These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

AFK Cloaking Collection Thread

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1141 - 2013-09-15 09:38:20 UTC
Vas Eldryn wrote:
Please answer my question.... I know you cant! but its just so funny reading all your misdirects.


Here.

"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
JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman
#1142 - 2013-09-15 12:45:12 UTC
Any idea involving a timer is idiotic in its essence.
Before you make any new "rule"/"law", you should think about how it's going to be enforced, otherwise - it won't.
So, to make a long story short - Any 10y/o can bypass any restrictive timer that requires a key press with a simple mechanical contraption, without breaking the EULA and without it being possible to detect.

So by all means, let's introduce a double, no a tr ... no - a quadruple timer for the cloak and see what happens Big smile
The amount of whining carebears on the forums is predicted to be over9000.
Keith Planck
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1143 - 2013-09-15 13:17:13 UTC
This is literally the most butthurt I've ever seen from an OP before.

Do you really have nothing better to do then troll people throwing out ideas? Is the fatures and IDeas discussion thread THAT important to you?

♞
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1144 - 2013-09-15 15:09:33 UTC
Vas, I don't know if you're trolling or just incredibly naive, but nullsec was designed specifically to not have any "protections" - thats why there are no gate guns, no concord to punish for certain behaviours, no nothing. It is by design the completely lawless wild west of EVE. Anything goes. It's entire purpose is to be incredibly uncertain, volatile, risky and hostile.

To somehow think that it should have perfect safety, and to ask us to point out where CCP say otherwise is just mind boggling. A toddler could look at the abilities specifically enabled in nullsec and understand this, yet you're having trouble? And when we do point out the obvious you scream that we not speak on behalf of CCP?

You're either a massive troll or utterly delusional and havent taken the time to figure out the utmost basics of this game. It is not WOW. Nullsec by design is risky and uncertain. You are not, and never should be, granted safety in that area.

Now biomass yourself
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1145 - 2013-09-15 15:47:17 UTC
Vas Eldryn wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
A timer has pointless to negative returns if you want to promote conflicts.

In order to do more than mess with your imagination, they need to expose themselves to risk.

Like the PvE targets they are typically after, they are wanting to have an advantage before they choose to engage.

Now, what is being glossed over is not whether or not cloaked pilots should have risk. Read the second line of this post.

What the real issue is, what risk are the PvE pilots carrying?

A point that is solidly established, is that without cloaked pilots being able to long term siege a system, the risk is trivial.

Uncloaked threats are stopped at gate camps, or else they are scanned down and forced out by reshipped pilots if not by resident PvP pilots. Those are not effective for this.

Temporary cloaking pilots can simply be waited out. They can't eject targets from a POS or outpost, and if they don't stay long enough to risk assuming them to be AFK, they have no opportunity to threaten anything. They only manage to annoy residents with inconvenience.

Assuming you can have enjoyable PvP relying on null pilots to screw up and hand you kill mails is a joke, and that group won't last in null long enough to be a statistic.


tried to read this 5 times, I cant make sense of it as it applies to the OP, I really just don't get it?

The timer will not produce more activity from cloaked pilots. It will forcefully reduce cloaked presence to a degree equal to the period where they were actually AFK. Assuming, of course, it cannot be bypassed and be ignored.

Cloaked pilots have risk when they stop being cloaked.
They represent zero danger until this happens, any beliefs otherwise belonging only in the minds of the fearful.

PvE pilots screwing up is not a solid foundation for gameplay, as either one side or the other is playing badly, and will be driven out of null as a result.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1146 - 2013-09-15 18:40:45 UTC
Keith Planck wrote:
This is literally the most butthurt I've ever seen from an OP before.

Do you really have nothing better to do then troll people throwing out ideas? Is the fatures and IDeas discussion thread THAT important to you?


If you actually read the OP and follow the links you know it is both an often suggested idea, and also a horrible idea. Of course, doing this would entail work on your part, so I can see why you wouldn't.

So yeah it is the ideas and features discussion forum, but to keep suggesting the same ideas over and over again is boring and unhelpful as it ignores the larger problem.

And seriously, if CCP started responding to different QQing on these forums you think you'd still like the game or it would stop with AFK cloaking? Next it would be cynos, then blobs, and probably bubbles and gate camping. There is one thing about Eve, the players are ingenious at coming up with new ways to kill other players. And a subset of those killed players are almost surely going to come and whine about it. And if CCP gives in to such whining in such an unbalanced manner, then it will just encourage that sub group of players.

"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
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1147 - 2013-09-15 18:57:38 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:


PvE pilots screwing up is not a solid foundation for gameplay, as either one side or the other is playing badly, and will be driven out of null as a result.


I'm going to say this again, when a cloaked camper shows up you have to alter your play style, just as when a hostile gang shows up. One suggestion for ratters is to rat in a group with PvP fit ships. Yes it will make ratting income lower, but there will still be income and you'll be negating the resource denial effect and make the hot dropping effect much more risky for the cloaked ship. You'll also be encouraging team work and camaraderie with your fellow corp/alliance/coalition members. That is one possible response.

And even if you are still attacked you'll gain intel of your own. You'll know ship types, which will also tell you information. For example, if recons, bombers and T3s come through the covert cyno you'll know its a BLOPs gang. If it is a regular cyno you'll know it was a titan bridge. You can try to find where the titan is POS'd up and kill that tower if you can, etc. You'll know when that gang is more likely to be active as well.

Another option is to "move next door". If the cloaked pilot is truly AFK he wont follow you. If he does, well clearly he is active. You can do your PvE that way. Is it optimal? No, but nothing in Eve suggests you are entitled to optimal outcomes. In fact, it is very strongly hinted at that the opposite is more common. If you want to be truly safe and face no risk...stay docked. That is your only option if you are looking for that kind of certainty.

Yet another option is to dock/POS up/log off. You basically blue ball them. Problem here is that while you deny them a kill you also make resource denial successful and that might be what they are after. Why might a hostile alliance/coalition do this? Well if that guy ratting is an alt trying to generate enough isk for PLEX...and you deny him that, his main may drop out of fleets on the front lines as a result. The metagame in Eve is huge, and you may not like it, but fighting this is going to be very hard. Also, reducing ratting income would hamper ship replacement both via an SRP (which may be funded in part via ratting taxes) and via adversely impacting a players wallet.

I'm sure people could come up with other solutions to this problem, IDK. But to go running to CCP and demand a change that is clearly in your favor and offers to negatively impact active cloakers simply for your benefit is emblematic of somebody who doesn't entirely understand this game, IMO. CCP has endorsed the notion of HTFU for this game. So HFTU and deal with the problem, and if you want to really get rid of AFK cloaking you might want to try coming up with better ideas than regurgitating the same ideas over and over that have been ignored for over half a decade.

"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
BORGLOBING TORATOBA
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1148 - 2013-09-15 19:37:53 UTC  |  Edited by: BORGLOBING TORATOBA
BORG QUEEN Assimilator wrote:
My contribution:

Hi,

Am going to show a solution to a question i think is a big problem in this game:

First:

I really have nothing against people using their cloak ship to sneak around and grab unaware people, have safe eyes for intel or any purpose a cloaker can accomplish.

The problem:

My concern is that cloak players can let the ship there in the system floating, unscanable; while they go sleep, work, play other games or anything else. This, for me, is anything different from booting! The presence of the enemies ship in a system prevents careful people to keep their business in the system afraid of a attack or hot drop, things that a active player can do (and for active players there is no problem if he can be there in his PC for 24/7). However a player can leave his account logged in and cloaked in the system playing a passive role as if he is there to control the ship, but he is not there. Its the same as booting for me.

A solution:

When a player cloak´, his ship starts to bleed a ion of some gas related to the ship race, (EX: Heliun for caldari, Xenon for galent, Radonium minmatar and Argoniun for ammar). If the ship remains x min time without warp to anywhere else in the system, that ion will accumulate to a threshold detectable by ions scan probes, so players can warp right on top of the cloaker if he goes afk or by mistake do not warp elsewhere in a given time. This way, afk cloakers can still doing his valid job while they are active and smart enough. And afk ones would be found with the probes.

The idea can be extended to find cloak fleets: when a lot of cloak ships are all together, the ion in space accumulates to the threshold limit faster, so cloak blobs would need to move faster or risk to be probed.

For EVE:

The solution i proposed intended to use current eve mechanics, new opportunities (hunt cloakers), news skills can be associated as well and prevent afk people to do passive **** (passive harassment of a system)

And, its really like StarTrek way to find things: : Spoke - deep field scans now


Well, i lile that ideia. So am quoting it. Whould like to know if CCP is considering anything based on what hapens in this thread? thanks
Vas Eldryn
#1149 - 2013-09-15 20:17:24 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Vas, I don't know if you're trolling or just incredibly naive, but nullsec was designed specifically to not have any "protections" - thats why there are no gate guns, no concord to punish for certain behaviours, no nothing. It is by design the completely lawless wild west of EVE. Anything goes. It's entire purpose is to be incredibly uncertain, volatile, risky and hostile.

To somehow think that it should have perfect safety, and to ask us to point out where CCP say otherwise is just mind boggling. A toddler could look at the abilities specifically enabled in nullsec and understand this, yet you're having trouble? And when we do point out the obvious you scream that we not speak on behalf of CCP?

You're either a massive troll or utterly delusional and havent taken the time to figure out the utmost basics of this game. It is not WOW. Nullsec by design is risky and uncertain. You are not, and never should be, granted safety in that area.

Now biomass yourself


ok 1st this is an ideas forum and all you are doing is insulting anyone who believes AFK cloaking is wrong, not contributing. So by that measure i can call you a troll, and a very rude and childish one at that.

please back your statement up with FACTS, not just twisting words together and claiming i don't understand the game, another utterly garbage post.
Vas Eldryn
#1150 - 2013-09-15 20:56:59 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:


PvE pilots screwing up is not a solid foundation for gameplay, as either one side or the other is playing badly, and will be driven out of null as a result.


I'm going to say this again, when a cloaked camper shows up you have to alter your play style, just as when a hostile gang shows up. One suggestion for ratters is to rat in a group with PvP fit ships. Yes it will make ratting income lower, but there will still be income and you'll be negating the resource denial effect and make the hot dropping effect much more risky for the cloaked ship. You'll also be encouraging team work and camaraderie with your fellow corp/alliance/coalition members. That is one possible response.

And even if you are still attacked you'll gain intel of your own. You'll know ship types, which will also tell you information. For example, if recons, bombers and T3s come through the covert cyno you'll know its a BLOPs gang. If it is a regular cyno you'll know it was a titan bridge. You can try to find where the titan is POS'd up and kill that tower if you can, etc. You'll know when that gang is more likely to be active as well.

Another option is to "move next door". If the cloaked pilot is truly AFK he wont follow you. If he does, well clearly he is active. You can do your PvE that way. Is it optimal? No, but nothing in Eve suggests you are entitled to optimal outcomes. In fact, it is very strongly hinted at that the opposite is more common. If you want to be truly safe and face no risk...stay docked. That is your only option if you are looking for that kind of certainty.

Yet another option is to dock/POS up/log off. You basically blue ball them. Problem here is that while you deny them a kill you also make resource denial successful and that might be what they are after. Why might a hostile alliance/coalition do this? Well if that guy ratting is an alt trying to generate enough isk for PLEX...and you deny him that, his main may drop out of fleets on the front lines as a result. The metagame in Eve is huge, and you may not like it, but fighting this is going to be very hard. Also, reducing ratting income would hamper ship replacement both via an SRP (which may be funded in part via ratting taxes) and via adversely impacting a players wallet.

I'm sure people could come up with other solutions to this problem, IDK. But to go running to CCP and demand a change that is clearly in your favor and offers to negatively impact active cloakers simply for your benefit is emblematic of somebody who doesn't entirely understand this game, IMO. CCP has endorsed the notion of HTFU for this game. So HFTU and deal with the problem, and if you want to really get rid of AFK cloaking you might want to try coming up with better ideas than regurgitating the same ideas over and over that have been ignored for over half a decade.


nice solutions... mine in PVP ships, leave or dock up/log off.

very helpful.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1151 - 2013-09-15 23:04:04 UTC
Vas Eldryn wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:


PvE pilots screwing up is not a solid foundation for gameplay, as either one side or the other is playing badly, and will be driven out of null as a result.


I'm going to say this again, when a cloaked camper shows up you have to alter your play style, just as when a hostile gang shows up. One suggestion for ratters is to rat in a group with PvP fit ships. Yes it will make ratting income lower, but there will still be income and you'll be negating the resource denial effect and make the hot dropping effect much more risky for the cloaked ship. You'll also be encouraging team work and camaraderie with your fellow corp/alliance/coalition members. That is one possible response.

And even if you are still attacked you'll gain intel of your own. You'll know ship types, which will also tell you information. For example, if recons, bombers and T3s come through the covert cyno you'll know its a BLOPs gang. If it is a regular cyno you'll know it was a titan bridge. You can try to find where the titan is POS'd up and kill that tower if you can, etc. You'll know when that gang is more likely to be active as well.

Another option is to "move next door". If the cloaked pilot is truly AFK he wont follow you. If he does, well clearly he is active. You can do your PvE that way. Is it optimal? No, but nothing in Eve suggests you are entitled to optimal outcomes. In fact, it is very strongly hinted at that the opposite is more common. If you want to be truly safe and face no risk...stay docked. That is your only option if you are looking for that kind of certainty.

Yet another option is to dock/POS up/log off. You basically blue ball them. Problem here is that while you deny them a kill you also make resource denial successful and that might be what they are after. Why might a hostile alliance/coalition do this? Well if that guy ratting is an alt trying to generate enough isk for PLEX...and you deny him that, his main may drop out of fleets on the front lines as a result. The metagame in Eve is huge, and you may not like it, but fighting this is going to be very hard. Also, reducing ratting income would hamper ship replacement both via an SRP (which may be funded in part via ratting taxes) and via adversely impacting a players wallet.

I'm sure people could come up with other solutions to this problem, IDK. But to go running to CCP and demand a change that is clearly in your favor and offers to negatively impact active cloakers simply for your benefit is emblematic of somebody who doesn't entirely understand this game, IMO. CCP has endorsed the notion of HTFU for this game. So HFTU and deal with the problem, and if you want to really get rid of AFK cloaking you might want to try coming up with better ideas than regurgitating the same ideas over and over that have been ignored for over half a decade.


nice solutions... mine in PVP ships, leave or dock up/log off.

very helpful.


I did not say mine in PvP ships. You know for somebody who sure gets his panties in knots over what you perceive as misquoting, strawman arguments, and so forth, you sure seem to have these problems in spades. Nikk is the null sec miner and he has offered his own set of solutions. I just skimmed them as I hate mining (no offense if that is what you like to do for PvE, it is just personal preferences here; and to be honest I love that you guys do it so I can keep buying ships, etc.).

Moving over a system does seem like a doable strategy, but I find your truculence regarding this solution curious. Why shouldn't you be expected to alter your play style when the conditions you are playing in change? That is the very nature of a sandbox game, of which Eve most definitely is (if you need your silly quote go to the home page). When the situation changes you either adapt or you die.

Docking up/logging off are certainly options. They aren't one's I'd recommend though for the reason I already noted.

Oh and thanks for a chance to bump the thread again. Big smile

"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
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1152 - 2013-09-15 23:08:13 UTC
Vas Eldryn wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Vas, I don't know if you're trolling or just incredibly naive, but nullsec was designed specifically to not have any "protections" - thats why there are no gate guns, no concord to punish for certain behaviours, no nothing. It is by design the completely lawless wild west of EVE. Anything goes. It's entire purpose is to be incredibly uncertain, volatile, risky and hostile.

To somehow think that it should have perfect safety, and to ask us to point out where CCP say otherwise is just mind boggling. A toddler could look at the abilities specifically enabled in nullsec and understand this, yet you're having trouble? And when we do point out the obvious you scream that we not speak on behalf of CCP?

You're either a massive troll or utterly delusional and havent taken the time to figure out the utmost basics of this game. It is not WOW. Nullsec by design is risky and uncertain. You are not, and never should be, granted safety in that area.

Now biomass yourself


ok 1st this is an ideas forum and all you are doing is insulting anyone who believes AFK cloaking is wrong, not contributing. So by that measure i can call you a troll, and a very rude and childish one at that.

please back your statement up with FACTS, not just twisting words together and claiming i don't understand the game, another utterly garbage post.


Technically you are not contributing. You moan about cloaking, AFK cloaking in particular yet you offer no solutions, not even the tired oft repeated ones I've linked too.

As for facts, The Gunslinger is correct. Null security space is just that, null security--i.e. there is no security except what you can provide. As a result of this many players who want to take advantage of null security space have grouped together...hence corporations, alliances and even coalitions. The latter of which are an example of spontaneous order I mentioned to you before.

HTH, HAND.

And thanks for yet another chance to bump. Big smile

"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
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1153 - 2013-09-15 23:11:20 UTC
BORGLOBING TORATOBA wrote:
BORG QUEEN Assimilator wrote:
My contribution:

Hi,

Am going to show a solution to a question i think is a big problem in this game:

First:

I really have nothing against people using their cloak ship to sneak around and grab unaware people, have safe eyes for intel or any purpose a cloaker can accomplish.

The problem:

My concern is that cloak players can let the ship there in the system floating, unscanable; while they go sleep, work, play other games or anything else. This, for me, is anything different from booting! The presence of the enemies ship in a system prevents careful people to keep their business in the system afraid of a attack or hot drop, things that a active player can do (and for active players there is no problem if he can be there in his PC for 24/7). However a player can leave his account logged in and cloaked in the system playing a passive role as if he is there to control the ship, but he is not there. Its the same as booting for me.

A solution:

When a player cloak´, his ship starts to bleed a ion of some gas related to the ship race, (EX: Heliun for caldari, Xenon for galent, Radonium minmatar and Argoniun for ammar). If the ship remains x min time without warp to anywhere else in the system, that ion will accumulate to a threshold detectable by ions scan probes, so players can warp right on top of the cloaker if he goes afk or by mistake do not warp elsewhere in a given time. This way, afk cloakers can still doing his valid job while they are active and smart enough. And afk ones would be found with the probes.

The idea can be extended to find cloak fleets: when a lot of cloak ships are all together, the ion in space accumulates to the threshold limit faster, so cloak blobs would need to move faster or risk to be probed.

For EVE:

The solution i proposed intended to use current eve mechanics, new opportunities (hunt cloakers), news skills can be associated as well and prevent afk people to do passive **** (passive harassment of a system)

And, its really like StarTrek way to find things: : Spoke - deep field scans now


Well, i lile that ideia. So am quoting it. Whould like to know if CCP is considering anything based on what hapens in this thread? thanks


Using Bayes theorem I am going to say the probability that CCP will do anything remotely like this is extremely small. Technically speaking such an event will almost surely not happen. Big smile

And thanks for yet another chance to bump this thread.

"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
Vas Eldryn
#1154 - 2013-09-16 00:35:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Vas Eldryn
I am thinking of a solution, but I am still working on it. Its not the easiest thing to wrap one head around.

You say that null sec = null security except what alliance / corp / self can provide, THIS is the heart of my argument, as the protection provided is circumvented by AFK cyno cloaking, while the Cloaked cyno ship has 100% security while his cloak is active.

I just don't know why you have to be so hostile towards people who want to voice their opinion?
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1155 - 2013-09-16 03:15:56 UTC
Vas Eldryn wrote:
I am thinking of a solution, but I am still working on it. Its not the easiest thing to wrap one head around.

You say that null sec = null security except what alliance / corp / self can provide, THIS is the heart of my argument, as the protection provided is circumvented by AFK cyno cloaking, while the Cloaked cyno ship has 100% security while his cloak is active.

I just don't know why you have to be so hostile towards people who want to voice their opinion?


Even if an alliance provides some level of security it does not have to be 100%. Now if your alliance/coalition is running fleets 24/7 to keep PvE pilots safe, sure, but if not deal with 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
Vas Eldryn
#1156 - 2013-09-16 04:25:59 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Vas Eldryn wrote:
I am thinking of a solution, but I am still working on it. Its not the easiest thing to wrap one head around.

You say that null sec = null security except what alliance / corp / self can provide, THIS is the heart of my argument, as the protection provided is circumvented by AFK cyno cloaking, while the Cloaked cyno ship has 100% security while his cloak is active.

I just don't know why you have to be so hostile towards people who want to voice their opinion?


Even if an alliance provides some level of security it does not have to be 100%. Now if your alliance/coalition is running fleets 24/7 to keep PvE pilots safe, sure, but if not deal with it.


Nobody can run a fleet 24/7 just to address AFK cyno campers, 23/7 is even a silly presumption. Why should an AFK cyno camper awarded 100% security in a system he does not have Sov in, when an entire alliance of ACTIVE pilots, acting in a way to protect their PVE ships be punished because of 1 game mechanic that renders all their ACTIVE gameplay useless?
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1157 - 2013-09-16 05:11:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Vas Eldryn wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Vas Eldryn wrote:
I am thinking of a solution, but I am still working on it. Its not the easiest thing to wrap one head around.

You say that null sec = null security except what alliance / corp / self can provide, THIS is the heart of my argument, as the protection provided is circumvented by AFK cyno cloaking, while the Cloaked cyno ship has 100% security while his cloak is active.

I just don't know why you have to be so hostile towards people who want to voice their opinion?


Even if an alliance provides some level of security it does not have to be 100%. Now if your alliance/coalition is running fleets 24/7 to keep PvE pilots safe, sure, but if not deal with it.


Nobody can run a fleet 24/7 just to address AFK cyno campers, 23/7 is even a silly presumption. Why should an AFK cyno camper awarded 100% security in a system he does not have Sov in, when an entire alliance of ACTIVE pilots, acting in a way to protect their PVE ships be punished because of 1 game mechanic that renders all their ACTIVE gameplay useless?


Sigh

A cloaked, AFK ship, even with a cyno has 100% security...as do you. Once they are no longer AFK and cloaked they can be shot...as can you.

This is where you keep falling down. You keep asserting 100% security, but they only have it when you are 100% secure from them too.

Or let me put it this way: no ship in game has ever died to a ship that is cloaked. Ever. It is simply impossible given the mechanics of the cloaking module. This is indisputable fact.

"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
Vas Eldryn
#1158 - 2013-09-16 06:22:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Vas Eldryn
Teckos Pech wrote:
Vas Eldryn wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Vas Eldryn wrote:
I am thinking of a solution, but I am still working on it. Its not the easiest thing to wrap one head around.

You say that null sec = null security except what alliance / corp / self can provide, THIS is the heart of my argument, as the protection provided is circumvented by AFK cyno cloaking, while the Cloaked cyno ship has 100% security while his cloak is active.

I just don't know why you have to be so hostile towards people who want to voice their opinion?


Even if an alliance provides some level of security it does not have to be 100%. Now if your alliance/coalition is running fleets 24/7 to keep PvE pilots safe, sure, but if not deal with it.


Nobody can run a fleet 24/7 just to address AFK cyno campers, 23/7 is even a silly presumption. Why should an AFK cyno camper awarded 100% security in a system he does not have Sov in, when an entire alliance of ACTIVE pilots, acting in a way to protect their PVE ships be punished because of 1 game mechanic that renders all their ACTIVE gameplay useless?


Sigh

A cloaked, AFK ship, even with a cyno has 100% security...as do you. Once they are no longer AFK and cloaked they can be shot...as can you.

This is where you keep falling down. You keep asserting 100% security, but they only have it when you are 100% secure from them too.

Or let me put it this way: no ship in game has ever died to a ship that is cloaked. Ever. It is simply impossible given the mechanics of the cloaking module. This is indisputable fact.


You are 100% right, nobody else knows the game like you do, you even know better then CCP... you have all the answers and everyone who dares have a different opinion should be bullied and ostracized...

problem is well.... you lie, misquote, insult and push your flawed idea like a single minded zealot, failing to address the core of the issue.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1159 - 2013-09-16 07:02:02 UTC
Vas Eldryn wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Vas Eldryn wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Vas Eldryn wrote:
I am thinking of a solution, but I am still working on it. Its not the easiest thing to wrap one head around.

You say that null sec = null security except what alliance / corp / self can provide, THIS is the heart of my argument, as the protection provided is circumvented by AFK cyno cloaking, while the Cloaked cyno ship has 100% security while his cloak is active.

I just don't know why you have to be so hostile towards people who want to voice their opinion?


Even if an alliance provides some level of security it does not have to be 100%. Now if your alliance/coalition is running fleets 24/7 to keep PvE pilots safe, sure, but if not deal with it.


Nobody can run a fleet 24/7 just to address AFK cyno campers, 23/7 is even a silly presumption. Why should an AFK cyno camper awarded 100% security in a system he does not have Sov in, when an entire alliance of ACTIVE pilots, acting in a way to protect their PVE ships be punished because of 1 game mechanic that renders all their ACTIVE gameplay useless?


Sigh

A cloaked, AFK ship, even with a cyno has 100% security...as do you. Once they are no longer AFK and cloaked they can be shot...as can you.

This is where you keep falling down. You keep asserting 100% security, but they only have it when you are 100% secure from them too.

Or let me put it this way: no ship in game has ever died to a ship that is cloaked. Ever. It is simply impossible given the mechanics of the cloaking module. This is indisputable fact.


You are 100% right, nobody else knows the game like you do, you even know better then CCP... you have all the answers and everyone who dares have a different opinion should be bullied and ostracized...

problem is well.... you lie, misquote, insult and push your flawed idea like a single minded zealot, failing to address the core of the issue.


Show me a ship destroyed by a ship that was cloaked.

[Hint: while a cloaking device is active you can't target anything]

"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
Vas Eldryn
#1160 - 2013-09-16 07:24:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Vas Eldryn
I would but I cant, not without breaching forum rules..... learn why this issue is such a big deal, its the THREAT established by AFK cyno cloaking and systems held hostage with this mechanic.

Seriously you can only see the PVP aspect, you cant see all the other aspects of the game that are not PVP, seriously, does every mining ship in null have to be Targets for you to get your rocks off?