These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Thread about cloaky threads

Author
Iain Cariaba
#61 - 2014-10-10 17:44:03 UTC
Wolf Incaelum wrote:
Behr Oroo wrote:
"No, you want easy kills to pad your killboard.


This is a good example of an ad hominem statement. 100% irrelevant to the proposed topic.

Actually, you're incorrect in your presumption there.

Behr Oroo wrote:
I dont want them gone. I just want to find and kill them.

When you account that the majority of ships used by cloaky campers are of the covops frigate types, and therefore not all that tanky, the premise that he is, indeed, looking for easy kills is not out of the question.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#62 - 2014-10-10 17:54:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Mag's wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:

And well made points like:
'What mechanic is the AFK cloaker using to interact with you?'.
I believe that's mine. Oops


It absolutely is. And iirc, none of the AFK cloaky thread makers has had the stomach to answer it because to do so is to acknowledge the whole other half of the AFK cloaky 'problem'.

Wolf Incaelum wrote:


So, to answer the OP's question, the reasons that the cloak threads keep getting locked are as follows:
Redundancy
Redundancy
Redundancy

Fundamental lack of respect
Topic quickly devolves from an intelligent discussion to a sh**-flinging bonanza



Added link for emphasis. That wasnt even a thread on the subject itself (just like this one) and it still became a 204 page thread arguing about afk cloaking.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Wolf Incaelum
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#63 - 2014-10-10 17:57:54 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Wolf Incaelum wrote:
Behr Oroo wrote:
"No, you want easy kills to pad your killboard.


This is a good example of an ad hominem statement. 100% irrelevant to the proposed topic.

Actually, you're incorrect in your presumption there.

Behr Oroo wrote:
I dont want them gone. I just want to find and kill them.

When you account that the majority of ships used by cloaky campers are of the covops frigate types, and therefore not all that tanky, the premise that he is, indeed, looking for easy kills is not out of the question.


The OP was asking why all of the threads about cloaks keep getting locked. The conversation you have quoted here is tangential to the discussion that was originally started.

ANARCHYFOREVAAARRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!

Iain Cariaba
#64 - 2014-10-10 18:07:09 UTC
Wolf Incaelum wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Wolf Incaelum wrote:
Behr Oroo wrote:
"No, you want easy kills to pad your killboard.


This is a good example of an ad hominem statement. 100% irrelevant to the proposed topic.

Actually, you're incorrect in your presumption there.

Behr Oroo wrote:
I dont want them gone. I just want to find and kill them.

When you account that the majority of ships used by cloaky campers are of the covops frigate types, and therefore not all that tanky, the premise that he is, indeed, looking for easy kills is not out of the question.


The OP was asking why all of the threads about cloaks keep getting locked. The conversation you have quoted here is tangential to the discussion that was originally started.

Yet that was not your accusation. Your accusation was my comment being ad hominem attack, when it was not.

Oddly enough, this is another reason why threads get locked. People derail the thread to discuss other things.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#65 - 2014-10-10 18:10:29 UTC
Wolf Incaelum wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Wolf Incaelum wrote:
Mag's wrote:
You really are reaching now and failing rather badly.


Another example of an ad hominem.
Really? Interesting.


I'm not saying that your point was invalid. Just that it was a negative comment directed at an individual and has no relevant value to the topic at hand. Unless I'm somehow misunderstanding what you said.

Also, in no way am I saying that people are not free to defend themselves or their ideas if they feel the need to do so. I'm just pointing out that it's statements like this one and the other one that I quoted which have a tendency to irritate or anger another poster, who will then likely also feel that he needs to defend himself. It just kinda snowballs from there.
Negative, well yes one could argue that and you would even find me agreeing up to a point.

It being an Ad Hom? No, sorry.

At this point I, others and CCP have grown tired of the same old illogical arguments and fallacies. Hence one of the reasons why they now shut these down asap. It's also one of the reasons for many negative responses.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Wolf Incaelum
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#66 - 2014-10-10 18:11:43 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Wolf Incaelum wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Wolf Incaelum wrote:
Behr Oroo wrote:
"No, you want easy kills to pad your killboard.


This is a good example of an ad hominem statement. 100% irrelevant to the proposed topic.

Actually, you're incorrect in your presumption there.

Behr Oroo wrote:
I dont want them gone. I just want to find and kill them.

When you account that the majority of ships used by cloaky campers are of the covops frigate types, and therefore not all that tanky, the premise that he is, indeed, looking for easy kills is not out of the question.


The OP was asking why all of the threads about cloaks keep getting locked. The conversation you have quoted here is tangential to the discussion that was originally started.

Yet that was not your accusation. Your accusation was my comment being ad hominem attack, when it was not.

Oddly enough, this is another reason why threads get locked. People derail the thread to discuss other things.


Fair enough. My mistake. I hadn't read all of the posts. It seemed to me that the topic had already been derailed, so rather than reading through everything that was aside from the point of the OP, I just skipped ahead and offered the OP an answer to his question. Sorry for the confusion. I'll take care in the future to read things in their entirety before using them as examples.

ANARCHYFOREVAAARRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!

Behr Oroo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#67 - 2014-10-10 18:11:48 UTC
Oh I am done. I got my answer from Daichi. It validates what I have been saying for a while in regards to why the PVPers constantly fight against cloak changes.

It takes away their safety net.

Though in answering that, it shows why the cloaky threads get closed. They often degrade to just name calling, passive aggressiveness, and much like what happened here. They stray off topic.

Harrison Tato
Yamato Holdings
#68 - 2014-10-10 18:11:49 UTC
Behr Oroo wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Jacid wrote:
True but the fact that so many threads existist says that their is an issue and has been yet really hasn't been acted on or even discuessed. In my long time watching these the ads I haven't really seen anything about it from ccp on ideas / solutions.. I guess the question is.. is the issue something of importance to other people or is it just another captains quarter's

no it doesn't, its just telling of the fact that most people hate psychological warfare.


There is more to the cloak issue than just AFK camping though. There is an issue with cloaking. It's not a balanced mechanic.

Dont get me wrong. Cloaking is great, but it's by far one of the safest ways to fly in this game. Unless there is pilot error, there is little chance a cloaky can be engaged on if he/she doesnt wish to engage in a fight.


It's balanced by the fact that a cloaked ship can't do anything to you while cloaked.
Harrison Tato
Yamato Holdings
#69 - 2014-10-10 18:14:13 UTC
Behr Oroo wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Jacid wrote:
True but the fact that so many threads existist says that their is an issue and has been yet really hasn't been acted on or even discuessed. In my long time watching these the ads I haven't really seen anything about it from ccp on ideas / solutions.. I guess the question is.. is the issue something of importance to other people or is it just another captains quarter's

no it doesn't, its just telling of the fact that most people hate psychological warfare.


There is more to the cloak issue than just AFK camping though. There is an issue with cloaking. It's not a balanced mechanic.

Dont get me wrong. Cloaking is great, but it's by far one of the safest ways to fly in this game. Unless there is pilot error, there is little chance a cloaky can be engaged on if he/she doesnt wish to engage in a fight.


Bubbles, cans, dictors, interceptors. My cloaked butt has been blown up plenty. If you use gates to travel your cloaked luck will run out eventually.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#70 - 2014-10-10 18:17:22 UTC
Behr Oroo wrote:
Oh I am done. I got my answer from Daichi. It validates what I have been saying for a while in regards to why the PVPers constantly fight against cloak changes.

It takes away their safety net.

Though in answering that, it shows why the cloaky threads get closed. They often degrade to just name calling, passive aggressiveness, and much like what happened here. They stray off topic.

You have it backwards here. Changes asked for actually add an extra layer of safety to null residents.

There has to be counters, but at some point counters have to stop. There also has to be risk, making cloaks probeable or decloakeable, means you reduce risk in null for ratters and locals.

People here are asking for a counter to a counter to a counter. It's rather ridiculous. Not only that, but many asking for cloak changes, do not even take into account other mechanics that are in play. The joke is even if cloaks were nerfed, AFKing would continue in null and we would see the rise of a new type of thread in that regard. Asking for another nerf, but missing the point yet again.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Wolf Incaelum
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#71 - 2014-10-10 18:17:47 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Wolf Incaelum wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Wolf Incaelum wrote:
Mag's wrote:
You really are reaching now and failing rather badly.


Another example of an ad hominem.
Really? Interesting.


I'm not saying that your point was invalid. Just that it was a negative comment directed at an individual and has no relevant value to the topic at hand. Unless I'm somehow misunderstanding what you said.

Also, in no way am I saying that people are not free to defend themselves or their ideas if they feel the need to do so. I'm just pointing out that it's statements like this one and the other one that I quoted which have a tendency to irritate or anger another poster, who will then likely also feel that he needs to defend himself. It just kinda snowballs from there.
Negative, well yes one could argue that and you would even find me agreeing up to a point.

It being an Ad Hom? No, sorry.

At this point I, others and CCP have grown tired of the same old illogical arguments and fallacies. Hence one of the reasons why they now shut these down asap. It's also one of the reasons for many negative responses.


Again, I'm not saying that your point is invalid. My point is that it was a negative statement that was directed at an individual. That's what an ad hominem is. But I'm not going to continue to have this discussion. It doesn't belong here. I was simply trying to give the OP a couple examples of why these threads keep getting locked. I wasn't trying to start an argument over who's statements are ad hominem and who's aren't. If you disagree with me, that's fine. I'm sure I'll live through it.

ANARCHYFOREVAAARRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!

Mag's
Azn Empire
#72 - 2014-10-10 18:19:51 UTC
OK. But it's still not an Ad Hom. Blink

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Iain Cariaba
#73 - 2014-10-10 18:34:46 UTC
Behr Oroo wrote:
Oh I am done. I got my answer from Daichi. It validates what I have been saying for a while in regards to why the PVPers constantly fight against cloak changes.

It takes away their safety net.

Though in answering that, it shows why the cloaky threads get closed. They often degrade to just name calling, passive aggressiveness, and much like what happened here. They stray off topic.


Speaking of straying off topic, answer me two questions. When do the nerfs stop? When you have gotten everything you want nerfed, and are finally happy with your game, what about the next guy who wants to nerf how you play your game?
AFK Cloaker
Matari Exodus
#74 - 2014-10-10 18:43:24 UTC
.
Gospadin
Bastard Children of Poinen
#75 - 2014-10-10 19:27:59 UTC
Behr Oroo wrote:
Jack Carrigan wrote:
First off, cloaking is very balanced.

With the way local is now, you know they are there, most not where they are. They can't interact with anything while cloaked, and must decloak to directly affect anyone.

Second, give me your stuff/biomass.

Finally, inb4lock.


Yes. It's so balanced that there are hundreds of pages of people talking about how it's not. It's one of the most talked about items on the forums.


Everyone complaining is someone who plays WoW on a PVE server. It's talked about a lot, because half of eve is people expecting World of Boringcraft.
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#76 - 2014-10-10 19:47:28 UTC
Gospadin wrote:
Behr Oroo wrote:
Jack Carrigan wrote:
First off, cloaking is very balanced.

With the way local is now, you know they are there, most not where they are. They can't interact with anything while cloaked, and must decloak to directly affect anyone.

Second, give me your stuff/biomass.

Finally, inb4lock.


Yes. It's so balanced that there are hundreds of pages of people talking about how it's not. It's one of the most talked about items on the forums.


Everyone complaining is someone who plays WoW on a PVE server. It's talked about a lot, because half of eve is people expecting World of Boringcraft.


Rather ineloquently and crudely put, but I've pointed to this before hand. Most MMORPGs will have PVP segregated from the main game on either a different server and/or different ingame area. They come to EVE with this expectation and feel that their expectation is justified by the existence of highsec, and to a certain extent they're right. Now I would not advocate the removal of highsec in any case, but I do believe that new players need to be confronted with the fact that highsec is not a PVE zone.

Now that may have seemed off topic, but really I think Gos is correct in saying that these complaints come from much of the same general sphere of people who obsessively avoid PVP(sometimes at the their own detriment).
Iain Cariaba
#77 - 2014-10-10 21:18:46 UTC
To slightly misquote John Wayne:

EvE is hard, it's harder if you're dumb.
Behr Oroo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#78 - 2014-10-10 21:42:23 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Behr Oroo wrote:
Oh I am done. I got my answer from Daichi. It validates what I have been saying for a while in regards to why the PVPers constantly fight against cloak changes.

It takes away their safety net.

Though in answering that, it shows why the cloaky threads get closed. They often degrade to just name calling, passive aggressiveness, and much like what happened here. They stray off topic.


Speaking of straying off topic, answer me two questions. When do the nerfs stop? When you have gotten everything you want nerfed, and are finally happy with your game, what about the next guy who wants to nerf how you play your game?


Catch me in game. We can discuss it. Though go back to my post about the addition of a hunting frig. Read that and see that I suggested a complete removal of local, and replaced ship detection with D Scan Then actual hunting done through the tactical overview. These two things would work with the addition of the ship.

Look I live in null and I love null space. Yes I am an industrial player, no I dont play WoW. I started out playing Shadowbane, which is almost identical to Eve but in a Fantasy setting. These changes I am suggestion are not cause of some fear of cloak or anything. I honestly see cloak as unbalanced. I find being in a cloaked ship to be insanely safe and basically easy mode. Shadowbane had a very well balanced system for stealth characters. I have tried to use its basis for the suggestions I have made about cloaking.

If nothing ever changes, I dont honestly care but that doesnt mean that I am going to half heartily argue my stance.

If someone makes a suggestion that changes my play style, I will consider it and if it helps the game then more than likely I will go with it. Might not like it but change happens.
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#79 - 2014-10-10 22:27:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaerakh
Behr Oroo wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Behr Oroo wrote:
Oh I am done. I got my answer from Daichi. It validates what I have been saying for a while in regards to why the PVPers constantly fight against cloak changes.

It takes away their safety net.

Though in answering that, it shows why the cloaky threads get closed. They often degrade to just name calling, passive aggressiveness, and much like what happened here. They stray off topic.


Speaking of straying off topic, answer me two questions. When do the nerfs stop? When you have gotten everything you want nerfed, and are finally happy with your game, what about the next guy who wants to nerf how you play your game?


Catch me in game. We can discuss it. Though go back to my post about the addition of a hunting frig. Read that and see that I suggested a complete removal of local, and replaced ship detection with D Scan Then actual hunting done through the tactical overview. These two things would work with the addition of the ship.

Look I live in null and I love null space. Yes I am an industrial player, no I dont play WoW. I started out playing Shadowbane, which is almost identical to Eve but in a Fantasy setting. These changes I am suggestion are not cause of some fear of cloak or anything. I honestly see cloak as unbalanced. I find being in a cloaked ship to be insanely safe and basically easy mode. Shadowbane had a very well balanced system for stealth characters. I have tried to use its basis for the suggestions I have made about cloaking.

If nothing ever changes, I dont honestly care but that doesnt mean that I am going to half heartily argue my stance.

If someone makes a suggestion that changes my play style, I will consider it and if it helps the game then more than likely I will go with it. Might not like it but change happens.


If you're not capable of adapting to changing circumstances and parameters then EVE is certainly the wrong game for you. As a wormhole resident I really find myself disdainful of the anti-cloak throng. Mainly due to the fact that cloaks have even more power in wormhole space due to the lack of an artificial chat client that instantaneously reports anyone's presence in system(Not to mention the incredibly powerful map tools).

Now you may argue, "But that's because you don't have cynos." To which I merely have to roll my eyes in contempt for the blatant inexperience in which the comment is made. Now I can't speak for all wormhole capital pilots(which should go without saying), but my corporation lives in fear of the hero buzzard with a point. Doesn't matter if we pop it quick enough, but if he manages to get point on one of our capital ships before it can warp out then that's enough time for the cavalry to charge in and drop the axe.

You may try to say now that, "Well doesn't that just prove my point?" Not in the slightest. That is the only scenario in which we are vulnerable while conducting operations. If anything we are too safe, and you can draw a similar analogy between that and cov ops dropping a cyno on a ratting carrier. With the tools available to you in nullsec (maps, local, intel channels, scouts), it's completely stupefying that anyone can be stupid enough to be caught in nullsec. And on top of that you have the almost effortless and immediate option of moving to somewhere else until they leave(or simply just not come back), while in the meantime I'm restricted to where my POS is.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#80 - 2014-10-10 22:42:09 UTC
Cloaky threads, to address the original topic, have two sides frequently show up.

The first side tends to complain that this tactic is very effectively killing their type of gameplay.
This can be true, up to a point.
The real issue is that the means to resolve the issue moving forward does not exist, so they instead argue in favor of moving backwards.
Moving backwards often in the form of a nerf to cloaking, in such a way that they can resume how they want to play with little effort as possible.

Second side proves the balance exists.
It may be crude, and only demonstrates that two absolutes exist, which are countering each other.
Absolute intel opposing absolute concealment.
It proves that balance does NOT automatically translate into good gameplay for all involved, or else group one would not be making their arguments I detailed above.

I truly believe that CCP feels too much of their player base would be overwhelmed, were they to remove the mutually absolute nature of these two aspects.
Yes, free local with it's application as intel DOES dumb down the game.
Yes, perfect concealment with it's consequent overhanging threat aspect DOES dumb down the game.

It seems apparent that these mechanics have immense potential, if they are delegated to player effort instead.
And with any immense potential, the emergent play pattern can be devastating.

They are rightfully cautious around this issue.
It is VERY likely that something unexpected would result, and preparing for that must be their first priority.