Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I worded that badly, sorry. What it means is that the bombers now get a 50% reduction in the CPU requirements of cloaks.

No matter how many times you repeat the same words, it's not going to be true.

As I said before, you can cloak for days in a system waiting for the perfect opportunity. It's the ability to perform a perfect strike risk free what is unbalanced.

Use these threads for yo winning.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=199216&find=unread
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=186549&find=unread
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=198984&find=unread

No matter how many times you try to ignore the most important point, it's not going to disappear.

Name for me a counter to Local's use as a perfect intel tool (providing both the system population and list of who is active)* that doesn't involve AFK cloaking.

*By the defenders only, no less, because AFK Stationing or POSing is possible for the defenders to hide their true numbers.

You can cloak for days doing nothing in a system waiting for something that appears to be the perfect opportunity. It's the ability to perform a not-at-all-surprising attack (Local means the defender get's to know it's coming, just not when) with the very real possibility of falling into a trap (because of the whole "in the middle of hostile space" thing).

So you're saying that, if AFK cloaking disappeared, you'd keep ratting if you knew there was a hostile active in your system? Funny, because that's never been my experience when hunting ratters who have half a brain.

Without AFK Cloaking, Local provides the defenders a complete list of those who are both in system and active.
Please explain how "a cyno" provides an exception (i.e. counter) to either part of that.

It's exactly what I asked.

In your example (remember, this is in the hypothetical that AFK cloaking doesn't exist), Local shows 1 ship AND that it's active.



Which means that it still provides the current system population, the fact that there's a hostile in system, AND the fact that that hostile is active. So no, cynos do not counter local's use as a perfect intel tool (providing both the system population and the much more important list of who is active).

Once again, Name for me a counter to Local's use as a perfect intel tool (providing the current system population, the presence or absence of a hostile element, and the list of who is active) aside from AFK cloaking. Especially the important two pieces of Information that local-without-AFK-Cloaking would provide; the presence or absence of a hostile element and a list of who is active.

Man you talking idiocracy.
Local is a counter against AFK cloakers ? ROTFL
The local just show it who is in the system, nothing else and showing for the both side the same informations without advantage.
You need scanning the whole system to check, you see enemy ship or not, but you cant see who AFK or not.


You talkin about docking ship ? LOL When someone undocked and changing his "position", instanlty show on scanner and will vulnerable.(or cloaker get visual contact if cloaking at station grid) And dont forget, the station build for so much ISK, to defend pilots in "home" system. But AFK cloaker get the advantage to terrorize them. Oh and wait, what happen when no station in the system ? :D

What happen when an AFK pilots after 3 days long AFK changing his position ? Nothing, he still unattackable and dont have counter in system just seeing them on local and nothing else. They are unscanable, they are uncatchable etc and cloakers have advantage for where,when starting their attack and, they can choose what situation is the best moment for them, contrary as undocked and vulnerable ships . That's why, cloaker can do same economical damage in active or inactive mode, because he is potential danger for anyone and everytime.
No matter if the cloaker do his job in active mode,no matter if a cloaked pilot can go out from his PC 1 or 2 hours long, but 24/7 AFK ability without potential danger in "hostile" system is a bad game feature while he can make potential danger availability without play and can disturb the active players without activity.

It's time to create counters against the cloakers (for at least against the AFK cloakers) not just boosting them with the new boosted features.
Such a bubble resisted and covert cloaked t3 ships, range boosted BOPS fleets, new cyno module user covert cloaker ships (such a t3, blockade runners)etc.

I hope that blackops will be used on the battlefield and not just lame jumpbridgers like atm. 700-800M for a ship is huge cost when they are weaker than the 90m t1 variants with or without jumpbride.

make the cloak generate heat (ala overheating - but 1000x slower) and have them burn coolant.

No, I argue that Local would be a perfect Intel tool if you removed AFK cloaking.

I can put my argument into a formal form, if you'd like.

I define a perfect intel tool for EVE as telling you whether there is a hostile in system and whether they are active. (We are ignoring AWOXers as irrelevant to the debate on AFK cloaking)

Here is the case IF AFK cloaking is nerfed:
1) IF one cannot be AFK while cloaked THEN Local tells you whether there is a hostile in system and whether they are active.
2) One Cannot be AFK while cloaked
_______
3) Local tells you whether there is a hostile in system and whether they are active (my definition of a perfect intel system).

This follows the known valid logical form Modus Ponens, therefore, if you accept the premises as true (and I think they're pretty easy to accept), you must accept the conclusion as true.

Here is the case currently:
1) IF one cannot be AFK while cloaked THEN Local tells you whether there is a hostile in system and whether they are active.
2) It is Not True that One Cannot be AFK while cloaked
_______
3) It is Not True that Local tells you whether there is a hostile in system and whether they are active (my definition of a perfect intel system).

This follows the known valid logical form Modus Tollens, therefore, if you accept the premises as true (and, again, I think they're pretty easy to accept), you must accept the conclusion as true.

If you'd like to argue that one of my premises is false, you feel free.