so predictable conclusion - you in fact believe that your null home should be your safe heaven. Please take the time to go back and re read my posts. While I do believe that a a persons home station should be safer than if they are just roaming thru null all willy nilly, I never once stated it should be 100%. I completely understand that the black ops ships are meant to disrupt this, and I am perfectly ok with this. However if you had actually read what I stated my concern with cloak is the flaw in that a person can sit in a system for weeks on end and there is nothing anyone can do about it. I feel this is a flaw in the cloak. My statement to Mag's about the safety provided by a home system is to point out why I believe that something needs to be done. If you had taken the time to read my posts you made of understood this. I did read your posts and waited until you will have courage to put forward your case clearly. At the end you explained yourself pretty clear in that post I quoted. It's there for anyone interested to read and draw their own conclusions. Rest is just perpetuating fog. My stance is pretty clear. The only fog about it is from your own assumptions of what I wish to achieve. I encourage people to fight. I dont believe people should be in complete safety in this game. However I don't believe that the opposite should apply either. Black ops can bring in danger, thats fine. Should it be harder for them to penetrate a section of space where an alliance is clearly established, yes. If you believe otherwise, then you are mistaken on how the mechanics of war work. What you are attempting to do is discredit my stance by making false assumptions about things and trying to state that I fit in the party of previous posters that want 100% safety. You are mistaken. Mag's and Nikk are two of the most vocal people on this topic and even they have stated that I have valid points, though they dont agree with them. My stance is pretty clear and has been from day one. 90% of cloaking is fine. The 10% that I see an issue with is the prolonged cloak in a system. I feel this is an issue cause once a person is in system, there is no counter to them. AFK or not a cloaked player in a system can not be removed unless that player decides to remove themselves either by leaving, or making a poor choice in a potential target. My suggestion for a fix has be a set of probes to find cloaked players. Much like combat scan probes, these would take skill and time to deploy and lock a target and would be pretty useless against a moving target. This would be offset by the removal of all standings from local and all player information in game unless in station. This leaves intact all Black Ops fleets, bomber fleets and almost all cloak style play but offers a counter to prolonged camper. Which makes your implication that I prefer safety invalid as it is not something I advocate. The only person adding fog to the discuss would be you. Nothing about my stance is unclear and it has not been. The only mistake I have made is in reference to the existence of this thread. I prefer to just assume that CCP is actually read it. Though in truth this is likely to be wishful thinking.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 13	Posted - 2015.01.15 14:33:02 - [14] - Quote So if I am understanding correctly, you are basically putting a 6 hour timer on it? So if someone is afk for 6 hours, even cloaked, you could scan them down?
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 13	Posted - 2015.01.15 14:49:05 - [15] - Quote Mag's wrote: It just so happens you have also gained intel on them, because of local. The difference being Covert Ops ships were designed with intel roles in mind. Local wasn't ever designed, as the intel tool it became. So yes it's not exactly true, but rather highlights the broken nature of local. I can agree with this. Though I do think that CCP meant for it to be some form of intel. They did add standing colors and they do allow you to show pilot info directly from local. These are things I highly advocate removing. Mag's wrote: You and I have to disagree strongly here. You don't have to sit in your hands. Activities can continue. It's not the guy AFK and cloaked that calls a halt, it's you. No one AFK and cloaked ever stopped pilots using gates, modules from working, people using PvP ships and ratting, locals forming fleets etc etc. If any of that stops, it's because you decided to stop it. I dont mean stopping operations. I am willing to risk my ships. I have several alts. Check the killboards for Marcus Behr, and you will see the lose of a Thanny. I was the only carrier willing to undock and fly into a drop on some of our freighters in a hope to save them. I can rebuild anything I lose. What I mean by "sitting on my hands" is that I can not directly confront the camping player. Nothing I can do will force that player to take any defensive actions at all. I can have a 1000 man fleet fly in a system from point to point and its unlikely I will ever uncloak that player. This is where I see a problem. I want to fight, yet the best I can do is hope that I can bait out the player. This is the single aspect of cloak that I feel is flawed. You have two chances to catch a cloak. At a gate, or if you can bait them out.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 13	Posted - 2015.01.15 14:59:26 - [16] - Quote Nikk wrote: Stealth, like anything involving a limit to your opponent's perception, involves a meaningful investment of time. Snipers and assassins require enormous prep time, for that short burst of activity their opponent is aware of. I completely agree, however in this case its like knowing someone has locked themselves in your attic with a gun. They want to come down to shot you and you know they are up there. You can't get to them but they can get to you any time they choose. It could be while your cooking and they get you easy. OR it could be while your in your bedroom with a shotgun and they go poof. However why should this be allowed? Why cant I kick down the door and confront this person. This is completely different than if someone stalks you from outside, suddenly bursts in your door and shots you, then runs away. This makes far more sense to me then letting someone just hide in the attic.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 14	Posted - 2015.01.15 15:50:47 - [17] - Quote Nikk wrote: Your analogy has a fatal flaw. You are placing yourself in a structure normally considered under your control, your home. Honestly that is over analyzing it. The analogy applies to any space. You are simply rephrased my statement and spun it to seem like something else. Person A is in space A wanting to kill Person B. Person A is given 3 choices: Leave, Hide in a safe spot that over time can be broke, or continue to exist in space A with unknown consequences. None of the choices allow you to directly confront Person B, even though you know they are there. Of course knowing is because of local. No direct confrontation is due to cloak. Both working, yet flawed in their own ways. To remove local but allow cloak and no detection would be like leaving Person A and B in the same room but with the lights off and person A having night vision. The opposite of that is letting Person B just go over and pummel Person A with no real trouble at all AKA system wide decloak or some other overly powerful idea. There should be a some middle ground. Nikk wrote: Holding sov is not the same as owning a home. It is more akin to having a builder's permit for otherwise public property. This I completely disagree with and I think is opposite to the idea of Null in EVE. The space I am in is not public. It's been fought over, and the structures in place are owned by me. I can jam the system, add bridges, towers, stations, bubble gates, etc etc etc. This is a sandbox game and there is a reason they call it that. I am playing in my part of the box, I have setup all my little castles. Though no one offical is going to stop you from kicking the castles down but if you do, I will fight back AND I see no reason why you should be able to just in the middle of the area I have claimed without me reaching over and punching you in the nose. At first it seems cute, even the drive by to knock over a castle are legit cause I would need to defend that space to stop you. But when you sit in my face, thumb your nose at me, and threaten my area, I dont understand why you feel you should be allowed to do this unopposed. The only reason you can do it is cause CCP handed you a tool that can be abused to allow such game play. Back to the sandbox analogy. The sandbox has a set of rules that people play by. Cloaked ships are the only ships that get to play by their own special rules.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 14	Posted - 2015.01.15 15:52:30 - [18] - Quote Soldarius wrote: So, according to reports, Circadian Sleepers can actually detect and scan cloaked ships. This doesn't help anyone if the cloaked ship is not at a warpable celestial, gate, or station. But it is something. Interesting. I wonder if that is on purpose or just an oversight. I mean the server does know where every ship is. The seekers may just not be flagged to ignore cloaked objects.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 14	Posted - 2015.01.15 16:25:36 - [19] - Quote Nikk seriously? Why state that you skipped the first part and make a passive aggressive attempt to make it sound like it was just opinionated ramble, when you make reference to it and make it clear you read it anyway. Really man. Either way you wish to phrase it. It is the same thing. Leverage, ownership, etc etc etc. In the context of EVE they are all the same thing, though your view of it seems to different from mine. Let's go very basic. I am in a frigate you are in a frigate. You are cloaked. I am not. Let even say they are the same ship but with one having a cloak and one missing a high slot. I want to fight you..... Oh wait. I cant. I cant seem to find you. Here, let me float in space for a minute. Maybe I can bait you. Hmm you didnt fall for it. Maybe I can jump to the next system and catch you on the gate if you follow..... Hmmm nope. Well it would seem my only option is to leave you alone. But wait. If I do that I am a carebear and I am running away from a fight.....odd how that works. Now lets say you want to fight. D scan. Get an idea where I am. warp around, find me floating off a planet. Get to optimal, decloak, lock fire. With equal DPS you will win cause you get the first shot. That's balanced? Nothing I can do will ever threaten you while you are cloaked. Nothing. This is where I see a flaw in cloak.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 14	Posted - 2015.01.15 17:06:58 - [20] - Quote All three of your points are invalid. My example uses no SOV, stations POSs or anything. Just two ships in a system. Please stop adding to my statements. The cloak ship has every advantage in all aspects. Some of those are well deserved and I see no problem with them. However I do see where they can be abused to permanently camp a system.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 14	Posted - 2015.01.15 17:41:43 - [21] - Quote Nikk wrote: As to them permanently camping a system, what of it? You CAN PvE in evasive or combat capable hulls. It may not be as efficient, but you seem to value the confrontation. Let the cloaked guy sweat for a change, while you actually play the game. Your first statement there makes it clear you have not understood anything of my issue or any of the issues involving the idea of AFK cloaking. The fact that someone CAN permanently camp a system is all I have been concerned with and is the definition of AFK camping. It is exactly the heart of this ENTIRE thread. You claim they cant do anything. You know that is false though. Let's look at the most basic of things, as I have already provided examples of why losing a ship doesn't matter to me, the fact that I dont hide in a POS or Station when a fight comes, and I am willing to confront the unknown that is behind a cyno. We all know that a camper brings the potential for a hot drop. That is why they are there. The unknown is what the cloak pilot is banking on. It could be a bluff, it could be legit. So anyone with half a brain that uses that system is going to move to a different area, or come back later when the person leaves. Now let's say they never leave. What effect does that have. From a sov mechanic standpoint it can mean the lose of index ranks for industry and military. This has an overall effect on the corp that calls that area home. That in itself is reason enough to wish to be able to eject the camper but with current game mechanics, that is impossible. Only the cloaked player can make that choice. Furthermore you make claims that people should do their industry jobs in PVP ships? Not only myself but other people have pointed out how ignorant and pointless this idea is. It would be like me asking you to go PVP in a venture. Yea it's not great but it works, right? That cloaked ship is outfitted to do its job 100% but you suggest that other players should be in ships that only do 50% of their job. The suggestion is mildly insulting.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 14	Posted - 2015.01.20 01:31:09 - [22] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Bullet Therapist wrote: The issue that I have is that it is a powerful tool that has very few drawbacks right now and that a player can remain in a ship, cloaked in space indefinitely. Its the only counter to the insta intel that is local. Which is not an even counter, and is only as good as the person watching.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 14	Posted - 2015.01.20 07:23:38 - [23] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: They should not have a perfectly safe way to wait around for the perfect time to strike. And if AFK cloaking is removed, what is there to prevent the perfect safety of the ratter who is monitoring local the entire time they are out waiting for a neutral or red to enter the system. The insanity of this statement is that it's not safe. There are plenty of current kills on zkillboard that shows people that have been caught while ratting, mining, scanning, etc etc. But even if you ignore that. It has been suggested several times on this thread and others that local be modified in exchange for how cloak functions.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 14	Posted - 2015.01.20 13:25:16 - [24] - Quote baltec1 wrote: While we are at it, I guess you also think we should be able to force AFK players in stations to undock too as they are doing the exact same thing as an AFK cloaker. Though simular, they are not the same. If one is hiding in a POS, the pos can be destroyed. If hiding in a station, the station can be flipped or sov lost in the system. Though these both take time, a system camper can stay in a system till the day the servers shut down and nothing will remove that player. Which in itself is a valid point on why AFK cloaking is an issue.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 14	Posted - 2015.01.20 17:12:58 - [25] - Quote Doddy wrote: AFK cloaking is no different to being afk in station or afk in a pos. Keep them all as they are or nerf them all. Cloaking in general is a counter to local, keep them both as they are or nerf them both. Nerf Afk cloaking specifically or cloaking in general without nerfing these other things and it will just kill the game even more. This is false in every sense. POS can be destroyed. A station can change hands, reinforced or taken. Though you cant eject the player, you always know where they are, and if they undock you know exactly where they will be. None of these are true with a "AFK cloaker". As I said a few posts ago. They can stay cloaked safely in a system with minimal effort till the EVE servers are closed. Also Nikk. I find it interesting that your advocating for cloak is based around the idea of hunting PVE ships. Wouldnt this place you in the exact same place place you claim PVE players are in, where you are looking for safety in your actions? Not that wanting to hunt PVE ships is bad. It's actually well and good. I just find it interesting.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 14	Posted - 2015.01.20 18:21:22 - [26] - Quote So....by the numbers 1. Though you dont know the when, you know the where and that in itself is enough. I will leave you to figure out how you kill someone on the undock or from a POS. You are a smart enough player to know how to accomplish this. The argument that cloaking = hiding in POS/Station is simply invalid. In both cases you know here the player is, what they are in for the most part. Untrue with a cloaked ship. Wont even touch the idea of the cost of stations and POS vs the cost of a cloaked ship. 2. The idea that an "AFK cloak" is not hostile unless they are visible is also invalid and his been shown several times already. The threat of a hot drop is in itself a hostile act, as well as intel that can be gained from simply watching a station undock. These are just two examples of hostile actions coming from a cloaked target and they are gained by the cloaked pilot with minimal risk. 3. As for this idea. Where exactly in the game of EVE has it ever been stated that hunting a PVE ship should be easy. I dont advocate complete safety cause I think it makes the game boring, but having lived in Null 90% of my EVE career when a threat comes close, miners and ratters will dock up. With my corp and alliance we often will form up to combat the invaded threat, which often time results in the invalid force leaving, especially if we bring equal numbers. Your push for cloak to stay the same is from the point of view of gaining easy kills and not wanting to risk your ship to actual combat ships. Maybe not you specifically but that is how the argument here is panning out. If you are really dedicated to PVP you would just go to low sec and spend about 10 minutes at a gate and get all you need. Let me explain to you why you see local as being broken. You can blame this on N3, Goons, Test and any other major alliance that makes their money off of renting. They claim to own space. They rent it to industrials. This in itself creates a massive network that an alliance can call their space. Now from a simply logical point of view, why exactly do you feel that a PVP ship should be able to penetrate an alliances space without being detected so they can prey on miners or ratters. If those players are several jumps into alliance space, I personally dont see any way you should be able to just fly in and attack them without a lot of work. Now you claim that AFK cloaking is meant to combat this exact mentality, however I personally see it as an abuse of a tool CCP created. I personally feel that what you advocate in keeping cloak as it is goes against the ideas of CCP is attempting to create. What benefit does it create to be able to sit in a system for a month, waiting for that perfect kill. All you are doing is basically griefing. Local itself isnt broken. If you enter a system owned by a single corp and they are all mining. You have a very high chance of tackling a mining barge before they can dock, even with them seeing you. The combat ship has the speed to do that. However this is not the same if you fly 10 jumps into alliance territory and expect their intel networks to not have seen you. Local only works in one system. The intel channels are what spreads the news. You shouldnt be fighting to fix local but instead to limit the intel channels. The type of AFK cloaking that people are complaining about is the type that is used as a griefing tool. No one wants to destroy bombers, or cov ops or anything like that, though what you are seeking is justification to be able to grief PVE ships deep in alliance territory. This is why I feel there is a flaw in cloak. I think it can be abused and this is my justification on why I feel that way and why I would like to see them changed in this single regard.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 14	Posted - 2015.01.20 19:13:01 - [27] - Quote baltec1 wrote: A station cannot change hands or lock people out. And AFK player in a station is exactly the same as an AFK cloaker. In what world do you live in where a station can not change hands or deny access. It happens all the time in Null
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 14	Posted - 2015.01.20 19:39:12 - [28] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Haywoud Jablomi wrote: baltec1 wrote: A station cannot change hands or lock people out. And AFK player in a station is exactly the same as an AFK cloaker. In what world do you live in where a station can not change hands or deny access. It happens all the time in Null It has never happened in null sec or any other area of space save for people in FW. ...........
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 14	Posted - 2015.01.20 20:57:22 - [29] - Quote Nikk wrote: You seem to want an entirely separate game to exist, where PvE ships in friendly sov space are concerned. You further seem put out, that you believe you are being blocked from this game, when you chose to avoid uncertainty and risk due to assumptions about a pilot flying a ship of unknown virtue. You don't need to dock. Fight back, and if the concealed foe knows you are ready to do this, there is a reasonable expectation they won't bother you at all. I am not sure if you are willfully being ignorant of what I and others are saying or just not understanding. My statements, killboards and suggestions have been the complete opposite of what you just stated. I made one clear statement. AFK cloak camping a system for a prolonged time seems to be a flaw in the cloak and I would prefer to see it changed. I have offered several reasons on why its a flaw, so have may others. Several people have made very valid points on why cloak is flawed.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 14	Posted - 2015.01.20 23:36:17 - [30] - Quote Nikks wrote: You accuse me of ignorance, but you fail to demonstrate grounds for this accusation beyond unfounded claims. No I called you willfully ignorant. The quote is a perfect example of it and in itself verifies the claim "Willful ignorance is the state and practice of ignoring any sensory input that appears to contradict one's inner model of reality. At heart, it is almost certainly driven by confirmation bias." You completely ignore the fact that despite local existing, PVE ships die all the time. Killmail's are direct proof of that. You can claim its due to pilot error but that's not a valid excuse. Taking advantage of a players mistake happens in games all the time and even then, pilots are able to get kills all the time without error. NIkks wrote: The ones seeking to limit cloaks, do NOT feel that the PvE ships should ever need to encounter direct PvP combat. They should not need to fit for this... they should not need to bring friends... they expect to be able to get safe, and have the cloaked ship accept it's failure to catch them, following which the cloaked ship should simply LEAVE. That isnt really true. Actually from the last several pages you are the only one that seems to think that's the case. Most people have been arguing the fact that once a person has entered a system, you cant remove them. It is true that people do believe that a PVE ship shouldnt have to gimp its output by fitting for combat, when the opposite isnt true. However in the long run, that is a pretty minor argument and basically people need to just get over it. Either tank to survive or risk it. Why not just admit that you feel threatened by this topic. That any change to cloak would mean that your ship is suddenly vulnerable to the wrath of so called "Carebears". Most people have even offered adjustments to local to compensate for things, which again you tend to ignore and gloss over so you can rehash old talking points in an attempt to spin the argument.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 14	Posted - 2015.01.21 00:06:50 - [31] - Quote baltec1 wrote: All this boils down to is people want to rat in safety and AFK cloaking stops that by messing with the local intel they use. Getting rid of local fixes both issues in one go. You no longer have to worry about an AFK cloakers and we no longer need to spend days sitting in a system waiting for people to ignore us. ........ you dont seem to get it but then again you didnt seem to know stations in null could change hands, so... go figure.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 18	Posted - 2015.01.21 19:07:52 - [32] - Quote Nikk wrote: The PvE players have allowed their expectations of play to rise, up to the point where they can only be satisfied running maximum efficiency mining or ratting fitting schemes. How is this any different than PVP players? It's a pointless statement. Who would willingly reduce their efficency? You honestly dont get it or you are just trying to split hairs or something.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 18	Posted - 2015.01.21 19:54:56 - [33] - Quote nikks wrote: PvP players accept compromises on efficiency, in exchange for extended ability to operate under hostile circumstances. PvE players reject hostile circumstances, and as a result do not operate during periods where this would conflict. Are you saying that be equiping a cloak you are hindering the effeciency of your ship?
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 18	Posted - 2015.01.21 19:57:08 - [34] - Quote Mr Omniblivion wrote: AFK cloaking is much, much less of a threat since the changes to Jump Range and Jump Fatigue. The threat has never really been about the one cloaked ship- the threat was what they could cyno in at any time. If there is still a problem, the problem would be that the cloaking module can stay on indefinitely, requires no fuel, and there is absolutely no way to track down someone that is cloaked (unless they decloak somehow). This brings about a situation where a person can have many "afk cloaking" accounts logged in at once (like me!) and go between being "AFK Cloaked" to "Active Cloaked" instantly without anyone being aware, across several tens of accounts. This means that I can always have near-perfect information before I strike or bridge in blops. If anything, I can keep an alt cloaked up with a private stream in a hostile staging system and be providing real time intel 23/7, without being at my computer. I don't really want CCP to make more changes to AFK Cloaking, but part of me can see why this mechanic is slightly broken as-is. Really honest view on things. I like it.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 18	Posted - 2015.01.21 20:22:58 - [35] - Quote Nikk Narrel wrote: Haywoud Jablomi wrote: nikks wrote: PvP players accept compromises on efficiency, in exchange for extended ability to operate under hostile circumstances. PvE players reject hostile circumstances, and as a result do not operate during periods where this would conflict. Are you saying that be equiping a cloak you are hindering the effeciency of your ship? Yes. OK So in your mind, adding a cloak to a covert ops ships that you plan on using to invade enemy space is hindering that ship? I hope you are smart enough to realize how wrong you are in that statement.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 18	Posted - 2015.01.21 21:33:58 - [36] - Quote You mistake efficency with winning. A covert ops ship is the most efficent way to invade alliance held territory. Without that cloak, that ship is not only ineffecient, it reachs the point of being useless for it's the task. Thus for the task, the CovOp ship is at the peak of its effeciency for the task you wish to complete. Your post makes it clear that any other ship would be also inefficent to invade, though it would be better for killing a target. PVEers do the exact same thing. An Osprey can go mining but a hulk does a much better job. Thus your statement that PVPers bend to be flexable and PVEers dont is just crap. Both do their best to be the most effecient yet you seem to think that PVEers should limit their activities.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 18	Posted - 2015.01.21 22:31:28 - [37] - Quote Delegate wrote: Haywoud Jablomi wrote: OK So in your mind, adding a cloak to a covert ops ships that you plan on using to invade enemy space is hindering that ship? I hope you are smart enough to realize how wrong you are in that statement. Haywoud, covops are hindered by design. Take a look at a typical covops frigate fit. Or at a bomber tank. A cloaky T3 must sacrifice a submodule to fit covops cloak. Yes I understand they are hindered. If they were the perfert killing machine and cloaked, they would be OP. However as a stealth vessel they are perfectly suited for what they do. The cloak is what makes them. This not only applies to frigates but t3 cruisers. What Nikk is trying to imply is that the CovOps ships somehow are PVPing with a handicap, which is not true at all. If you wish to hide, and you fit a covops cloak, then your ship is at 100% efficiency for its goal. It is doing exactly what it was designed to do. You can not say that the cloak is a crutch. That is like saying that an ewar frig is gimped by its array of ewar items. Just cause it doesnt make ships go pop doesnt mean that it's not doing exactly what it was meant for. So overall I still hold that Nikk is mistaken in his assessment that PVPers bend and PVEers dont. I feel this statement is not based on facts and more on distaste for PVE players in general.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 18	Posted - 2015.01.21 23:06:13 - [38] - Quote I am sorry you misunderstand the role of your ship and what you have chosen to take into combat. It is not my fault that you somehow feel that a class of ships designed for stealth is also not the ultimate killing machine. Please stop trying to make it sound like you are some poor helpless PVPer cause you have to equip a cloak on your ship. So again, you are mistaken in your assessment that PVPers bend and PVEers dont. Though if you feel cloak is such a hindrance to your ability to hunt PVEer's then you should have no issue with this topic at all. Who knows. Modifications to local and cloak could lead to more PVP. But you dont actually want that. You just want your nice easy kills. I keep forgetting your only interested in PVE targets.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 18	Posted - 2015.01.21 23:15:43 - [39] - Quote Well we will have to agree to disagree on that one. It's also for a different topic.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 18	Posted - 2015.01.21 23:27:01 - [40] - Quote Mr Omniblivion wrote: Whining about AFK cloaking in relation to any type of 1v1 PVP is completely irrelevant. One cloaked ship is not an issue with AFK cloaking. The only actual "issues" are being able to indefinitely cloak without effort or while not being at your machine for intel or to serve as a bridge target for hotdrops. agreed
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 18	Posted - 2015.01.22 00:07:37 - [41] - Quote Nikk you're giving away your alt by having similar typing styles. Look simple truth of this all is. There is a flaw in cloak. For the most part it works fine but in situations like "AFK camping" it is and can be abused and it offers 100% immunity to any defensive actions of the people in the system with the camper. This is a flaw. You can talk about balance, or local, or how cloak is a crutch or anything like that but it's all fluff. Most everyone that has offered a change to cloak and offered a change to local as well. I am perfectly ok with the idea of removing all intel from local by stripping away the ability to look at pilot info and removing colors from the local tab. Just names and chat. If you wish to look at a players info you need to use the computers in a station or POS. In exchange. Either putting cloak on a timer, making a new probe to scan for stealth ship, using fuel or some of the other ideas. Friend suggested putting the cloak on a normal recycle rate, so that it's always on, but even cycle increases the cap usage. Eventually you run out of cap if you just sit around cloaked. Thought it was a pretty neat idea. Agree or disagree. That's fine. I have yet to see an argument that proves that the state of cloak, in regards to AFK cloaking, is acceptable and should stay the way it is. I have however seen many arguments that show that AFK cloaking can be considered an issue and that some form of change would be good. That's how I see things and I know many others that feel the same way.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 18	Posted - 2015.01.22 00:19:47 - [42] - Quote Kaarous. Wasnt refering to you bud.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 18	Posted - 2015.01.22 00:22:29 - [43] - Quote Mag's wrote: Haywoud Jablomi wrote: Nikk you're giving away your alt by having similar typing styles. When you find the need to resort to such accusations, it may be time to step away from the argument. It's hardly helpful or on topic and quite frankly, a pointless accusation to make. Well that might be true but I did find it interesting that Nikks and Delegate decided to say I was clouding the topic, and have been posting pretty much back to back. Either way. If I am wrong. I am cool with being wrong.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 18	Posted - 2015.01.22 00:33:12 - [44] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: It's not a flaw, when it is brought up that you deliberately ignored the fact that cloaking devices also prohibit you from taking any actual actions as long as they are engaged. I never ignored it. I personally believe the statement is just flat out wrong. It is a statement based around an overly literally interpretation of "AFK cloaking" as in believing that person is actually not there. I have clearly stated that gathering intel is just one action that a player can take. Another is the simple threat of a hot drop, which is a very valid threat given that covert ops and BlOps go hand in hand. So in this regard, you are simply wrong. Kaarous Aldurald wrote: And all of those things are from self interest carebears, who want to farm free money without risk. Such a thing should always be rejected out of hand. This statement is not entirely true. Everyone on the forums is arguing from a point of their own self interest, and I am sure some that would prefer to get free isk with no risk, however just because you dislike that style of player, it does not mean that their concerns are invalid. I have personally stated that I do not wish for 100% null. My personal dislike of "AFK camping" is that I feel it is an unbalanced mechanic that allows a player to have 100% safety.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 18	Posted - 2015.01.22 00:39:47 - [45] - Quote Delegate wrote: I disagree with your balance ideas. Local should simply be flipped to the delay mode, like we have in w-space. Ability to hotdrop fleet on a victim and then withdraw it at will should go away. This can be achieved by adjusting jump fatigue. At this point a lone cloaked ship is much less of a danger. The cloak itself should stay as is GÇô ability to engage with circumstantial advantage is a defining property of cloaking. This changes bring null closer to the wormholes GÇô and before you say that wh corps can close their connections, remember that CCP implemented mass-based spawn distance specifically to put risk in rolling holes. I understand that certain players simply don't accept pvp and would rather move to hi-sec than accept the risk. But they should not had left hi-sec in the first place. WH space and null are two different places. I disagree with the idea of making null more like Wh space for that reason alone. Why would you want to remove the ability to hot drop? I do agree that a cloak should have the advantage in surprise, which they currently have regardless of them being seen in local or not.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 18	Posted - 2015.01.22 00:51:14 - [46] - Quote Delegate wrote: Haywoud Jablomi wrote: WH space and null are two different places. I disagree with the idea of making null more like Wh space for that reason alone. Why would you want to remove the ability to hot drop? I do agree that a cloak should have the advantage in surprise, which they currently have regardless of them being seen in local or not. The ability to hotdrop is ok. But the ability to hotdrop and then withdraw at will is not ok. Hotdropping must be a commitment GÇô also a time commitment GÇô for the attacker. Otherwise its unbalanced. And of course null won't be like wh, because your neighbors in null don't change overnight. Neither you scan chains in null. So don't be afraid GÇô they will be different places. Oddly enough I believe the hit and run idea of a blops is the heart and soul of it but thats a different topic. As for the delayed chat. I would be ok with it. However I think the local with no colors or intel would have almost the same effect as a cloaky camper. At first people would jump every time someone came in system. After a while people would just come to accept it. Thus names would just be names and only make it into intel channels if they blew someone up.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 18	Posted - 2015.01.22 01:14:24 - [47] - Quote Delegate wrote: Haywoud Jablomi wrote: As for the delayed chat. I would be ok with it. However I think the local with no colors or intel would have almost the same effect as a cloaky camper. At first people would jump every time someone came in system. After a while people would just come to accept it. Thus names would just be names and only make it into intel channels if they blew someone up. No, after a while people would come to this thread and put another hundred pages in it. And you would see proliferation of "add color and intel to the local list"-tools. It's pointless. Once you spent enough hours with no local you realize this isn't really that terrific reality. This is game, not job. I don't make my living in isk. I can take risk and I accept it will backfire from time to time. I consider that a better game experience. Not sure I agree, however if you adjust local. That's fine. What do you do about the cloak? You cant delay local and not make a change to cloak at the same time.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 18	Posted - 2015.01.22 01:31:39 - [48] - Quote Anhenka wrote: Haywoud Jablomi wrote: As for the delayed chat. I would be ok with it. However I think the local with no colors or intel would have almost the same effect as a cloaky camper. At first people would jump every time someone came in system. After a while people would just come to accept it. Thus names would just be names and only make it into intel channels if they blew someone up. Heh. Ok, if you really think that I have some beachfront property to sell you. In Nevada. What would change would be the frantic clicking and checking of every unfamiliar name that enters local so you can see their standings. Many people would rapidly tire of this and either go to highsec or lowsec or WH's to avoid this horrible mechanic. Highly populated space would become a liability because of the difficulty of discovering who you were actually red to. Upgrades space would decrease in value because of the liability of having multiple people. Not exactly a great direction for nullsec space to be headed. Try reading. I said that it would include disabling of the pilot info from local unless in a station.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 18	Posted - 2015.01.22 13:42:42 - [49] - Quote Calexis Atredies wrote: I'm going to need a bigger bucket, the amount of null-bear tears is excessive. ....... Your illusions of safety in EVE should have been shattered years ago, no-where should you be safe, high-sec is full of suicide ganks. Low sec is full of skirmishing pirate gangs and null sec will see you pointed by an interceptor in that moment you glanced away from local chat and don't even get me started on wormholes :D Eve is sandbox PVP, embrace it or die horribly. This game has no opt-out button, I am sorry. That illusion may exist in null, however the real safety is that cloak sitting in system that cant be touched. Might want to check that bucket. Those arent nullbear tears filling it. It's a lot of cloak pilots fearing any change to their safety net.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 19	Posted - 2015.01.22 17:55:14 - [50] - Quote I really dont understand where people get this idea that a cloak ship is harmless and thus should be ignored. We all now this isnt the case. Their potential threat is what causes the issues. Though in itself is not a problem but it can be abused. A cloak is by far the biggest safety net you can add to a ship. The idea that without a cloaky camper, the EVE economy would collapse is just insane. There are only a handful of cloak campers as it is and they dont stop industrial operations and never have. Just move a system over is what most people do, since the cloak is unwilling to follow through the gate due to the unsafe nature of it. My argument why AFK cloaking is an issue is that I see it as a flaw in the cloak. It allows for 100% safety once the destination has been reached. If you read through the thread, no one has suggested modifying cloak so that it makes it harder for that cloak to reach a system. They have however offered suggests and compromises on how to limit the length someone can camp a system to remove that 100% safety net. There is no valid argument on why a person should be allowed to have this safety. There is no other item in the game that offers this type of protection. Not even an station can offer this, since stations have predictable undocks and you can find where a player is. And before you jump in and scream "OMG BBQ WTF LOCAL!" Everyone has offered suggestions on how local can be modified, and I think everyone on both sides accepts that it would have to be changed some. I still am not 100% convinced that local is as big a problem as the intel channels. Local only goes one system. The intel goes as far as the alliance and we can all thank Goons, N3, Test, etc etc etc for their dedication to creating huge renter alliances. If the answer to this is simple. "This is how the game is." That is fine, however this is the F&I forums. This is the place to suggest changes. The fact that this is one of the single most talked about items on the F&I forums does lead one to think that maybe it should be looked at more closely.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 19	Posted - 2015.01.23 14:55:47 - [51] - Quote Iain Cariaba wrote: The fact that carebears are too risk averse and scared of losing some pixels in a damn video game is not the fault of the cloak, it's entirely a problem with the carebears. The *real* solutions to a cloaky camper have been repeated, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. (This is not an exageration.) The risk averse don't want to *fix* cloaky camping. They want to remove it entirely. I suppose that's inevitably going to happen, unless CCP alters it's recent trend of kowtowing to the risk averse. Not sure you have been following the topic but wouldnt the idea of revealing a cloaked ship be the exact opposite of risk aversed? I mean you do actually have to fight once you reveal the ship. They dont just explode when visable.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 20	Posted - 2015.01.23 16:05:30 - [52] - Quote Jenn I am cool with the tactics you have suggested, however those are all defensive tactics. I am asking for a way to take a more proactive stance against a potential agressor. A camper can hang a threat over a system and that camper is completely untouchable. What I would like to see is the ability to take an aggressive stance towards that player.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 20	Posted - 2015.01.23 17:27:57 - [53] - Quote Nikk wrote: You are crossing a line, with this logic. By expressing a desire to have the ability to affect cloaked characters, it begs the question of adding in the means to access any character not normally available to interact with. In what world have I crossed a line? The thread is about "AFK campers" I specifically said "A camper can hang a threat over a system and that camper is completely untouchable. What I would like to see is the ability to take an aggressive stance towards that player." Never in this thread have I implied that it should extend anywhere beyond this scope and my last post didnt do that either. Also in regards to POS and Station. Those arguments have been proven invalid as both those items do not offer the same safety net as a cloak. A cloak can never be broken or located. A POS and a station show a location and a POS can be destroyed. Jenn wrote: That 'threat' only exists in the minds of those who are not prepared for it (or, more likely, can't be arsed to prepare for it). The only power that AFK cloaker has is that which the 'residents' give them. I give them none therefor they leave me alone and go after easier targets. "Problem" solved. That's not completely true. The threat is always there however one can be prepared for it. However it's impossible to tell the size of a BlOps fleet that might follow in on a cyno. I agree being prepared is good but I see no reason why anyone should just let that threat exist and not be able to confront it in some fashion.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 20	Posted - 2015.01.23 18:13:11 - [54] - Quote Jenn wrote: For example, all this talk of cloak fuel or timers etc. What about those of us who are carebearing, going to do an escalation somehwere in null (2-10 jumps away from out ratting system) who then have to afk for a screaming kid. So we just have to log off instead of being able to cloak and take care of real life because some of you people can't deal with afk cloakers. This argument here invalidated every argument you have in favor of cloak and invalidates every single criticism of PVE players you have made. This just shows that all you are interested in is maintaining your 100% safety net. Any change to how that safety net worked would mean you have to suddenly be at the keyboard and playing which is what CCP wants. Which is well illustrated by CCPs change of stance on ISBoxer. You hammer people here saying they dont know how to play the game, yet you sit here and try to justify your stance by complaining about not being able to take 30 seconds to safe log off? Even if the statement doesnt directly relate to you, if you are going to use it as an example, you have to be in favor of it. No other argument needs to be made on your part. Your stance is clear. You wish to maintain the 100% safety net provided by cloak and you admit that it is exactly that. My argument has been and always will be that the 100% safety net provided by a cloak for a ship already in a system is a flaw. it allows for the exact situation you described.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 20	Posted - 2015.01.23 18:20:25 - [55] - Quote Nikk I would just quote your entire post but its not worth it. Effectively you are just twisting statements in an attempt to make them fit your stance. Nikk wrote: Being untouchable, perhaps, but only so long as they exclusively touch nothing themselves. You even admit it here. Yes, a cloaked ship once in a system is completely untouchable. I am not talking about gates, or travel or anything else. Nothing in the game compares to the safety of a ship sitting in space, cloaked. That has been my entire point. It is the only flaw I have ever seen in cloaks and is one that can be abused. It makes absolutely no difference what the intention of the pilot in a system is. Hostile, or not. Why should a ship be able to sit in space with absolute safety. NOTHING in the game provides that. Not POSs or Stations.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 20	Posted - 2015.01.23 18:35:02 - [56] - Quote Jenn wrote: It was you who revealed your motivation, you want a way to take an 'aggressive stance' against people who can't even hurt you while they are cloaked. In fine double standard fashion you then question my own motivations (demonstrating that you don't want to acknowledge how selfish your own motivation is). LOL what? I have always said I wish to bring the fight to the cloaky camper. My stance completely revolves around the idea that I think the 100% safety net is a flaw. Why you continue to assert that a cloaky camper is harmless is your own fault. We all know they are not, we all know why they are there. My stance is pretty clear and its hardly selfish. Please stop the smoke and mirrors. My stance is pretty straight forward.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 20	Posted - 2015.01.23 20:02:27 - [57] - Quote Nikk. Point 1. Already disproven. Try again. Point 2. Has no bearing on the argument that a cloaky camper has 100% safety in a system. Try again. Jenn You can say I am wrong and that is fine, but my stance is clear and always has been. As for selfish. No, I dont see leveling the playing field as selfish, especially not given how often this topic has come up. I have stated my case and I feel rather well. So far no argument has been offered that is comparable to the 100% safety a cloak offers once a ship is in system.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 20	Posted - 2015.01.23 20:37:23 - [58] - Quote Both of you can continue to argue about things but you are taking the arguement past what is even being discussed. The issue is cloaky camping of a system. Not travel or anything else. It is directly related to a ship, sitting in space cloaked.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 20	Posted - 2015.01.23 21:04:42 - [59] - Quote NIkk wrote: Let's be honest, in all likelihood, one of these is the truth: 1: He was never AFK at all. Though tedious and possibly mind numbing, he was watching patiently the whole time for activity, and was either prepared directly or had equally patient friends too. That is some impressive effort, don't begrudge him that kill mail. 2: The PvE players were active for a considerable period, and eventually the cloaked player happened to check on things, and discovered them deep in the ISK grinding. He then contacts his friends, (they are still grinding all this time), and pops out on them. Those PvE guys were shamelessly guilty of pilot error, not taking precautions with a known hostile present. They did NOT need to stay docked, but they should have arranged to be flying something at least hard to kill, if not having friends handy to back them up. There is no reason why the PvE players hould not have scored a kill mail or two of their own, unless they were min/max fit for ISK alone. Both of those tactics are fine. By the way let me state that I feel that AFK Camper is a generic term and doesnt refer to being perminately AFK. See this is where I have an issue. I am cool with a cloaky coming in and scoring kills. What normally happens in the space I am in, when a camper ventures in, we try to kill them in route. If they make it to their destination and decide to camp, that is fine as well. However we are still going to be on high alert. This camper is going to just sit in perfect safety and wait. They may wait, minutes, hours, days, weeks or months. Again this is all fine. Where I see the issue is that the people in the system can do nothing to dislodge this player from the system. Now lets look at things differently. Lets say that Goons are going to be staging supers in a system for a deployment. A cloak makes it to that system. They now can gain all the intel they want by just watching. This in itself is not wrong, however the fact that nothing the Goons do will ever threaten that pilot. This is where I see the flaw. PVP or PVE or ANything. It doesnt matter. Once a ship is in system, it is completely immune to attack. So I ask. Why should this be allowed?
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 20	Posted - 2015.01.23 21:07:08 - [60] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Haywoud Jablomi wrote: Both of you can continue to argue about things but you are taking the arguement past what is even being discussed. The issue is cloaky camping of a system. Not travel or anything else. It is directly related to a ship, sitting in space cloaked. So what you want CCP to do would ONLY affect that one aspect of the game right? See what I said: Short-sighted. You can't change one thing in an interconnected game environment and expect it to not affect others. There are unintended consequences to every action. if you don't take those actions into account, you end up messing up more than you 'fix'. Many suggestions have been made that would only effect that aspect of the game. They are in this thread.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 20	Posted - 2015.01.23 21:20:57 - [61] - Quote Delegate. If you are refering to "I have to sit on my hands and just hope the camper wishes to leave at some point." and trying to imply that I just sit in station till the threat leaves. If you look a couple posts down, I did state that I was talking about not being to engage the camper.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 21	Posted - 2015.01.23 21:36:53 - [62] - Quote Nikks wrote: Perhaps they are able to place explosives in certain asteroids, which are triggered by close proximity of other ships. I have always been a fan of this idea. I think at some point mines did exist in game but were quickly removed. I am not sure why. It was before my time in game.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 21	Posted - 2015.01.23 22:26:05 - [63] - Quote Ahhh hmmmm interesting
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 21	Posted - 2015.01.23 22:56:07 - [64] - Quote I know this will never happen but what I would love. Cloak doesnt drop at all no matter how close you get. Cloaks can be detected. Either hunting or not hunting BUT certain ships, like recons or whatever can steal things. Slide up under another ship. Check their cargo with a scanner and snag some loot. I am at work and heading home but I can detail a style of cloak that I personally love. see what people think. it wouldnt take much effort to make either.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 21	Posted - 2015.01.23 23:13:18 - [65] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Haywoud Jablomi wrote: I know this will never happen but what I would love. Cloak doesnt drop at all no matter how close you get. Cloaks can be detected. Either hunting or not hunting BUT certain ships, like recons or whatever can steal things. Slide up under another ship. Check their cargo with a scanner and snag some loot. I am at work and heading home but I can detail a style of cloak that I personally love. see what people think. it wouldnt take much effort to make either. I mentioned this to the other guy a page or so ago, but that is not EVE Online. That is Elite Dangerous, or some other flight sim. Yes and no. A theft system could easily be brought into EVE. Just be another module.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 21	Posted - 2015.01.23 23:26:34 - [66] - Quote This is how I have seen stealth done before. It's not far from what EVE does now and the game was almost identical to EVE in its sandbox style. Key points. Local was based on distance and there was not a player list associated with it. You only saw a name when someone spoke but there was no delay. So much like WH space. Stealth classes could stay in stealth as long as they wanted but it hindered movement, and in some cases you were given bonuses to initial attacks. Stealth could only be uncloaked via damage. Stealth was also dropped when doing any form of offensive action but you didnt have to decloak to attack. The attack itself decloaked you. Thus you got the drop on your target. How this was countered was with a hunting class. The scouts could hunt the stealth classes and were themselves stealthed. The way they did this was based on distance. You had basically a dscan. It showed all players around you. You didnt know which was the stealth character and which wasnt. You had to look that up by name. You could lock a player and you were guided via an arrow towards that person. You would never see the person until you set off a reveal style bomb that would reveal an area, as well as yourself. After that you fight. Now not all characters could dscan the stealth players. They had to depend on their scouts to keep them safe. There was also a thief that could steal directly from your inventory. Not this WoW junk where it steals some made up item. I mean literally see a players inventory and steal what you wanted. Now I know this isnt EVE and an exact replication of this wouldnt work in EVE however a modification of this could work well.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 21	Posted - 2015.01.23 23:35:56 - [67] - Quote Nikk Narrel wrote: How about this. Covert shipping, lets say bombers as an example... are able to destroy asteroids. They would use a specialized bomb that is far more friendly to store as ammo, and would be ineffective against player ships the same way mining lasers don't hurt player ships. Regular Covert Ops craft would be able to broadcast a warning beacon, which would scram any NPC pirates from the system for a comparable amount of time. (IE: The asteroids would respawn at the same rate as if they had been mined, same with the rats) In exchange, in hostile space, you can gain an opposed ability to hunt cloaked craft. (Anything mounting a cyno or using a non covert cloak) How would that sound? I like the bomb. Actually what I think would be insanely fun is a ECM style burst you could use in a rat spawn that would spawn all the waves at once. Even a ratting carrier would have a bit of a time dealing with that and you wouldnt know till you landed.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 22	Posted - 2015.01.24 22:01:04 - [68] - Quote Jenn I am sorry but I am still having a very hard time taking your arguments seriously. You have made it clear that you feel the 100% safety of the cloak is perfectly ok and you want nothing to change that. I disagree with this point of view. I personally disagree with anything that has 0 counter. I dont believe that local is the counter that you believe it is. Also your attempts at passive aggressive attacks mixed into your posts probably should stop. Sean. I am not arguing against cloak from a point of view of mining or ratting. If you go back to my first post on in this thread I even stated that if a PVE player was unable to accept the fact that a PVP player was going to be hunting them down and trying to kill them, then EVE is likely a game they shouldnt play. Also Sean, in regards to your argument that people should defend better. I agree. However, as already discussed in the thread. That is not the issue at hand. We all know that if a proper defense is brought, the PVP player will not engage. All they have to do is wait. Eventually people will move to different systems, or log off due to time constraints or whatever, leaving a void in the defense. Of course this is the perfect time to strike for the PVP player and score a kill. I AM OK WITH EVERY PART OF THIS. However where I see the flaw in cloak is that the player cloaked has absolutely nothing that can remove them from a system once he/she is in that system. Nothing. No matter how many ships are in system. The people living in that system are given a few choices. Leave to another system, stay docked and pursue other activities, or risk operating in the system. If they risk operating in the system, even the best combat tanked ship can fall prey to a hot drop. A person can do everything right and still lose in the end. What I am looking for is a way to combat this. I hope you can see how frustrating it could be to a player. I see no reason why an pilot in space should have 100% safety, especially when their potential threat can be so high. Oh and as for local, since it does have a bearing on the topic. Everyone that has made a suggestion on modifying cloak, has offered a suggestion on how to limit local as well.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 22	Posted - 2015.01.24 23:06:19 - [69] - Quote Kaarous. My bias doesnt include 100% safety. Please take the time to look at the suggested changes. The effect it would have on cloak would only effect it in one very specific case. The prolonged camping of a system. I personally advocate no change to the function of cloak at all. I prefer the approach of scan probes to local a cloaked pilot. Just like combat scanners now. Kaarous wrote: Also not true. It just requires that you put the effort in to bait them and kill them. After that, if you let them back in, it's entirely your own fault. This is just junk fluff. Please show me one thing that I could use to threaten a cloaked pilot once they are in system. I dont really care how they got there. That was never part of the discussion in the first place. As for the victim mentality. Nice try as some passive aggressive snip. If you wish to go this route, then feel free but if you look at this thread you will see I never once have stated I was so victim or that CCP must make some change cause this is all totally unfair. No. I see what I perceive as a flaw. If a change happens. YAY. If not, then I am still going to play. But when it comes to my stance, I am going to defend it. So please. Continue your attempt at discrediting me with your little quips. All it does is make you look bad. Especially when I have people like Mag's, one of the most vocal people on this topic, agreeing that I put rational thought into my arguments. He doesnt agree, which is fine, but he doesnt resort to petty things.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 22	Posted - 2015.01.24 23:31:42 - [70] - Quote Kaarous. You either have ignored what my argument is or dont understand it. On top of that you make assumptions that are just false and can be shown in my other posts.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 22	Posted - 2015.01.24 23:43:06 - [71] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Haywoud Jablomi wrote: Kaarous. You either have ignored what my argument is or dont understand it. On top of that you make assumptions that are just false and can be shown in my other posts. I have done neither. Your claim predicates on the concept that cloaking devices are broken, and require fixing. And since that's wrong, the rest of what you say is not relevant, whether I read it or not. Interesting line of thought, given that I have made no suggestions on how to change the function of the cloaking device.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 22	Posted - 2015.01.24 23:49:47 - [72] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Haywoud Jablomi wrote: Interesting line of thought, given that I have made no suggestions on how to change the function of the cloaking device. I didn't say you did. I said you have claimed that they require being changed. They don't. This "problem" exists, and has always existed, only in the minds of people who would rather not defend themselves. I disagree with the statement. Sorry. If it was just a mental issue, then there wouldnt be hundreds of pages of posts about it.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 23	Posted - 2015.01.29 14:20:44 - [73] - Quote clipper shore wrote: How about using these new npc sleeper's to but a spanner in the works for cloaky campers have them deal with them the possibility of having your ship killed by them sounds fantastic Interestingly enough. The new sleepers have been seen scanniner cloaked ships that are in their range.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 23	Posted - 2015.01.29 18:39:22 - [74] - Quote Daichi Yamato wrote: Roxanne Quall wrote: Only the cloaked player is safe in space. You just trying to drive logic into the mud with the same loop. This is a lie. When a ratter has no one else in local, he is 100% safe in space. The ratter knows this and there is no uncertainty. The ratter is also even able to make isk during these situations, something a cloaked player cant do. There is only risk to a ratter in space when an unknown enters system and appears clear as day in local. At which point, many of you dock up. So you are still not risking anything despite living in one of the most dangerous areas of the game and making ridiculous amounts of isk. AFK cloakers bring the risk to your fat rewards. If you cant see that, you cant see past your own bias. Try dropping the passive aggressive tone. It honestly works better for posting. And it really isnt a lie. A cloaked player has subtantially more safety than a ratter. You have to remember, ratters are engaged with NPC ships. Of course its assumed they are well fitted to kill them but that isnt always the case, not everyone can drop a carrier in and go ratting while the drones kill things. Not saying there isnt some truth in your statement but your own bias is effecting your point of view as well.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 23	Posted - 2015.01.29 19:56:51 - [75] - Quote Hehe well yes. Nikk you are right in some regards. I was more pointing out that the PVE is actively engaged in combat, though it is with NPC character, so he isnt sitting safe just watching isk rain down on him. There is some basis for comparison though. Of course in open space, a cloak ship is far safer than any other ship. They cant be found, thus perfectly safe. At a gate, of course they are vulnerable cause they decloaked. I dont think anyone would argue that cloak needs a change in regards to travelling. They are tough buggers to catch off a gate but their mechanics are fine in that area. I keep seeing this argument that cloak shouldnt be changed cause it is what allows that ship to penetrate into enemy territory. Is this really what we are discussing here? I would personally never advocate for anything that changed that and I would be against any change that would effect that. Nikks wrote: This is a mind game, psychological warfare pure and simple. And it is far more hardcore than many other games will ever be. I do disagree with this. I know a sandbox game from the early 2000's that was far more ruthless than EVE will ever wish to be.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 23	Posted - 2015.01.29 20:03:15 - [76] - Quote Mags wrote: Both you and Roxanne have tried to claim, that the AFK cloaker is 100% safe when cloaked. In regards to myself. I have only made the claim that a cloak is 100% safe once they are in a system. Just to make sure we understand my stance.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 23	Posted - 2015.01.29 20:54:54 - [77] - Quote Nikk wrote: *I don't want to drag out a point needlessly, but are you seriously implying that the ratting player finds justified risk simply by farming the NPC rats? No not at all. Jus saying they are occupied doing something. Though not a huge risk at all, it is possible to lose a ship to rats. I never advocate and I never will advocate the change of the funcation of cloak. I personally advocate scan probes, changes to local and nothing else.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 23	Posted - 2015.01.29 21:07:47 - [78] - Quote Jenn. What if sov space wasnt part of it. What if making isk wasnt part of it? What if someones point was the simple fact that a person in space, camping a system shouldnt be 100% safe?
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 23	Posted - 2015.01.29 21:21:00 - [79] - Quote Nikk wrote: I don't recall seeing anyone suggesting to change local, while leaving cloaked ships as they are now. Balance dictates that changes would be needed on both sides, or none at all. That is crap. That is all I have advocated. No change to cloak, add scan probes, and removing info from local
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 23	Posted - 2015.01.29 21:34:29 - [80] - Quote Mag's wrote: Haywoud Jablomi wrote: Nikk wrote: I don't recall seeing anyone suggesting to change local, while leaving cloaked ships as they are now. Balance dictates that changes would be needed on both sides, or none at all. That is crap. That is all I have advocated. No change to cloak, add scan probes, and removing info from local So what would your scan probes do? Just like combat probes but for cloakies. Just like scan and normal combat, they can be seen on dscan. If your active, its unlikely they will find you, though they might cause you to move around.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 23	Posted - 2015.01.29 21:36:16 - [81] - Quote This is also on top of my suggestion that all color be taken away from local and the "Pilot info" button be taken away as well while in space. If you want to see info about a pilot you have to be in a station or a POS.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 23	Posted - 2015.01.29 22:34:11 - [82] - Quote Rather enjoy the fact that a viable solution, actually more than one, has been offered as a solution to this and of course they are just glossed over. Let's go back arguing. That's always the best solution.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 24	Posted - 2015.01.30 01:40:49 - [83] - Quote clipper shore wrote: guys closked up in a system AFK doing nothing but disrupting the activities going on in that system. not about cloaky ships that are actievly been flown or gathering intel on systems or looking for a target to blops . let me say it again AFK cloakers You are correct in what you are saying, however some of those topics have bleed over to this topic as well. Intel gathering and targets are actually parts of the so called "AFK camper".
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 24	Posted - 2015.01.30 01:54:18 - [84] - Quote Dihi San wrote: Haywoud Jablomi wrote: You are correct in what you are saying, however some of those topics have bleed over to this topic as well. Intel gathering and targets are actually parts of the so called "AFK camper". Well then, if circadian sleeper idea would be implemented, then the cloakers will have nothing to worry about since they're ACTIVELY gathering intel...right....right? Oh wait... Problem with the seekers is they wont be around forever. least I dont think so
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 24	Posted - 2015.01.30 15:40:00 - [85] - Quote Well Jenn.... where to start. Jenn wrote: Those What ifs don't make any sense. EVE is an interconnected game, everything affects everything else. Those only dont make sense if you choose to ignore them. People claim that sov brings entitlement, that ratters are looking for free isk and miners are looking to mine in safety. Yet you can take all those things away and the argument still exists. You can have a ship sitting in space and if it is cloaked its 100% safe. Yes. I am advocating for a change. I dont believe that a ship should be completely safe in space and that is what a cloak provides. I can see a limited immunity, but I see no reason why a ship should be invulnerable 100% of the time, forever. I personally have never been threatened by a cloak ship in system. I just move around. However that doesnt mean that I dont see it as a problem. I find it a bit silly to critize a person for advocating for a change in the F&I forums. This is where suggestions are meant to be.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 24	Posted - 2015.01.30 16:12:36 - [86] - Quote Jenn I cant tell if you are not comprehending what I have been saying in the last few pages, or if you dilberately attempting to troll. None of my posts have been willy nilly posts. I have always argued that I dont believe that cloak is completely balanced. Your arguments seem to be created with the attempt to get people to lash out in response.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 24	Posted - 2015.01.30 16:32:53 - [87] - Quote Nikk wrote: The cloaked ship in space, which I will compare to a POS at various points, is only safe so long as the pilot has made the correct choices. As others have pointed out, the cloak is purely concealment, not cover. It offers no actual protection directly, it only interrupts the process of being attacked by requiring the attacker to locate the target first. Nikk you know this post is untrue though. This statement as well as the post attached to it is just a dishonest view of how things work. If you cant target a player, find the player, or engage the player you can call it whatever you want, it is still 100% safety. On top of that, comparing cloak to a POS is invalid, though if you wish to. A POS requires fuel to maintain its protection and that is limited. But in the big picture, the POS argument is completely invalid on the topic of AFK cloaking. Nikk wrote: Being in space, cloaked, lacks significance if this has no specific impact on other players. In high sec, other players are not under duress to react to names of neutral players alone. In wormholes, noone can hear you scream, fart, or see you in local. In low sec, wild orgies of violence are expected by many, the guy shooting you is a more pressing issue than the guy hiding from you. I disagree that a player cloaked in space has 0 significance. High sec has Concord. Just cause you cant see someone in a WH doesnt mean they arent a threat and if they are cloaked they can have 100% immunity . Just cause violence is the norm in low sec, it doesnt invalidate the fact that a cloak ship in space can have 100% immunity forever.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 24	Posted - 2015.01.30 16:54:19 - [88] - Quote Nikk wrote: The sad part, is that you are misusing the term balance. That is untrue. Thought we went over this a few pages back in regards to a ship being 100% safe in space and how that wasnt exactly a good thing.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 24	Posted - 2015.01.30 17:19:51 - [89] - Quote Nikk Narrel wrote: Haywoud Jablomi wrote: Nikk wrote: The cloaked ship in space, which I will compare to a POS at various points, is only safe so long as the pilot has made the correct choices. As others have pointed out, the cloak is purely concealment, not cover. It offers no actual protection directly, it only interrupts the process of being attacked by requiring the attacker to locate the target first. Nikk you know this post is untrue though. This statement as well as the post attached to it is just a dishonest view of how things work. If you cant target a player, find the player, or engage the player you can call it whatever you want, it is still 100% safety. On top of that, comparing cloak to a POS is invalid, though if you wish to. A POS requires fuel to maintain its protection and that is limited. But in the big picture, the POS argument is completely invalid on the topic of AFK cloaking. Nikk wrote: Being in space, cloaked, lacks significance if this has no specific impact on other players. In high sec, other players are not under duress to react to names of neutral players alone. In wormholes, noone can hear you scream, fart, or see you in local. In low sec, wild orgies of violence are expected by many, the guy shooting you is a more pressing issue than the guy hiding from you. I disagree that a player cloaked in space has 0 significance. High sec has Concord. Just cause you cant see someone in a WH doesnt mean they arent a threat and if they are cloaked they can have 100% immunity . Just cause violence is the norm in low sec, it doesnt invalidate the fact that a cloak ship in space can have 100% immunity forever. Where is the advantage to gameplay? This game will never adequately play realistically enough to overcome the simple fact, that it is a game. People log out. They need to, real life takes priority. We want them to be able to do this, as it promotes good play at other times. People dock up or sit in a POS, AFK in friendly space. They need to, real life takes priority. We want them to be able to do this, as it promotes good play at other times. People engage cloaks in all areas of space, friendly and hostile, and go AFK. They need to, real life takes priority. We want them to be able to do this, as it promotes good play at other times. Being able to effectively pause your activity safely, ESPECIALLY in hostile space, benefits the game. It allows players with imperfect lives to engage in otherwise time consuming and unforgivingly hostile areas. Imagine how entrenched sov null would become, if players could not effectively cloak. One or two layers of barrier systems would be all that was needed, to make larger alliances able to PvE with impunity behind these walls of safety. Time is a undeniable constraint, when operating in hostile space. It takes patience and effort to coordinate, and penetrate, when other players are opposing you. Handing them victory by forfeit simply because your real life needs dictated you needed to either log out or be AFK would compromise the game we want to play. I hate quoting blocks but in this case I need the entire post. I do agree with what you are saying to some extent but your argument can be extended to all aspects of the game. We all understand that RL takes priority over a game, however that is not a justifcation for certain in game mechanics. If what you are saying is true, then CCP would not have created belt rats. They woud allow the miners to just mine in peace and go afk if they needed. However this is not the case. No offense to cloakies but they are not the counter to alliances. Their existance is not the sole cause of havok amoungst an alliance. Look at how large alliances fractured with the jump distance change. The unfortunate truth is that this isnt a single player gamer. If you have to leave, I dont understand why logging off isnt a valid solution.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 24	Posted - 2015.01.30 18:02:20 - [90] - Quote Nikk. Seriously dude, I like you, but come on. I have no idea what the original thought at CCP was in regards to belt rats but I seriously doubt it was meant as an isk boost while mining. I am going to guess that it was to make sure the miners were still active and not just letting their ships get attacked by NPCs. Furthermore on this point. Making Isk is invalid to the validity of cloaking. You can be sitting at a gate and rats will spawn. I doubt there are their to give you that lil 100k isk boost while you wait. Again I believe its to maintain a level of activity among players. Your other points.... again I dont get it. It doesnt take much to log off in a system. 30 second safe log, and even during that time you can move if you are engaged on. Yea you have to start the counter over when you stop, but if you are trying to log off while there are combat probes on the field then well.... that pilot error. Especially when you can see them on dscan. The log off thing has been being used for a long time for penetrating into hostile space. Also local is a two way street. You can see your targets activity just as much as the target can see yours. Even then, everyone has suggested a change to local.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 24	Posted - 2015.01.30 22:42:05 - [91] - Quote Delegate I am flattered that you choose to call me out personally. I will take this moment to say you are completely wrong about everything you just said. Please continue to try to slander me with your posts by creating false assumptions. If you had any idea who I was, who I fly with, what I do in game or what I try to achieve in game. As for motives you chose to post. Both are valid and I stand behind both. I do not feel that a ship should have 100% safety when in space, AND I do believe that a player should have the ability to remove a player from their space with the proper amount of work. These are the exact same thing, one just being more narrow in view. I personally do not care where a pilot is in space. I feel that if they are floating in space with a cloak, they can achieve 100% safety. Nothing else in the game offers this. Not even hi sec stations. I have explained this in many a post. Please go back and reread them if you wish. Delegate wrote: Ok, so did we ever heard Haywoud procaliming GÇ£I dont believe that a ship should be given for free and perfect intel from localGÇ¥. This is just a flat out lie. One that I am tempted to report as trolling cause its so obvious. My entire stance, in at least a dozen posts have included removing intel from local by removing standings color as well as the "pilot info" buttom. I am in game everyday. Please. By all means contact me. Talk to me before you make a poor attempt at slander.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 24	Posted - 2015.01.30 23:29:44 - [92] - Quote Delegate wrote: I pointed out several pages ago (when you first wrote this idea) that what you propose is in fact a one-sided agenda. In particular, you will see a proliferation of GÇ£add-color-to-my-local-listGÇ¥ or GÇ£crosscheck-my-local-list-against-killboardGÇ¥ tools. The proper solution is to remove automatic update from the player list in local (i.e. delayed mode). But this doesn't serve all-safe, all-blue sov agenda, and so I never saw it accepted by the anti-cloaking group. I also don't recall you discussing watchlists, i.e. another free, perfect and completely broken intel mechanics. And watchlists/intel were brought in this thread. So wait. Since my solution didnt meet your personal approval, you decided to lie about what I said and try to twist it? Why should anyone even consider your stance? You just admitted that I have offered compromise to the free intel local topic but you just choose to ignore it and lie.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 30	Posted - 2015.01.31 00:08:20 - [93] - Quote Haywoud wrote: #post 174 Though the above idea is unlikely to happen, I do think a simple solution could be to simply remove the color coding of players in local. Make it so that only colors show up on the overview. This gives the PVP player more time to get to a target, and makes it so that a PVE player must pay more attention. I have addressed that issue with my original suggestion several posts before hand. This easily addresses any confusion with standings in local. From a lore point of view this makes more sense anyway. The gates report traffic and such but why should they have any idea of alliance standings. That would be information held in a station, likely in an office. So again. I will point out. You lied, admitted it and now are trying to back pedal with your "I dont recall" statements.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 30	Posted - 2015.01.31 00:45:37 - [94] - Quote Ok so I prove you wrong and you just add more things your statements. Ok lets just make it final. What I had suggested is this. Remove color coded standings from local. Make it so that you can see it in your overview when a player is on grid, or in a station. This of course still provides intel, but the idea is to limit what is immediately visible and force PVE players to be more aware of their surroundings. This also frees up the PVP player to move quickly through space and not really be considered much of anything. On top of that I have even said that I would be ok with the delay local, but that you cant just change local and nothing more. I even disagreed with your idea that a hotdrop group shouldnt be able to escape quickly and I though I wanted to, I didnt touch your statement that you wished to change jump fatigue. But let me ask you one thing. So lets say we go with the idea of a delayed local. How long would the delay be? 30 seconds? A minute? 5 Minutes? I am curious how long you suggest. And with this change, would you be making any change to cloak?
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 30	Posted - 2015.01.31 02:05:12 - [95] - Quote So you just want null to be WH space? You know what I find funny. Changing hot drop mechanics would be completely counter to the idea of covops. They are hit and run ships. You would simply cripple an entire group of ships. If anything hotdropping is one of the most balanced. It does exactly what it is meant to do. From what I can tell your ultimate goal is to make null space exactly like WH space. Doesnt that seem counter to everything CCP did to design WH to be its own type of realm? You can add any other ... "Read: "after obvious shortcomings of the proposed 'solution' were exposed, and the 'early warning' part laid down bare, I disregard them and declared myself right"." type passive aggressiveness you want. The only part I never directly addressed was the external killboards. There is nothing I can do about those, nor is there anything CCP is likely to do either If you have issues with them. Talk to the .com operators. oh and just for the record. Haywoud wrote: Post #597 This is how I have seen stealth done before. It's not far from what EVE does now and the game was almost identical to EVE in its sandbox style. Key points. Local was based on distance and there was not a player list associated with it. You only saw a name when someone spoke but there was no delay. So much like WH space. Stealth classes could stay in stealth as long as they wanted but it hindered movement, and in some cases you were given bonuses to initial attacks. Stealth could only be uncloaked via damage. Stealth was also dropped when doing any form of offensive action but you didnt have to decloak to attack. The attack itself decloaked you. Thus you got the drop on your target. How this was countered was with a hunting class. The scouts could hunt the stealth classes and were themselves stealthed. The way they did this was based on distance. You had basically a dscan. It showed all players around you. You didnt know which was the stealth character and which wasnt. You had to look that up by name. You could lock a player and you were guided via an arrow towards that person. You would never see the person until you set off a reveal style bomb that would reveal an area, as well as yourself. After that you fight. Now not all characters could dscan the stealth players. They had to depend on their scouts to keep them safe. There was also a thief that could steal directly from your inventory. Not this WoW junk where it steals some made up item. I mean literally see a players inventory and steal what you wanted. Now I know this isnt EVE and an exact replication of this wouldnt work in EVE however a modification of this could work well. I have made your suggestion before. It was ignored.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 30	Posted - 2015.01.31 02:48:30 - [96] - Quote well I meant more of the Local was based on distance and there was not a player list associated with it. You only saw a name when someone spoke but there was no delay. So much like WH space. which is my mistake for not noticing the BOLD isnt all that BOLD
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 30	Posted - 2015.01.31 03:02:00 - [97] - Quote Delegate, I get what you are saying. I just dont agree. I am sorry. My intention is not early warning or anything else. I have intention has always been to bring aggression back to a player that wishes to attack me. I just find cloak to be unbalanced in the single regard that it can be used to achieve 100% safety. I dont agree with this. Sorry. This is in regard to our last several posts.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 30	Posted - 2015.02.01 01:10:18 - [98] - Quote Quote: And the reason we cant get past afk cloaking being the counter to local is because others cant admit the two are so connected. Not sure its that people wont admit it. Me personally, I believe they are connected but not at the 1:1 ratio that is implied by some.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 30	Posted - 2015.02.01 01:13:30 - [99] - Quote I would be curious. Several people like to discuss this topic. How many people would be interested in discussing this in voice over a teamspeak server? Text can be misleading cause its hard to add inflection. Of course scheduled and recorded on something like soundcloud to be submitted to CCP for consideration.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 30	Posted - 2015.02.01 23:02:53 - [100] - Quote Nikk Narrel wrote: There are trade offs for each aspect. If you want to limit how long a cloaked character can operate, you need to make it possible for them to catch their preferred target. That means they need to make an opposed effort directly against the PvE shipping, not the PvE shipping racing against a clock started by seeing a name appear in local. How might this work? The PvE shipping cannot use local to be warned of cloaked hostiles. They can use tactics, like enabling a repeating cycle of d-scan, or have probes out. (The specific location of the cloaked ship would not be revealed by these effort initiated scans, but awareness of presence in the scanned area would happen) You want to limit hot drops? Understand that hot drops are used when a roam wants to encounter something besides consensual targets. (In null sov space, where targets can easily jump into a POS or Outpost to avoid encounters) The roam can't stick around, as consensual ships are often expected to force their exit. Add a 60 second delay to local. Regardless of how the name enters, it takes 60 seconds for a pilot name to be added. In exchange, a 30 second spool-up would be added to cyno use, which limited the cyno beacon to displaying on grid only for the spool up, and displaying as normal across the system once the cyno can be traveled to. How might this work? The cyno pilot could not open a cyno on grid with the target, unless they also gave the target 30 seconds of spool-up warning. (The target would have thirty seconds to react, break the warp scramble, etc.) Arrivals would have to hope their cyno ship survived until the cyno became usable, as well as the target not leaving. If used off grid, the cyno would appear on the system wide overview once it became usable, but no names would appear from arrivals for 60 seconds. Arrivals from this tactic would not appear on grid with the target, since the cyno was not on grid, so they need to warp to target. This CAN be used to bluff with. A cyno used off grid, completing it's spool-up, would show up on the overview across the system. Noone would know if players entered through it until they either landed on grid, or 60 seconds had passed. I am cool with this. My only question would be in regards to the 60 second delay in local. There are some systems you can get through in less than 60 seconds. Would the player show up at all?
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 31	Posted - 2015.02.02 16:26:32 - [101] - Quote Seems good to me. I was just concerned that a pilot might show up in two systems at once.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 31	Posted - 2015.02.02 18:46:09 - [102] - Quote Yea I agree with Nikk. Though you are correct, probably just too small an issue. Though a very valid point.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 31	Posted - 2015.02.02 20:49:00 - [103] - Quote Now if we can just get CCP to take a look at what people are suggesting.....
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 31	Posted - 2015.02.05 15:20:52 - [104] - Quote As anyone reading this thread knows. I advocate for changes to how cloak works. Though not a direct change to cloak, I do feel that cloak shouldnt have 100% immunity to aggression once in a system. Interesting example from last night. Went to deal with an SBU. In system were a couple cloakies just hanging out. Not a big deal, we could deal with them on their own if needed. So we engage on the SBU and get it to about 40 % shields when the on grid sabre decloaks and warps off. This entire time the sabre had been watching us, gaining intel and advising his fleet on what to bring. Now eventually we were pushed off and it wasnt due to the cloakies. The fleet of ishtars did that, and thats fine. That's the game and I am not complaining about that at all. In the short term, I see no issue with that happened. Cloak did its job, intel was gained, attempt to kill SBU happened and we got pushed off by a larger fleet. Pretty typical EVE. What does bother me a little bit is the sabre is not a covops ship. It uses a basic cloak. If it hadnt been for the fact that the ship cant be threated while cloaked, there is no way he could of gained the intel he did on our operation. I can see it if it was a covops ship but just a basic cloak? See as a player I am willing to put the effort in to try to clear the system before engaging in the op. Not because I want safety. The entire op is unsafe but it does make tactical sense to not have any hostiles in the system before starting anything. I personally would like to put some pressure on the cloaked player, so they cant just sit back and sip coffee. Not so much the covop ships, but definately the non covops but cloaked ships. Just an example and a thought. Not complain. Just pointing out where I personally see a flaw.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 31	Posted - 2015.02.05 15:30:18 - [105] - Quote Debora Tsung wrote: Haywoud Jablomi wrote: This entire time the sabre had been watching us, gaining intel and advising his fleet on what to bring. That is the whole purpose of cloaking devices. Yes I acknowledged that.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 31	Posted - 2015.02.05 16:45:23 - [106] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: From my perspective that is the proper use of a cloak, the player was active and was there to gather intel and be ready to bubble you when his fleet turned up, I was wondering why he left and did not bubble you when the Ishtars arrived, but ho hum. My issue with cloaking is the 23.5 / 24 and 7/7 cloaky alt, whose objective is area denial, the art of not playing Eve to force people to not play Eve. I do agree this is the proper use of cloak but the issue you refer to is the same as the issue I was pointing out. We have no idea how long that sabre was in system and his presence was there to deny the single or small group from engaging on the SBU. See I dont disagree that this should be allowed but what I question is why is there no counter to it. All one can do is go about their business and hope a capital fleet doesnt get dropped in on them. Personally I just find it frustrating.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 31	Posted - 2015.02.05 17:18:43 - [107] - Quote Quote: Suggest to your alliance members that they need to have scouts watching the targets for about 5 hours before hand, trust me its the best way to do it, its a pain and boring, but its so important. Oh we were there long before hand. We have a POS in the system. That's what is so frustrating. Once a cloak is in a system its impossible to remove them, which has been my issue with cloak in general. It allows the AFK camping that you talk about. Even with a good gate camp, a cloak can get through. I understand what you are saying and I do agree, so dont get me wrong, but I do think there is more to it.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 31	Posted - 2015.02.05 19:11:33 - [108] - Quote Quote: Say it, "Afk cloaking messes with our nullesc carebearing" Just cause this is true in some cases doesnt invalidate all the other things brought up in this thread.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 31	Posted - 2015.02.05 20:03:12 - [109] - Quote Celestia Via wrote: Haywoud Jablomi wrote: Just cause this is true in some cases doesnt invalidate all the other things brought up in this thread. like what? I read as much of this as possible but still could not find a solid argument. Apart from various rantings from nullsec people who get unmanned when someone is cloaked in their local. Well, rats to that. They deserve their share of fear like everyone else in EvE. I have personally tried to point out what I consider a flaw in regards to a cloak having 100% safety once a ship enters a system. This doesnt have to apply to sov space at all. It could be any space. I feel this isnt a balanced mechanic. I dont feel local is a 1:1 counter to cloak. I dont want to change how cloak works as it is. I do wish there was a way to hunt the cloaks, and I realize that is in a way changing cloak would be used. My personal stance on the topic is out of frustration. I dont care if someone camps my system, but after a week it gets old, after a month I want to put several artillery shells through his hull. However all my wants to engage this person are useless. I have to wait for them. POS's can be destroyed and even if a person decides to dock up forever, the sov in that system can be lost and the station can be flipped. That in itself is a win. Thats my stance on the topic.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 33	Posted - 2015.02.06 01:46:55 - [110] - Quote Celestia wrote: However, its part of the game. Why should we feel safer in w or null than the poor hisec miners who actually dont have a clue when the next ganker lands on them? Why should anyone feel safer? If someone manages to track down a cloaky, blow them up and pod them. They have earned the right to feel safer till that person returns. This is why I advocate being able to take an aggressive stance towards cloaks. I see nothing wrong with the idea of using scan probes to locate a cloaky. Cloaky can still use d-scan, and if they choose to stand still and be probed down, that is their own issue. Not saying its the best option but it is the one I like and the one I prefer to support. Also on top of that, this is the Features & Ideas forum. I am well aware that this is current how the game works. That is why I am here suggesting a change. My suggestion of cloak specific combat probes does very little to effect the overall use of cloak. Explores are always on the move, bombers are also always on the move, same with recons. At best this would eliminate the AFK cloaker completely as they would be easy to find. Celestia wrote: I understand how an untouchable watcher can be unnerving, frustrating and even scary, but its up to you to set the negative feelings aside and go out and do what you do. Worst case scenario, you lose a ship, he gets his kill and moves along. If you play it right, you can send him on his way with a cheap kill and none's the wiser. I used to keep a stock of mammoths in the C3 just for that reason. Whenever I suspected a camper, I just strolled around in my mammoth for a while. You would be surprised how many times the camper took that bait, trashtalked in local some and went on his way satisfied. I dont understand the point in this statement. I am ok with losing ships, but why would I just toss a ship out to be lost. Why would I feed a would be killer with free kills. He is likely to come back. Look at players like CtrlFreak who frequent the old IRC areas cause its been a fertile area for kills. PVPers arent stupid. They are looking for kills. A red killboad for an alliance means its likely they are easy targets. Feeding out ship kills is not wise.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 33	Posted - 2015.02.06 03:59:10 - [111] - Quote Valid point on the exploration. Had not considered the impact, though I question how often it would honestly interfere with exploration. Most explorers arent willing to sit in a populated system and look for things other than WH's. Data and Relic sites are out of the question cause those sites have to be run while decloaked anyway, so it's not like anyone is going to be sitting in a high traffic system looking for those. I think the overall impact would be slight, however you are correct. It would be impacted. I think you miss the implication of the killboards. They are used to look for hunting areas. Image is only one part of it, and one I personally ignore. Quote: There are other things one can try, like leading the hunter into a trap. This is the part I personally want to see changed. I no longer wish to be the hunted, but prefer to be the hunter. For example, Nikk clearly states he wishes to hunt PVE ships. Why can I not choose to hunt cloakies? To be honest I am not completely sure I am happy being talked down to either. You seem to like to imply that your experiences are the correct ones and that I should take what you say to heart like it is gospel. Least that is how it reads. I have not come to the forums to look for solutions I am already aware of. I personally see a flaw in cloaks. Almost every ship in the game can fit a cloak. This cloak can be used to achieve 100% safety in certain situations and that safety can last forever. No other mechanic in the game allows for that. D-Scan doesnt show cloaked ships anyway. Be great if it did. I am advocating change. No, I dont want a blue bubble. I think the only people that want that are the renter alliances.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 33	Posted - 2015.02.06 16:40:01 - [112] - Quote Celestia Via wrote: sorry if i sound preachy, it was not my intent. instead of just saying "what youre proposing is stupid" I am also putting alternatives out there, things you might try to solve your problem before actually proposing to remove cloaks from the game because you dont feel comfortable around them. And dont go "no im not, i just proposed probes that can track cloakers" because its the same thing. now, if you feel the correct way to go is to dismiss anything i propose, some of which may be crap, but some of which i have successfully done already, and keep asking for the removal of whole game chunks that dont suit you, go right ahead. all i am trying to say is that there are always other options to proposing a change that would ruin gameplay for many. sometimes a small change could be convenient to us, but that change might not be as small as we thought. No, your ideas are fine. They are really good ones. Some I knew, some I didnt. However it's not really the direction I am looking to advocate in regards to this topic. I know there are plenty of defensive ways to deal with a camper. I am looking for a more offensive approach. In ever sandbox game I have played I have always been the scout type that hunts down cloakies. It is what I enjoy in the game. I never understood why EVE choose to never employ a counter to the cloak and no I dont believe local is a true counter. Yes there is validity to the argument but not what I consider a 1:1 counter. But then again I never understood why they allowed almost every ship in the game to fit a cloak either.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 33	Posted - 2015.02.06 18:11:53 - [113] - Quote Celestia. Your entire post ignores one key fact. The fact that you can achieve 100% safety with a cloak. Even the most basic of the cloaks. What meaning would cloak have after a change to allow cloak hunting? Simple. You would have to have piloting skill. Just cause a means to find a cloak exists doesnt mean that cloak is useless. Also consider that this would include a reduction to local as an intel tool. I am a personal fan of removing alliance and standing colors from the local window and removing the pilot into button. Only time you would see instant standing colors would be from your own ships overview if the ship is on grid, or if you docked in a POS/Station. Probes are visible in space and as you said yourself. If D-Scan kept you safe for 2 years, I think it will continue to keep you safe. Games like Ultima Online, Shadowbane and others have cloaks and they have cloak detection. If both those games, both sandbox style games like EVE, can have countering stealth and stealth detection, why does EVE feel it needs to be special and not allow for the detection of cloak. Of course if its simple CCPS will and thats how they want it. That's perfectly fine, it is their game after all. But valid examples in other games do exist to show that cloak and cloak hunting can easily and effectively coexist in a game. My problem with almost all ships fitting a simple cloak is that it can allow 100% safety. I use a cloak as much as possible to keep my assists safe. Any change would effect me just as much as anyone else. As for hunting Titans. Well that already happens. Sorry but that is an invalid comparison. As for my name. Sorry you don't care for it. Petition it if you wish. If we are going to start throwing stones at names, be advised of Milla Goodpussy, Harry Saq, and Jenn aSide, which all can be considered offensive names.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 33	Posted - 2015.02.06 18:29:15 - [114] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Haywoud Jablomi wrote: Celestia. Your entire post ignores one key fact. The fact that you can achieve 100% safety with a cloak. Even the most basic of the cloaks. And in order to get that your ship can do nothing to anything. And of course this is the great debate. I personally dont believe the statement is true. I believe it can have a great effect on things, even if no shots are ever fired.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 33	Posted - 2015.02.06 20:49:57 - [115] - Quote Celestia. Logging off is just a silly argument. You arent even in the game. As for docked. That is a limited safety. That station can change hands if it is in null space, and though you might be safe, you cant do anything. Not even proper intel. In regards to the games I mentioned. Regardless of the genre of game, the general gameplay mechanics in a sandbox game are pretty similar. You are playing a 3rd person MMO when you play EVE. Last I saw there was no 1st person view. A sandbox is a sandbox. The rules might be different in areas, and cosmetically you might trade magic for space missiles. but overall the mechanics of one sandbox game can be compared to another to show how things can work. Not saying that is how they MUST work, but its a valid example of how it can work. As for skill. There is a level of skill one needs to play the game in general. Learning how to do something in a game isnt exactly uncommon. Some will manage to master it faster than others but that doesnt mean that puts them at some epic level. As for the name. A name is a name. I am not the one tossing stones over it. Sorry it bothers you.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 33	Posted - 2015.02.06 22:09:39 - [116] - Quote Delegate. Quote: My-way-or-no-way You do understand that I am advocating my side of the debate. I wont be backing down from my stance. As for exploration. I am being serious when I say this. What exactly is done more than scanning down WH, combat, relic and data sites. Three of the four items cant be run unless your decloaked away. Celestia I know logging off is effective. I think its silly in regards to this topic. Logging off and afk cloaking arent the same. CCP has done a decent amount to limit logging off in certain situations, and given the lack of intel or anything. It also is basically a guess. There are people in game that are good enough to scan down your ship in the 30 seconds it takes to log off. So when you log in, there is a chance someone will be waiting for you. Celestia wrote: And no, there is no way you can convince me that a 2-dimensional fantasy action-rpg's mechanics can be compared to EvE online. Sorry. I cannot even begin to describe how fundamentally wrong such a comparison is. Please try cause I can easily describe how steath in sandbox games such as AO and Shadowbane and be directly linked to cloaking in EVE. It's a very valid example of how stealth can be used an a very effective cat and mouse game. Again with the name. If you dont like it. Report it. Otherwise stop trying to make it into a personal attack. You, as well as the rest of EVE know there are far worse names. If it would make you happy I can post with any of my other characters. Their names are Behr Oroo, Marcus Behr, and VirgoFire. I just happen to think this is name is funny. Sorry it offends you.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 33	Posted - 2015.02.06 23:39:30 - [117] - Quote Delegate wrote: You advocating that cloak be dealt with your way or no way. And you outright ignore all other options given to you. The suggestions made have been how to defend against a cloak camper, which are all well and good. I use several of them but often I just move to a different area. Personally campers arent a bother to me, but that doesnt mean I dont see them as an issue. I still question how probes would effect exploration to such a degree. So combat scanning. Basically you have two ships scanning each other down. It's a race between skills and a bit of luck. The ultimate goal of both ships is to find one another. The probes would have no difference in it. They can be D-scanned and all that. Now even with that said. Probes dont have to be the answer, it is just the one I prefer to advocate. I am ok with other options as well of decloaking a camper. I have said this in other posts. I believe I have said before, though I dont think in this thread that I would be ok with the idea of none of the cloak detection stuff I am suggesting be active in WH's at all. So just for the record. I am ok with none of this working in WH's. Wh's have their own set of challenges and with no cyno possibility things are limited anyway. BTW Nikk, I very much like the idea of tying in local/intel with modules in territories.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 33	Posted - 2015.02.07 00:48:08 - [118] - Quote I will give ya that. I can see that being an issue however, honestly how often would that actually happen? See I am envisioning these probes as something just like normal scan probes, where implants and things would have the same bonuses. So why wouldnt you bring the implants? I do see what you are saying though and it does create an issue. So, modify the idea. Only a handful of ships get the bonus to scanning. Make those ships immune to the scan probes. Fixes any issues with exploration or scanning, and if someone chooses to camp a system with one of these ships you will have an idea of ship type when you realize you cant scan them.
Haywoud Jablomi The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 33	Posted - 2015.02.07 02:01:38 - [119] - Quote Offensive covops. No. I said ships that have scan bonuses. I am well aware it includes the T3s, as well as the SOE ships. I dont see an issue with the idea of the probes on the grid. Some examples. All assuming you have probes out. A. Ship warps in on grid. Lets say at the furthest point of 100km. You scan and get a hit...... 1. The ship is stationary and you manage to decloak him by warping next to him. Score a kill. Fleet defended. 2. The ship is moving already and is orbiting an objective. You warp in fails to find a target. Try again. 3. Your target is within 150km of you anyway and you cant warp to them. You know they are there, cant really do anything about it. Short and simple is. Moving targets and scanning just dont mix. The most info you might gain is a ship type and if you are lucky you can decloak them. Without being able to use a D-scan to see the ships, you have no idea what to pre align to so you can jump into warp quickly. Yes I am aware the idea has been offered up before. Most of the ones in this thread have been. That doesnt change the fact that I enjoy discussing the issue. I have said several times that if nothing changes in the game, I personally dont care. I will continue to play. But that doesnt mean that I wont be vocal about things I would like to see in the game. It just happens this is a controversial topic.
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 33	Posted - 2015.02.07 13:51:25 - [120] - Quote Delegate. Man I am sorry but I think the only one frustrated is yourself. I am posting here while I am at work. That's why there are huge gaps in my responses. People have been talking about cloak for just a long. I personally enjoy the debate. Regardless of how a solution is achieved, it still doesnt change the fact that I feel something needs to be either added or done to deal with certain aspects of cloak. Yea there are some issues with the probe idea. I still find it one of the more promising ideas, if an idea was ever implimented. I do disagree that it would ruin a class of ship. I think that is overreacting. But things like fuel for cloak, and a system upgrade based item are good ideas too. I find it unlikely that in all the years EVE has been running that CCP hasnt at least played with the idea of cloak hunting. Who knows what could be in the code that just isnt implemented.
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 33	Posted - 2015.02.07 15:05:52 - [121] - Quote Yea I know its not the best idea. It has its flaws and would need to be refined. Personally I would like to see some ship changes that would make covops more powerful, namely taking the covops cloak module and removing it as a module and making it part of the ship. Much like how a jump drive is part of the ship and not a module. This would free up a high slot for the covops. But another ship would also come into be, which could hunt covops. Local would get modified as well. Etc etc etc. There are a ton of ideas out there. Some good some bad. I like playing with the ideas. I think some type of cloak hunting would be good for the game, but that is my personal bias cause that is the style of game play I enjoy. Like I was saying to Delegate though. Really doesnt matter what change is made, something should be done about certain aspects of cloak. Namely the AFK cloaky issue.
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 33	Posted - 2015.02.07 15:07:08 - [122] - Quote Delegate wrote: Haywoud Jablomi wrote: I am posting here while I am at work. That's why there are huge gaps in my responses. How about next time you put some effort and try to understand what you propose? Haywoud Jablomi wrote: Yea there are some issues with the probe idea. "Some issues", right... Hehehe man you really seem way to bitter.
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 33	Posted - 2015.02.07 20:05:32 - [123] - Quote More and more as I read these posts and make my own I am having a growing distaste for local.
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 34	Posted - 2015.02.09 18:31:15 - [124] - Quote Nikk wrote: It is of less value to think of them in terms of risk aversion, and more to realize that having gone to the effort they clearly did, they simply don't want to throw it all away on a fight most players would see as resulting in obvious loss. Doesnt that apply to miners and ratters as well?
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 36	Posted - 2015.02.16 02:20:12 - [125] - Quote I dont get it. Scan probes for hunting cloak is a viable option. I dont see any reason why it cant work. The changes suggested to make Covops ships be immune to probing seemed to work well. Why is this not viable? Probes to scan ships. Just like combat probes, allowing a ship to be locked on to. Covops ships with bonus to scanning would be immune, leaving exploration intact. Local in WH space would stay the same. Local in Null would have all forums of intel removed from it. No color coding for pilots in space. The pilot info option would be removed unless in station or inside POS shields. Overview would still show proper color coding when a ship is on grid. Local in Low could function the same. Local in High would still have color and pilot info. Rational behind this. Information in space is provided by gates. In WH space there are no gates, so local is seen when a ship picks up a transmission. AKA someone saying something in local. In Null the gate system exists but is basically not maintained by any faction, so updated information is not passed to them. In low, the same idea kind of applies. In high each faction kind of maintains their own gate network, keeping information up to date with standings and other info. Just lose idea behind it. The removing of info from local would allow a pilot to do a quick hit and run, and unless spotted visually there would be no way to know if they were friend or foe. This would have the same effect as cloak camping. Over time a new name in local would have no effect on the pilots, leaving them open to be targeted more easily. This would give a counter to the month long cloaky campers, yet still leave hit and runs into hostile areas intact. The idea of leaving the probes up on grid to safeguard a fleet would be minor at best since its highly likely that even if you did lock down the target, you could not warp to them if they were too close and you cant just align to them either. Isnt this the idea we basically came up with several pages back anyway?
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 36	Posted - 2015.02.17 15:13:49 - [126] - Quote Quote: If you can provide facts as to why AFK Cloaking should be stopped, and not also include changes to local intel, I would be interested to hear them. Simple. And this falls back on the 100% safety I have been talking about. Here is a situation from last night. We has a couple Circle of 2 guys come through our space, including one that has decided to camp one of our systems. Alts gives these guys quite a bit of respect for their PVP, so instead of just sitting around we formed up in less than 2 minutes to confront this person. With Sabres, fast tackle, destroyers and other ships, it was impossible to catch a Rapier. The cloak did its job, keeping the ship safe when it ran a couple gate crashes but we were always right on its heels but none the less, we were unable to kill this Rapier. Why? Cause all the player had to do was cloak up and walk away and that is exactly what he did. Local had no bearing on this at all. With every gate camped, ships ready to fight all the player had to do was walk away from the computer and was safe. All he had to do was wait. 12 people, trying to find one ship. Even without local we spotted him and one of his buddies at every gate. According to suggestions on this thread, we did everything people suggested. The fact that if someone gets trapped in a system and they can just walk away from their computer without logging off. I find this to be a flaw
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 36	Posted - 2015.02.17 16:04:29 - [127] - Quote Quote: Not seeing any AFK Cloaking done here, but sure, let's look at active play. Yea the fact that the player can just walk away from the computer and be perfectly safe for an indefinite, WHILE being actively hunted. Their safety is COMPLETELY based on the cloak. Without they would be dead. Without it they couldnt just sit in space and wait forever. Even if the player had decided to not leave the system and jump a couple gates. All they had to do was just sit in the system, FOREVER. Quote: Must be nice knowing your opponent can't swap into ships that can overwhelm you directly Are you serious? He is in a covops ship with the possibility of having a covops cyno. He might not be able to change ships but he sure as hell can bring in a lot more. They had more options than avoid the encounter. Nikk I like you man, but seriously. You have been presented with an answer to your question and you completely choose to responded to it by ignoring the truth of it? I have said since I started this that no ship should be 100% safe while floating in space. This is a perfect example of why. You are right, cloak does allow ships to operate in hostile space. In no way should it allow them ot live in hostile space.
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 36	Posted - 2015.02.17 16:33:16 - [128] - Quote Nikk. You have been proven wrong. Sorry man. You asked for an example. I gave you one. You can choose to ignore it, or add other tangential arguments but that doesnt change the fact that at least one example exists on how local has no effect on balance and a ship can still maintain 100% indefinite safety while floating in space only due to the use of a cloak.
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 36	Posted - 2015.02.17 18:02:24 - [129] - Quote How exactly is it outside of AFK cloaking? It might be on the other side but its still part of the same coin. Look, I have stated that I am ok with changing local in exchange for cloak detection. Quote: Stupid is an opinion. If you can provide facts as to why AFK Cloaking should be stopped, and not also include changes to local intel, I would be interested to hear them. Yes, my example did show active play but the end result was a player simply waiting in complete safety in hostile space. Like any other camper, it is impossible to know if they are at the keyboard or not. For all we know this player simply went and got dinner while waiting, hoping to return to an empty system so he could leave. He could of just as easily decided to stay and camp the system out of retaliation for us attempting to kill him. Both are the same thing. So these are both just different versions of AFK cloaking. The point about local is that local had no bearing on it. It didnt matter if he was seen in local or not. He was seen at each gate he entered and left until the last where he just decided to sit in a system and wait out the camp. So if local can be shown to have no effect on overall situation. Then it can easily be seen to not need to be changed, even if a change to cloaking does happen. I understand what you are saying. It is a trivial point but it is one. Can you honestly say that the example I gave is good game mechanics? It leaves the game more up to luck then skill or even skill points. Long as you can fly a fast ship and equip any cloak. You have a high chance of getting anywhere in the game. With or without local. All you have to do is walk away from the computer when you get cornered.
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 38	Posted - 2015.02.17 23:27:01 - [130] - Quote Quote: Yes, based on the precedent established by accepted practices. Being logged into the game has never been the exclusive defining aspect of being subject to risk by direct combat. These practices, for reference: 1. Sitting in a POS shield 2. Being docked in an outpost You do understand that no one in favor of change is here cause they enjoy the accepted practices. People that post in the F&I area are looking for change, so using the argument that "That's how the game is" is rather invalid. Though I have accepted that people will use the argument about POSs and stations, I never have agreed that they are valid arguments. They cant be compared to AFK cloaking at all. I still believe that these items were designed as defensive items, meant for a player to us. POSs use fuel to stay active. Stations require billions in assets to create and far more effort than any cyno could possibly imagine. Yes, cloak or pouncing points is all one can use to avoid a fight. No one is arguing that. What people are saying and have been saying since the start of this that you ignore is that cloak allows 100% safety once engaged. That avoidance of conflict can never be threatened. This is exactly the problem that people here are complaining back. I have said since day one that the 100% safety is a problem. I have made a pretty solid attempt to offer compromise to the table in regards to hunting cloaks and changing local. I will continue to hold the belief that cloak is flawed in that it can offer 100% safety and that no other thing IN GAME can offer that. The argument that POSs and Stations provide this as a counter is invalid as well. POSs use fuel. Stations can, however a player can be locked out if they undock and when they undock they are in a known location, which is not true of cloak. Sov ownership has no bearing on AFK cloaking, as it has been proven that someone can camp any system with or without sov and they still maintain the 100% safety.
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 39	Posted - 2015.02.18 15:22:21 - [131] - Quote baltec1 wrote: How exactly is afk camping bullying someone? I dont think it really is. Though I can see how it could easily frustrate people enough to move back to High sec.
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 39	Posted - 2015.02.18 16:22:27 - [132] - Quote Daichi. I get what youre saying and its not really childish. I guess it comes down to how you define the roll of the station. In my mind, I see a person using a station as a safe haven as ok. This is mainly cause of the shear amount of work it takes to install and maintain a station. No, you cant eject someone from it but there are plenty of things you can do to it that will have major effects on the player. I think a major part of the discussion here breaks down to how people preceive an item is suppose to work. I see stations and POSs as defensive structures that are meant to be used by owners incase of hostile attack, but have their own limitation like fuel or in a stations case, sov ownership. So saying that a person can hide in a station forever to me isnt much of a point cause I see that as functioning as intended. Now many will say that cloak is doing the same thing and in a sense, yes it is. Cloak works fine for the most part, however I am not convienced that CCP intended cloak to be used in the fashion it is being used, in regards to AFK cloaking. Just not sure CCP ever meant for someone to sit in a system for months. I kind of view AFK cloaking as something similar to spawn camping in the FPS world. Yea you can do it and you will get kills, but its a cheap tactic and kind of looked down on.
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 39	Posted - 2015.02.18 18:48:30 - [133] - Quote Quote: I like analogies too. Your spawn camping one seems a bit too oversimplified, as it ignores how easy most such campers are to be rid of. (FPS often has one class vulnerable to certain things, like a rock paper scissors dynamic) That's good. I like them too. They help to illistrate things, like how I was talking about the mentality of the player and not the mechanics of game play.
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 39	Posted - 2015.02.18 19:51:19 - [134] - Quote Nikk wrote: That really does not redeem the analogy you made. No offense but WTF are you talking about? Are you trying to tell me my own personal view is wrong? The analogy I made was about player mentality, not mechanics and I said it was my own view. So WTF? Are you arguing for the sake of arguing?
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 39	Posted - 2015.02.18 21:19:59 - [135] - Quote GeneralDisturbed wrote: Meanwhile on the side of someone who wants to PVP rather than have 0.0 full of afk ratting bots, I'm sitting in my ship cloaked, all alone. In your system. Waiting. To 'counter' this, step outside your comfort zone for 2 minutes and play the game. Fit a bait ratting ship that will fight me when I decloak to tackle you. Get some buddies together and form a defense/bait fleet. Or hell, if you're that intimidated by one guy in local that I can shut your entire corporation out of ratting in a system, go somewhere else. Your options are limitless in eve. But instead... whine thread #infinity about how afk cloaking is the 'problem'. Not your utter refusal to play the game any way but afk/bot ratting. People already do this. PVPers will leave when presented with a fight they feel they cant win. Which is funny cause they complain about PVE players doing the exact same thing. Oh well. Welcome to the thread.
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 39	Posted - 2015.02.18 22:30:29 - [136] - Quote Quote: Far be it for me to argue with a PVE Alt (God I hope you are anyway) who has 0 actual kills on his kill board and no losses but a few haulers, but doesn't your circular broken argument there completely invalidate this entire thread? "PVPers will leave when presented with a fight they can't win." PROBLEM SOLVED THREAD OVER. You just -made- my argument for me and ruined any argument for AFK Cloaking being a bad thing. I'm sitting in your space alone, you nut up and find 10 of your friends and come out to run me off. Now I'm gone. Go back to AFK ratting. Keep some of those friends with you to make sure I don't come back. Look at that, not only are you all doing something in the game besides afk-ratting, but you almost got some PVP, and the dastardly afk cloaker is gone. Of course I am an alt and I have listed in this thread the three other names I use in game. Feel free to read back and find them. While your at it, look at all the posts I have made. You may not agree with it but it addressed everything you just said. BTW not everyone plays the game for the combat. View it how you will.
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 41	Posted - 2015.02.19 17:05:04 - [137] - Quote Nikk wrote: You seem to think the reward index in null is related to the difficulty of the NPC threats Wait... That is exactly how it works in null. The positive or negitive rating of a system is in direct relation to the NPCs in that area and their value. Same with mining benifits. That's why people fight over certain space. Because of its reward. Living in Null, I would of guessed you would know this.
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 41	Posted - 2015.02.19 17:40:25 - [138] - Quote Quote: The expectation that PvE in sov null, is expected to be the only area in the game, where ship to ship combat between players, is consensual. LOL what? OK first you get completely called out for not knowing how null actually works in regards to NPC risk and reward. Then you try to say something that wasnt even said in the two posts you quoted. WTF dude. You're losing a ton of credibility. As for your questions. Will answer after my lunch break.
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 43	Posted - 2015.02.19 18:26:22 - [139] - Quote Haywoud wrote: Wait... That is exactly how it works in null. The positive or negitive rating of a system is in direct relation to the NPCs in that area and their value. Same with mining benifits. That's why people fight over certain space. Because of its reward. Living in Null, I would of guessed you would know this. I already answered all your "Point one" in the original statement. Positive to negative rating covers all sections of eve. High to null. The rewards go up as the security rating goes down. Any ore chart, moon listing, planet PI chart, rat isk output chart will show you this. Player threat in null is constant but has no contributing factor to the reward of a section of space. People fight over assets in space, not over the right to go fighting in that space. Player threat should never be discounted but how you are tying them into the reward system of null, I dont completely understand. Though as a side point. CCP has never stated that any section of space is suppose to be safe or dangerous. They have limited the player control in areas and in null the area is completely player controlled. They never said it had to be dangerous. The danger is completely dictated by the players themselves, so using the argument than a game mechanic shouldnt be changed cause a section of space is too danger or safe, is simply wrong. The two have no direct relationship to one another. You can not fault players for working together.
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 43	Posted - 2015.02.20 00:16:42 - [140] - Quote Quote: Quite to the contrary, I am pointing out that players working together is a proven method to counter AFK Cloaking threats. The expectation that neither group effort or personal risk should be needed, this I pointedly question. LOL what??? So you CAN fault them for working together?? Quote: I am pointing out that players working together is a proven method to counter AFK Cloaking threats. This is just a lie. A group is a great way to defend against an AFK cloaker when they choose to act but it is not a counter. As it has been pointed out and you keep ignoring. If a cloak camper is presented with a group, they just go back to being afk and wait for that group to leave. This is not a counter. This is just delaying things.
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 43	Posted - 2015.02.20 15:18:27 - [141] - Quote Haywould wrote: Wait... That is exactly how it works in null. The positive or negitive rating of a system is in direct relation to the NPCs in that area and their value. Same with mining benifits. That's why people fight over certain space. Because of its reward. Living in Null, I would of guessed you would know this. Again I will requote myself, cause I already said this Daichi. Since NPCs offer 0 threat, they can only be graded by how rare or difficult they are, and that is part of the reward. You are correct in saying that the market makes up the rest. Asking a question in regards to NPC threat is either using threat to mean difficulty OR its a trap question that has 0 answer to start with since involves something not in the game. Not sure how this is relates to AFK Cloaking Quote: So the group prevents the AFK cloaker from doing his job...that is a counter. AFK cloaker is a term refered to someone already in a system and just camping. If you are refering to a counter to normal cloak movement then yes, however a fleet makes no difference to an AFK Cloaker. Like I already said.
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 43	Posted - 2015.02.20 15:41:13 - [142] - Quote Haywoud wrote: AFK cloaker is a term refered to someone already in a system and just camping. If you are refering to a counter to normal cloak movement then yes, however a fleet makes no difference to an AFK Cloaker. Like I already said. Nikk wrote: How is it a lie? Think of having your friends present like an umbrella. An umbrella counters the effects of rain, WHEN YOU USE IT. Should you decide the umbrella is too much hassle, and put it away while the rain persists, you get wet. Your analogy is just wrong. If rain is the cloaker then your analogy would assume that he is going to strike regardless of if there is an umbrella or not. However a more accurate dipiction of what you are saying is.... Carry an umbrella with you, even when its sunny, cause you might get caught in a cloud burst. Rather impractical. And baiting someout out using local? Cant say I have ever seen that work. EVER. How obvious is it if you start talking trash in local. Like I said. The camper will look, see its not worth his time and go back to being AFK.
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 43	Posted - 2015.02.20 16:07:28 - [143] - Quote Are you responding to me or Daichi? EDIT. In your first response.
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 43	Posted - 2015.02.20 16:42:06 - [144] - Quote Nikk. You do understand that if a fleet is present that no cloak will take any action. The analogy works just fine. It only makes no sense cause you dont want it to. It doesnt support your argument. But to explain. Sun shine = Normal operations, with or without nuet in local Rain = Any nuet in system actually taking action. Umbrella= Defense force. Anyone that lives in null would understand that its always sunny in null less someone rains on you, and then you need an umbrella to defend yourself. However that rain is smarter than you think and it only strikes when least expected, often once you have set your umbrella aside. You know this. I know this. Why are you dilberately being ignorant on the issue?
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 43	Posted - 2015.02.20 16:53:06 - [145] - Quote Nikk Narrel wrote: Haywoud Jablomi wrote: Are you responding to me or Daichi? EDIT. In your first response. It was directed to you, regarding the relative priority about deciding cloaks in general being safe, compared to the specific gameplay issues surrounding so-called AFK Cloaking in sov null. I feel the larger topic, overall cloaking being safe or not, exceeds the warrant CCP's ISD department intended for this thread. Thats what I thought. Here let me underline the important parts AFK cloaker is a term refered to someone already in a system and just camping. If you are refering to a counter to normal cloak movement then yes, however a fleet makes no difference to an AFK Cloaker. Like I already said. AFK cloaking has nothing to do with travelling via a gate. That fleet that Daichi suggested was his "counter" to AFK camping. I was pointing out it was not a counter at all to an AFK camper but a count to cloak in general. Then pointing out that the fleet idea makes no difference to a camper. Which I have already said in several posts. More and more it seems that you truly have no understanding of what actually happens in null. I was giving you respect in that regard but you have shown lack of understanding of null or even how an AFK camper operates. Kind of agreeing with Terraniel. Maybe you should stop.
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 43	Posted - 2015.02.20 18:13:43 - [146] - Quote Quote: Thus the threat is neutralised and they can all rat unmolested ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This statement above is the fallacy of the entire crowd against changing cloak. You can NEVER neutralize the threat. All you can do is defend against it. All the fluff about risk, reward, danger, sov holding, POS's, stations, local, cynos. Whatever. None of that is able to do what this statement claims. You can not counter an AFK. You can only defend and hope for the best. This is the exact reason why I am on the forums. The current game mechanic does not allow any form of actual counter to the cloak camper. I am suggesting that change. So here, all the way on page 60, I again restate my original argument.
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 43	Posted - 2015.02.20 18:22:46 - [147] - Quote You really are ignorant. Are you seriously asking me to restate everything I have said in this thread?
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 43	Posted - 2015.02.20 19:05:39 - [148] - Quote If you believe what you just wrote, then you obviously dont live in null. You are wrong. That's all there is to it.
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 43	Posted - 2015.02.20 20:02:46 - [149] - Quote You may have experienced it but its clear you arent living there. https://zkillboard.com/character/1485199781/ This is a player named CtrlFreak. He gets all the kills he wants. He doesnt need to camp. If you think that camping is the only way to get kills, youre doing it wrong. And yes. We do play different. I have always been an industrial player. I like sandbox games for the building aspect. That doesnt mean I dont PVP but I do it in response to threats. I dont roam all that much. And yes I live in null. I have given all my alts. Pretty easy to see where I am.
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 43	Posted - 2015.02.20 20:48:10 - [150] - Quote Quote: Anecdotal evidence? Is this some attempt at humor, or do you seriously suggest this reflects genuine expectations for play? I guess I shouldnt be shocked that you would ignore direct evidence. He is one of many people that get kills and dont need to camp. Your idea that camping is a nessicary to balance out things is just wrong. There is enough evidence in this thread to prove that
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 43	Posted - 2015.02.20 22:50:21 - [151] - Quote Quote: The fact that you can quote a player who gets kills, which we cannot even determine the circumstances for, is meaningless. (Are they actually all PvE kills, partially, etc.) I see a lot of those kills in my intel channels. A lot are ratters. Regardless of the percentages, it still proves your point invalid. You dont have to camp to get kills. BTW https://zkillboard.com/ship/22544/losses/ I would say PVE ships get blown up pretty often in null and high sec. That's just the hulk
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 43	Posted - 2015.02.20 23:23:58 - [152] - Quote Beside the fact that you misunderstood what I wrote, your still wrong. Thanks Delegate
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 44	Posted - 2015.02.20 23:27:45 - [153] - Quote Quote: 7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. This has been corrected Quote: 7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; Train cloak, sit in space. Dont move. PVP avoided
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 44	Posted - 2015.02.21 00:04:37 - [154] - Quote Nikk. I am not proving the point of it null is safe or not. I am pointing out that you are still wrong in regards to AFK cloaking being the only way to get kills. Try to stay on topic. Your claim is that AFK cloaking should be allowed cause its the only way to get kills. This is wrong and with provable evidence.
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 44	Posted - 2015.02.21 04:23:02 - [155] - Quote Daichi Yamato wrote: Haywood you said yourself, an afk cloaker is NEVER going to attack as long as a fleet is around. A threat that is made insignificant, (I.e. Never going to happen) is neutralized. So whats the problem with this? The problem I see with this, is that it is suddenly expected for a group to maintain a fleet to defend against one player. Unlike someone invading where a proper response can be made, even in the short term of someone sitting around for hours or even days, I find it unbalanced and unreasonable to expect this to be the norm for weeks or months. That is where I see the problem. A camper expends 0 effort at all while in system, yet is expected that the defending group should maintain a constant vigil, day and night.
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 46	Posted - 2015.02.21 15:48:56 - [156] - Quote Quote: You seem to be contradicting yourself. If the camper is expending zero effort, they have no fleet to attack with, nor are they paying attention. Zero effort = zero risk. If the camper has friends on standby, then they are making a clear effort. The expectation that this requires comparable effort to neutralize seems fair. Your objection, is based apparently on the uncertainty where you believe they have no threat, but owing to your lack of this awareness, you waste effort defending against what might otherwise exist. In other words, you expect they are bluffing, and feel cheated. And you seem to be talking in circles. Growing tired of your overly literal interpretations of what I say. Here minimal effort. Is that better? You do realize that your last paragraph makes no sense, right? I realize that you dont understand how null actually works, but I would guess you would be smart enough to realize that if there is a threat in system, no matter how little that threat is, you cant just ignore it. No, like I have said a hundred times so far. The issue I see with AFK cloaking is that once they are in system and setup camp, there is nothing you can do to threaten them. They achieve 100% safety. This, I see as a flaw. The overall debate really does come down to how long it should be allowed. In the short term I have never had an issue with it campers. However when it moves into weeks and months, it becomes trolling. The fact that this is possible, is where I think the game mechanic needs to be addressed.
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 47	Posted - 2015.02.21 19:48:23 - [157] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Haywoud Jablomi wrote: Nikk. I am not proving the point of it null is safe or not. I am pointing out that you are still wrong in regards to AFK cloaking being the only way to get kills. Try to stay on topic. Your claim is that AFK cloaking should be allowed cause its the only way to get kills. This is wrong and with provable evidence. Idiots not looking at local does not an argument make. In the end, an AFK cloaker can do nothing. Only if you accept the term at its most literal. AFK cloaker is a general term for a style of game play. You know that and you know your statement is wrong. There is plenty of proof that AFK cloaking is not the only way to get kills.
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 47	Posted - 2015.02.22 03:36:36 - [158] - Quote Quote: A small threat is still a threat true. But under no circumstance, mechanic or system should there ever be exactly no threat. I dont think you are here to tell me you should be able to rat perfectly safely by throwing more fleet members at a problem. Changing cloak to eliminate the potential for 100% safety in space would not create a 100% safe environment in null. You know this, and so does everyone else. I have even shown this with direct evidence.
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 47	Posted - 2015.02.22 14:27:14 - [159] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Haywoud Jablomi wrote: Only if you accept the term at its most literal. AFK cloaker is a general term for a style of game play. You know that and you know your statement is wrong. There is plenty of proof that AFK cloaking is not the only way to get kills. Please provide said proof of an AFK cloaker that has killed anything. Please review the last 61 pages of posts. You will find all the evidence you need. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 47	Posted - 2015.02.22 18:29:17 - [160] - Quote Local is a tool provided in game. Using it can not provide 100% safety. A pilot must always be watching and it has been shown with in game data that ships in null can be caught and killed without the use of a cloak. Though local can make it far more difficult for an invading pilot to achieve his or her goal due to setup alliance intel channels, it is still quite possible to do. Local is only as good as the pilot using it. If they are not careful they can be caught and even if they are the most careful out there, they can still be caught. I have proven this. On the other hand cloak is a game mechanic that people can use to achieve 100% safety. Though balanced in areas where travelling via gate can result in a ship lose, once a ship is past a gate and in a safe spot, it is impossible to locate them. Even in your sig you quote what CCP has said about how there is no place that PVP can be avoided, however that is wrong. With a cloak you can completely avoid combat, even if you are in the middle of combat. You could be down to 10% hull and if you manage to warp off and cloak up. You again are safe forever. The relative safety of ratting in null is not a valid argument against any changes to cloak, as null was never designed to be a dangerous place. It was designed to be player run, which does imply that there will be danger as players fight over resources but it has never been stated that areas must be dangerous. When EVE was launched and people moved into null, it is possible they could of agreed to work together and shared resources and turned EVE into a type of minecraft in space. Luckily that didnt happen. Cloak and local honestly both need work. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 48	Posted - 2015.02.23 04:41:02 - [161] - Quote Quote: - Though a cloaker can use various techniques to make him harder to catch or counter, it is still quite possible to do. - a cloak is only as good as its user. You can mess up when passing through gates or when trying to attack someone. These two points are true, however were addressed in my last post and are not relevant to AFK cloaking. It's been established that gates are dangerous and if you are attacking someone, cloak is the least of your worries. Quote: - on the other hand, docking is a game mechanic that people can use to achieve 100% safety. Though balanced in areas where we can use local against them by cloaking in system for hours or days, they are 100% safe when docked. Even in my sig i quote what CCP has said about how there is no safe are where you cant be attacked. However, when docked you can completely avoid combat and are even helped to know exactly when it is safe to undock thanks to local. - you could be down to 10% hull and if you manage to reach the docking perimiter or slow boat into a POS you are not only safe but also LOCKS ARE BROKEN and POINT IS LOST. thats even safer than cloaking. Stations have already been established as a safety net for people. Stations are not in every system. You can only use them if you have access to them. Yes, a person can dock up but that doesnt offer nearly the same benefits. Stations can be flipped. POSs can be destroyed. These are just clear facts. Where as a cloak can be used in any system, anywhere. Quote: - on the other hand, docking is a game mechanic that people can use to achieve 100% safety. Though balanced in areas where we can use local against them by cloaking in system for hours or days, they are 100% safe when docked. Even in my sig i quote what CCP has said about how there is no safe are where you cant be attacked. However, when docked you can completely avoid combat and are even helped to know exactly when it is safe to undock thanks to local. - you could be down to 10% hull and if you manage to reach the docking perimiter or slow boat into a POS you are not only safe but also LOCKS ARE BROKEN and POINT IS LOST. thats even safer than cloaking. Do you have links to this information? I honestly would be interested in reading it. Quote: You cannot claim that nerfing cloaks does not buff ratting. you cannot slap your ear and rain-man over this particular point. Its a valid argument, period. I know it would. This is why I have suggested making changes to local to make up for this. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 48	Posted - 2015.02.23 04:53:41 - [162] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Haywoud Jablomi wrote: baltec1 wrote: Haywoud Jablomi wrote: Only if you accept the term at its most literal. AFK cloaker is a general term for a style of game play. You know that and you know your statement is wrong. There is plenty of proof that AFK cloaking is not the only way to get kills. Please provide said proof of an AFK cloaker that has killed anything. Please review the last 61 pages of posts. You will find all the evidence you need. So that would be zero evidence of anything getting killed by an AFK cloaker. Sorry man. I just dont wanna go round and round with you on circular arguments. I mean you did spend a good portion of the thread saying stations cant change hands. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 48	Posted - 2015.02.23 16:52:19 - [163] - Quote Quote: My last paragraph makes perfect sense, when you acknowledge that a so-called AFK Cloaking player cannot both be a threat, and expending no effort, at the same time. This statement is wrong and you know it. Potential threat and threat are the same thing in the context of this game. A player sitting in space is expending MINIMAL effort and is creating a disproportionate threat to the players in that system. Though I agree this is how cloak should work. like I said already. The time this should be allowed really is the issue and really is why people complain about AFK cloaks in general. Quote: In fact, I attempt to break the so-called circle when I point out that they cannot be both AFK and a threat Again you take things far to literal. You know well that "AFK" in the context of this debate is a play style to camp. Since this has already been established several pages back, your statement invalidates itself cause you know that its impossible to tell if they are actually AFK. Thus they are always a threat. You keep going in circles cause you keep rehashing out things that have already been discussed and you keep ignoring the points that have been shown. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 48	Posted - 2015.02.23 18:07:15 - [164] - Quote Quote: You have more than ably demonstrated kills happen, outside the specifics of PvE activity, but you have not provided convincing proof of PvE kills occurring despite proper defensive behavior. Yes I have. You choose to ignore them to support your side. Quote: Don't assume the unseen player is a threat, simply because he might be. More evidence that you no longer live in null sec. Every neutral that comes into a system is always treated as hostile and for good reason. They normally are. 99% of the time they are. Of course those other things you said can happen but they have 0 bearing on the topic at hand. Quote: Potential threat does not equal threat. Threat is defined as someone or something that could cause trouble, harm, etc. Threat is always potential till an action is taken. See if you lived in null you would know there is no uncertainty. It is always assumed that a neutral is there to do harm. That is why people react to it by forming fleets or docking high end assets. Quote: It is not acceptable that the defending player have perfect awareness of the hostile's threat level, without due diligence, as well as the hostile having opportunity to advance their goal through superior effort. LOL Again obvious you dont live in null. Go try camping a system in a covops sometime. It's insanely easy. There is no superior effort in decloaking, and cynoing in friends. BTW I have never suggested an idea that would allow for perfect awareness of a threat. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 49	Posted - 2015.02.24 18:19:14 - [165] - Quote Daichi. Thanks for the info. Interesting reading. I do kind of wish that when you quoted.... Quote: The relative safety of ratting in null is not a valid argument against any changes to cloak, as null was never designed to be a dangerous place. ... that you had included the entire paragraph. Quote: Im not trying to argue that isk payments for null ratting is too much. im trying to say that the peril of other players coming a long and hurting you is good healthy gameplay. See this I agree with. I am perfectly ok with PVP and hunting other players. That is part of EVE. You know maybe I am on the wrong side of the EVE map. I have always been part of a small corp. We rarely get camped, we have active players and overall we support each other. Our response time for invaders is a couple minutes and we have some very solid PVP players. So the very few times we have had a camper in our system, we just move to a new area, let him play with himself for a few weeks and then he leaves. We actually just did this to a guy a couple days ago. Every time I have had to deal with a camper it has been cause they got butt hurt. Last guy lost a 200 mil ship cause we caught him being silly in our space. Almost immediately he shows up and just starts camping our space and poorly attempting to talk smack in local. Living in drone lands doesnt help either. The ratting is absolutely horrible. No loot at all, no relic sites, mining is poor at best and if you see a fancy drone running around its loaded with 100k worth of junk. The rare exception are the chips for the SOE ships which are super rare. So with that said. This is why I view camping as a troll type thing. Though I know in concept people can camp to deny space to derank a system or to gather intel, I have only seen it once and that was during the timer on a POS. Not like anyone could argue that shouldnt of happened. I personally think cloaking should change. AFK cloaking just happens to be the focal point for many of the reasons why I think it should change. Now that doesnt mean that I think its should change on its own and if you look back at my posts you will see my suggestions on the change. Solid truth about the issue is that there are justifications on both sides why things should and shouldnt change. The links you provided shows that CCP isnt overly happy with the situation but I get the impression they really dont know how to change it. I have said this so many times before but I wish I had a way to show people how I have seen stealth done in other games. I think if people saw it they could easily use the idea to adapt for usage in EVE. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 49	Posted - 2015.02.25 16:44:37 - [166] - Quote Quote: To Haywoud: It is not being denied that kills happen in null sec. It is being denied that non-consensual risk exists for PvE ships. Specifically, that they currently have open opportunity to perfectly avoid hostiles, assuming they neither are careless or make mistakes We dont live in a perfect world Nikk. You can not discount pilot error as it happens all the time. I can provide more links if you need them. Ones that I personnally witnessed. No one will deny that team play is important in null. Ironically it is the team play that you so hate in the use of intel channels to forward post intel information. My only complaint with this line of thinking is that even with group play there is nothing the group can do against a camper, other than properly defend against it. I am advocating a change in this to create, what I feel is more balanced game play. I feel that it is possible to create a balance where you dont have to just defend against a cloaky. You can go on the offensive. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 49	Posted - 2015.02.25 18:25:02 - [167] - Quote I kind of wish CCP would man up and say something about this topic. Though we might not 100% agree with each other, the general view is that things need to change to make the game more enjoyable. A bit of focus from CCP would go a long way. BTW I do agree with There needs to be more involved with risk than simple pilot error. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 52	Posted - 2015.02.25 21:47:36 - [168] - Quote Delegate wrote: Haywoud Jablomi wrote: Though we might not 100% agree with each other, the general view is that things need to change to make the game more enjoyable. Numerous posts in this thread voiced support for the status quo. So please don't project your expectations as some sort of GÇ£general viewGÇ¥. Actually, the one thing that this thread accomplished is a vivid demonstration that there is no one GÇ£general viewGÇ¥ as far as afk cloaking in Eve goes. Well unfortunate for that, even CCP has expressed unhappiness with how things are. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 52	Posted - 2015.02.25 23:18:28 - [169] - Quote That is ok, Delegate. I am still going to go with the general idea that people would like to see a change. You can maintain to be bitter if you wish. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 53	Posted - 2015.02.26 20:34:37 - [170] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: What exactly is the information that people who dislike cloaky camping want? The activity of the camper, or their ship type? Or their location? I mean we can replace this with 10mn AB Confessors that can't be caught by the time they're combat probed down. I personally advocate some way of being able to limit their cloak time or some way to hunt them. Personally feel their ability to float in space indefinately is a bit unbalanced. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 53	Posted - 2015.02.27 04:10:28 - [171] - Quote Nikk. Your personal opinion doesnt equal game fact. If you read what I posted, i stated it was that I felt i was unbalanced. I did not say it WAS unbalanced. Please dont correct my statements like your some form of game authority. I still believe its unbalanced. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 54	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:32:56 - [172] - Quote Quote: I figure this eliminates any need for hunting cloaked ships specifically, although that can be sorted into if the devs see balanced opportunity. You do realize that if you change local but dont allow cloaks to be hunted. You havent changed anything at all. Havent we already gone over all this already? Seriously EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 54	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:06:46 - [173] - Quote Yes, I have read your links. I dont agree with all of them. Sorry EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 59	Posted - 2015.03.06 15:09:15 - [174] - Quote Quote: 3. Without local, no AFK cloaking takes place, as how will the victims know to be afraid if local doesn't tell them? I have been saying since the beginning of this thread that this mentality is false. You can not use this as a valid argument for your side when you know that removing local would create a HUGE imbalance in the game overall and it would destroy null. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 59	Posted - 2015.03.06 15:55:01 - [175] - Quote Quote: That argument suggesting full removal or full delay is a straw man, something easy to argue against because it sounds unreasonable to many. You're right. So stop using it as validation for your arguments. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 59	Posted - 2015.03.06 17:02:07 - [176] - Quote Nikk wrote: Reasons why local chat is involved:..... 3. Without local, no AFK cloaking takes place, as how will the victims know to be afraid if local doesn't tell them? The above statements are yours. What I am saying is not that you are advocating removal. What I am saying is that you can not use statements like what is above as valid points for your stance, when you know the point itself is flawed. Unless of course you were simply being sarcastic in the statement. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 59	Posted - 2015.03.06 18:33:20 - [177] - Quote ...... ok EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 59	Posted - 2015.03.06 22:20:50 - [178] - Quote Quote: After all, if you do not know it is there, it cannot restrict your behaviour! You do understand how false this is though, right? WH residents dont cruise around in blissful ignorance that a cloak might be in system. They are constantly prepapred for it. The difference is that in WH space you cant hot drop on people. The only way to bring in help is if its already there or sitting close to the WH entrance. Removing a cloaked ship from local does nothing more than just boost the power of that ship and it's been said already that people would become more unwilling to undock due to the constant fear of losing a high end asset with no warning at all. This has all already been said EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 62	Posted - 2015.03.06 23:30:53 - [179] - Quote Oh I know. Not saying it doesnt happen. Just saying that WH's have a different set of rules and mechanics that dont really apply to null. I dont agree that removing ships from local would be the right solution on its own. Ignorance might be bliss but no WHer is ignorant of the threat around them. They simply assume it will happen at any given time. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 62	Posted - 2015.03.06 23:49:21 - [180] - Quote I think we all understand that WH space is not null. I dont live in WH's, so my experience is highly limited. But from my understanding, there are no cheap ships in WH space. The level of difficulty for running sites, even at a C1 is more difficult than your average null site. Entrances and exits to a WH are limited and can be rolled so there is a finite amount of people that can suddenly attack you. I think that if null were to have the same style of local as a WH, you would see most people simply move to high sec. The mechanics of the areas are too different to make fair comparisons. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 63	Posted - 2015.03.07 07:14:38 - [181] - Quote I do find that rather amazing. CCP is ok with a broke mechanic. It would seem that Fozzie is tipping his hand at removing local from null. Though who knows how long that will take. They talked about sov for years and nothing happened till now. We shall see what happens. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 63	Posted - 2015.03.07 14:50:49 - [182] - Quote Mag's wrote: Haywoud Jablomi wrote: I do find that rather amazing. CCP is ok with a broke mechanic. It would seem that Fozzie is tipping his hand at removing local from null. Though who knows how long that will take. They talked about sov for years and nothing happened till now. We shall see what happens. They have wanted to remove local as an intel tool, for a long long time. It is indeed, a broken mechanic. I don't find what he said in the least surprising tbh. It also highlights what we have been saying. This is true. My complaint has always been the immunity that cloak provides. I still think there is an issue there, that was not addressed in Fozzies comment. I am interested to see what he has in mind. Fozzie is kind of hit and miss in my book so far. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 63	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:01:55 - [183] - Quote I am not a huge fan of CCP Fozzies comments, however I am ok with local being removed. Though if they dont allow for some form of cloak detection or early warning system, it really makes it worthless to do anything other than PVP in null. Industry will effectively die, especially with the new suggested sov changes. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 64	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:30:36 - [184] - Quote Quote: Bring that mining or ratting ship to the same level, and make it clear that good fitting choices mean solid chances to win a fight. My only real issue with this is that it seems a bit unfair to the PVE side. Where a cloak ship might be weaker than a front line PVP ship, it is still perfectly fitting to do it's job. I am not really fond of the idea that the PVE player must be the one to bend and sacrifice its efficency. In the long run it makes no difference but I dont like the idea. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 64	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:52:31 - [185] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: I have a serious question for people who are against these AFK cloakers. Is it more the intelligence you're worried about, or the ganking, or the possibility of a huge cyno? Would you be more comfortable with a cyno-fit uncloaked ship moving AFK from a safe at a speed high enough that you cannot land on grid with it by the time you scan it down and warp? My issue has always been that cloak provides too much safety. That once in a system, a cloak pilot really has to use very little effort at all to accomplish his goal. Would I be more happy with a cyno fit normal ship. Of course. I have a way of tracking that person and with effort I can engage them in a fight. No matter how much effort I put into locating a cloaky. I will never find them unless they wish to be found. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 64	Posted - 2015.03.10 13:06:09 - [186] - Quote I can see how the PVP group would love local to be removed. It makes life a lot easier for them. Would it remove AFK camping? More than likely. It would just replace it with active camping of every ice system in null. Though local does provide intel, it is only as good as the pilots that use it. The alliance intel channels do far more work than local itself. You know since Fozzie made his statement, I have been thinking. I would have to say that he is completely wrong about his take on AFK camping. He quick statement touched on low DPS of the cloak ship, illusions to local removal by comparing it to WH space, and effecting ISK making in null. I mean lets be honest. No one has lost isk cause of a camper. They are an annoyance, but if you let them effect your isk..... really should just move one system over. DPS of the cloak ship also has no real bearing and the last dozen posts reflect that cause they real problem is hotdropping. So that leaves local. Even local isnt the problem people make it. Local extends 1 system. Intel channels extend the entire universe of Eve. It is what it is. CCP will change the game as they see fit. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 64	Posted - 2015.03.11 13:45:27 - [187] - Quote You know whats worse, GeeShizzle MacCloud. Even though his arguments are completely invalid cause he uses the most literal interpretation of AFK cloaking, which is not the actual issue. You have people like CCP Fozzie that use the same idiotic line. I have already stated that I think his statements about AFKs are wrong, so it makes me wonder how serious his response during The Down Under Show was. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 64	Posted - 2015.03.11 14:51:57 - [188] - Quote Quote: Perhaps he did not agree with, or realize the context of the premise of the question, rather. Seriously Nikk? I am sure you have listened to the sound cloud. If he misunderstood the question then he doesnt deserve a dev position. It was pretty straight forward. Often when games get as big as EVE has become I do question how well a Dev understands the game. With so many aspects, so many players, I dont think they have as strong a grasp on game play as the people that actually play the game. This is why there are CSMs that are from the community. I already stated it before on the previous page. If you look at his statement. It's a very poor interpretation of AFK cloaking cause anyone that actually plays the game knows better. I mean his reasoning was to interrupt ISK making in null. In the 70 plus pages of this thread, the general consensus is, if you get camped. Move a system. The ISK continues to flow. And we all know that it isnt AFK camping that ruins the isk making of mining. You do it to make sure, not profit from it. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 64	Posted - 2015.03.11 16:39:49 - [189] - Quote Quote: The comment about it being psychological, suggests a rather keen understanding of this dynamic. Not really. It just means he spent 20 minutes reading a few pages of this thread. Quote: A reasonable and rational discussion on this topic is only to be had if BOTH sides realize this and agree that addressing the issue only on one side will not work. This is very true. Personally I look forward to the day I can hunt cloakies. With or Without local being present. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 64	Posted - 2015.03.11 17:23:23 - [190] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Haywoud Jablomi wrote: You know whats worse, GeeShizzle MacCloud. Even though his arguments are completely invalid cause he uses the most literal interpretation of AFK cloaking, which is not the actual issue. You have people like CCP Fozzie that use the same idiotic line. I have already stated that I think his statements about AFKs are wrong, so it makes me wonder how serious his response during The Down Under Show was. How very quaint, you use the term AFK cloaking to means people who use cloaks and are not AFK. You are so clever and intelligent and reasonable. And how stupid of me to think when you wrote AFK cloaking you were talking about people who were cloaked and...AFK. I am sooooo dumb. Maybe if you stopped re-defining words to suit your own purposes you'd get better discussion. Nice try at sarcasm. AFK Cloak is a generic term for a game play style. You have been reading the last 70 pages, right? BTW with current mechanics, its impossible to tell if someone is afk or not, so safest solution is to assume they arent AFK, even if the opposite is the case. So if anyone is attempting to redefine a term, that would be you since it is impossible to have a conversation about someone that is literally AFK, since its impossible to tell. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 67	Posted - 2015.03.11 19:04:23 - [191] - Quote Quote: The meaning of AFK is pretty straight forward. AFK = Away From Keyboard. The player is not at the keyboard. Trying to pretend there are multiple meanings by your side of the discussion is humorous when I'm being accused of some sort of "Schr+¦dinger's cat" argument. Lol If you honestly believe this is true then can I just report all your posts as troll posts on this thread? I would say that less than 1% of the people talking here have even considered AFK cloaking to be only what you describe. However if we use your definition of AFK cloaking as posted here. Quote: AFK cloaking is when a player is in a ship with a cloak fitted gets into a system and cloaks then leaves his keyboard. The intent is quite clear, to prevent in space activities. The immediate effect is not necessarily to get kills, but deny people using the system from acquiring various assets and/or isk. One might be doing it long term to try and induce some players into undocking to do PvE stuff to get kills, but that is a long term strategy. And the player might return to his keyboard periodically to see if there is an unwary person he can gank, but typically the player IS AFK. The fact that you assume they are not AFK does not change anything. It does not mean they really are not AFK. It is precisely this uncertainty as to why AFK cloaking is a thing. And a great many of those that whine about it very frequently toss in the point that the person is likely watching television or out for dinner. It is the uncertainty that pisses them off. This style of game play is counter to what CCP wants and they have been attempting to fix in the most recent patches and future ones. ISBOXER was nerfed is a prime example of this. They want people manning their ships. To the lesser extent skynetting. It is also seen in current game play with the lack of a fleet jump option. So if you wish to pursue this line of thinking in regards to AFK cloaking, please do. It makes the argument on why it should change substantially easier. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 67	Posted - 2015.03.11 22:10:25 - [192] - Quote Quote: Go ahead and report. There is no trolling. AFK = Away From Keyboard. That is the acronym. You on the other hand are equivocating. Let me help you here. Equivocating means you are using deliberately unclear and confusing language. It is a form of dishonesty. For you AFK means whatever helps out your argument. That is dishonest. Out of the 70 plus pages on this topic, you would be the first to attempt to say that I have the definition of AFK cloaking wrong. So are people just humoring me, are they wrong as well, or are you just trolling and hoping I will snap back with some emotional reaction with your sarcasm and claims of dishonesty? Will leave that up the the ISD to decide. Although as an example. I am going to go with trolling for a couple simple reasons....... Quote: Go ahead and report. There is no trolling. AFK = Away From Keyboard. That is the acronym. You on the other hand are equivocating. Let me help you here. Equivocating means you are using deliberately unclear and confusing language. It is a form of dishonesty. For you AFK means whatever helps out your argument. That is dishonest. My stance on this topic has been pretty clear. A modification of local in exchange for hunting cloaks. Quote: I Stated I would say that less than 1% of the people talking here have even considered AFK cloaking to be only what you describe. You Stated As for your claim about what people encounter when dealing with an AFK cloaker you are speculating and making up numbers. You have no data. Nothing. My entire statement was speculative, that's why it starts out. "I would say...." So again attempting to create a response when you know better. And why would I bring up that your definition of AFK Cloaking makes it easier to argue for a change. If you can so easily show that your behavior as a player can have an effect on a group of players, and you admit that 99% of the time you arent even playing on that character, then you effectively destroy many other posters arguments on why there needs to be no change in cloak. You are clearly showing an abuse of a game mechanic that allows you to be AFK and have effect on the game. I have already showing examples of how CCP has shown they want players actually at the keyboard, yet we get Fozzie saying that AFK camping isnt an issue cause its the best way to effect ISK making in null. Though that statement in itself is false, as we all know that people just move and the ISK continues to flow. So given that information. What is the truth of the matter? You may think I am some whining carebear, but that is far from the truth. I clearly stated when I started discussing AFK cloaking that if nothing changed, I wouldnt care but that I felt something should change for better game play and that I was going to strongly support that idea. I have made suggestions and I have modified those suggestions when information is presented to me. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 67	Posted - 2015.03.12 02:09:45 - [193] - Quote I do agree that both sides need to be adjusted to work. I am not convinced that local == afk camping but that is personal opinion. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 68	Posted - 2015.03.12 14:11:46 - [194] - Quote Honestly not a huge fan of the spool up idea. Personally I have never had an issue with hotdropping. I have always consider this the cornerstone of CovOps. What has always bothered me, and is why I dislike AFK cloaking is that I cant return the favor, so to speak. If I get dropped on, and I get podded, I can reship quickly and get back. But once the attackers cloak is engaged its game over. Nothing anyone can do. This is my frustration with AFK campers as well. I am tired of living on the defensive. I wish to take the fight back to the cloak in a more offensive manner. Which in itself is kind of funny cause I keep getting called a carebear but my stance on AFK cloaking has always been that I want to PVP against them. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 69	Posted - 2015.03.13 03:40:31 - [195] - Quote Quote: I totally agree...local is just ridiculous. Yes, I know that is not what you meant, but technically it fits. It fits because no player does nothing to get the benefits of local. While you have to play the game to get the benefits that is all you have to do. For pretty much the rest of the EVE experience you have to do more than simply logging in. Actually it doesnt even fit technically. Been saying this for a while. Local is only one system. The alliance setup intel channels that rebroadcast the info provided by local is where the issue comes into play. They dont populate themselves with information. You have to post in them, meaning you have to be at your keyboard and active for them to mean anything. Feyd's point has been said several times and people tend to ignore it in favor of more tangential talking points. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 69	Posted - 2015.03.13 04:11:48 - [196] - Quote For the sake of argument I have conceded that local has to be adjusted. However I am not in total agreement on why this has to take place. I dont have to agree with you 100% to help come up with a solution. Your example is valid but you know that is not the type of local use that is being complained about by the PVP players. it is the over extended use of intel channels that gives people warning when a hostile is far far far away. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 70	Posted - 2015.03.18 13:25:56 - [197] - Quote Quote: Harry Saq commented: Now that the local argument has been ceded by CCP Fozzie this discussion needs to move on to the remaining issue involving cloak mechanics, which is assets in space being at risk. Nikk replies now: You'll need to document this point better, as I haven't heard it yet. Local is intertwined with cloaking, in this context more than most. Why are you being difficult on this point, of all of them? I am pretty sure he is refering to the soundcloud that was posted with Fozzie talking about AFK cloaking in the Down Under Show. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 70	Posted - 2015.03.19 13:53:28 - [198] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Haywoud Jablomi wrote: Quote: Harry Saq commented: Now that the local argument has been ceded by CCP Fozzie this discussion needs to move on to the remaining issue involving cloak mechanics, which is assets in space being at risk. Nikk replies now: You'll need to document this point better, as I haven't heard it yet. Local is intertwined with cloaking, in this context more than most. Why are you being difficult on this point, of all of them? I am pretty sure he is refering to the soundcloud that was posted with Fozzie talking about AFK cloaking in the Down Under Show. Yet we have seen this before. CCP Dev makes a comment somewhere...people glomb on to it start talking about it. CCP, possibly even the Dev himself, back tracks. We are left with what we currently have. So, while you can point to that sound cloud...color me rather dubious it will mean frak all any time soon or not so soon. I was more pointing to the soundcloud cause its a start to show that CCP is starting to at least acknowledge things. Granted in a highly neutral stance but still. And yes. You are right. So far I have become become very wary that CCP knows how to fix their game. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 70	Posted - 2015.03.19 19:14:39 - [199] - Quote Quote: This thread IS about PvE hulls, and how they often are seen as too risky to undock with when a hostile name is present in the local chat pilot roster. Since when has this been the case? The topic is about the game play style of "AFK Cloaking". That doesnt just apply to PVE ships. It can apply to PVP ships as well. You are ignoring the fact that a pilot can just go AFK while cloaked and will be in near perfect safety. This is an aspect of AFK cloaking and it doesnt have to deal with sov or anything. You are correct it does apply to PVE ships but there is more too it. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 71	Posted - 2015.03.19 22:27:59 - [200] - Quote To address the last several posts let me present this scenario. System A is being contested by N3. The Goons also wish to take control of system A. If I was either one of these factions I would plant a covert ops ship in that system and just leave it there. I can collect all the information I need while I am active. I can warp around, gather information, disrupt basic operations, etc etc etc. However when I am ready to walk away OR if I feel threatened in the least, I just sit in a safe spot and watch, all from the comfort of my cloak. Now both sides can do that. So you have invincible scout ships, flying around collecting battle data and when they are done, they just safe up and sit there. From a strategic stand point this is a huge flaw in game play. Not only is it impossible for me to move assets without them being noticed, I cant even form a fleet without advertising to my enemy what exactly I am bringing. There is absolutely no surprise, or even any tactics to the battle. It comes down to who has the larger fleet. This is counter to everything CCP wants, which has been explained by their new suggestions on SOV mechanics. They want to spread out the battles. Well what is the point? So on one hand you have a very legit style of game play. Using a covops asset to gather information. However the issue at the moment is that this asset has very little in the way of counters. Outside of a permacamp at all gates with smart bombing battleships, its likely a covops will make it into system. Once in system, its game over. You will never force them out till they play their hand. This is AFK cloaking and just a valid as issue as the one that mining/ratting players bring up. This is one of my biggest issues with AFK cloaking. You are taking a very legit use of a covops ship and bastardizing its use by simply exploiting a broken mechanic. This event happens far more than people are willing to admit. Please dont ask for proof. Any player that has been involved in SOV warfare knows that there is always a camper in a system before a battle. Could be an hour, could be weeks. This scenario would exist with or without local. If local didnt exist and cloak worked the same, null would grind to a halt. However the inverse is not the case. If cloak was changed without modifying local, situations like what I posted above would become a lot more interesting. And no I am not suggesting that cloak change and local stay the same. I have already stated what I think would be a valid suggestion for the situation. Just pointing out that isnt just a local or PVE issue. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 72	Posted - 2015.03.19 23:21:08 - [201] - Quote Teckos you obviously dont read more than a few lines before you decide to make a snap reaction. Also. Mad Ani or the current streamer is DaOpa. You can deny this is AFK cloaking all you wish but you are wrong. Go watch the Fountain war. Its being brought to you by DaOpa. Quote: Disrupt operations how? With a ship with a covert ops cloak you will do damn little for the most part. Most players will be in PvP fit ships. Most players will be in fleets....maybe even BIG fleets when they are undocked. That might be true but it is also true that catching stragglers and lone ships trying to setup assets like POSs can make a big difference. I never claimed it would change the course of the war though. Quote: "No. No, no, no. No! It is not AFK cloaking or play because an AFK cloaked ship/player has never ever gathered intel. Only active players gather intel." So you are now going to go back to your overly literal interpretation of afk cloaking? That's fine. You are still wrong. Though I dont expect you to admit it cause it would weaken your stance, which already stands on eggshells. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 72	Posted - 2015.03.20 02:29:21 - [202] - Quote I think you are ignoring the fact peoples stream like DaOpa's proves pretty much everything people have been saying about AFK cloaking. He is sitting in war zones and has very little danger of losing anything. How he plays shows several of the issue people have with AFK cloaking. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 72	Posted - 2015.03.20 04:08:25 - [203] - Quote Quote: The ability to gather intel whilst cloaked is much less often mentioned, and rarely focused upon until the last few pages... Actually it was one of the first things I brought up. Ratting in safety was the assumption thrown at me. it isnt just intel though. It gives huge strategic advantages. You can cyno in people behind enemy lines just be floating in the system. For example. Corp A has one person floating in a soon to be contested system. Corp B, does all the leg work, invades system, bubbles gates, camps them, bookmarks and positions themselves around assets, has fleets ready, ammo trucks, cynos everything. However became of the immunity that cloak provides, the few cloakies in the system just wait AFK till they are needed, light cynos and poof. All the work Corp B did is useless. DaOpas stream is a perfect example of this. He can be in heavily fought over systems and has little worry about being caught. It would be because of his own mistakes if he died. Local doesnt matter in this case at all. The strategic advantage of being able to confront the cloak player is highly important in this situation and you know this isnt some rare one off situation. Again this is AFK cloaking. The person gets into system and just waits, likely leaving the character floating in that system for days or weeks till it is needed for the war effort. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 72	Posted - 2015.03.20 14:00:08 - [204] - Quote Quote: Maybe it is one of the things you first brought up, but go to my old thread and look at the posts. None of them mention intel. Its a last gasp measure. A desperate last attempt to try and claim that AFK cloaking is a bigger issue than it really is. No, a last ditch effort would be finding some obscure reference that only happens 1 in a 1000 times. This is a very valid example. Only thing desperate is your attempt to discredit it. Just because it didnt get mentioned in your special snowflake thread doesnt mean the example isnt valid. Though the discussion tends to get focused on sov null and PVE game play, there is far more to it. No, the only thing desperate here is the attempt to marginalize the example in hopes that no one else sees it. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 72	Posted - 2015.03.20 15:23:41 - [205] - Quote This is not off topic. However if you think it is. Report it and let the ISD decide. There is no difference. Player gets into system, cloaks up, walks away. That is the basis of AFK cloaking. I do find it funny that people have made pretty clear statements that while AFK camping a ratting system they often come back and forth to check on the system but now all the sudden its the super literal version of AFK cloaking where you have to be away 100% of the time. What I am implying, that you so gracefully ignore, is that though certain aspects of cloak are completely viable, it is being abused as well. I have always argued that cloak in general works fine, but that the 100% safety it allows can be abused and it is what I feel leads to AFK camping. You have self imposed the idea that this thread is about PVE but no where in the original statement is that the case. Another example of how you are wrong is clearly stated in the original post on this thread. ISD LackOfFaith wrote: To emphasize: this thread is on the topic of balance, changes, or feedback on the mechanic of using a cloak. Posts outside this topic will be moderated/deleted. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 73	Posted - 2015.03.21 00:04:09 - [206] - Quote AFK cloaking has and always will revolve around the basic idea of using a cloak to hide in a system. Fozzie and others want to call it area denial, some call it trolling, some call it PVP, and others just ignore it but never has AFK been limited to just PVE activities. You cant just redefine the term to fit your argument. You cant just narrow the field of discussion when it best suits your stance. I have pointed out issues with SOV space and this will be the second or third time I have pointed out issues with PVP. Are you trying to say that the situations provided in my previous examples regarding PVP are ideal game play, or even closely working as intended? So far all you have done is attempt to marginalize my examples or say they are off topic. You have offered no counter on why an AFK cloaky should be able to just float free and safe in space. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 73	Posted - 2015.03.21 00:06:51 - [207] - Quote Porucznik Borewicz wrote: This thread made me an advocate of removing local in 0.0 space. All of this will be irrelevant Soon TM. Go Fozzie! Removal of local in 0.0 is fine. However doing it on its own would result in null dying on the industrial side. As much as people like to shrug and say "Who cares" about the industrial players, without them there wouldnt be any ships to pew pew in. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 73	Posted - 2015.03.21 17:05:22 - [208] - Quote Delegate wrote: Nikk Narrel wrote: Change that, and you gimp wormhole play. Actually the last several posts broke scanning profession, bomber fleets and any on-grid use of covops cloak. This was already discussed extensively in this thread. But expecting posters to read the thread and come up with something relevant (and accounting for the arguments put forward thus far) is clearly too much. Either way I see this discussion slowly becoming irrelevant. Once sov mechanics hit mid this year I expect renting will fall apart. Null will likely be inhabited by larger, well organized alliances and perhaps some smaller hardened groups. And for a while now CCP is implementing a stream of changes intended to make the game more combative. Yep EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 73	Posted - 2015.03.21 20:56:20 - [209] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Haywoud Jablomi wrote: I think you are ignoring the fact peoples stream like DaOpa's proves pretty much everything people have been saying about AFK cloaking. He is sitting in war zones and has very little danger of losing anything. How he plays shows several of the issue people have with AFK cloaking. No, it actually proves my point, IMO. Unless somebody is watching that feed and does something in game then it is useless. All it does is remove/reduce some need for alts. As for the more pertinent issue, PvE, this proves, literally, nothing. You and one other person are the only ones complaining about twitch streaming in null while AFK. In all the threads on AFK cloaking, the best you got is streaming for intel purposes and nobody cares. You're deflecting the topic my obtuse friend. I am not talking about him streaming as being any form of issue. I am saying that you can readily go to Twitch and see a player doing everything that people have been talking about here. It doesnt matter that he is streaming. That isnt even something I care about. I stream. What I am trying to point out to you is that is a player that can be easily found that shows the good and bad side of cloaking. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 74	Posted - 2015.03.21 21:33:57 - [210] - Quote Techos. I can understand your point on hyperinflation of the market. Makes perfect sense. However doesnt it seem more like a work of fiction than actual fact. Overall AFK cloaking in a sov system is rare at best. It tends to get done by people trolling certain corps in hopes of destroying their operations but does it honestly happen? From my experience, actually living in null. Not so much. Sure it has some effect but overall, most people simply move systems. The amount of isk brought in now would likely be the same if some insane idea like a pulse was created. From my person stand point I have never seen AFK camping as a threat to my isk making. I have always argued from the stand point that cloak is far too safe, allows a player to be completely immune to combat for an indefinite amount of time. You do understand that I have said that I support the idea of changing local in exchange for cloak detection. Though I dont completely agree with the reasons why, I do think that for better game play it would be the best decision. That doesnt mean that I wont speak up when I see something I disagree with. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 74	Posted - 2015.03.22 01:24:05 - [211] - Quote So I am out. Thanks guys. The information about the observations posts is very promising. Even if it results with local being removed like WH space. I am perfectly ok with this. Peace EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 74	Posted - 2015.03.22 01:37:10 - [212] - Quote I think they are going to change both. Looks like overall we all win in some areas and lose in others. Though I am ok with this. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 74	Posted - 2015.03.22 01:48:18 - [213] - Quote I'm going to name my first Observation Tower "Hawoud Jablomi InSpace" EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)

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.