| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15543
   |
Posted - 2015.04.01 16:09:46 -
[271] - Quote
Ito Eto wrote:baltec1 wrote:Nina Lowel wrote:Why should you be able to go inactive in a hostile system without them being able to find you over time? Why should you be able to dock in a station and heve the exact same effect? Why should people have a 100% accurate, instant, free, no effort, unavoidable intel tool? Pretty sure you can see them in the station guest list then, and have some idea of where they will be when they undock into your bubble camp.
Which can only be done in null space and begs the question:
I you would dedicate people to defending a system from someone docked why are you unwilling to do the exact same thing with an AFK cloaker?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Nina Lowel
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
16
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 16:09:51 -
[272] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
No, I am pointing out the stupidity in your argument. I can do the exact same thing as afk cloaking using stations.
They are not the same in the slightest. You know exactly where they are if they are in a station. You know the exact second they undock.
The only stupidity in the argument is what you are exhibiting by comparing the two. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5271
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 16:14:01 -
[273] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:AFK cloaking is currently the only way to get around being detected instantly in local and that only works if people chose to not organise a defence. It doesn't get around it. People are still instantly detected even when there's an AFK cloaker in system. And if people organise a defense it's actually more effective, since you've now got a whole group of players not doing what they would normally be doing because you're in bed but logged on.
baltec1 wrote:No, I am pointing out the stupidity in your argument. I can do the exact same thing as afk cloaking using stations. I will also point out that you ignored my second question. Actually it's not the same thing, since as has been stated multiple times including a few posts above, a docked player can be observed, his location is known and can be guarded. Once he's in that station he committed himself to that. If the station is camped he's out of luck. An AFK cloaker doesn't have that worry.
baltec1 wrote:As to why we should be able to afk cloak. Its the only counter we have to local for our ships. It doesn't counter local. It's a guerrilla warfare tactic to attack PvE efficiency. Local remains just as it ever has whether there's an AFK cloaker or not.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Eve Solecist
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
92
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 16:17:34 -
[274] - Quote
PvE efficiency.
Carebears who want to play in nullsec, because it means more money ...
... but want it to be as safe as highsec, because they are cowards.
Because the only thing that matters to them is their greed ...
... and the safety and isolation that allows them to fill their egos.
PvE efficiency.
"Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5271
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 16:17:48 -
[275] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Which can only be done in null space and begs the question:
I you would dedicate people to defending a system from someone docked why are you unwilling to do the exact same thing with an AFK cloaker? A docked player has only one point of exit and has to go through it to do anything and can be guarded by one person if they have the ship and skill to fight the docked player. An AFK cloaker can appear right next to any target they choose or can simply choose to leave. Short of a massive gatecamp and an enormous amount of luck, you're not going to stop him.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15543
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 16:18:33 -
[276] - Quote
Nina Lowel wrote:baltec1 wrote:
No, I am pointing out the stupidity in your argument. I can do the exact same thing as afk cloaking using stations.
They are not the same in the slightest. You know exactly where they are if they are in a station. You know the exact second they undock. The only stupidity in the argument is what you are exhibiting by comparing the two.
So you dedicate someone to watching me 24/7? Not going to happen.
You might know where I am but you are not going know when I am active or what ship is going to pop out, Im just a name in local and station.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Nina Lowel
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
16
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 16:19:55 -
[277] - Quote
Eve Solecist wrote:PvE efficiency.
Carebears who want to play in nullsec, because it means more money ...
... but want it to be as safe as highsec, because they are cowards.
Because the only thing that matters to them is their greed ...
... and the safety and isolation that allows them to fill their egos.
PvE efficiency.
So only people who want to pick on those PvE's are allowed to have fun? Why don't you engage those fit to PvP? Right, you want to bad your board too :)
I rat so I can buy PvP things. I don't rat just to see my wallet expend. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15543
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 16:21:20 -
[278] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:Which can only be done in null space and begs the question:
I you would dedicate people to defending a system from someone docked why are you unwilling to do the exact same thing with an AFK cloaker? A docked player has only one point of exit and has to go through it to do anything and can be guarded by one person if they have the ship and skill to fight the docked player. An AFK cloaker can appear right next to any target they choose or can simply choose to leave. Short of a massive gatecamp and an enormous amount of luck, you're not going to stop him.
You will with an organised defence. We do it day in day out.
No, what you want is the ability to ensure a perfect safety net via local intel.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5271
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 16:22:08 -
[279] - Quote
Eve Solecist wrote:PvE efficiency.
Carebears who want to play in nullsec, because it means more money ...
... but want it to be as safe as highsec, because they are cowards.
PvE efficiency. That's not it at all. Null players have no problem with risk, what there's a problem with here is players who can retain 100% pure safety while away from their computer. If anyone's carebearing here it's the AFK cloakers telling everyone how entitled they are to their zero effort, 100% safe mechanic. If someone wants to actively stay in system threatening PvE players, that's no problem.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15543
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 16:25:24 -
[280] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Eve Solecist wrote:PvE efficiency.
Carebears who want to play in nullsec, because it means more money ...
... but want it to be as safe as highsec, because they are cowards.
PvE efficiency. That's not it at all. Null players have no problem with risk, what there's a problem with here is players who can retain 100% pure safety while away from their computer. If anyone's carebearing here it's the AFK cloakers telling everyone how entitled they are to their zero effort, 100% safe mechanic. If someone wants to actively stay in system threatening PvE players, that's no problem.
Yet here you are pushing for a 100% foolproof intel system that would mean pve players could avoid any attempt at pvp on them.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5273
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 16:26:08 -
[281] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:You will with an organised defence. We do it day in day out. You'll only kill a cloaker if he chooses to attack. A guy in station would have to leave his ship and clone behind to get out without getting killed.
baltec1 wrote:No, what you want is the ability to ensure a perfect safety net via local intel. Wrong, perfect safety doesn't exist even with local in a system with no AFK cloakers. What I want is for people to actually have to play the ******* game if they want to have any effect on a system. I have no problem with active players running around threatening everyone, but the ability to dump alts into systems and chuck up some permanent 100% safety while completely AFK is just a terrible mechanic.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Nina Lowel
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
16
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 16:26:25 -
[282] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:Which can only be done in null space and begs the question:
I you would dedicate people to defending a system from someone docked why are you unwilling to do the exact same thing with an AFK cloaker? A docked player has only one point of exit and has to go through it to do anything and can be guarded by one person if they have the ship and skill to fight the docked player. An AFK cloaker can appear right next to any target they choose or can simply choose to leave. Short of a massive gatecamp and an enormous amount of luck, you're not going to stop him. You will with an organised defence. We do it day in day out. No, what you want is the ability to ensure a perfect safety net via local intel.
Look at you still trying to compare AFK cloaking to being docked in a station. It's so cute!
|
Eve Solecist
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
94
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 16:26:51 -
[283] - Quote
Nina Lowel wrote:Eve Solecist wrote:PvE efficiency.
Carebears who want to play in nullsec, because it means more money ...
... but want it to be as safe as highsec, because they are cowards.
Because the only thing that matters to them is their greed ...
... and the safety and isolation that allows them to fill their egos.
PvE efficiency. So only people who want to pick on those PvE's are allowed to have fun? Why don't you engage those fit to PvP? Right, you want to bad your board too :)
I don't participate in this.
Your whole reply is built on the wrong idea that anyone is allowed to have fun,
or allowed to do what he wants. It's not. If others don't let you, that's your problem.
If people who PvE can't even follow the most basic rules and laws of the game,
then they certainly aren't allowed to have fun.
If you try to converse with the false belief that you deserve anything,
then it makes sense that you assume you have ground to complain.
Ignoring actual reality is much easier than accepting the facts,
getting over yourself and stopping whining...
I like threads like these. They give insight into how degenerated and
disconnected people have become.
So... thanks and go on.
The fact that CCP does not like you "people" to play in absolute safety,
as if nullsec was highsec ... is a good thing.
"Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5273
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 16:28:01 -
[284] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Yet here you are pushing for a 100% foolproof intel system that would mean pve players could avoid any attempt at pvp on them. People already can avoid any attempt at PvP on them, often unsuccessfully. Even if AFK cloakers didn't exist, that would be no different. Again, what I'm pushing for is actively playing players, that's all. It's not a new concept.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15543
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 16:29:03 -
[285] - Quote
Nina Lowel wrote:baltec1 wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:Which can only be done in null space and begs the question:
I you would dedicate people to defending a system from someone docked why are you unwilling to do the exact same thing with an AFK cloaker? A docked player has only one point of exit and has to go through it to do anything and can be guarded by one person if they have the ship and skill to fight the docked player. An AFK cloaker can appear right next to any target they choose or can simply choose to leave. Short of a massive gatecamp and an enormous amount of luck, you're not going to stop him. You will with an organised defence. We do it day in day out. No, what you want is the ability to ensure a perfect safety net via local intel. Look at you still trying to compare AFK cloaking to being docked in a station. It's so cute!
We shut down entire systems in the ice interdictions simply by having one flashy red docked in the station. Same result.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15543
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 16:30:34 -
[286] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:Yet here you are pushing for a 100% foolproof intel system that would mean pve players could avoid any attempt at pvp on them. People already can avoid any attempt at PvP on them, often unsuccessfully. Even if AFK cloakers didn't exist, that would be no different. Again, what I'm pushing for is actively playing players, that's all. It's not a new concept.
You get the result you want by removing local.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
12381
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 16:30:52 -
[287] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:Yet here you are pushing for a 100% foolproof intel system that would mean pve players could avoid any attempt at pvp on them. People already can avoid any attempt at PvP on them, often unsuccessfully. Even if AFK cloakers didn't exist, that would be no different. Again, what I'm pushing for is actively playing players, that's all. It's not a new concept.
You're pushing for actively playing players... by advocating for something that removes the one barrier to completely free afk ratting in nullsec.
Lol. You're advocating for naked, selfish self interest, exactly like in the ISBotter thread, be honest for once.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Nina Lowel
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
16
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 16:34:50 -
[288] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:Yet here you are pushing for a 100% foolproof intel system that would mean pve players could avoid any attempt at pvp on them. People already can avoid any attempt at PvP on them, often unsuccessfully. Even if AFK cloakers didn't exist, that would be no different. Again, what I'm pushing for is actively playing players, that's all. It's not a new concept. You get the result you want by removing local.
So you want WH space? Then go to WH space. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10526
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 16:34:53 -
[289] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:Yet here you are pushing for a 100% foolproof intel system that would mean pve players could avoid any attempt at pvp on them. People already can avoid any attempt at PvP on them, often unsuccessfully. Even if AFK cloakers didn't exist, that would be no different. Again, what I'm pushing for is actively playing players, that's all. It's not a new concept.
That may be what you want, but many behind the "death to afk cloaking" campaign don't really want that. If you take away "afk cloaking" they will find a way to morph the argument to "I pay for/foguht for this system and should be able to rat in it without some cloaky guy dropping on me, Death to Cynos!!".
If CCPs observation arrays have a decloaking feature like people are talking about, I'd bet you a large sum of Chribba secured isk (I'm talking 10s of millions of isk, perhaps enough to buy a whole Battlecruiser!) that this will happen. After CCP finalizes and announces their new structure scheme, if they do that anti afk cloaking thing I will be come back here to offer you that bet. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5273
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 16:39:41 -
[290] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:Yet here you are pushing for a 100% foolproof intel system that would mean pve players could avoid any attempt at pvp on them. People already can avoid any attempt at PvP on them, often unsuccessfully. Even if AFK cloakers didn't exist, that would be no different. Again, what I'm pushing for is actively playing players, that's all. It's not a new concept. You get the result you want by removing local. Indeed, I've agreed many times. Unfortunately the removal of local also has other effects, like emptying out null of PvE, since all other PvE would be lower risk, some for better rewards (such as wormholes).
In the same way though, removing of cloaking altogether also fixes the AFK cloaking issue, does it not?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5273
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 16:44:19 -
[291] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:You're pushing for actively playing players... by advocating for something that removes the one barrier to completely free afk ratting in nullsec. Lol? "completely free afk ratting in nullsec" isn't really possible if you've got people actively flying about blowing you up. I'm guessing this was written in a hurry since it literally makes zero sense.
Jenn aSide wrote:That may be what you want, but many behind the "death to afk cloaking" campaign don't really want that. If you take away "afk cloaking" they will find a way to morph the argument to "I pay for/foguht for this system and should be able to rat in it without some cloaky guy dropping on me, Death to Cynos!!".
If CCPs observation arrays have a decloaking feature like people are talking about, I'd bet you a large sum of Chribba secured isk (I'm talking 10s of millions of isk, perhaps enough to buy a whole Battlecruiser!) that this will happen. After CCP finalizes and announces their new structure scheme, if they do that anti afk cloaking thing I will be come back here to offer you that bet. That would be called a slippery slide. I'm sure just like in everything people will always whine for more and more changes, but that doesn't mean no changes should ever be made just because someone might whine about something else later. AFK cloaking is a completely safe completely AFK activity, and that's bad in my books and should go. If later someone then whines that cynos can go you can expect a swift "HTFU" from me.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15543
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 16:50:17 -
[292] - Quote
Nina Lowel wrote:baltec1 wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:Yet here you are pushing for a 100% foolproof intel system that would mean pve players could avoid any attempt at pvp on them. People already can avoid any attempt at PvP on them, often unsuccessfully. Even if AFK cloakers didn't exist, that would be no different. Again, what I'm pushing for is actively playing players, that's all. It's not a new concept. You get the result you want by removing local. So you want WH space? Then go to WH space.
If you want risk free pve go to highsec
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5273
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 16:51:57 -
[293] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:If you want risk free pve go to highsec We're not asking for risk free PvE, we're asking for risk to be added to AFK meta PvP. I guarantee that if AFK cloaking stopped existing tomorrow, thousands of players would continue to die every day in null.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15543
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 16:53:10 -
[294] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:Yet here you are pushing for a 100% foolproof intel system that would mean pve players could avoid any attempt at pvp on them. People already can avoid any attempt at PvP on them, often unsuccessfully. Even if AFK cloakers didn't exist, that would be no different. Again, what I'm pushing for is actively playing players, that's all. It's not a new concept. You get the result you want by removing local. Indeed, I've agreed many times. Unfortunately the removal of local also has other effects, like emptying out null of PvE, since all other PvE would be lower risk, some for better rewards (such as wormholes). In the same way though, removing of cloaking altogether also fixes the AFK cloaking issue, does it not?
That results in an uncounterable safety net that would be unbalanced. If you want afk cloaking gone then local intel needs to go too.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15543
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 16:55:03 -
[295] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:If you want risk free pve go to highsec We're not asking for risk free PvE.
Thats exactly what you get when you remove afk cloaking.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
12382
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 16:57:23 -
[296] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:[We're not asking for risk free PvE
Yeah, that's exactly what you're asking for, the rest is a smokescreen.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
8205
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 17:03:48 -
[297] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:[We're not asking for risk free PvE
Yeah, that's exactly what you're asking for, the rest is a smokescreen.
I fail to see why you're so agitated over this.
It's not like it will affect your risk free PVP in any way.
Mr Epeen 
There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5277
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 17:08:41 -
[298] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:Yet here you are pushing for a 100% foolproof intel system that would mean pve players could avoid any attempt at pvp on them. People already can avoid any attempt at PvP on them, often unsuccessfully. Even if AFK cloakers didn't exist, that would be no different. Again, what I'm pushing for is actively playing players, that's all. It's not a new concept. You get the result you want by removing local. Indeed, I've agreed many times. Unfortunately the removal of local also has other effects, like emptying out null of PvE, since all other PvE would be lower risk, some for better rewards (such as wormholes). In the same way though, removing of cloaking altogether also fixes the AFK cloaking issue, does it not? That results in an uncounterable safety net that would be unbalanced. If you want afk cloaking gone then local intel needs to go too. No it doesn't lol. Removing AFK cloaking or even cloaking as a whole doesn't result in total safety. And no, they certainly don't need to go together. There's been numerous ideas to tackle AFK cloaking without affecting active cloakers or local, and those are the ideas I support.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5277
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 17:10:35 -
[299] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:If you want risk free pve go to highsec We're not asking for risk free PvE. Thats exactly what you get when you remove afk cloaking.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:[We're not asking for risk free PvE Yeah, that's exactly what you're asking for, the rest is a smokescreen. lol, bad trolls are bad. So you are saying AFK cloakers are the only risk to PvE players? Interesting.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6525
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 17:11:21 -
[300] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Nina Lowel wrote:baltec1 wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:baltec1 wrote:Yet here you are pushing for a 100% foolproof intel system that would mean pve players could avoid any attempt at pvp on them. People already can avoid any attempt at PvP on them, often unsuccessfully. Even if AFK cloakers didn't exist, that would be no different. Again, what I'm pushing for is actively playing players, that's all. It's not a new concept. You get the result you want by removing local. So you want WH space? Then go to WH space. If you want risk free pve go to highsec
Most of the PVPers in highsec are there for the lack of risk too. I've seen some very expensive goon loss mails in nullsec and lo and behold the player pops up in the Niarja-Uedama pipe looking for an easy target next day.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |