| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Matrix Skye
   |
Posted - 2008.06.08 19:08:00 -
[1]
As you are aware it seems that with the next patch comes a fix to the BACON program which gives an audio warning when hostiles enter a system. The reasoning behind the fix is that such a program allows players to play semi-AFK and thus reduces the risk of playing.
ThatÆs all fine and dandy. But now why are AFK cloakers allowed to terrorize systems without any repercussions all while AFK? In essence, I can cloak in a 0.0 system and terrorize such system without any other form of interaction required from my part and any risk whatsoever all while such system is STILL required to interact with what may possibly be an AFK player. IsnÆt this the very reason why you hate applications such as BACON, because they encourage AFK play?
I want to be clear that I donÆt use BACON nor am I interested in using such an application. But I do find it interesting that one form is allowed while the other is quickly put down. Is it a coincidence the one that benefits aggressors (mostly the pirate types) is allowed to exist while the one that works against them isnÆt? You acted against BACON quickly yet up to date you have taken no actions against what is probably the most abusive form of AFK play in the game.
Why does it seem you seek to always æbalanceÆ the ærisk versus rewardÆ elements affecting mostly targets but leave intact the shady mechanics that benefit the aggressors? As another example is the gang mechanics. Now it seems you will finally be fixing this with the upcoming patch. But why did it take so long all the while being abused in high sec? IÆm just trying to understand why this whole ærisk vs. rewardÆ mantra only applies to players that choose not to be aggressors.
Flame away!
|
Matrix Skye
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 11:15:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Fanjita
Originally by: Matrix Skye
But now why are AFK cloakers allowed to terrorize systems
how do these people 'terrorize' a system if theyre AFK as far as i understand the term afk it means away from keyboard if said players are afk they cant terrorize much apart from there pet cat. If you are in a system with an afk cloaker what are you worried about there afk, though how you know whether they are afk begs another question are you a hacker who has hacked the afk persons pc to know if they are afk or not?
Now I know you KNOW how they terrorize a system. But I'll entertain your silly question anyway.
How do I know if they're AFK you ask? Well I DON'T! But when you have a hostile cloaked for 23 hours a day for days in a single system you and I both know what they're doing. They're interacting with the system all while remaing 100% comfortable and safe. Where's the balance in that? Why is the system forced to play and interact based on what this single player (who could possibly not even be at the keyboard) does or doesn't do?
If you're cloaked and in 0.0 space you're 100% safe. 100% SAFE IN SPACE IN EVE! Where's your "no where in Eve is safe" mantra there? AFK cloaking is broken and it's about time CCP fixes it.
|
Matrix Skye
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 11:38:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Matrix Skye on 09/06/2008 11:40:56
Originally by: Freya Runestone
it might be safe. but so what? its pretty much the same to the only other safe place. a station. You can't do much sitting at a safe while cloaked.
Yes you can. You force the players around you to interact and take precautions while you need to take none other than cloak and go watch TV. So some players have to look out for you and guess what you may or may not be doing while you sit safe at a SS cloaked. Where the **** is YOUR risk? Oh I guess that doesn't apply to you  .
|
Matrix Skye
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 11:50:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Esmenet
Well the risk comes if he actually attempts to do something other than just sit there.
Yet the longer he sits there cloaked he wears down his enemies' resolve, accomplishing exactly what he wants without risk. He controls 100% when and where while being 100% safe. And his risk comes if he decides to attack the mining ship in the belt. Nice  . You lot are a bunch of hipocritical rats.
|
Matrix Skye
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 12:02:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Ilvan
Space is not 100% secure, news at 11.
...Unless you're cloaked at a safe spot.
I love pirate mantra . Because obviously not being 100% safe doesn't apply to you.
|
Matrix Skye
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 12:13:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Ilvan
Being AFK cloaked in a safe spot is like being docked in a station: untouchable but at the same time unable to do anything.
Then what the **** is the point of having docking access denied in 0.0? Might as well be allowed to dock in hostile stations. You just don't get to shop or access the hangar. It's the same crap. If you're in hostile space you should be at risk. But you're not as long as you're cloaked in SS and you can even go AFK indefinitely in HOSTILE SPACE. Your excuses are amusing.
|
Matrix Skye
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 12:28:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Matrix Skye on 09/06/2008 12:28:50
Originally by: Gypsio III
If you're incapable of protecting a mining op from a single cloaker, you don't deserve to be in 0.0. 0.0 is supposed to be dangerous... as a cloaker that tries to attack a competently-defended mining/ratting op will find out.
Did you type this with a straight face?
|
Matrix Skye
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 13:23:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Ilvan
But he's not safe if he actually tries to do something. And if he's doing something, he's not "AFK cloaking", is he? He's waiting.
PS. "hypocrite"
But a cloaked AFK ship in 0.0 IS doing something . He's got everyone in the system on red alert while he's at school or sleeping. But then again you know this. And yet you still defend your risk-free AFK cloak. All the while still preaching "nowhere's safe blah blah blah".
|
Matrix Skye
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 13:35:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Matrix Skye on 09/06/2008 13:35:03
Originally by: Freya Runestone
He can attack something once. and his ship type+setup will be known. which makes it 3 times as hard to attack something a second time.
but if you want to spend 10 hours to build up to attack something. You could use that more wisely imho
How the **** is knowing his ship type and setup going to matter if he's just going to go cloak again for another 20 hours AFK? And all the while he naps or watches TV the rest of us take notes and hope he attacks while we're logged in? AGAIN, where's his risk during his 20-hour AFK cloak?
|
Matrix Skye
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:07:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Ki An
Again, none of this would be a problem if you people wheren't so keen on metagaming by using local as an intel tool. Stop doing that and there won't be a problem. If you want to make it really fair, get behind the "remove local" line.
Yes, it's all about giving more safety to the aggressor .
"reward for the aggressor"
"risk vs reward" for everyone else!
|
Matrix Skye
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:15:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Sikozu Prioris
If he is afk for 20 hours of the day he is not disrupting anything, as HE IS NOT DOING ANYTHING.
Great, then you're not going to mind if CCP implements something to log them out.
|
Matrix Skye
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:18:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Ra Vhim
I wish those who keep whining about cloaks simply leave the game and find some other MMO that will make them feel safe. There must be plenty of games that can deliver that needed sense of safety.
You mean as safe as someone 'cloaked at a safe spot' safe?
Why would I want to do that if I can find that in this game already?
|
Matrix Skye
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:30:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Matrix Skye on 09/06/2008 14:41:52
Originally by: Ki An
Huh? You understand that the agressor wouldn't have access to local either, right? The agressor would have to look for targets, and those not currently agressors would have to scan for incoming hostiles. Note the "not currently agressors bit", as it seems that you are trying to divide the Eve community up into those that agress others (lesser worth) and those who only fight in defense (good guys). This, of course, is completely ********, as everyone that know how to play Eve know that sometimes you must be the agressor.
Now you know very dam well that the aggressor holds the court. If you're in hostile space then you SHOULD BE exposed to risk. With the cloak your risk goes down to 0% EVEN if you're AFK for hours in hostile space. Now what you want is to remove local so that not only is the AFK cloaker 100% safe but the defenders have to go another extra mile to find out (if it would even be possible under your suggestion) if there are hostiles in the system. So yes, you want more safety for intruders and more work/risk for the players holding sovereignty.
It doesn't surprise me really. What I'm getting at is you don't believe your own mantra. It's all bull****. What you want is make things difficult for your competitor while making it easier on yourself. And to top it off you spew crap like 'risk vs reward', 'nowhere's safe', 'blah blah'.
Edit: Response was to Ki An
|
Matrix Skye
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:32:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Zulu Six
Shut up, Ki An mate, everybody knows PvPers are bad people. Anybody who is ignorant and immature enough to lock another player's ship and shoot first is a piece of crap in real life. You should just learn to mind your own business and let those poor guys mine and rat and run missions etc.
Nice straw man there .
How's it working out for ya?
|
Matrix Skye
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:35:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Beltantis Torrence
Dude. You're scared of someone who isn't even at the keyboard. You fail. I personally don't even think local should name the people in the system unless they talk.
It's quite amusing to read so many posts defending AFK cloakers while at the same time spewing that space shouldn't be safe .
I love the eve forum hipocricies
|
Matrix Skye
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 19:40:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Freya Runestone
Originally by: Matrix Skye
Edited by: Matrix Skye on 09/06/2008 13:35:03
How the **** is knowing his ship type and setup going to matter if he's just going to go cloak again for another 20 hours AFK? And all the while he naps or watches TV the rest of us take notes and hope he attacks while we're logged in? AGAIN, where's his risk during his 20-hour AFK cloak?
where is your risk during the very same period?
You don't have any additional risk as long as he is AFK. and as soon as he comes back and decides to attack something. He's got the same amount of risk as you do. He could jump in to a trap. and Unlike you, he's not gonna be able to replace his ship. Or hide until he gets a new one.
That's my whole point. The rest of the system has to be in alert mode while the cloaked AFK'er doesn't. Everyone else is on the lookout and ready for combat. Why shouldn't the cloaked ship also be on alert? The locals don't know if the cloaked player is AFK, so they have to be alert 100% of the time. Their threat is very real. While the threat to the cloaker isn't. It's non-existent. I suggest that if they are AFK then they are automatically logged out after say an inactive period of 15 minutes.
|
Matrix Skye
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 21:11:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Ra Vhim
And I still suggest that you find some other MMO that will make you feel safe. There must be plenty of games that can deliver that needed sense of safety. My suggestion is not intended to be smack, I'm just saying that some other game might be better suited to your prefered game style.
Nice
Why would I want to find a safe game when I can just cozy up in 0.0 cloaked and don't even have to be at the keyboard while I put the whole system on alert?
The one avoiding risk here is you. I'm asking you where your risk is and you tell me to go to another game? Great way to avoid the question though.
|
Matrix Skye
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 01:22:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Guillame Herschel
... And being cloaked at a safe spot (which isn't really 100% safe, the cat could jump on the keyboard and hit F1 by accident).
You know, I didn't think of that. You're right. If you own a cat there is risk to AFK cloaking.
I retract the OP.
|
Matrix Skye
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 01:28:00 -
[19]
I must say you lot get very creative when defending your i-wins .
Bottom line is risk vs reward doesnt apply to 0.0 cloakers!
I'm out \o/
|
| |
|