These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#321 - 2013-10-18 13:50:17 UTC
Sylphy wrote:
So, this is where Narrel is continuing his war against AFK Cloakies after he got effectively shut down with logic in Assembly Hall.

Give it a rest dude. There's nothing wrong and nothing to be fixed with Cloaking.

Oh snap, if you think I got shut down somewhere, it is simply because you can only see your side of the issue.

You are not objective.

I am.

If you assume I WANT all the things I argue for, you are sadly mistaken. I ACCEPT that balance and compromises are necessary, and I don't bother haggling over details once they achieve this balance.
If you, or someone else, makes a case for something unbalanced, you expose yourself to having this flaw revealed to the world.

So, do I want people to be able to hunt cloaked ships? Heck no.
Do I accept that it is a necessity of balanced play, if we want to improve the existing dynamics? Yes.

Do we NEED change?
NO.

But if these jokers are going to argue for a change on one side, I am free to point out the price on the other which must be paid.
I am nice about it, in that I leave out the BS, and keep it simple to the point of even retaining partial local.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#322 - 2013-10-18 13:53:09 UTC
Black Canary Jnr wrote:
This would be amazing, but needs a few changes.

1. buff null sec income.

because those nullbears have to work together to defend against hotdrops they need incentived. I've seen drops of 40 ish people so a, say, 45X increase in pirate bounties would be in order.

2. Introduce the 'space ship boombox' module.

Have you seen those 80's cheesy romance movies where the boy gets the girl by standing outside their house with a boom box? Same principle. Now if you are in station and someone outside uses this mod you have 3 seconds till you undock, don't ask why, IT'S SCIENCE! Now those pesky agk dockers will be forced to fight, just as intended.
CCP will also need to secure the rights for some cruddy romant8c songs but that's a small price TO SAVE NULL SEC!

As you can see, these are very balanced changes and in the spirit of this thread. I hope the wise OP agrees.

1. As something which is obvious to me, at least, I completely agree on this point.
Null sec income will need to increase, and become what it always should have been.
Difficult to get, but worth the effort.
Right now it is comparable to high sec income in many ways, which is an embarrassment.

2. Just LOL.
It might be entertaining, but that is something for a different thread than this.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Anthar Thebess
#323 - 2013-10-18 13:55:36 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
All details being considered and weighted... It seems the answer to AFK Cloaking's terror aspect is to ignore it while they are cloaked.
(A cloaked vessel not being capable of inflicting damage directly)

As it is not currently possible to evaluate threat levels properly under the current system, I suggest we upgrade local to exclude vessels which are not capable of interacting with ships and objects directly.

For balance, I would deny these classifications from accessing local at all. Let them be sent chat information in a version of local missing the pilot roster, no free intel for them. (Fully delayed local for all pilots present but not listed)

The vessels which should fit this classification for full local exclusion I described:

Vessels within the shields of a POS (They cannot target or fire, AFK POS items are misleading)
Vessels docked at an outpost (They cannot target or fire, AFK Outpost items are misleading)
Vessels cloaked in a system (They cannot target or fire, AFK Cloaked items are misleading)

Upgrading local intel with improved relevancy in this manner will benefit players wanting to know the actual active players present.


You know that bomber have no delay - so he can warp to you cloaked
Drop cloak, target, point and open covet cyno at the same time?

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#324 - 2013-10-18 14:06:13 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
1. Offensive modules cannot b used. Many others seem to work just fine. The hunting module itself has no direct offensive component, it just enables the ability to see things. The ability to lock a target is another issue.

1> Have you tried launching probes in a pos? So now your idea hinges on you also being able to use a hunter module in a POS. I guess that's a small bonus, since it will allow me to hunt from complete safety on an alt right? If I have no issue using my hunter modules in a pos, then I can just hunt him down and dump bookmarks into a can for a combat ship to use. I give that 10 minutes on the test server before there are mass complaints to get it disabled inside a POS.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
2. No, the difference is not that significant. You are dismissing a fleet with a titan standing by, as "easy to locate and consider". All they need to do is sit in a POS. Can't touch em with bombers there either.
A logged out group DOES NOT NEED to already be in a direct fleet, since out of game comms can let them organize and coordinate, and the fleet tool can let them join a prepared fleet shell in seconds, which they have to wait in regardless due to the log in warp.
Again, both positives and negatives will exist, and the assumption that fleet warfare will be irreparably harmed has yet to be demonstrated.
You are nitpicking at details which will still be resolved afterwards the same way they are now. Effort.
And at what point are you ignoring the value of the common spai? Do you seriously expect an engagement with 4k players to not be cross connected a dozen times over with informants?

2> LOL! Ok, go ahead and try to get that fleet set up while you are warping. You clearly have no experience with fleet combat. The simple fact that you think being logged off is a sufficient counter to your flawed ideas shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. Please please please go learn about the things you are trying to change. And yes, I'm nitpicking. That's what you do in game design. You nitpick, and you look into every scenario and you ensure you aren't leaving a gaping hole like your suggestions do. This is still just discussing fleet mechanics. We haven't even begun to look at how your changes would shift the desirability of ships heavily towards covops cloaks and making several combat ships pointless to use.
And while there will be spies, they should never be a requirement. Your idea would force players to have to use spies. Why should an out of game mechanic be enforced by removing in game mechanics?

Nikk Narrel wrote:
3. Again, simply because you ignore an explanation, does not mean it did not cover the problem as you defined it. Repeating points that have been repeatedly explained does not diminish the argument that repeatedly answers them.

3> But you haven't explained anything. You are simply suggesting people will figure out a way to use effort to get around it, while you have absolutely no clue what actually goes on during these situation. Honestly, are you simple?

1. Noone said anything about probes, in the idea I put forth, as a required element.
Please take a moment to understand, by activating the module I described, you see all the cloaked ships as if they were not cloaked.
This means:
You can see them on grid
You can see them with d-scan
You can see them with your probes. Note: Like a cloaked ship, the launching of probes must be done prior to the activation of the module, as they cannot be launched while it is currently active.

2. Nope, calling that detail a gaping hole is absurd. Your excitement that any other part of the game would change or adapt is overblowing the significance of the change.
Feel free to argue that point all you want, those familiar with fleet combat will agree it involves change, but nothing so extreme as what you are portraying.
Spais should not be required. Good one. I know a few players who would fall over laughing at that, but please, keep saying it.
Your idealistic faith in humanity is touching.

3. Name one single point. Not a shotgun blast of trivialities, but one point. If you want detail, you need focus.
The fact I have to keep numbering my responses speaks volumes.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#325 - 2013-10-18 14:18:53 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
All details being considered and weighted... It seems the answer to AFK Cloaking's terror aspect is to ignore it while they are cloaked.
(A cloaked vessel not being capable of inflicting damage directly)

As it is not currently possible to evaluate threat levels properly under the current system, I suggest we upgrade local to exclude vessels which are not capable of interacting with ships and objects directly.

For balance, I would deny these classifications from accessing local at all. Let them be sent chat information in a version of local missing the pilot roster, no free intel for them. (Fully delayed local for all pilots present but not listed)

The vessels which should fit this classification for full local exclusion I described:

Vessels within the shields of a POS (They cannot target or fire, AFK POS items are misleading)
Vessels docked at an outpost (They cannot target or fire, AFK Outpost items are misleading)
Vessels cloaked in a system (They cannot target or fire, AFK Cloaked items are misleading)

Upgrading local intel with improved relevancy in this manner will benefit players wanting to know the actual active players present.


You know that bomber have no delay - so he can warp to you cloaked
Drop cloak, target, point and open covet cyno at the same time?

You have described 4 distinct operations, as being possible simultaneously.

You don't deal with cloaks much, do you.

If you did, you would know that you must first get the server to acknowledge the cloak as no longer active. Otherwise you get a pop up telling you about the system being blocked by the cloak.
Targeting. Sure, if they have a huge sig radius, and you have great boosters. Instalock tends to be impractical, but not impossible.
Pointing, target must be locked before this can go active. Since the server is going to make you wait till the ship is decloaked before allowing you to start targeting, and the targeting must be completed before a point can be active, that won't happen instantly.

Opening a covert cyno: This you could do immediately after dropping cloak, although opening a door has no value until others come through it.
The server has to let them use the cyno first, which means their clients must be updated to know a fleet member is now a valid cyno destination.
At THAT point, the BLOPs can open the bridge to you, or jump to you directly.

Lets assume they don't send the billion ISK pinata to pop the 200k exhumer. They open the bridge.
Now, every pilot on their end, is waiting for their clients to acknowledge the portal is open, for them to even click on it to jump through.

Optimistically, that's a 5 second wait before ships start loading system. 10 seconds before they can actually see and react to the new system.

In that time, a prepared ship could have either left, or gotten close to your bomber with a smart bomb.
One of the few kills I have is from a covert ship being too close to one of my ships, when it had one ready.
Usually I just leave.

Good effort, but you need an unprepared target to expect results.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#326 - 2013-10-18 14:27:46 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
You are not objective.

I am.

If you assume I WANT all the things I argue for, you are sadly mistaken. I ACCEPT that balance and compromises are necessary, and I don't bother haggling over details once they achieve this balance.
If you, or someone else, makes a case for something unbalanced, you expose yourself to having this flaw revealed to the world.

This is an absolute joke lol.
You are arguing for a HUGELY unbalanced change that is unbalanced in your favour and telling others they are not being objective. Oh wait yeah, because you are an engineer, thus can see everything while we are merely peon that should bow to your glory. How can we possibly understand that which the mighty engineer can see?
Pack it up guys this guy's obviously a genius and we are obviously not.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#327 - 2013-10-18 14:34:34 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
1. Noone said anything about probes, in the idea I put forth, as a required element.
Please take a moment to understand, by activating the module I described, you see all the cloaked ships as if they were not cloaked.
This means:
You can see them on grid
You can see them with d-scan
You can see them with your probes. Note: Like a cloaked ship, the launching of probes must be done prior to the activation of the module, as they cannot be launched while it is currently active.

2. Nope, calling that detail a gaping hole is absurd. Your excitement that any other part of the game would change or adapt is overblowing the significance of the change.
Feel free to argue that point all you want, those familiar with fleet combat will agree it involves change, but nothing so extreme as what you are portraying.
Spais should not be required. Good one. I know a few players who would fall over laughing at that, but please, keep saying it.
Your idealistic faith in humanity is touching.

3. Name one single point. Not a shotgun blast of trivialities, but one point. If you want detail, you need focus.
The fact I have to keep numbering my responses speaks volumes.

To be honest, there's simply no point arguing this. You will continue to come back with "Nope" but no actual answers. There will be an intel imbalance. That is a fact you cannot deny. You have absolutely no idea what fleet combat entails so it's no surprise to me that you continue to spew out rubbish about it all being fine.

When you actually want to investigate the full facts behind your idea and build a complete plan that equally balances all aspects, feel free. Until then this thread is nothing but a whine about how you want your chosen playstyle to rule supreme over all others. Get over yourself.

And I did name one point, to which you believe logging in a whole fleet is something that can be done during a single warp cycle, as you have no experience. What's the point in arguing against someone like you who is happy to make things up, provide no evidence, then tell everyone they just don't see the big picture. At the end of the day, these threads are all to show CCP that we are looking for changes, but after half the nonsense you have made up in here, CCP won't take someone like you seriously, so I don't really need to continue to state cases only for you to shoot them down with no clue what you are talking about.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#328 - 2013-10-18 14:45:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Anthar Thebess wrote:
You know that bomber have no delay - so he can warp to you cloaked
Drop cloak, target, point and open covet cyno at the same time?

You have described 4 distinct operations, as being possible simultaneously.

You don't deal with cloaks much, do you.

If you did, you would know that you must first get the server to acknowledge the cloak as no longer active. Otherwise you get a pop up telling you about the system being blocked by the cloak.
Targeting. Sure, if they have a huge sig radius, and you have great boosters. Instalock tends to be impractical, but not impossible.
Pointing, target must be locked before this can go active. Since the server is going to make you wait till the ship is decloaked before allowing you to start targeting, and the targeting must be completed before a point can be active, that won't happen instantly.

Opening a covert cyno: This you could do immediately after dropping cloak, although opening a door has no value until others come through it.
The server has to let them use the cyno first, which means their clients must be updated to know a fleet member is now a valid cyno destination.
At THAT point, the BLOPs can open the bridge to you, or jump to you directly.

Lets assume they don't send the billion ISK pinata to pop the 200k exhumer. They open the bridge.
Now, every pilot on their end, is waiting for their clients to acknowledge the portal is open, for them to even click on it to jump through.

Optimistically, that's a 5 second wait before ships start loading system. 10 seconds before they can actually see and react to the new system.

In that time, a prepared ship could have either left, or gotten close to your bomber with a smart bomb.
One of the few kills I have is from a covert ship being too close to one of my ships, when it had one ready.
Usually I just leave.

Good effort, but you need an unprepared target to expect results.

Again, this shows you have very little experience, since cloakers killing targets happens every single day. The server doesn't take weeks to respond, it takes milliseconds, and not all tasks wait for a server response before firing off. This is client side lag compensation, where the client sends across your commands under the impression that the previous commands it has executed will be successful, and displays the results to you in advance.

It's less obvious in games like EVE, but think about first person shooters, sometimes you'll see someone running along, then suddenly change position slightly. This is where your client has extrapolated their movements based on what they were doing, then when the server has updated their exact position has been set right. In EVE this commonly shows as a time difference between module timers and their activation/deactivation (so like when missiles seem to run for another half cycle, then stop.

As long as you are competent in you ship and are not suffering for unusually high lag, you will be near instant in your ability to use your modules, and while they appear to be delayed they are in fact not. The opposing client however cannot "guess" that you will suddenly appear, so they will only see you once your client has sent it's command, the server has processed it and has sent it to their client. Usually you are already locking and activating (or pre-activating) modules by the time your target sees you in the overview.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#329 - 2013-10-18 14:54:20 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
You are not objective.

I am.

If you assume I WANT all the things I argue for, you are sadly mistaken. I ACCEPT that balance and compromises are necessary, and I don't bother haggling over details once they achieve this balance.
If you, or someone else, makes a case for something unbalanced, you expose yourself to having this flaw revealed to the world.

This is an absolute joke lol.
You are arguing for a HUGELY unbalanced change that is unbalanced in your favour and telling others they are not being objective. Oh wait yeah, because you are an engineer, thus can see everything while we are merely peon that should bow to your glory. How can we possibly understand that which the mighty engineer can see?
Pack it up guys this guy's obviously a genius and we are obviously not.

Ad hominem presence: noted.
Opinions present: noted.

Actual facts presented to counter: 0

As to my being an engineer, that points out my perspective. It is useful for comparing effects in relationships such as this.
Awful for poetry however.

I am sorry if you feel inadequate, and consider it necessary to degrade my experiences before trying to relate to a rational discussion.
That is the only logical justification for your comments above.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#330 - 2013-10-18 15:01:44 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
1. Noone said anything about probes, in the idea I put forth, as a required element.
Please take a moment to understand, by activating the module I described, you see all the cloaked ships as if they were not cloaked.
This means:
You can see them on grid
You can see them with d-scan
You can see them with your probes. Note: Like a cloaked ship, the launching of probes must be done prior to the activation of the module, as they cannot be launched while it is currently active.

2. Nope, calling that detail a gaping hole is absurd. Your excitement that any other part of the game would change or adapt is overblowing the significance of the change.
Feel free to argue that point all you want, those familiar with fleet combat will agree it involves change, but nothing so extreme as what you are portraying.
Spais should not be required. Good one. I know a few players who would fall over laughing at that, but please, keep saying it.
Your idealistic faith in humanity is touching.

3. Name one single point. Not a shotgun blast of trivialities, but one point. If you want detail, you need focus.
The fact I have to keep numbering my responses speaks volumes.

To be honest, there's simply no point arguing this. You will continue to come back with "Nope" but no actual answers. There will be an intel imbalance. That is a fact you cannot deny. You have absolutely no idea what fleet combat entails so it's no surprise to me that you continue to spew out rubbish about it all being fine.

When you actually want to investigate the full facts behind your idea and build a complete plan that equally balances all aspects, feel free. Until then this thread is nothing but a whine about how you want your chosen playstyle to rule supreme over all others. Get over yourself.

And I did name one point, to which you believe logging in a whole fleet is something that can be done during a single warp cycle, as you have no experience. What's the point in arguing against someone like you who is happy to make things up, provide no evidence, then tell everyone they just don't see the big picture. At the end of the day, these threads are all to show CCP that we are looking for changes, but after half the nonsense you have made up in here, CCP won't take someone like you seriously, so I don't really need to continue to state cases only for you to shoot them down with no clue what you are talking about.

Straw man for the win again.

Grow up, Lucas, exaggerating my points does not beat what I said, it changes what I said into something you can beat.

I said ships could be concealed from intel using the log off tactic or by placing them outside the system.
Suggesting I implied the entire fleet be treated as logged off specifically, that's beyond the scope of my words in the context they were given.
Obviously a FC would practice the details, and determine how many ships could be organized and brought into a fleet like this. Perhaps only ships with a slow warp time actually had enough time to finish all the necessary details, making caps and BS class the limit for this tactic. This is not something that a FC would be overwhelmed by.
They are actually smart players.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#331 - 2013-10-18 15:03:10 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
LOL! Ok, go ahead and try to get that fleet set up while you are warping. You clearly have no experience with fleet combat. The simple fact that you think being logged off is a sufficient counter to your flawed ideas shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. Please please please go learn about the things you are trying to change. And yes, I'm nitpicking. That's what you do in game design. You nitpick, and you look into every scenario and you ensure you aren't leaving a gaping hole like your suggestions do. This is still just discussing fleet mechanics. We haven't even begun to look at how your changes would shift the desirability of ships heavily towards covops cloaks and making several combat ships pointless to use.
And while there will be spies, they should never be a requirement. Your idea would force players to have to use spies. Why should an out of game mechanic be enforced by removing in game mechanics?


Sorry, going to focus on this part of Lucas' post.

I find this notion that fleet combat would be irreparably harmed hard to swallow. So a hostile force is going to stay docked to hide their numbers? Okay. Fine. Let them. After all, being docked also means they can't do anything. Once they undock then they are visible. So, one adaptation for fleet commanders: put a cloaked scout in hostile station systems within bridge range. Another, yet harder to do is put scouts in all hostile station systems. Another adaptation could be to have heavy interdictors and interdictors used defensively: e.g. if a cyno goes up in system the dictor warps to it and puts up its bubble. Now the invaders will have some extra time to try and get away. Then the hictor lands and does the same thing but with a bigger tank. Use several and you could have enough time for siege/triage cycles to end. And once you know they are in system use interdictors to also set up defensive bubbles forcing the fleet(s) that just cynoed in to use a bounce which will also increase time for extracting/re-positioning.

As for spies and out of game mechanics, please. Out of game mechanics have long been a requirement: comms systems. No fleet is going to operate without some sort of a comms system. That is entirely out of game. Forums too are pretty much a requirement now too. Most corporations, alliances, and coalitions have forums where information can be shared. Heck spying is not even really entirely "out of game" in that it requires a character (in game) and one that is logged in (in game).

In fact, I've never understood the objection to spying as being part of the metagame. Is there never any spying in the New Eden universe anywhere? Really? A harsh cold cruel universe like New Eden does not have any spies anywhere?!?! In that one regard New Eden is a beacon of rectitude and honesty? And why aren't corp thefts considered metagaming and frowned upon, it is basically the same thing, but instead of working for an alliance, corporation or a coalition, the player is working for himself. Spying doesn't rely on anything "out of game" that non-spies don't rely on (e.g. Mumble, Teamspeak, etc. or Jabber, IRC, etc.).

So spying strikes me as totally legit. Every alliance/coalition has plenty of spies. Heck I bet allies even spy on each other. So you find out their staging system via a spy...great. Use it. If you don't have a spy or can't get that information via your spy, well back to getting that information the old fashioned way. Working for it.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#332 - 2013-10-18 15:10:44 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Anthar Thebess wrote:
You know that bomber have no delay - so he can warp to you cloaked
Drop cloak, target, point and open covet cyno at the same time?

You have described 4 distinct operations, as being possible simultaneously.

You don't deal with cloaks much, do you.

If you did, you would know that you must first get the server to acknowledge the cloak as no longer active. Otherwise you get a pop up telling you about the system being blocked by the cloak.
Targeting. Sure, if they have a huge sig radius, and you have great boosters. Instalock tends to be impractical, but not impossible.
Pointing, target must be locked before this can go active. Since the server is going to make you wait till the ship is decloaked before allowing you to start targeting, and the targeting must be completed before a point can be active, that won't happen instantly.

Opening a covert cyno: This you could do immediately after dropping cloak, although opening a door has no value until others come through it.
The server has to let them use the cyno first, which means their clients must be updated to know a fleet member is now a valid cyno destination.
At THAT point, the BLOPs can open the bridge to you, or jump to you directly.

Lets assume they don't send the billion ISK pinata to pop the 200k exhumer. They open the bridge.
Now, every pilot on their end, is waiting for their clients to acknowledge the portal is open, for them to even click on it to jump through.

Optimistically, that's a 5 second wait before ships start loading system. 10 seconds before they can actually see and react to the new system.

In that time, a prepared ship could have either left, or gotten close to your bomber with a smart bomb.
One of the few kills I have is from a covert ship being too close to one of my ships, when it had one ready.
Usually I just leave.

Good effort, but you need an unprepared target to expect results.

Again, this shows you have very little experience, since cloakers killing targets happens every single day. The server doesn't take weeks to respond, it takes milliseconds, and not all tasks wait for a server response before firing off. This is client side lag compensation, where the client sends across your commands under the impression that the previous commands it has executed will be successful, and displays the results to you in advance.

It's less obvious in games like EVE, but think about first person shooters, sometimes you'll see someone running along, then suddenly change position slightly. This is where your client has extrapolated their movements based on what they were doing, then when the server has updated their exact position has been set right. In EVE this commonly shows as a time difference between module timers and their activation/deactivation (so like when missiles seem to run for another half cycle, then stop.

As long as you are competent in you ship and are not suffering for unusually high lag, you will be near instant in your ability to use your modules, and while they appear to be delayed they are in fact not. The opposing client however cannot "guess" that you will suddenly appear, so they will only see you once your client has sent it's command, the server has processed it and has sent it to their client. Usually you are already locking and activating (or pre-activating) modules by the time your target sees you in the overview.

Feel free to use facts, and not conjecture.

I pointed out that the server does not respond instantly, not that it was impossible to get kills.

And you are fully aware, that most PvE kills have no tactical explanation by the time they hit kill boards. You only see the ships involved. Claiming they happened a certain way requires more than a generic like this.
Explain why they happen, and demonstrate that carelessness and error are not factors, before declaring them as proof.

In every case we have currently, local listed these pilots as present long before they could be seen on a target's overview, so the target pilot already had notice of hostile presence.
Whether they planned a counter strategy, or were oblivious for real life interruptions, are factors you need to consider.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#333 - 2013-10-18 15:28:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
I'm just going to stick to the AFK cloaking thread to keep everything in the one place. At the end of the day this is a badly thought out idea, and you will continue to argue while providing no evidence or real answers. This will get nowhere all the time you refuse to even learn about the subject you are arguing. I'm not interested in a discussion with someone with little experience, who goes on at length to tell us how superior they are, yet can't even provide straight answers on simple counterpoints (and that's not just against me, that seems to be your standard response to people on here). I also don't feel like listening to someone who can;t even go beyond using the FOTM response "waah, straw man" So go ahead and argue with yourself.

If CCP ever decide to look at local, I'll consider responding then, but this is simply your pipedream for a benefit for you, and not something I've seen any evidence of CCP considering in any seriousness.

EDIT: Oh an lol, yeah I forgot. All kills made in null are purely because the target made huge mistakes, thus cloakers are super hard done by even though they get plenty of kills. Poor cloakers.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#334 - 2013-10-18 15:38:37 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
I'm just going to stick to the AFK cloaking thread to keep everything in the one place. At the end of the day this is a badly thought out idea, and you will continue to argue while providing no evidence or real answers. This will get nowhere all the time you refuse to even learn about the subject you are arguing. I'm not interested in a discussion with someone with little experience, who goes on at length to tell us how superior they are, yet can't even provide straight answers on simple counterpoints (and that's not just against me, that seems to be your standard response to people on here). I also don't feel like listening to someone who can;t even go beyond using the FOTM response "waah, straw man" So go ahead and argue with yourself.

If CCP ever decide to look at local, I'll consider responding then, but this is simply your pipedream for a benefit for you, and not something I've seen any evidence of CCP considering in any seriousness.

EDIT: Oh an lol, yeah I forgot. All kills made in null are purely because the target made huge mistakes, thus cloakers are super hard done by even though they get plenty of kills. Poor cloakers.

This response, and your refusal to acknowledge any points but your own and those you endorse, sadly summarizes your argument.

All you need to do, in order to convince me, is bring me evidence, or some solid logic.
You have provided only opinions, and unsubstantiated claims. Many of which are not even possible to prove.

If you decide to debate, rather than cheer for getting things your way, I am happy to listen.
Unlike you, I know that we win either way, so long as the game is fun.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Robbie Robot
Exiled Kings
Pain And Compliance
#335 - 2013-10-18 16:41:33 UTC
If it isn't broken, don't fix it. This would make hot dropping recon's much better.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#336 - 2013-10-18 16:43:06 UTC
Robbie Robot wrote:
If it isn't broken, don't fix it. This would make hot dropping recon's much better.

It would make mining much better too.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#337 - 2013-12-11 15:17:29 UTC
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#338 - 2013-12-17 18:04:06 UTC
Just a few random thoughts… I think D-Scan should have an active and passive mode, with the range and capability tied-in with the sensor strength of your ship. Active mode would yield instant results at the expense of broadcasting your position to anyone listening and causing you to appear in local. Passive mode would operate in the reverse, cycling at set intervals in an attempt to pickup active scans - and not listing you in local. Cloaked ships that perform active scans would thus be detectable.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#339 - 2013-12-17 18:11:36 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Just a few random thoughts… I think D-Scan should have an active and passive mode, with the range and capability tied-in with the sensor strength of your ship. Active mode would yield instant results at the expense of broadcasting your position to anyone listening and causing you to appear in local. Passive mode would operate in the reverse, cycling at set intervals in an attempt to pickup active scans - and not listing you in local. Cloaked ships that perform active scans would thus be detectable.

Indeed, which is reflected here as well:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=112964&find=unread

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#340 - 2013-12-17 18:18:41 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Indeed, which is reflected here as well:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=112964&find=unread

Ah, well - I honestly can't keep up with all the threads! (great minds think alike though!) It would be nice to see CCP focus on addressing these gameplay mechanics instead of pushing forward with new features. Fixing some of these issues *would* add a much-needed new twist on tactics and gameplay.

As for low and null-sec, they're so intent on maintaining their own status quo that they can't see the forest for the trees. We preserve the current game mechanics at the risk of seeing new players lose all interest in these regions.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.