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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 .. 343 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Wander Prian Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 154	Posted - 2015.12.31 20:39:46 - [5191] - Quote How are we being dishonest? You are the one that keeps changing your arguments to suit the mood you are in.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2015.12.31 21:04:46 - [5192] - Quote Wander I did 5 frostline sites in a wormhole today. Damn you have it easy. Keep dscan up and start worrying about combat probes only when they start getting within a couple au (a bit lack of talent incidentally to scan down instead of just checking out the sites. Not good adaptation to a change in circumstance that). Afk cloaky camping is an issue because of the implicit threat (or "pretty big psychological effect" as it translates to stupid). You do not fix the issue by making a much bigger implicit threat. Then we would need all kinds of compensations - for example that all sites in null sec have to be scanned down (we know ships are not afk when they flag their presence with combat probes). Otherwise the only viable off-peak PvE in null sec will be PI, Moon-goo, and Wormholes giving access to safe PvE areas (or areas where sites need to be scanned down so ample warning is given that you are being hunted). Ratting and mining in null sec would effectively no longer exist. I can live with that of course, because I am adaptable. I quite like the idea of farming wormholes from a null-sec base. Seems the best of both worlds really. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Wander Prian Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 154	Posted - 2015.12.31 21:23:50 - [5193] - Quote Jerghul wrote: Wander I did 5 frostline sites in a wormhole today. Damn you have it easy. Keep dscan up and start worrying about combat probes only when they start getting within a couple au (a bit lack of talent incidentally to scan down instead of just checking out the sites. Not good adaptation to a change in circumstance that). Afk cloaky camping is an issue because of the implicit threat (or "pretty big psychological effect" as it translates to stupid). You do not fix the issue by making a much bigger implicit threat. Then we would need all kinds of compensations - for example that all sites in null sec have to be scanned down (we know ships are not afk when they flag their presence with combat probes). Otherwise the only viable off-peak PvE in null sec will be PI, Moon-goo, and Wormholes giving access to safe PvE areas (or areas where sites need to be scanned down so ample warning is given that you are being hunted). Ratting and mining in null sec would effectively no longer exist. I can live with that of course, because I am adaptable. I quite like the idea of farming wormholes from a null-sec base. Seems the best of both worlds really. If someone was trying to kill you when you were running your frostlines, you wouldn't see any probes out. You might not even see a ship. You'd be d-scanned down to the right site, then either wait until you go to the next site or come after you with a combat recon, which doesn't show up on D-scan. in wormholes, dropping probes is the last thing you do to catch someone. And even then, they will be on your d-scan for maximum of one cycle
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4255	Posted - 2015.12.31 21:48:59 - [5194] - Quote Wander Prian wrote: Jerghul wrote: Wander I did 5 frostline sites in a wormhole today. Damn you have it easy. Keep dscan up and start worrying about combat probes only when they start getting within a couple au (a bit lack of talent incidentally to scan down instead of just checking out the sites. Not good adaptation to a change in circumstance that). Afk cloaky camping is an issue because of the implicit threat (or "pretty big psychological effect" as it translates to stupid). You do not fix the issue by making a much bigger implicit threat. Then we would need all kinds of compensations - for example that all sites in null sec have to be scanned down (we know ships are not afk when they flag their presence with combat probes). Otherwise the only viable off-peak PvE in null sec will be PI, Moon-goo, and Wormholes giving access to safe PvE areas (or areas where sites need to be scanned down so ample warning is given that you are being hunted). Ratting and mining in null sec would effectively no longer exist. I can live with that of course, because I am adaptable. I quite like the idea of farming wormholes from a null-sec base. Seems the best of both worlds really. If someone was trying to kill you when you were running your frostlines, you wouldn't see any probes out. You might not even see a ship. You'd be d-scanned down to the right site, then either wait until you go to the next site or come after you with a combat recon, which doesn't show up on D-scan. in wormholes, dropping probes is the last thing you do to catch someone. And even then, they will be on your d-scan for maximum of one cycle Oh shush, don't confuse people with facts and logic. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4255	Posted - 2015.12.31 21:50:00 - [5195] - Quote Wander Prian wrote: How are we being dishonest? You are the one that keeps changing your arguments to suit the mood you are in. Because our narrative is not what they want to hear. Instead of pointing out problems with the narrative they simply attempt to discredit it by asserting it is dishonest without anything to support such an assertion. Which is rather ironic. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2015.12.31 22:07:48 - [5196] - Quote Not what happened bro. Just a w-space moron with some combat probes. Feel free to armchair general a few more perfect strategies while I continue to ponder if indeed w-space might be a nice PvE haven for us null-secers. You seem like pretty easy pushovers frankly. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2015.12.31 22:11:06 - [5197] - Quote Teckos The issues with your narrative have been rehashed to death in this thread. Fixing an implicit threat issue by making the implicit threat issue far worse is not a fix. Other compensating wh-mechanisms would also need to be imported to null sec if local was removed. Otherwise null-secers will adapt by farming in wh-space. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Wander Prian Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 154	Posted - 2015.12.31 22:15:50 - [5198] - Quote Jerghul wrote: Not what happened bro. Just a w-space moron with some combat probes. Feel free to armchair general a few more perfect strategies while I continue to ponder if indeed w-space might be a nice PvE haven for us null-secers. You seem like pretty easy pushovers frankly. You are welcome to come visit my neck of the woods. I do hope I run into you some day
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2015.12.31 22:38:53 - [5199] - Quote I should give you pre-warning so you are ready to collapse the wormhole so you can be safe. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Wander Prian Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 154	Posted - 2015.12.31 22:41:38 - [5200] - Quote Jerghul wrote: I should give you pre-warning so you are ready to collapse the wormhole so you can be safe. I don't think you've ever met real wormhole-corps before xD
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2015.12.31 22:46:43 - [5201] - Quote I am sure you are terrific almost bi-weekly when scheduled corp events intersect with lack of real life obligations to give what 20% of you members online for a nice 2 hour ratting adventure.... Other times "better break out that big ship joe, we have a wormhole to collapse". " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4255	Posted - 2015.12.31 23:04:39 - [5202] - Quote Jerghul wrote: Teckos The issues with your narrative have been rehashed to death in this thread. Fixing an implicit threat issue by making the implicit threat issue far worse is not a fix. Really, point to a post where I have expressly argued this? Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2015.12.31 23:32:30 - [5203] - Quote You use it as a signature for God's sake. Blah blah remove local this, blah blah remove local that. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Wander Prian Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 154	Posted - 2015.12.31 23:57:04 - [5204] - Quote Jerghul wrote: You use it as a signature for God's sake. Blah blah remove local this, blah blah remove local that. Have you actually read Teckos's proposal? I have
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4255	Posted - 2016.01.01 03:38:43 - [5205] - Quote Wander Prian wrote: Jerghul wrote: You use it as a signature for God's sake. Blah blah remove local this, blah blah remove local that. Have you actually read Teckos's proposal? I have Those were proposals back before the Observatory Array (OA) were even on the horizon. They were proposed almost exactly 3 years ago as suggestions on how to deal with AFK cloaking via modifying local. My current position is now centered around the OA and is designed to let NS players "claw back" the "removal" of local. Furhter, in many circumstances is would even be better. So...you cannot point to a single post in this thread then that supports your contention? Go ahead Jerghul...go look back at my posts, point to one where I say, "Remove local," or a reasonable approximation without anything at all to either replace it or let players "secure" their systems. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 950	Posted - 2016.01.01 07:56:26 - [5206] - Quote Two pages of Sperghul mud slinging and Mike denying a link to local color me unsurprised. @Teckos: I said remove local because it will serve two roles. 1) stop threads like this forever and 2) expose these people as the cowards they are. Why there'd be TiDi in the SOE systems within a week.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.01 10:37:43 - [5207] - Quote Teckos Could you please stop acting like a 3rd rate renter diplomat? That is what I mean by disingenuous. Do not take as given for null-sec a mechanism that exists only in whole space. Making "a pretty big psychological effect" much worse is not a fix. Your fix it for a null sec problem that only exists if your signature comes to pass. Create a thread for wormholes where there can be a mechanism to "claw back local". They actually don't have local see. Which your suggestion is aimed at fixing. Perhaps you should create a thread on it? Morrigan Well, yah. Your wishes and a dollar will get you a pack of gum. The Devs are not morons. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4259	Posted - 2016.01.01 19:13:58 - [5208] - Quote Okay, so you can't point to a post of mine. Once again evidence you are nothing but a complete liar. And I never indicated that wormholes are broken, yet another example of your dishonesty. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.01 19:29:33 - [5209] - Quote Teckos Perhaps try to not have the moral and intellectual sophistication of a two-bit rentercorp diplomat? Local removal in null-sec is a premise and integrated feature of your suggestion on adding some form of surrogate local to compensate for its loss. Now, you can have whatever lore driven fantasies you like on the future of Concord run jump gates and Pilot ID Services, but it remains true that an implicit threat issue is not resolved by making the implicit threat issue far worse. Which of course the Devs know, because they are not the morons you seem to think they are. "Upgrading" local my synonym for donkey. You could not be more disingenuous if you tried. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 172	Posted - 2016.01.01 20:42:42 - [5210] - Quote All well and good; except that Teckos does have a valid point: you're not supposed to know a cloaker is there. I have been thinking along the lines of "if it has a cloak fitted, it doesn't show up in local until it's been decloaked for 20 sec", along with "still lingers in local for 180 sec after cloaking again". When docked, obviously, the character should show up in local as well. If this were to be the case, stealth is retained and therefore I could live with making cloaks probe-able. Because people won't scan unless they know they should. 20 sec, because you need time to cloak after jumping a gate; and no more than 20 sec because after all, non-covops cloaks should be more vulnerable. I haven't entirely thought it through yet, but figured I'd toss it in the group anyway. If cloaked ships don't appear in local they won't encourage people to dock up and therefore might actually catch something for a change instead op scaring the locals off. One might argue this too increases "implicit risk" but a 100% certain situation should not exist. I too would like to call that 4/4 : 1. Making ISK 2. undocked 3. in unprotected space (no gatecamps, no eyes up, no intel channels) 4. 100% safe escape hatch due to advanced warning system Protection, in one form or another, should be the player's job - a team effort. I'm all in favour of making cloaks scannable PROVIDED we get true stealth in return. How to achieve this is open to debate, but as outlined my "fix" would also include local chat; however not quite in the same way Teckos' proposal works. As far as I'm concerned these mechanics (delayed chat on both cloaking and decloaking) may even apply to non-cloaked ships (delayed chat on entering and leaving system); after all, roaming gangs have the exact same issue cloaked ships do: the local spike gives them away. 14.3 AU Dscan should provide sufficient safety. Targeting delay upon decloak should provide sufficient safety. Either way, simply removing all forms of uncertainty cannot be the solution. I do believe EvE is too safe already. Bombing cloaks into oblivion allows free reign of the 4/4 ISK Printer, and this too should be addressed.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.01 21:08:13 - [5211] - Quote Brokk He does not have a point. "The pretty big psychological effect" is not resolved by superimposing a gigantic psychological effect" to mask the original issue. "True stealth"...You could have that. You mean like a low radar cross section along a specific vector, right? It seems a lot weaker than the current cloaking mechanism, but if that is what you want... There are two issues here and neither involve compensation in any form. 1. The issue of a ship being undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe. 2. The issue of one detached multi-account holder able to impact on the behaviour of many active pilots. Both points have a high "what a sucky feature" score, and both should be removed. Which the Devs know and will address. What mechanisms may or may not be imported to null-sec from worm-hole space is frankly the topic of a completely different thread. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 172	Posted - 2016.01.01 21:52:02 - [5212] - Quote Jerghul wrote: Brokk He does not have a point. "The pretty big psychological effect" is not resolved by superimposing a gigantic psychological effect" to mask the original issue. That's because I happen to like risk. Ships could or could not be cyno fitted. There may or may not be a fleet coming out of the woodwork. The ship I engage may be a high-DPS brawler, have some EWAR and neuts up his sleeve, or he may have a massive buffer or an active tank that doesn't quit ... If battles were resolved by pitting known factors against each other, then wherein lies the challenge? "pretty big psychological effects" perceived this way is the thrill of PvP, the jitters you get for ninja-ing through new eden. No, I'm not actively trying to misunderstand you: you mean the fear that keeps people from undocking - not the "good fear" that keeps people interested in this game but "bad fear" that makes people bored and leave. How this is perceived is frankly their problem. If I mine Veldspar in highsec, I may earn perhaps 20 mil/hour and be bored out of my skull. I may earn the same 20 mil/hour mining Arkonor in nullsec. Then why on earth would you mine in nullsec? Well ... because I happen to LIKE the jitters. I like to jump a wormhole, grab me some gas and moonwalk out. It's really not about the ship or the ISK at all -- it's about taking a risk and getting away with it. If I knew for a fact there was NO danger at all because all variables are known up-front; no cynos (because a-symmetric and no counter and blah), no stealth (because must nerf that too), ... what's the point of going through the motions? We might as well skip the whole 'gameplay' part and award everybody a medal 'congrats, you all won EvE' and turn off the server. Jerghul wrote: "True stealth"...You could have that. You mean like a low radar cross section along a specific vector, right? It seems a lot weaker than the current cloaking mechanism, but if that is what you want... No- I meant like "none but the most sophisticated of installations" would know I'm here. Jerghul wrote: There are two issues here and neither involve compensation in any form. 1. The issue of a ship being undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe. 2. The issue of one detached multi-account holder able to impact on the behaviour of many active pilots. Both points have a high "what a sucky feature" score, and both should be removed. Which the Devs know and will address. What mechanisms may or may not be imported to null-sec from worm-hole space is frankly the topic of a completely different thread. 1. I don't see what AFK has to do with anything. I can agree on undocked, hostile space and safe however; but as Mag's would say: two way street. Cloakers as well as PvEers are both too safe. Agreed no compensation is necessary for either of them - just put them both at risk and be done with it. 2. First off: if they actually were many active pilots, they wouldn't have an issue. But I do understand what you're trying to say. Not sure if this is an issue, or how one would resolve it... I see a payed account and people use it as they see fit. If that means hanging in a random system and providing intel, that's okay. One blackops bridge pilot can influence many players as well. One Scimitar or Kitsune could turn the tide of battle. One good diplomat or spy can affect many many active accounts even without logging in. You simply cannot nerf psychological warfare. Because it's psychological. CCP provides servers, clients, game mechanics and ship models. They cannot be held responsible for your psychological well being. Ergo, mechanics is EXACTLY what we ought to discuss; for apparently, your psyche and mine work in completely different ways. The mechanics however, are the same for both of us. I get that my proposition somehow came across as a plea for "compensation". It was not. It was merely an attempt to re-imagine covert ships as invisible rather than immune. Invisible allows counter-play (eg: Observatory Arrays perhaps dedicated anti-cloak equipment) whereas immune indeed feels like a "sucky feature". But I'm clearly not asking for something we don't already have; nor am I defending immunity or AFK gameplay. I do not consider it my business to condemn how people use their account -- they may AFK in Jita for weeks on end for all I care. They may farm FW plexes AFK. They may mine AFK. Or they may be the Mittani and not log on for months yet still impact the game -- none of my business. I am merely looking for another way to cloak, so that play and counter-play may exist without breaking game balance. This is what we're here for, no?
Xcom Quantum Vortex Battalion 38	Posted - 2016.01.01 23:24:33 - [5213] - Quote How is it possible for people to be so obtuse about justify there silly belief that nullspace rattings only counter is a broken mechanic. Talk about broken logic.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 15653	Posted - 2016.01.01 23:30:55 - [5214] - Quote Xcom wrote: How is it possible for people to be so obtuse about justify there silly belief that nullspace rattings only counter is a broken mechanic. Talk about broken logic. If you believe that sitting in space cloaked indefinitely is a valid and logical mechanic then I hope CCP makes cloaking permanent. You shouldn't be able to turn off the cloak, problem solved! It's really funny how you aren't even bothering to hide the fact that butthurt alone motivates your posting. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4261	Posted - 2016.01.02 00:52:06 - [5215] - Quote Xcom wrote: How is it possible for people to be so obtuse about justify there silly belief that nullspace rattings only counter is a broken mechanic. Talk about broken logic. If you believe that sitting in space cloaked indefinitely is a valid and logical mechanic then I hope CCP makes cloaking permanent. You shouldn't be able to turn off the cloak, problem solved! First, I don't think it is broken. I think it is sub-optimal but balanced. Which is why I hope it changes. Change the would be on both sides. Effort and assets at risk to get intel about who is in your space and where. On the other side, even with a cloak you sit in one spot too long the locals will find you and send you home to wake up in clone vat somewhere. As for your suggestion, I think it is so bad it is hilarious. Oh, and as for Mike's complaint about having a defense fleet, I was messing around with EFT and came up with this for the ishtar, [Ishtar, Isk Printer] Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II Capacitor Power Relay II Capacitor Power Relay II Damage Control II Caldari Navy Large Shield Extender Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Medium S95a Remote Shield Booster Medium Energy Neutralizer II Small 'Regard' Remote Capacitor Transmitter Small 'Regard' Remote Capacitor Transmitter Medium Core Defense Field Purger II Medium Core Defense Field Purger II Wasp II x5 Ogre II x5 Basic idea is you have 3 or more of these in the same anomaly. With wasp IIs you'd do 668 DPS which is good for guristas. With ogre IIs DPS is 740. If a stratios shows up, put the neuts on the stratios, which should be in range as he'll be using neuts too. Put the drones on him (which is 1,900-2,200 DPS). His cap will be gone between 35-40 seconds. He'll be dead even faster than that though because against wasp IIs he should have an EHP of about 25,122. He'll probably have 13-20 seconds before he is toast. And his ship costs 2x the cost of an ishtar. And with this fit you'll blow through the anomalies pretty quick. As for tanking the rats, not much of a problem either with the remote reps. There you go, you are ratting and you are also your own defense fleet. Granted, no tackle modules, but even so chances are the stratios pilot won't even want to try taking this on. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 173	Posted - 2016.01.02 05:31:03 - [5216] - Quote Xcom wrote: How is it possible for people to be so obtuse about justify there silly belief that nullspace rattings only counter is a broken mechanic. Talk about broken logic. Not claiming it is the only counter, but I distinctly remember stating some facts earlier on, such as: - cannot target after decloak for 5 seconds. - cannot cyno on grid with acceleration gates or inside plexes. - cannot "warp to" inside plexes either. - can drop a can inside plexes to decloak potential hunters. - cannot catch up with targets while cloaked (no propmod) - targets can instantly warp off when they're aligned. - rats switch aggro to the hunter, even though the hunter didn't mean them no harm. - need to scan down plexes before entering them. - locals can pick up these probes or incoming roaming gangs on DScan too. - many many many anomalies, can you guess the correct one? - locals get a free advance warning while "intruders" are still loading grid. - one on one, PvE ships are much stronger than covops ships. And yet the nullspace ratters claim their only choice is to dock up or die? This is outrageous. Fear mongering at its finest. We try to explain there is really no need to be so afraid, and then other factors are dragged into the discussion. ISK/hr, which is patently false. The need for a whole Fleet to defend against One guy -- also patently false, for it stands to reason that when the offender brings more guys, you need to bring more guys as well to keep the comparison somewhat fair. Plus, ratting with more guys does not cut into ISK/hr so those arguments fell flat too. Next up, came the "big psychological effect" and idealism along the lines of "you shouldn't be undocked and safe" ..... trying to turn the tables 180 degrees, yet the idea that a cloaked ship is only safe when sitting still in the middle off buttfk nebraska, and no safer than an uncloaked one when on the move, was easily discarded. I declare ratting is already far too safe, to the point where even an AFK cloaker can only net kills against AFK ratters. If the ratter is paying any attention at all, you won't even catch him. But, apparently, I am mistaken. Please do elaborate on how You do it then? (and no, I'm not talking about Providence). Xcom wrote: If you believe that sitting in space cloaked indefinitely is a valid and logical mechanic then I hope CCP makes cloaking permanent. You shouldn't be able to turn off the cloak, problem solved! Actually, I do believe that it is. It is not perfect, we're trying to improve upon it but so far, it is very balanced indeed. People are complaining the "hunter is AFK". People are complaining he's in their system. So what? Maybe people need to mind their own business. It's not up to anyone else to decide how a character - paid for - wants to spend his time now, is it? I can sit in a POS. I can sit in a station. I can sit in a safespot cloaked. I can sit at my keyboard or I can sip a beer nextdoor -- how does that help any argument you will undoubtedly share with us?? And then of course there are those who think it's okay in a structure but not okay out in open space because of :reasons:. What those reasons may be is yet unspecified; but somehow a name in local annoys them more than when said name's location is accounted for. It is, quite literally, incapable of doing anything except DScanning, warping places and probing. And these are exactly the things a recon is supposed to be doing. So ... do I think that sitting in space cloaked is a valid and logical mechanic for a covert ops recon? Duh! It says so on the box. I expect frigates to be fast. I expect HACs to put out DPS. And I expect recons to run reconnaissance. This not logical to you? Here's a question for you: are you here to try and come up with a less lame mechanic that puts EVERYONE involved more at risk? Or are you just venting frustration? Because believe me, I really tried to divert discussion away from PvE and I failed miserably. It really is all about PvE crowd too afraid to undock. Still thinking they're at a disadvantage and calling for more nerfs. Think I'm lying? Nobody gives a hoot what gets broken in the process; they want one thing and one thing only: clear every single last neutral out of "their" system to print free ISK. THAT is the message resounding loud and clear throughout these pages. You have anything to add that hasn't been addressed before? Go right ahead. But don't just throw your 4 lines of text in here saying "yea the cloak is broken. Your logic is broken too." How is it broken? What is broken, in your opinion... is it the module? Is it the cyno? Is it the duration? Is it their ability to gather intel? Do you demand proof they're at their keyboard? Why? Out of spite? And how would you perhaps "fix" it then? Remove the module from the game? What else would you break in the process? Dude ...... you might want to think about these things before you start posting. Might want to read what people have already argued before resetting to page 1....?
Xcom Quantum Vortex Battalion 38	Posted - 2016.01.02 06:11:23 - [5217] - Quote It would actually make a whole lot more sense if cloaked ships would have absolute zero offensive or defensive ability after de-cloaking. You can run around cloaked and do your "reconnaissance" but if you want to join the fight you better drop that cloak in a safe spot then warp to the fight or you will be sitting there like a potato for a really good while. Basically change that targeting delay to activation delay, remove all modual activation after de-cloak.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.02 07:17:35 - [5218] - Quote Brokk When you look at an afk cloaky camper, you should never, ever imagine that is a paid account. It invariably is not. Afk cloaky camping is just campbear entitlement fluff that is detrimental to the game. The safe pilots now are the ones afk cloaked, the ones doing PI, and the ones running moon-goo. Teckos And there teckos is with his demand for compensation again. No compensation buddy. But why not create a thread on that lore driven silliness removal of local in null sec is? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 957	Posted - 2016.01.02 11:00:52 - [5219] - Quote Xcom wrote: It would actually make a whole lot more sense if cloaked ships would have absolute zero offensive or defensive ability after de-cloaking. You can run around cloaked and do your "reconnaissance" but if you want to join the fight you better drop that cloak in a safe spot then warp to the fight or you will be sitting there like a potato for a really good while. Basically change that targeting delay to activation delay, remove all modual activation after de-cloak. I'll play: if they're "broken" why do only null bears cry? Still no answers to that one, you see for something to be overpowered it rather has to be overpowered in all areas of space.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.02 11:32:25 - [5220] - Quote Morrigan Its broken because it allows a single afk player to influence the behaviour of a much larger number of active players. So is hugely disproportionate and disrespectful of customer time (note that afk pilots do not actually qualify as customers as the accounts they are run from are paid for by PvE, scams, or margin trading). Its broken because it allows the pilot to be undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe (the 4/4). You could of course compensate for broken mechanics by giving null-sec player controlled gates, making the cyno inhibitor vastly more cost efficient, or requiring that all mining and ratting sites in null-sec need to be scanned down and making the rats omni damage types, and making rats respond in a concord like manner to non sov holder intrusions. In effect just stealing mechanisms from wormhole and high sec space to compensate for the broken mechanics. Note that removing local only masks the implicit threat afk cloaky camping represents by making the implicit threat far worse. That could be brought to null sec only if all of wh-space compensating mechanisms were also brought to null-sec. Or you could just fix the mechanics by making afk cloaky campers nominally vulnerable. Preferably in a way that also make cloaky transport of PI and Moon Goo nominally vulnerable too (where the true nulbears make their isk on a scale that massively dwarves isk/hr revenues of simple miners or ratters). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 .. 343 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.