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

Check My IP Information

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)
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4316	Posted - 2016.01.11 21:01:02 - [5521] - Quote Jerghul wrote: Nullsec is a carebear paradise. Or to put it another way. Have you caught any blockade runners recently? I am not against a dangerous null-sec (you caught the afk cloaky camping drone thought?). I am just against a dangerous null-sec for some like it is now. Linkkette Plug lost one recently in HED-GP Freia Serine also lost one in U-QW Nfynity Prime lost a viator in KBP7 Cyberstrike2027 lost a viator in N-RAEL scully3 Alabel lost a viator in HED-GP Russell Nemger lost a viator in Etherium Reach Marianna Blavatsky lost a viator in 1-SMEB All lost today in fact. Plus 4 more in LS. Yesterday 17 died in NS/LS. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.11 21:06:00 - [5522] - Quote Getting into PI and moon goo is the actual null-sec adaptation for people wanting to earn isk in off-peak times. Ratting and mining is really just for the plebs (aside form some highly optimized players who do it right. But that is again full circle back to the multiple account entitlements in a different form). Lug Yah, lets be part of a sov holding alliance that tells you that today's pvp activity is ratting. I take it you would opt for the afk cloaky camping drones then. So everyone can cloaky camp without cost. " 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 4317	Posted - 2016.01.11 21:36:39 - [5523] - Quote Jerghul wrote: Edit How many 100ds of billion isk worth of PI and moon goo do you think were transported by blockade runners in the same period those 6 (or whatever) were lost Teckos? Very little dude. People in null use these to move high volume high value stuff. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4317	Posted - 2016.01.11 21:47:17 - [5524] - Quote Jerghul, If you are running a reaction POS set up and making ferrogel...how much ferrogel will you make in an hour? If you run it for a week, 168 hours, how much ferrogel will you have? How much of your output can you fit in your blockade runner, assuming it is fit for max cargo space? How many trips will you have to make each month to get your ferrogel to market in Jita? Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Lugburz Piraholics Anonymous Cede Nullis 10	Posted - 2016.01.11 21:49:01 - [5525] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Jerghul, If you are running a reaction POS set up and making ferrogel...how much ferrogel will you make in an hour? If you run it for a week, 168 hours, how much ferrogel will you have? How much of your output can you fit in your blockade runner, assuming it is fit for max cargo space? How many trips will you have to make each month to get your ferrogel to market in Jita? i used to do that in my wormhole, after thre months i basically quite eve out of boredom lol
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4317	Posted - 2016.01.11 22:02:49 - [5526] - Quote Lugburz wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Jerghul, If you are running a reaction POS set up and making ferrogel...how much ferrogel will you make in an hour? If you run it for a week, 168 hours, how much ferrogel will you have? How much of your output can you fit in your blockade runner, assuming it is fit for max cargo space? How many trips will you have to make each month to get your ferrogel to market in Jita? i used to do that in my wormhole, after thre months i basically quite eve out of boredom lol Now, now, don't give it away.... Jerghul is convinced that everyone uses a vaitor, crane, etc. to fuel reaction POS, moon mining POS, and so forth. Let him go do the math...if he can. Jerghul, Let me know if you need help. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Xcom Quantum Vortex Battalion 38	Posted - 2016.01.11 22:22:40 - [5527] - Quote Jerghul wrote: Afk cloaky camping is dangerous in the wrong way. Its implicitly dangerous. A nuisance thing that only encourages newer players to limit the time they play EvE to peak periods for organized pvp events. You have probably lost out on 100ds of fights due to a third party afk cloaky camping this or that system on your roams. A player that might have fought you does not because of the unquantifiable risk an additional neut or red in that system gives. Its also not dangerous versus the right activity as it does not impact on PI or Moon Goo collection where the actual isk is. I agree with this fully. AFK cloaking isn't an issue in the sense of ISK generation. It impacts it marginally, all it does is aggravate some individuals in those few camped systems. The issue is just the mechanic itself. I think Mike put it right in post #5213. Its a loophole in the game mechanics adding a cyno on a cloaked ship, it has to be a massive oversight. Sadly one that isn't looked into properly along with a few other moduals that can be instantly activated after a cloak is dropped. 5 seconds after dropping a cov-ops cloak isn't even a delay including ping / server tick delays. Its mechanics like this that just doesn't look balanced and is what probably brings so many people to this thread. Sadly this threads turned into some s**t throwing contest. Some individuals think its funny attacking anyone who suggest a nerf to cloaks, somehow gotten this idea that its a carebare act. So many things are done to dumb this game down but this ones damn not one of them. If null sec is flawed then that is a different topic and have little to do with one single modual that impacts null sec marginally.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4317	Posted - 2016.01.11 23:36:12 - [5528] - Quote Xcom wrote: Jerghul wrote: Afk cloaky camping is dangerous in the wrong way. Its implicitly dangerous. A nuisance thing that only encourages newer players to limit the time they play EvE to peak periods for organized pvp events. You have probably lost out on 100ds of fights due to a third party afk cloaky camping this or that system on your roams. A player that might have fought you does not because of the unquantifiable risk an additional neut or red in that system gives. Its also not dangerous versus the right activity as it does not impact on PI or Moon Goo collection where the actual isk is. I agree with this fully. AFK cloaking isn't an issue in the sense of ISK generation. It impacts it marginally, all it does is aggravate some individuals in those few camped systems. The issue is just the mechanic itself. I think Mike put it right in post #5213. Its a loophole in the game mechanics adding a cyno on a cloaked ship, it has to be a massive oversight. Sadly one that isn't looked into properly along with a few other moduals that can be instantly activated after a cloak is dropped. 5 seconds after dropping a cov-ops cloak isn't even a delay including ping / server tick delays. Its mechanics like this that just doesn't look balanced and is what probably brings so many people to this thread. Sadly this threads turned into some s**t throwing contest. Some individuals think its funny attacking anyone who suggest a nerf to cloaks, somehow gotten this idea that its a carebare act. So many things are done to dumb this game down but this ones damn not one of them. If null sec is flawed then that is a different topic and have little to do with one single modual that impacts null sec marginally. Well I showed you Malcanis' law and you went right down that road anyways. The poor wee new players. We have to nerf AFK cloaking for the Children.Gäó The notion that this is a loophole is complete Bravo Sierra since the Devs created the cloaks, and they have been in game for about 10 years. The notion this is a loophole and nobody has thereby thought to close it is ridiculous. Further, it is antithetical to the very notion of this game to have CCP doing things for you, that you can do for yourself. You and your friends can deal with an AFK cloaked pilot, and an ATK cloaked pilot. Bubbles, cans, interceptors, smart bombs, ratting in a group, looking at when he is active, etc. But nope, it is "CCP fix this for me!!!" Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 174	Posted - 2016.01.12 06:07:50 - [5529] - Quote Jerghul wrote: Have you caught any blockade runners recently? I have. On average 2 per month. It's mostly the cloaky/nullified T3s we can't catch. And the jumpfreighters of course.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 15708	Posted - 2016.01.12 06:13:06 - [5530] - Quote Xcom wrote: Its a loophole in the game mechanics adding a cyno on a cloaked ship, it has to be a massive oversight. Not only is it neither a loophole nor an oversight, it's fully intended. Quote: Some individuals think its funny attacking anyone who suggest a nerf to cloaks, somehow gotten this idea that its a carebare act. It is a carebear act, and you wouldn't recognize game balance if it decloaked and pointed you. "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.

Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 175	Posted - 2016.01.12 06:15:58 - [5531] - Quote Jerghul wrote: Its an issue. Specifically the AFK bit. Or to put it another way. The cloaky camping risk should be explicit. Someone doing it should be actively looking to blop someone (or otherwise engage). Or otherwise get hunted down for stupidly being afk while in space in null-sec. See, this is where we disagree. Fitting a cloak gives you the right to pick your engagements (under current mechanics that is). This makes it perfectly okay to be AFK -- sometimes merely to relay intel on a POS / POCO timer. If the hostiles want to play the blueball game, well: so can you! With the above quote, you think it's up to you to decide how a stealth operative should fly his ship. !?? That's not how EvE works! The mechanics are provided, how you use them is entirely up to you. Him being AFK pisses you off, and that is a very weak argument. It's not like he's breaking your game or anything.
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 1017	Posted - 2016.01.12 07:57:21 - [5532] - Quote Xcom wrote: Jerghul wrote: Afk cloaky camping is dangerous in the wrong way. Its implicitly dangerous. A nuisance thing that only encourages newer players to limit the time they play EvE to peak periods for organized pvp events. You have probably lost out on 100ds of fights due to a third party afk cloaky camping this or that system on your roams. A player that might have fought you does not because of the unquantifiable risk an additional neut or red in that system gives. Its also not dangerous versus the right activity as it does not impact on PI or Moon Goo collection where the actual isk is. I agree with this fully. AFK cloaking isn't an issue in the sense of ISK generation. It impacts it marginally, all it does is aggravate some individuals in those few camped systems. The issue is just the mechanic itself. I think Mike put it right in post #5213. Its a loophole in the game mechanics adding a cyno on a cloaked ship, it has to be a massive oversight. Sadly one that isn't looked into properly along with a few other moduals that can be instantly activated after a cloak is dropped. 5 seconds after dropping a cov-ops cloak isn't even a delay including ping / server tick delays. Its mechanics like this that just doesn't look balanced and is what probably brings so many people to this thread. Sadly this threads turned into some s**t throwing contest. Some individuals think its funny attacking anyone who suggest a nerf to cloaks, somehow gotten this idea that its a carebare act. So many things are done to dumb this game down but this ones damn not one of them. If null sec is flawed then that is a different topic and have little to do with one single modual that impacts null sec marginally. No one is attacking you. We are suggesting you bring something more to the table than "I hate cloaks". See my earlier post for considerations you have to account for. I'm not clear on why you are not complaining about the combat recons too - they can happily murder you and you never see them coming either. This is the ideas forum, please explain your idea beyond "nerf it" in order that we can assess it on its merits.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4321	Posted - 2016.01.12 08:11:12 - [5533] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Xcom wrote: Jerghul wrote: Afk cloaky camping is dangerous in the wrong way. Its implicitly dangerous. A nuisance thing that only encourages newer players to limit the time they play EvE to peak periods for organized pvp events. You have probably lost out on 100ds of fights due to a third party afk cloaky camping this or that system on your roams. A player that might have fought you does not because of the unquantifiable risk an additional neut or red in that system gives. Its also not dangerous versus the right activity as it does not impact on PI or Moon Goo collection where the actual isk is. I agree with this fully. AFK cloaking isn't an issue in the sense of ISK generation. It impacts it marginally, all it does is aggravate some individuals in those few camped systems. The issue is just the mechanic itself. I think Mike put it right in post #5213. Its a loophole in the game mechanics adding a cyno on a cloaked ship, it has to be a massive oversight. Sadly one that isn't looked into properly along with a few other moduals that can be instantly activated after a cloak is dropped. 5 seconds after dropping a cov-ops cloak isn't even a delay including ping / server tick delays. Its mechanics like this that just doesn't look balanced and is what probably brings so many people to this thread. Sadly this threads turned into some s**t throwing contest. Some individuals think its funny attacking anyone who suggest a nerf to cloaks, somehow gotten this idea that its a carebare act. So many things are done to dumb this game down but this ones damn not one of them. If null sec is flawed then that is a different topic and have little to do with one single modual that impacts null sec marginally. No one is attacking you. We are suggesting you bring something more to the table than "I hate cloaks". See my earlier post for considerations you have to account for. I'm not clear on why you are not complaining about the combat recons too - they can happily murder you and you never see them coming either. This is the ideas forum, please explain your idea beyond "nerf it" in order that we can assess it on its merits. Not to mention the massive oversight that has been around for 10 years. Maybe it is actually working as intended? Personally, I think Xcom needs to catch up on various changes. As you mention the combat recons that do not show on d-scan. The nerfs to jump drive range and fatigue which also nerf cynos. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.12 08:56:35 - [5534] - Quote Teckos I would personally chose to jump freighter things to market. But you can fly them in any straw man that rocks your boat. Brokk You are still not impacting at all on PI or moon goo, even with two a month. Optimizing players are immune to interdiction. ============= New suggestion: Afk cloaky drones that duplicate effects and potential of afk cloaky camper, but without hardware or multiple account requirements. Two types: Combat cloaky camping drone with scram and gun. Cyno cloaky camping drone with scram and cyno. Max 5 deployed per pilot. Drones afk cloaky camp unless actively controlled by pilot (who can toggle between pilot and cloaky drones to hot seat 1 at a time per account). I cant wait to hear why this breaks cloaks. " 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 1017	Posted - 2016.01.12 09:06:02 - [5535] - Quote It wouldn't. I couldn't care less, fill your boots. Why do you think the people who don't care about cloaky camping would care? Do you actually think such a thing would bother anyone who doesn't care about a neutral today? Why do you think it would resolve complaints about cloaky camping? It would make them significantly worse imo.
Xcom Quantum Vortex Battalion 38	Posted - 2016.01.12 09:23:20 - [5536] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: See, this is where we disagree. Fitting a cloak gives you the right to pick your engagements (under current mechanics that is). This makes it perfectly okay to be AFK -- sometimes merely to relay intel on a POS / POCO timer. If the hostiles want to play the blueball game, well: so can you! With the above quote, you think it's up to you to decide how a stealth operative should fly his ship. !?? That's not how EvE works! The mechanics are provided, how you use them is entirely up to you. Him being AFK pisses you off, and that is a very weak argument. It's not like he's breaking your game or anything. The thing is that cloaked ships do break the game when they engage. Every single game I can think of have a counter to the cloaky. Except for eve that is. Its the fact that they can choose to engage when you are at your most vulnerable with accurate intel and come out unscathed as thats the power they have. I don't think cloaked ships are to overpowered with there individual firepower. Its that you can bring more then one ship to the fight, choose when to drop that curtain at there leisure and at the point of engagement know they will win. That is the power cloaks hold. The only thing that breaks this whole dilemma is local except for in WH space. But then WH space doesn't have belts that people farm, no cyno, no alliance wars, no stations other then POS (which you can't engage your target at). All contributing factors where the cloaking part of WH space is less of a problem as anyone who engages you either have chosen to engage prepared or you have somehow managed to jump your target in a sight with bunch of sleepers that will one shot you if they switch targets on you. It makes it less of a pita to know you died when you were trying to pvp and not trying to fund your pvp. But then you would be even more pissed if you knew that your target was sitting 20km off your ship for the last 30 min watching you and didn't engage cause he knew at the time he wouldn't win the fight, its just something people never figure out and never rage on about. A game mechanic shouldn't allow for lopsided engagements in this manner. It should be that both sides should hold the power to engage depending on what they bring to the fight. Rock, paper, scissors with cloaking being paper except we don't have any scissors in eve.
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 1018	Posted - 2016.01.12 09:36:53 - [5537] - Quote Xcom wrote: Brokk Witgenstein wrote: See, this is where we disagree. Fitting a cloak gives you the right to pick your engagements (under current mechanics that is). This makes it perfectly okay to be AFK -- sometimes merely to relay intel on a POS / POCO timer. If the hostiles want to play the blueball game, well: so can you! With the above quote, you think it's up to you to decide how a stealth operative should fly his ship. !?? That's not how EvE works! The mechanics are provided, how you use them is entirely up to you. Him being AFK pisses you off, and that is a very weak argument. It's not like he's breaking your game or anything. The thing is that cloaked ships do break the game when they engage. Every single game I can think of have a counter to the cloaky. Except for eve that is. Its the fact that they can choose to engage when you are at your most vulnerable with accurate intel and come out unscathed as thats the power they have. Yeah it's not like BLOPS ever die.... Nope. Literally never. Besides that, this is not the thread for complaints about blops/cyno activity. Xcom wrote: A game mechanic shouldn't allow for lopsided engagements in this manner. It should be that both sides should hold the power to engage depending on what they bring to the fight. Rock, paper, scissors with cloaking being paper except we don't have any scissors in eve. I suggest you look into baiting. You can fit a cyno too, you know.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.12 09:41:40 - [5538] - Quote Morrigan Great. Then we have a suggestion that fixes afk cloaky camping that finally is acceptable to your palate. I eagerly await the wormhole stabilizers that keep wormholes open for the 3 days dictated by citadel destruction time. I somehow feel wormhole dwellers will not fare well against null-sec players on the rampage (its on topic as afk cloaky camping is feasibly effective in wormhole space once the wormholes can be stabilized for several days). Xcom Wormhole space is getting the biggest bell of them all: Lootable citadels. But you are off-target on what makes wormhole space a special kind of snowflake. I listed them earlier in null-sec form. It was carebear heaven (the mechanisms that compensate for no local are extremely potent). " 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 1018	Posted - 2016.01.12 09:45:51 - [5539] - Quote Prey tell how does it fix it? Wormhole lifespan and citadels are firm off topic. Please keep to the forum rules.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.12 09:52:27 - [5540] - Quote Morrigan Nah, they are on topic for reasons given. Powerful mechanisms in wh space weaken implicit threat, weaken those mechanisms and implicit threat suddenly becomes quite tangible. Its incidentally an anti-elitist position. Wormhole dwellers are not special snowflakes (they are pretty much the same as anyone in Eve), but the mechanisms that protect them from implicit threat are special indeed. It is relevant because it demonstrably shows what can weaken or strengthen implicit threats. The "very good reasons" Fozie was talking about. " 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 1018	Posted - 2016.01.12 09:59:59 - [5541] - Quote Messing with wormhole lifespan and citadels are completely off topic. Please desist, it is a complete derail. If you want to talk about an equivalent area of space which has no problems, then let us talk about lowsec. As I recall, no-one who hates cloaking is able to tell me why those guys don't have an issue. Because they don't. Certainly there have been weak attempts which have been wholly inaccurate to explain it. Furthermore I am still unclear on how you think increasing the availability of cloaked neutrals in system is going to appease those who complain about them in the first place. I mean, it'd need to cost about the same as a covops hull, which is fine and it'd need to get there still, but really? You think flooding more neutrals into local is going to alleviate the issue? Sure, go for it. Those who don't have issue will continue to have no issue.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.12 10:10:41 - [5542] - Quote Morrigan I disagree. It is however against rules to attempt to adjudicate forum rules. That is an exclusive moderator domain. Report posts you have issues with. Your understanding of what is or is not in keeping with forum rules is of supreme disinterest. Feel free to do your own study on why mining and ratting is low sec is so incredibly popular. Did you ever get the feeling I am about appeasement? I apologize profusely for conveying that impression and promise to be more abrasively honest in the future. " 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 1021	Posted - 2016.01.12 10:26:49 - [5543] - Quote Jerghul. Your position is changing with alarming regularly. Simply from memory we have had: Wanting to make cloaks have an enforced decloak periods Reducing "implicit threat" Making it unable to be safe when cloaked Allowing gate closures Flat out removing it completely Preventing global warming Now we're onto increasing the ease and availability of afk cloaking capabilities. Honestly, it seems impossible to have much reasoned debate as you change position so often and flat out evade direct challenges to your assertions. Lowsec doesn't have this problem. Lowsec has cynos, lowsec has carriers killing rats, lowsec has untouchable neutrals in local. So what's the fundamental difference? I venture that it is simply attitude.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.12 10:36:47 - [5544] - Quote Morrigan My position has remained constant. Any issue does of course have many solutions. For as long as you understand the issue and are looking for solutions. This issue is implicit threat projection as an established multiple account entitlement. Its impossible for you to have a reasoned debate on the issue because you are focused on bigotry. " 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. 15711	Posted - 2016.01.12 11:35:00 - [5545] - Quote There is no issue. The patchwork semblance of one, however, is caused by rabid risk aversion and the unreasonable desire to be safe while engaged in PvE in nullsec space. And the root of those things is the instant, free, untouchable intel provided by local chat. "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.
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 175	Posted - 2016.01.12 12:12:05 - [5546] - Quote Jerghul wrote: Brokk You are still not impacting at all on PI or moon goo, even with two a month. Optimizing players are immune to interdiction. To impact hostile moongoo, you'd have to shoot the tower. I don't even care about the cargo, I just want the killmail LOL It gave me great satisfaction to pop a bubble, align to the presumed gate of origin said blockade runner came from, decloak & pop him. The bounties and ensuing hatemail were priceless! Yet, making other players bankrupt is not why I shoot them in the first place. It's just another one of these "OMG Cloaks OP Must Nerf" statements that are just ... oh, you make it sound all so dramatic you know? The way I see it, you can zip through like 70% of the time. You're happy. I can shoot you 30% of the time, because we haz decloakers and proficient bubblers (not tooting my own horn, but ... my mean bubble machine caught plenty). So I am happy too. it's an additional challenge that has to be overcome, but it can definitely be done. I don't mind if you hotdrop me either - that too is part of the fun. Stuff is supposed to happen in space. I do not want to know 100% certain I can win the fight, catch you, or get away with my ship intact in any given situation. I want excitement when flying my whiiiieeeee spaceships! Win some, lose some, blow them up or get rekt -- IRRELEVANT as long as you have fun doing so. If smuggling moongoo gives you thrills : Good for You! Please carry on. The moment your tower offends us, we shall let you know by blasting it into oblivion. What I gather from the back-and-forth in this thread however, mostly boils down to people playing EvE like it's a job. Must make ISK/hr. Must haul moongoo. Must not get caught, therefore must not undock. ... is it so hard to accept there are situations where no direct counter exists? Situation where unexpected events transpire and you have to deal with it, best you can? People have the right to (attempt to) haul / mine / rat -- same as I have the right to camp or roam or cloak wherever I please. Cynodrop is OP too, some say ... until you take down some 1,5 bil Panthers. Woopsi - dun goofed. Much lulz to be had :-) One cannot mount a surprise stealth attack if you can see it coming with certainty. Blockade runners use their cloak usually for defensive purposes, that's fine too. After all, when either of them (both offensively or defensively) tries to actually accomplish something, they are at risk. When not doing anything, and sitting perfectly still in a safe .......... well, what of it? So far I haven't heard any good reason why this use of a cloak should have to die. And I've heard many arguments, even going so far as to claim it goes against the spirit of EvE, there is no cost involved, "but they're not even at the keyboard?!?!!" YEAH, SO? I still fail to see what gives you the right to decide I SHOULD be at the keyboard when I want to perform no action whatsoever. Still, the arguments keep coming: this time it's about "you can't catch them while I make money". SO? I can't evict a margin trader from Jita either; but be that as it may: YES you can catch them. You can, we do it all the time -- the only requirement to catch a cloaker is that HE makes a moves. You cannot force it upon him. Taking ANY action on his part, however, is what puts him at risk. Arg. I'm rambling again. Let's conclude that Yes, I can and have caught many blockade runners and besides, it is what makes them blockade runners in the first place. It's in their name. The tradeoff is reduced cargohold. They don't come cheap either. In return, they offer a good chance to run a blockade and deliver your precious cargo: working as intended. Not sure why you're trying to do PI or moonreactions with them though -- may I suggest using a jumpfreighter?
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 175	Posted - 2016.01.12 12:20:35 - [5547] - Quote Xcom wrote: I don't think cloaked ships are to overpowered with there individual firepower. Its that you can bring more then one ship to the fight, choose when to drop that curtain at there leisure and at the point of engagement know they will win. That is the power cloaks hold. I agree with you on that one. I'm not opposed to a cyno lighting delay on decloak. Be warned though, that most recons and strategic cruisers will still be able to deal with it... but at least you'd have a fighting chance. Marauders in bastion would obsiously still be royally screwed, as would Skiffs and the like. But yeah, sure. The speed with which a cyno can be deployed is open to debate as far as I'm concerned.
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 175	Posted - 2016.01.12 12:34:25 - [5548] - Quote Jerghul wrote: I eagerly await the wormhole stabilizers that keep wormholes open for the 3 days dictated by citadel destruction time. I somehow feel wormhole dwellers will not fare well against null-sec players on the rampage (its on topic as afk cloaky camping is feasibly effective in wormhole space once the wormholes can be stabilized for several days). You're supposed to park a (cloakylol) scanner alt in the WH you wish to evict. What difference would it make if the hole stays for 1 day or three -- it's mostly the mass restriction that messes you up. And of course your RF fleet can simply log off inside the hole. That said, it's completely off topic no matter how you wrap it. You simply can't cloaky camp wormholes unless you shout "I'm still watching you" in local every ten minutes. Rest assured WH space has plenty of cloakers but they're hesitant to make a move because they, too, are not certain that if/when they engage, another third party won't decloak on them. There's always bigger fish out there: see procurer on DScan. Decloak to intercept. Watch an Astero and five seconds later 14 Legions come out of the woodwork. -ooops- Stabilizing a hole does nothing. Still can't cyno in - must use regular means of entry. Seriously ..... I liked your arguments better when you at least tried to talk about AFK camping. I'm trying to follow what you're saying but you're a bit all over the place aren't you? Right about now I wouldn't mind seeing one of your trademark "this is my current stance" posts. I've lost track of what you're trying to argue. What I've gathered so far, is that you don't like AFK gameplay. Your position on cloaks is a little unclear -- you like them and you use them yourself yet you want to change them. What change exactly did you propose?
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.12 12:35:52 - [5549] - Quote Brokk Yah, I trust you see how disproportionately different income sources are protected. Moon goo and PI are untouchable in practical terms, and yet people whine on about casual ratting and mining as if those players are risk adverse. Optimizing players multi box to avoid gate camps btw. Which is also entrenched multiple account entitlement fluff. Afk cloaky camping drones is one way to address established privilege. Or in effect allow people to multi box using a single computer, single screen, and single account (by toggling between the active pilot ship and various drones out there that are controlled as if they were ships). Its fine that you like to use your peak time on small roams and gate camps to catch PvE players. But that is not what null-sec Sov is about. But there are lots of ways to fix the implicit threat issue. The monthly stipend Concord is going to start paying pilots is one way of doing it. It diminishes the need to rat and mine. " 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. 175	Posted - 2016.01.12 12:40:09 - [5550] - Quote I always thought the moongoo from towers goes to the corp/alliance. For upkeep, fees, SRP and such. Haven't heard many cases where the moongoo goes to members; whereas the income from PI or ratting does end up in their personal wallets. Could be mistaken though....



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.