These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
#1921 - 2013-09-26 18:13:13 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
I like how rather than be serious, you resort to taking a dig at me. If it was Harry Forever in system, I wouldn't exactly worry, but a lot of cloakers actually know what they are doing and can tell what's bait.


Those comments on Local in Normal and WH space where written in a light hearted way and are no means a dig at anyone. Sorry you read them as such. Tough day at work and I want this to be a good discussion and not start throwing biomass at each other with name calling etc. Love the Harry comment though...that guy be crazy.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1922 - 2013-09-26 18:13:15 UTC
Maximus Aerelius wrote:
Ah "honourable war deccing" I see....right. Maybe we should whine on the forums about that as well...as that's blatant resource denial unless you have beef with them and them with you. We should move to consensual PVP...perhaps war deccing a mining corp is griefing...poor miners. /childish sarcasm

You chose the worst examples of what I typed (my bad in the the first place) and are we playing the same game? No, I'm playing both EVE Online and the meta game of which you have no notion of what it's about at all so it would seem.
What?
You stated quite clearly, wait, let me find it:
Maximus Aerelius wrote:
They don't have this problem in Low Sec or High Sec because you know what...they don't use Local as an intel channel.
Which is obviously completely wrong. It's not about war deccng "poor miners". It's simply an example of how you can see quite plainly that they do in fact use local.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1923 - 2013-09-26 18:14:09 UTC
Maximus Aerelius wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
I like how rather than be serious, you resort to taking a dig at me. If it was Harry Forever in system, I wouldn't exactly worry, but a lot of cloakers actually know what they are doing and can tell what's bait.


Those comments on Local in Normal and WH space where written in a light hearted way and are no means a dig at anyone. Sorry you read them as such. Tough day at work and I want this to be a good discussion and not start throwing biomass at each other with name calling etc. Love the Harry comment though...that guy be crazy.

Yah.. work...
It's a pain but it pays the bills.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1924 - 2013-09-26 18:14:32 UTC
Teckos wrote:
So I'd prefer to decouple local from intel. Make intel a separate mechanic, one the players have to work for. I'd even be willing to consider a mechanic where if you "work hard enough" for it, is very close or is as good as the current local mechanic. Of course it will cost you something unlike it is now where you get this advantage for free in any system you go to.


Players did have to work for sovereignty. So Local could be fixed by allowing those who worked for sov and all their blue friends (who probably helped) to have access to the intel, and those who are not blue to them to not have access to the intel. Of course, anyone who chats in local would be seen by all. I can certainly support that.

PS: I'd like the link on that sentry drone bannable exploit source. Never considered it before but it sounds interesting. Thanks.
PPS: Haven't seen your reply yet, but the posts are coming to fast to keep up. Starting last page now.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1925 - 2013-09-26 18:17:16 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
It's really simple. Since you don;t know if they are AFK or not, you must treat them as NOT AFK, otherwise you are exposing yourself to a potential gank. Thus, AFK cloakers affect null. They know this, that's why they do it.

Removing the ambiguity of their presence denies the ability for an AFK player to affect null, but does not reduce the level of ganks, since the standard response to an AFK cloaker is avoidance.

Somehow Nikk seems to think this means I have to prove that I have the right to know the difference, when clearly all I'm stating is that what he is complaining about - the change to AFK cloaking suddenly making null risk free - is absolute nonsense. The only thing that changes is AFK players can't deny access to areas, which in my opinion, they shouldn't be able to.

Your argument is worse than I realized.

You are saying, in effect:
The AFK cloaked pilot was not going to get any kills by fooling pilots, so their removal has no impact.
They were never going to be able to return, and discover pilots taking risks due to the assumption that they would not be returning.

All the pilots would have logged out, stayed in dock, or moved to another system.

Or simply rewritten: Your tactic will fail, so you might as well quit and log out. Save us all some hassle.

You... are an idiot.
You simply don't comprehend english, then you spout out nonsense like this.
It's pointless for you to even respond when this garbage is all you produce.

So, when you can't counter a point, you resort to name calling.

Typical.

I had hoped for a more rational response, but as depicted above, my expectations for your debating ability may have been too high.

No, I actually think you are what would be defined as an idiot.
What you wrote, was nonsense. It was as if you were responding to the wrong thread.

Oh, so you were actually saying that the ability of AFK cloaking to fool pilots DOES exist?

In that case, it is a valid tactic, and one used expressly by active pilots. They may not seem active while preparing it, but that is exactly how they want you to think.

And here I thought you were saying the tactic would never work, so it was pointless to permit it.

My mistake!
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
#1926 - 2013-09-26 18:18:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Maximus Aerelius
Lucas Kell wrote:
Maximus Aerelius wrote:
Actually from what I read he wasn't active and was relying on team work to call up...I might be wrong but he certainly wasn't sat on that POCO for 23.5 hours moving his mouse every 15 minutes but he was in position while all the other pieces were brought into play and created a fantastic tactical strike.

I don't think you fully comprehend the requirement that this game demands and how much meta-game is as important as game play. Market Trading for instance requires external websites to be searched, movement for scouting or whatever is required cross referencing of multiple sources like DOTLAN, TS channels, Mumble or other comms.

Now to get around your absurd idea of "You have to move your mouse to prove you are active" timer watch this Automatic Mouse Mover (Version 2) or this I don't like screen savers now do you see the issue? And to what end? More certainty that you are safe or not.

If fully understand the requirement thanks. But I don not believe that was a result of an AFK cloaker. He MUST have been active to choose to engage. Prove to me first that he was AFK, and secondly that the kill would not have happened should he have been active.

And yes, I'm FULLY aware that it's easy to get around, though it would require client interaction, not just a mouse move. So clicking on something. I just have faith that most people wouldn't break the EULA to AFK cloak. Are you saying you would?


Well I'm sure he wasn't twitching his mouse every 15 minutes waiting for someone to show up...was he at his keyboard? Quite possibly. Does AFK mean Away From Keyboard or not interacting with EVE as the definitions have been greatly merged in what you have said. If not interacting this does not indicate AFK. And herein lies your problem...

Now he was active the moment he engaged...OFC...was he active prior to that? Who knows as I don't know the guy but if he was PAK (Present At Keyboard) but not active he would've been logged out should he have missed a "are you active" timer and possible stopped this content from happening.

Nice try at try to get me future banned for a non-functioning IG mechanic.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1927 - 2013-09-26 18:22:21 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Oh, so you were actually saying that the ability of AFK cloaking to fool pilots DOES exist?

In that case, it is a valid tactic, and one used expressly by active pilots. They may not seem active while preparing it, but that is exactly how they want you to think.

And here I thought you were saying the tactic would never work, so it was pointless to permit it.

My mistake!
No, I'm saying That You cannot provide evidence that a pilot returning from AFK and killing someone would not have scored that kill had they been logged off in that system instead.
Look.
I see that you are trolling me. I see that your formula is say: "So what you are saying is: {insert randomly generated nonsense here}"

If you don't have anything constructive to add. Don't add anything.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1928 - 2013-09-26 18:29:26 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
We're not worried about other people shooting us. We're worried about idiots wasting our time between ops while having to expend no effort to do it. I'm perfectly happy with someone wasting my time as long as they have to waste their time too. But it's ludicrous to expect me to have to put up with the consequence while they don;t have to expend the effort.

By the way ,you certainly don't seem to have an issue with automatically calling everyone else a carebear and telling them to go back to highsec, yet you get all narky when we talk about how you just want free and easy kills, which there is easily as much evidence of that from your posts. Interesting.


My apologies for resorting to the rather lazy response of crying "carebear" or pointing at highsec.

However, you are by definition worried about people shooting you: That is the reason you dock up when someone enters system. It is why you remain docked when that person does not leave system.

The only reason your time is "wasted" is because YOU waste it. No one forces you to sit idle while someone else is in system. You choose to do that because you do not think the benefits (the isk gained from mining/ratting/whatever) in that time period outweigh the risk (of losing X isk worth of ship).

Thats up to you - I will not fault you for making that judgement. However, demanding that you never have to make such judgements, and that my playstyles, my abilities, be removed such that you do not have to make those tough decisions is unacceptable.
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
#1929 - 2013-09-26 18:30:19 UTC
Maximus Aerelius wrote:
Now lets look at WH's scenario as they rarely if ever post up on AFK Cloakers:

Does he appear in Local: WTF is that? Are you crazy!
Does he appear on D-Scan: Only if you are paying attention and have intelligence on the entrance point
Is he a "cloaker": Quite possibly as this is the most dangerous space.
Action: Carry on but be prepared to engage.


Lucas Kell wrote:
Lets see
Do wormholes have cynos? Nope
Do wormhols have strict limits on the maximum size of ship? Yep
Can you collapse all but your static wormhole(s) leaving you with 0, 1 or 2 entrances depending on your choice of wormhole (0 being the important choice here): Yep

Needless to say, as well as local, WH space has considerable differences to null. Not surprising, since WH space was DESIGNED to work with delayed local(that's right, WHs do in fact have it), while the rest of the space was designed with immediate local.


I get this, everyone does but it's classed as not having Local. Please don't nit-pick it only aggravates.
Wormhole space also has advantages to weapon systems as well...so the "entree" is almost always at a disadvantage but somehow WH dwellers still get kicked around and out of their homes.

Any way that was well off-topic but thought it good to address. Nice points brought up above though but still doesn't matter as some Null systems can be choaked and it's not always down to the size of the ship. The problem as you identified is the hot-drop.

This was introduced because Local give you 100% accurate intelligence on who is in system before they even load grid. You no doubt check local, notice all the people who just landed are in the same Corp\Alliance and it's a fleet looking for a fight.

Cyno Up > Fleet in without that intel giving you the heads-up. Again it's to balance out Local. I'm really sorry to keep bringing this around to Local I don't want to but I'm stuck in a mechanic loop without an end clause except: Change Local and watch Hot Drops fall off (I imagine).
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1930 - 2013-09-26 18:31:14 UTC
Maximus Aerelius wrote:
Well I'm sure he wasn't twitching his mouse every 15 minutes waiting for someone to show up...was he at his keyboard? Quite possibly. Does AFK mean Away From Keyboard or not interacting with EVE as the definitions have been greatly merged in what you have said. If not interacting this does not indicate AFK. And herein lies your problem...

Now he was active the moment he engaged...OFC...was he active prior to that? Who knows as I don't know the guy but if he was PAK (Present At Keyboard) but but active he would've been logged out should he have missed a "are you active" timer and possible stopped this content from happening.

Nice try at try to get me future banned for a non-functioning IG mechanic.
The story is actually here:
http://themittani.com/news/warp-drive-active-shadow-cartel-nyx-dies

He was in system early to remain cloaked so they wouldn't see him specifically for this kill. It was a timer, so he wouldn't have had to be on all day, just in advance of the enemy formup. Also, the mechanic I've requested would have simply warped him to a deadspace pocket, still cloaked, and warped him back on return to his keyboard, still cloaked, so this would have been unaffected. So no, this kill is entirely beside the point.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1931 - 2013-09-26 18:33:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Nikk Narrel wrote:

This from someone spouting the benefits and rewards of "efforts", and how they should be a requirement.

This discussion frequently centered around using a FREE intel tool, which requires zero effort to use, and bypasses other options which would use effort instead.

Lazy = local chat as intel

Using local is not easy or free any more than gatecamping is easy or free.
In the first place, you must watch local relentlessly and not miss a second. Similarly, when you gatecamp, you must watch the stargate relentlessly and if you miss a second, the target could get away. Gatecamping may be easier because the gate activation actually makes a sound, whereas the local change does not. .. perhaps fixing local means adding a sound for changes ... lol
Secondly, there is great effort in doing research on everyone in local (including blues tbph) and on everyone reported in intel changes from appearances in local. We research their killboards (free self-promotion for you) and every other bit of information connected to these players, including corp, corp history, alliance, time since character creation, etc.
Thirdly, we have to manually track the movements in the reports. There is no tool which shows on a map the current locations and the past locations of each reported player.
Fourth, players which are not blue to some but are blue to others are reported and it takes effort to sort that out.

So nothing is free and nothing is easy and nothing is 100% reliable. The intel we get from local to intel channels takes work, research, tracking, and has errors.

!!!What would be free is if a cyno stealth bomber entered system WITHOUT local announcing it, warped to each site until it found a pve target, decloaked and instantly pointed the target, instantly lit the hotdrop cyno, and got a free, easy kill for himself and all his friends!!! THAT is FREE, and EASY: The hidden from local cyno stealth bomber who didn't even have to decloak during warp to be caught on a VERY diligent dscan, and could still lock and point with zero delay from decloak. FREE and EASY for cyno stealth bombers right there with this commonly proposed "solution" to the afk cloaky issue. Thoughts?

Added: Lucas, a Nyx warping cloaked, even to and from deadspace? Seriously? I could never support a cloaked warp for any reason by anything other than a cov ops cloaky ship, or maybe even a black ops.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1932 - 2013-09-26 18:33:47 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Oh, so you were actually saying that the ability of AFK cloaking to fool pilots DOES exist?

In that case, it is a valid tactic, and one used expressly by active pilots. They may not seem active while preparing it, but that is exactly how they want you to think.

And here I thought you were saying the tactic would never work, so it was pointless to permit it.

My mistake!
No, I'm saying That You cannot provide evidence that a pilot returning from AFK and killing someone would not have scored that kill had they been logged off in that system instead.
Look.
I see that you are trolling me. I see that your formula is say: "So what you are saying is: {insert randomly generated nonsense here}"

If you don't have anything constructive to add. Don't add anything.

The whole concept of logic, you are not too strong at grasping it.

Provide evidence that a pilot logging in could not get the same kill.... and you call ME a troll?

It has been established and accepted that a pilot entering a system, be that through a gate or logging in followed by the warp to being active again, will be outed by local.
The denial of pre-warning the cloaked pilot has alone should tell you they are not evenly matched probabilities of success.
The cloaked pilot can show up on grid, with no additional warning, while the returning pilot cannot.

I need prove nothing. You want the timer for log-off, you need to prove he WOULD get the kill by just logging in.

Justifying the change you seek is paid for by proving it is needed, and you have failed at that repeatedly.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1933 - 2013-09-26 18:34:29 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Oh, so you were actually saying that the ability of AFK cloaking to fool pilots DOES exist?

In that case, it is a valid tactic, and one used expressly by active pilots. They may not seem active while preparing it, but that is exactly how they want you to think.

And here I thought you were saying the tactic would never work, so it was pointless to permit it.

My mistake!
No, I'm saying That You cannot provide evidence that a pilot returning from AFK and killing someone would not have scored that kill had they been logged off in that system instead.
Look.
I see that you are trolling me. I see that your formula is say: "So what you are saying is: {insert randomly generated nonsense here}"

If you don't have anything constructive to add. Don't add anything.


This is because you are purposefully asking for proof of something that is unprovable. There's probably some latin name for the type of horrendous logical mistake in this type of argument.

We do not know if the person who lost his ship lost it as a result of thinking "he's afk so I'm going to go mine some roids", or if it was because he had local minimised and undocked without checking, or even if he thought "this dude is active but I dont care", or any other possible reason. We cannot know that, stop asking that we prove it.

However, the possibility that it was that first reason exists. You cannot deny that it is a possible reason. We cannot "prove" it happens as nothing in the game mechanics, killboards, etc could possibly show that and because we cannot read minds. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, though, as the saying goes.

Please refrain from such fallacies
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1934 - 2013-09-26 18:36:17 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
My apologies for resorting to the rather lazy response of crying "carebear" or pointing at highsec.

However, you are by definition worried about people shooting you: That is the reason you dock up when someone enters system. It is why you remain docked when that person does not leave system.

The only reason your time is "wasted" is because YOU waste it. No one forces you to sit idle while someone else is in system. You choose to do that because you do not think the benefits (the isk gained from mining/ratting/whatever) in that time period outweigh the risk (of losing X isk worth of ship).

Thats up to you - I will not fault you for making that judgement. However, demanding that you never have to make such judgements, and that my playstyles, my abilities, be removed such that you do not have to make those tough decisions is unacceptable.
Avoiding combat due to a 100% chance of loss if engaging makes me a carebear? lol
No, my time is NOT wasted, because I MOVE SYSTEM.
My time would be wasted if I spent it trying to bait a player into a fight, which is what you are saying I need to do to not be a carebear. I PvP on ops. I HAVE NO INTEREST IN PVP DURING MY OWN TIME. Understand? Choosing to do something else and not sped 100% of my time pew pewing randoms does not make me a carebear.

And I'm not asking YOU to do anything. You aren't an AFK cloaker apparently. I'm simply saying that anyone playing the game should HAVE TO PLAY THE GAME. And yet you STILL seem to be ignorant to that. You STILL seem to think I'm attacking all cloakers. I'm not. You can continue to get your precious 0 kills through your current flawed tactic all you want.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1935 - 2013-09-26 18:38:50 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
My apologies for resorting to the rather lazy response of crying "carebear" or pointing at highsec.

However, you are by definition worried about people shooting you: That is the reason you dock up when someone enters system. It is why you remain docked when that person does not leave system.

The only reason your time is "wasted" is because YOU waste it. No one forces you to sit idle while someone else is in system. You choose to do that because you do not think the benefits (the isk gained from mining/ratting/whatever) in that time period outweigh the risk (of losing X isk worth of ship).

Thats up to you - I will not fault you for making that judgement. However, demanding that you never have to make such judgements, and that my playstyles, my abilities, be removed such that you do not have to make those tough decisions is unacceptable.
Avoiding combat due to a 100% chance of loss if engaging makes me a carebear? lol
No, my time is NOT wasted, because I MOVE SYSTEM.
My time would be wasted if I spent it trying to bait a player into a fight, which is what you are saying I need to do to not be a carebear. I PvP on ops. I HAVE NO INTEREST IN PVP DURING MY OWN TIME. Understand? Choosing to do something else and not sped 100% of my time pew pewing randoms does not make me a carebear.

And I'm not asking YOU to do anything. You aren't an AFK cloaker apparently. I'm simply saying that anyone playing the game should HAVE TO PLAY THE GAME. And yet you STILL seem to be ignorant to that. You STILL seem to think I'm attacking all cloakers. I'm not. You can continue to get your precious 0 kills through your current flawed tactic all you want.


Except it's not a "100% chance of loss" when someone new enters or stays in local, is it? They might be passing through. The ones who stay might be afk. There are plenty of other possibilities, so you are not guaranteed to lose a ship. There is a chance. You make a judgement as to what that chance is, and you weigh it against the benefits. That's good.

But then you ask that those chances, those judgements, be removed, because you don't like them. That's bad.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1936 - 2013-09-26 18:39:32 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
This is because you are purposefully asking for proof of something that is unprovable. There's probably some latin name for the type of horrendous logical mistake in this type of argument.

We do not know if the person who lost his ship lost it as a result of thinking "he's afk so I'm going to go mine some roids", or if it was because he had local minimised and undocked without checking, or even if he thought "this dude is active but I dont care", or any other possible reason. We cannot know that, stop asking that we prove it.

However, the possibility that it was that first reason exists. You cannot deny that it is a possible reason. We cannot "prove" it happens as nothing in the game mechanics, killboards, etc could possibly show that and because we cannot read minds. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, though, as the saying goes.

Please refrain from such fallacies
No. I will not refrain from asking for proof of the argument you are placing. If you can't evidence it YOU have to find an alternative. I don't have to do anything. You chose a flawed argument, you deal with it.
You can't tell me I am wrong, based on some made up theory that you can't prove, then tell me I' not allowed to dispute it as you are unable to prove it. That's utter rubbish.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1937 - 2013-09-26 18:40:55 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Except it's not a "100% chance of loss" when someone new enters or stays in local, is it? They might be passing through. The ones who stay might be afk. There are plenty of other possibilities, so you are not guaranteed to lose a ship. There is a chance. You make a judgement as to what that chance is, and you weigh it against the benefits. That's good.

But then you ask that those chances, those judgements, be removed, because you don't like them. That's bad.

No, it's a 100% chance of loss if I engage you in an exhumer. You are telling me I'm a carebear if I don;t engage. I get it. You want easy kills. Go find them elsewhere.
YOU want to hide behind and exploited mechanic AND you can;t even prove that that does any good! That's bad.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1938 - 2013-09-26 18:43:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Nikk Narrel
Andy Landen wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:

This from someone spouting the benefits and rewards of "efforts", and how they should be a requirement.

This discussion frequently centered around using a FREE intel tool, which requires zero effort to use, and bypasses other options which would use effort instead.

Lazy = local chat as intel

Using local is not easy or free any more than gatecamping is easy or free.
In the first place, you must watch local relentlessly and not miss a second. Similarly, when you gatecamp, you must watch the stargate relentlessly and if you miss a second, the target could get away. Gatecamping may be easier because the gate activation actually makes a sound, whereas the local change does not. .. perhaps fixing local means adding a sound for changes ... lol
Secondly, there is great effort in doing research on everyone in local (including blues tbph) and on everyone reported in intel changes from appearances in local. We research their killboards (free self-promotion for you) and every other bit of information connected to these players, including corp, corp history, alliance, time since character creation, etc.
Thirdly, we have to manually track the movements in the reports. There is no tool which shows on a map the current locations and the past locations of each reported player.
Fourth, players which are not blue to some but are blue to others are reported and it takes effort to sort that out.

So nothing is free and nothing is easy and nothing is 100% reliable. The intel we get from local to intel channels takes work, research, tracking, and has errors.

What would be free is if a cyno stealth bomber entered system WITHOUT local announcing it, warped to each site until it found a pve target, decloaked and instantly pointed the target, instantly lit the hotdrop cyno, and got a free, easy kill for himself and all his friends. THAT is FREE, and EASY: The hidden from local cyno stealth bomber who didn't even have to decloak during warp to be caught on a VERY diligent dscan, and could still lock and point with zero delay from decloak. FREE and EASY for cyno stealth bombers right there with this commonly proposed "solution" to the afk cloaky issue. Thoughts?

Added: Lucas, a Nyx warping cloaked, even to and from deadspace? Seriously? I could never support a cloaked warp for any reason by anything other than a cov ops cloaky ship, or maybe even a black ops.

Ok, this comparison to local with gatecamping failed on line 1.

Watching local can be done in a POS, or docked in a station.
Gatecamping requires more effort, by virtue of needing to be on grid with the gate itself.

Further detailing how you can leisurely perform background checks on hostiles in system, ones you have not even laid eyes on directly, further establishes the safety factor using local has.

The fact that you evacuated every ship that was potentially at risk before performing this check, again with no need for other intel beyond local, demonstrates how it can be leveraged as effective intel.

As to your free cyno stealth bomber comment, it is commonly accepted the means to hunt cloaked vessels would be balanced if the awareness of cloaked vessels also required effort.
You can find em, means you need to look too. Don't expect to be prompted when to shoot either.

EDIT: actually, Andy, I had not jumped onto your typo. I gave you credit for your intent of pointing out the ship not being reported, by establishing that an effort based solution would exist.
These devs, they really do balance stuff!
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1939 - 2013-09-26 18:43:56 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
The whole concept of logic, you are not too strong at grasping it.

Provide evidence that a pilot logging in could not get the same kill.... and you call ME a troll?

It has been established and accepted that a pilot entering a system, be that through a gate or logging in followed by the warp to being active again, will be outed by local.
The denial of pre-warning the cloaked pilot has alone should tell you they are not evenly matched probabilities of success.
The cloaked pilot can show up on grid, with no additional warning, while the returning pilot cannot.

I need prove nothing. You want the timer for log-off, you need to prove he WOULD get the kill by just logging in.

Justifying the change you seek is paid for by proving it is needed, and you have failed at that repeatedly.
Sigh...
You want local removed. So you will cry your way through anything I say as long as it suits your needs. I've read other threads you are in trolling other people in the same way. I'm trying to present a solution in a way that only AFK cloakers are affected but because I don;t want to nuke local you will restructure and reword anything I say to troll me.
Plain and simple: Make sense, present proper arguments and counter productively. If not, for all intents and purposes, you are dead to me on this thread.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1940 - 2013-09-26 18:45:12 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Except it's not a "100% chance of loss" when someone new enters or stays in local, is it? They might be passing through. The ones who stay might be afk. There are plenty of other possibilities, so you are not guaranteed to lose a ship. There is a chance. You make a judgement as to what that chance is, and you weigh it against the benefits. That's good.

But then you ask that those chances, those judgements, be removed, because you don't like them. That's bad.

No, it's a 100% chance of loss if I engage you in an exhumer. You are telling me I'm a carebear if I don;t engage. I get it. You want easy kills. Go find them elsewhere.
YOU want to hide behind and exploited mechanic AND you can;t even prove that that does any good! That's bad.


Where did I say anything about engaging me with an exhumer? Where did I say you were a carebear for not engaging with an exhumer? I do remember explicitly apologising for the lazy, inflammatory highsec/carebear comment that I made

I am also not asking for easy kills. I am asking that my current abilities not be mechanically removed simply because you don't like the fact that there is currently a level of uncertainty and risk in nullsec and that you have to make your own personal judgements about them.

PS: If you're now arguing that the mechanic does not have any effect, why are you so desperately trying to have it removed? That doesn't make sense at all, bro.