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)
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 1003	Posted - 2016.01.08 20:59:22 - [5401] - Quote How many people do you kill when you're sleeping? In the shower,
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.08 22:28:42 - [5402] - Quote Morrigan Is it that you do not understand what a "force in being"/"implicit threat"/pretty big psychological effect" is still? Well, lets take your position at face value. I will add another fix then: Afk cloaky camping can be fixed by providing system wide information on how long ago it was since the cloaked ship was actively controlled. Its a bit hamfisted, but would resolve the issue. Afk cloaked ships are indeed no problem at all for as long as we all know they are afk. " 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 4291	Posted - 2016.01.08 22:31:40 - [5403] - Quote Jerghul wrote: Tekos You are not doing it right if that is the case. Use n pilots for active play until your real life limit is reached. Use the +1 to afk cloaky camp. No Jerghul there is still an opportunity cost to say AFK camping + sleeping. I could avoid sleep and rat with that character. Further, if I have a station trading alt, a PI alt, andGÇªthe AFK cloaking alt, he could also be a ratting alt (my alts are multi-faceted, all of them can invent/build, haul, PI, and some can even rat). But if I have an alt who is trained with cloaking ships and ratting while he is AFK cloaking I lose out. I lose out because he is either logged in in a cloaked ship and not making ISK, or he is logged off andGÇªnot making ISK. LetGÇÖs be concrete. MainGÇöPvP and ratting. Alt1GÇöhauling, mining, PI, invention, ratting. Alt2GÇöhauling, PI, Invention. Alt3GÇöhauling, PI, Invention. Alt4GÇöhauling, PI, Invention, cloaking ships, ratting. Now, let us further suppose I want to use Alt4 to camp JerghulGÇÖs favorite ratting system. Alt4 is not 39 jumps from where I do the following: Rat, invent, mine, and PI. Alt 4 is useless for me to make money. If he were not off having a camping trip singing Kumbaya with you and Mike in local, heGÇÖd be logged in periodically logged in doing PI, invention and, ratting. The losses in this case are, PIGÇölets say 300 million ISK. InventionGÇölets say 200 million ISK. RattingGÇölets say another 250 million ISK. Note that Main and Alt2 and Alt4 are on different accounts. So in theory I could log them all in at once. In this case the opportunity cost to sending Alt4 on a camping trip with you and Mike is 750 million ISK. Now you can argue, GÇ£Bet Teckos, you are logging in Alt4 before you go to bed! Therefore there is nothing lost.GÇ¥ This is still wrong because I have a choice in which system he lives in. He can live in the system(s) where I rat, invent and do PI, or he can live in the camping system. By choosing the camping system he is, by definition, not in the system(s) where I rat, invent, do PI. So I still lose that ISK. Anyone who says AFK camping is costless is wither ignorant of one of the most fundamental concepts in economics, or they are being willfully and deliberately obtuseGÇªmost likely to pursue an agenda that benefits them and more than likely harms another, in economics this also has a name, it is called rent seeking. So not only is it you who is doing it wrong, you are just simply wrong. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.08 22:49:13 - [5404] - Quote Teckos Yes, you can increase your n number of active pilots to anything you like. But when you have dedicated every single minute of every single hour of your life to managing all the active pilots, then you should add additional pilotd and use those for afk cloaky camping. You are doing it wrong if there is an opportunity cost attached to afk cloaky camping. Its in the name: "AFK". Your reasoning is trying to pretend isk is a limit. Its not. 3 pilots to an account interact with the Eve universe to generate more than what a plex costs each month. The limit here is the limit on how many active pilots real life allows you to manage. Once you have reached your personal saturation point, you afk cloaky camp with as many pilots as you like really. There is a limit that depends on how efficiently you generate isk with your active pilots interacting in Eve. Understanding economics assumes your understand what limits activity. In EvE that resource is real life time. Time is the finite resource and hence adding a time requirement to maintain a cloak breaks the afk component. People simply do not have the time to manage an enduring cloaky camper. They cannot afford to spend the time as it would entail an actual opportunity cost. Which of course is why all my suggested fixes rotate around having pilots spend time to maintain an active cloak. " 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 4291	Posted - 2016.01.08 23:02:49 - [5405] - Quote Jerghul wrote: Teckos Yes, you can increase your n number of active pilots to anything you like. But when you have dedicated every single minute of every single hour of your life to managing all the active pilots, then you should add additional pilotd and use those for afk cloaky camping. [snip] No. First off the issue of time only impacts the magnitude of the opportunity cost. If I doubled the amount of active time IGÇÖd double the opportunity cost. If I halved it, it would halve (making the assumption that income sources scaled linearly with time, that they might not is not a hugely complicating factor so long as income sources are a monotonic function of time). Second adding yet another alt does nothing to the problem. I could just as easily have written: MainGÇöPvP and ratting. Alt1GÇöhauling, mining, PI, invention, ratting. Alt2GÇöhauling, PI, Invention. Al3GÇöhauling, PI, Invention. . . . AlN-1GÇöhauling, PI, Invention. AltNGÇöhauling, PI, Invention, cloaking ships, ratting. And guess what it all still holds. You are just flat out wrong. Anyone who says AFK cloaking is wrong. But hey, thanks for making me think about this more formally, now I have a handy argument to link every time some anti-cloaker says, "AFK cloaking costs nothing!". Maybe I should call that post Jerghul's Lemma or something. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.08 23:38:58 - [5406] - Quote "Your reasoning is trying to pretend isk is a limit. Its not. 3 pilots to an account interact with the Eve universe to generate more than what a plex costs each month. The limit here is the limit on how many active pilots real life allows you to manage. Once you have reached your personal saturation point, you afk cloaky camp with as many pilots as you like really. There is a limit that depends on how efficiently you generate isk with your active pilots interacting in Eve. Understanding economics assumes your understand what limits activity. In EvE that resource is real life time. Time is the finite resource and hence adding a time requirement to maintain a cloak breaks the afk component. People simply do not have the time to manage an enduring cloaky camper. They cannot afford to spend the time as it would entail an actual opportunity cost. Which of course is why all my suggested fixes rotate around having pilots spend time to maintain an active cloak." ============== Feel free to share links to these posts. The CSM election is coming up after all :). What I wrote above is true for as long as an account generate more isk than the account costs. You could add accounts infinitely. If not for time. Once you run out of time, you afk camp. If you still have time to do productive stuff you could have used the afk cloaky camper on, then you are doing afk cloaky camping wrong and would have to carry the burden of income loss on the shoulders of poor optimization. Which is all fine and good. But do not mistake poor optimization for an opportunity cost. For proof of concept: A cloaked ship's pilot has to spend 1 second every 3 hours to keep the cloak activated. There. I just broke afk cloaky camping. " 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 4292	Posted - 2016.01.09 00:31:55 - [5407] - Quote Jerghul wrote: "Your reasoning is trying to pretend isk is a limit. Its not. 3 pilots to an account interact with the Eve universe to generate more than what a plex costs each month. [snip] Maybe....maybe. If you had a station trader in Jita, Dodixie and Amarr and you are good at it and been at it awhile...maybe. Ratting? No. PI...maybe but it would be a stretch right now...maybe in NS with good true sec systems. Missions? Having 2 or 3 alts/account means nothing as there is no economies of scale. Basically, when there is an income source that can scale with the number of alts even on the same account then you could benefit from having alts otherwise no. Seriously, can you stop with the overly generalized statements? As for the rest of your post...nope you are still wrong. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Maria Dragoon Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 93	Posted - 2016.01.09 05:12:12 - [5408] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Jerghul wrote: "Your reasoning is trying to pretend isk is a limit. Its not. 3 pilots to an account interact with the Eve universe to generate more than what a plex costs each month. [snip] Maybe....maybe. If you had a station trader in Jita, Dodixie and Amarr and you are good at it and been at it awhile...maybe. Ratting? No. PI...maybe but it would be a stretch right now...maybe in NS with good true sec systems. Missions? Having 2 or 3 alts/account means nothing as there is no economies of scale. Basically, when there is an income source that can scale with the number of alts even on the same account then you could benefit from having alts otherwise no. Seriously, can you stop with the overly generalized statements? As for the rest of your post...nope you are still wrong. Lets not forget that there are MANY ways to interact with the Eve universe, and unless you strike it lucky in some gank, the likelyness of you making enough isk as the average PVPer (like this account) is very slim. Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated. Confucius "A man who talks to people who aren't real is crazy. A man who talks to people who aren't real and writes down what they say is an author."
Wander Prian Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 172	Posted - 2016.01.09 07:07:11 - [5409] - Quote The only thing Jerghul your post has proven is how little danger a AFK-cloaker presents. If they are 99Gäà of the time away from the computer or doing something with their "real" accounts, you really have nothing to be afraid of. It's a non-issue, like many have pointed out before.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.09 09:48:01 - [5410] - Quote Teckos We are speaking the same language now, right? 1 account has up to 3 pilots. I get that you might be saying generating a plex per pilot is challenging. Suggesting it is difficult per account is ludicrous. On Tranquillity at least. The Chinese server pushes that envelope a lot more. Isk generation is scalable infinitely for individual players if but for time. You really are doing afk cloaky camping wrong if it has an isk opportunity cost for you. And doing something wrong is poor optimization that can be blamed entirely on not mastering Eve well enough to afk cloaky camp effectively. Which is ok. But is not an opportunity cost issue. Its a learn to optimize properly issue. Maria There are many ways to play EvE. What you are saying there is that there is an opportunity cost to PvPing. Which again is not really true as you are choosing sub-optimal isk generation to devote more time to pew-pew. Which is fine. But you should not even be thinking of afk cloaky camping with a pilot if you have time to dedicate that pilot to isk generation instead. Wander You misread what I posted (it was 1 second of 10800 btw, so 99% is off by a couple orders of magnitude). It is enough to break afk cloaky camping even if players monitor afk cloaky camping a bit more frequently on average. This due to human error inherent to afk giving acceptable attrition rates (acceptable to those hunting afk cloaky campers). Force in being/implicit threat/pretty big psychological effect is an acknowledged issue. Wormhole stabilizer has turned up in reddit as a possible citadel module. Say we installed one of those in our null-sec system to give us the 3 days we need to burn a wh-citadel or 10. Do you see how your wh space would become very unsafe while we kept that gate (yes, wormholes are gate surrogates) open while we camped the crap out of you while we did our thing? Do you feel a bit implicitly threatened now? Well, that is just one of many compensating mechanisms in wh space that reduce implicit threat from afk cloaky camping. " 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)
Xcom Quantum Vortex Battalion 38	Posted - 2016.01.09 11:15:44 - [5411] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Xcom wrote: Its all opinion based. People that prefer things to stay as they are argue relentlessly for the traditional mechanics staying rigid. Use every possible mechanic in defence to point out how everything is related. Actually most people are saying that for cloaking to change - the mechanic which it most directly interferes with and is in fact the only counter to in many systems - local - also needs altered. Many try and sweep this under the carpet as "off topic" when in fact the two share a symbiotic relationship. You cannot have an "afk cloaker" problem without local (and to a lesser extent, the watch list). A further consideration is that in the drive to kill off "AFK" cloaking, there is a severe risk of breaking or greatly diminishing the other activities of cloaks. To date still no-one has found a way which can threaten a cloaky who is at the pub, without shattering other areas of space and other cloak uses. Any balance debate has a responsibility for the direct knock on effects of a proposed change to be considered these are not off topic - this is simple diligence. Tying this to a structure in response to finding cloaks alone is not actually valid - not everywhere can have structures. Now if one were to say this is ok because the areas where one cannot place a structure do not have this problem then you're effectively saying it's not actually a global problem. Which undermines the notion that it is even "broken" in the first place. Finally, the level of "noise" a complaint gets doesn't make for a broken mechanic - see high sec ganking, bumping, war decs and so on and so forth. Morrigan This is your opinion. Its not a fact or anything other then your wishes regarding how the game should and shouldn't be. Some do believe that any impact caused by tweaking the cloaking dilemma won't impact on local in any extent other then minor ripples. I believe that people just use that as an excuse to firmly hold on to cloaking the way it is.
Wander Prian Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 173	Posted - 2016.01.09 12:58:41 - [5412] - Quote If the fix was something easy and simple, don't you think it would have already been done years ago instead of us bickering about it in this 261 page thread?
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 15678	Posted - 2016.01.09 13:05:51 - [5413] - Quote Xcom wrote: This is your opinion. Its not a fact or anything other then your wishes regarding how the game should and shouldn't be. Now look in the mirror and repeat this. Then realize that you're projecting like crazy. "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.
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 1003	Posted - 2016.01.09 13:41:25 - [5414] - Quote Xcom wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Xcom wrote: Its all opinion based. People that prefer things to stay as they are argue relentlessly for the traditional mechanics staying rigid. Use every possible mechanic in defence to point out how everything is related. Actually most people are saying that for cloaking to change - the mechanic which it most directly interferes with and is in fact the only counter to in many systems - local - also needs altered. Many try and sweep this under the carpet as "off topic" when in fact the two share a symbiotic relationship. You cannot have an "afk cloaker" problem without local (and to a lesser extent, the watch list). A further consideration is that in the drive to kill off "AFK" cloaking, there is a severe risk of breaking or greatly diminishing the other activities of cloaks. To date still no-one has found a way which can threaten a cloaky who is at the pub, without shattering other areas of space and other cloak uses. Any balance debate has a responsibility for the direct knock on effects of a proposed change to be considered these are not off topic - this is simple diligence. Tying this to a structure in response to finding cloaks alone is not actually valid - not everywhere can have structures. Now if one were to say this is ok because the areas where one cannot place a structure do not have this problem then you're effectively saying it's not actually a global problem. Which undermines the notion that it is even "broken" in the first place. Finally, the level of "noise" a complaint gets doesn't make for a broken mechanic - see high sec ganking, bumping, war decs and so on and so forth. Morrigan This is your opinion. Its not a fact or anything other then your wishes regarding how the game should and shouldn't be. Some do believe that any impact caused by tweaking the cloaking dilemma won't impact on local in any extent other then minor ripples. I believe that people just use that as an excuse to firmly hold on to cloaking the way it is. To be honest mate you either didn''t read all of what I wrote, or didn't understand it. Read it again. It explains balancing 101 and gives examples of why the people wanting to change cloaks in isolation are doing it wrong.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.09 14:07:57 - [5415] - Quote Wander But for the boisterous defenders of established multiple account entitlement it might have. It used to be more of a marginal issue (there are hardware requirements that have become much more commonplace). Anyone and their dog can afk cloaky camp once they learn to manage their time effectively. Morrigan Or...an established multiple account entitlement could simply be removed with no compensation. I vote for doing that. Kaarous It is hardly projection for Xcom to point out that all we are doing here is sharing banter and opinion. Send a paper letter to CCP if you want real traction (I pre-beta test a game series, and have used the power of the pen to bypass test team lead intransigence on occasion. With good effect I might add). " 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)
Xcom Quantum Vortex Battalion 38	Posted - 2016.01.09 14:14:56 - [5416] - Quote No one thinks changing cloaking won't have any impact on other factors. Its just acceptable to some and not to others. Its a fact when a game is unfair people get upset. Saying that people that get shaffed by the AFK cloaking problem should suck it up and live with it is the issue most people pro change in this thread are facing. Its just hard for me to understand why anyone would like the idea of having a game mechanic around that directly causes this much rage, or be defending it by creating even more rage.
Wander Prian Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 173	Posted - 2016.01.09 14:25:12 - [5417] - Quote I think all of us in this thread agree it should be changed, but disagree strongly on the methods of that change
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 15679	Posted - 2016.01.09 14:39:27 - [5418] - Quote Xcom wrote: Its a fact when a game is unfair people get upset. Fun fact. Carebears get upset not because the game isn't fair, but because they're allowed to lose in the first place. Quote: Saying that people that get shaffed by the AFK cloaking problem should suck it up and live with it is the issue most people pro change in this thread are facing. You do need to suck it up and accept the fact that you are supposed to have uncertainty and risk in your gameplay, most of all if that gameplay is PvE of any kind, and extra especially PvE in nullsec. Quote: Its just hard for me to understand why anyone would like the idea of having a game mechanic around that directly causes this much rage, or be defending it by creating even more rage. It's hard for me to understand why anyone who complains about this mechanic thinks that they belong in 0.0 space in the first place. Oh, and I don't give a flying rat's ass about your feelings, or anyone else's. If you're enough of a child to "rage" about something like this in a videogame, then all you're doing is proving that you don't belong in EVE Online. "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.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 15679	Posted - 2016.01.09 14:42:13 - [5419] - Quote Wander Prian wrote: I think all of us in this thread agree it should be changed, but disagree strongly on the methods of that change Not one thing about cloaking devices needs to be changed. Right now they are probably one of, if not the most balanced module concept this game has. You disappear from grid, but in exchange you cannot have any mechanical effect on it at all. It's more or less perfect. The only thing that needs to be changed here is the free, untouchable, instant source of intel that allows carebears to cry and whine about people in their system in the first place. The only thing that needs changed is local. No local, literally no effect from afk cloaking. The cloaked ship would have to actually be hunting you to have any effect whatsoever. "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.
Xcom Quantum Vortex Battalion 38	Posted - 2016.01.09 14:58:21 - [5420] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: You do need to suck it up and accept the fact that you are supposed to have uncertainty and risk in your gameplay, most of all if that gameplay is PvE of any kind, and extra especially PvE in nullsec. This is a bit of a contradiction to the rest of your idea of cloaking being balanced. Why is there no uncertainty in cloaking? There is enough prove that using a cloak does bring benefits beyond the risk of its use.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.09 15:05:17 - [5421] - Quote Xcom I would not bother being baited by Karous when he types out stuff like the post you cited. The thread is actively monitored by moderators. " 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)
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 15679	Posted - 2016.01.09 15:11:40 - [5422] - Quote Xcom wrote: Why is there no uncertainty in cloaking? There is. But obviously not as much as someone who is generating assets into the game world would entail, because the cloaked player derives absolutely zero mechanical benefit from it. There is a vast gulf of difference between being afk and cloaked, and actively gaining resources. "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.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 1114	Posted - 2016.01.09 15:12:43 - [5423] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Xcom wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Xcom wrote: Its all opinion based. People that prefer things to stay as they are argue relentlessly for the traditional mechanics staying rigid. Use every possible mechanic in defence to point out how everything is related. Actually most people are saying that for cloaking to change - the mechanic which it most directly interferes with and is in fact the only counter to in many systems - local - also needs altered. Many try and sweep this under the carpet as "off topic" when in fact the two share a symbiotic relationship. You cannot have an "afk cloaker" problem without local (and to a lesser extent, the watch list). A further consideration is that in the drive to kill off "AFK" cloaking, there is a severe risk of breaking or greatly diminishing the other activities of cloaks. To date still no-one has found a way which can threaten a cloaky who is at the pub, without shattering other areas of space and other cloak uses. Any balance debate has a responsibility for the direct knock on effects of a proposed change to be considered these are not off topic - this is simple diligence. Tying this to a structure in response to finding cloaks alone is not actually valid - not everywhere can have structures. Now if one were to say this is ok because the areas where one cannot place a structure do not have this problem then you're effectively saying it's not actually a global problem. Which undermines the notion that it is even "broken" in the first place. Finally, the level of "noise" a complaint gets doesn't make for a broken mechanic - see high sec ganking, bumping, war decs and so on and so forth. Morrigan This is your opinion. Its not a fact or anything other then your wishes regarding how the game should and shouldn't be. Some do believe that any impact caused by tweaking the cloaking dilemma won't impact on local in any extent other then minor ripples. I believe that people just use that as an excuse to firmly hold on to cloaking the way it is. To be honest mate you either didn''t read all of what I wrote, or didn't understand it. Read it again. It explains balancing 101 and gives examples of why the people wanting to change cloaks in isolation are doing it wrong. Honestly, no. He was dead on. You have your points and reasons for sticking with them, but simply holding them does not make you or them right. In particular is your view of all the other stuff being 'broken' by no longer being invulnerable for unlimited periods of time. If the stuff is that important, then it should also be at risk, not protected by cloaks as strong as they are. There is no function in game that can be used against another player that should be as safe as a cloaked ship. The way it is now is broken, not putting those functions at risk. I will argue that any ship doing anything at all that affects another player in any way other than market transactions should not be as safe as a cloak currently makes it. Doesn't matter if that effect is imaginary, psychological, direct damage, ewar, or simply making the dust particles on the other guys screen swirl in a manner they find displeasing. Nothing and no one should be doing anything at all to anyone else or the environment with that level of safety backed by actual game mechanics. The supposed 'safety' of ratters in null is bogus. It's an effect of choosing a place with no one else in it, and simply showing up breaks their 'safety'. The safety of cloaks is actually backed by mechanics that do not depend on the other guy not caring enough to come get you.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 15679	Posted - 2016.01.09 15:16:14 - [5424] - Quote Mike Voidstar wrote: I will argue that any ship doing anything at all that affects another player in any way other than market transactions should not be as safe as a cloak currently makes it. It doesn't effect the other player at all. Their blatant, disgusting risk aversion might effect them, but then that's only because local allows them to determine the presence of the other player. Quote: Doesn't matter if that effect is imaginary, psychological It matters very much, since those two things aren't real, nor should your cowardice be permitted to dictate game balance in even the slightest way. "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.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 1114	Posted - 2016.01.09 15:26:55 - [5425] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Mike Voidstar wrote: I will argue that any ship doing anything at all that affects another player in any way other than market transactions should not be as safe as a cloak currently makes it. It doesn't effect the other player at all. Their blatant, disgusting risk aversion might effect them, but then that's only because local allows them to determine the presence of the other player. Quote: Doesn't matter if that effect is imaginary, psychological It matters very much, since those two things aren't real, nor should your cowardice be permitted to dictate game balance in even the slightest way. Seriously, still trolling? Be nice if you could just stop one day. You are completely wrong in any case. Ask Morrigan for the exhaustive list of things that cloaked ships do that will be broken by making them vulnerable. All of that stuff should be at risk. It's not just a null ratter issue. It's an entire game issue. Nothing at all of any use what ever should be possible while cloaked. Your screen should go dark, all windows but chat unresponsive. If you are going to be able to use it as a portable station usable at anytime, then that's how useful you should be.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 15679	Posted - 2016.01.09 15:32:47 - [5426] - Quote Mike Voidstar wrote: Seriously, still trolling? That's my line. Quote: You are completely wrong in any case. See the above. Quote: It's not just a null ratter issue. It's an entire game issue. No it's not. People rat in other areas all the time without issues from cloaked ships. Even numbers of other nullsec players. This isn't a nullsec issue so much as it is a carebear issue. But that's your typical M.O. anyway, constantly asking for more safety for the people who already have too much in the first place. Quote: Nothing at all of any use what ever should be possible while cloaked. Your screen should go dark, all windows but chat unresponsive. This is so petulant and childish that it's genuinely funny. No, you should not be locked out of the game entire while cloaked, because it is intended to be able to play while cloaked. They are intended to provide an advantage via an attack of opportunity to the player using it. I know you want them to be brokenly useless because you hate how they are working as intended, but what you want doesn't matter, and never will. "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.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 1114	Posted - 2016.01.09 15:51:21 - [5427] - Quote Nah, Troll It was successfully argued that they are intended to be as safe as in a station. Which is fine.... then make them limit a ship in the same way. Either safety or usefulness needs to go. I argued for the safety so they would stay useful. However, others argued for the safety to stay, so usefulness should go. It's also not just ratting. It's not that they threaten ratters. It's that they are out there, doing stuff, while at no risk. You should not be doing stuff at no risk. What is hilarious is that this is the exact argument you would be making in your own trollish way if it was someone you wanted to shoot doing something under a cloak. You don't understand anything about balance, just childish trolling.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 15679	Posted - 2016.01.09 16:00:35 - [5428] - Quote Mike Voidstar wrote: What is hilarious is that this is the exact argument you would be making in your own trollish way if it was someone you wanted to shoot doing something under a cloak. No, I'm a real player, so I'd actually do something about it instead of crusading for CCP to nerf it. Or hey, since sometimes the right answer is to ignore it, I might even do nothing, rather than crying for CCP to do my job for me. Besides, you can't actually do anything besides move under a cloak anyway. It's not like they're actually obtaining any tangible, real benefit from it, as opposed to the ratter who very much is. Risk vs reward after all. The one who actually has a greater than zero benefit should have vastly more risk than the person who is not generating income or assets into the game world. Quote: You don't understand anything about balance, just childish trolling. Such projection. "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.
Xcom Quantum Vortex Battalion 38	Posted - 2016.01.09 16:03:20 - [5429] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: They are intended to provide an advantage via an attack of opportunity to the player using it. This is the issue, this right here. Benefit without risk. Just because your not generating income doesn't mean you shouldn't be impacted by risk.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 15679	Posted - 2016.01.09 16:06:01 - [5430] - Quote Xcom wrote: This is the issue, this right here. Benefit without risk. What a dishonest argument. Risk is not the only tradeoff that exists in this game, and this is especially true of cloaking devices and covert ops ships. Cry more that it's working as intended. "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.

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.