These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3121 - 2013-11-25 16:49:21 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
They wouldn't be reduced in power, but by making cloaking ships considerably easier to use with a higher rate of success, you relegate non-covops ships to a lower class. Like how the invention of the jet engine didn't make standard propeller design any less effective, but in comparison, it's simply not as good.


For sneaking up on people...yeah, non-covert ops ships should be relegated to a lower class.

Crazy, I know.

Roll

As it is, right now interceptors are probably the best ship to "sneak up" on people as in, they can get into system and warp fast, ignore defensive bubbles, and can hold down bigger ships while sig tanking most of that ships weapons.

Covert ops...useless.
And yet weirdly hundreds of kills occur every single day in non-covops, non-interceptor ships in null.
Why could that be?
Oh yes, that's right, because right now you don't have to "sneak up" on people.

With your changes however, you'd need to be able to go unnoticed long enough to track down a target, which in a non-covops would be impossible, since the defender would have an intel advantage. The only player that would excel would be... the cloaker! Since he get's to avoid anyone that doesn't have a "hunting module" by default.

Covert ops ships are designed for scouting and exploration, not combat. Look at their bonuses and skills and you'll see that. The only exception is the bomber, which is designed for attacking larger ships in part of a varied group. That is why they are useless at solo PVP, because they are not designed for it.
Basically you have crappy ship selection, and to fix that you want to nuke the ever living **** out of local to compensate for your failings.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3122 - 2013-11-25 16:50:30 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:


Teckos Pech wrote:
I shouldn't have to do anything is my point. I am at my keyboard, I am active. I shouldn't have to take any additional steps to keep playing the game. That is my point.
Oh ok, I see. You should not have to click in 45 minutes of play, but at the same time, I should be forced into unwanted PVP by removing a mechanic which has always existed. And I'm the one who is being unreasonable?
If you say so bro.


No, I shouldn't. If I am at my keyboard and watching what is going on or waiting on instructions from the FC, why should I have to do anything else...especially to justify an buff to your game play which you've already admitted you don't deserve?

Well...why should I? Oh...you'll nerf my game so you can then nerf some other guy's game play you don't like.

Yeah...that seems totally reasonable.

For the love of god....

"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
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3123 - 2013-11-25 16:53:00 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:

You know Andy if you could at least be a bit more honest....

I've already admitted many times in this thread that removing local would be too strong a buff to cloaking ships and PvP in general and would likely have a very strong adverse impact on PvE in null and the game in general. You KNOW this, but there you are going on and on again on something WE HAVE ALREADY AGREED UPON.

As for your log off timer, I asked you specifically about a guy in station and you rejected the idea it should apply to them. Did you change your mind? If so, where did you post it?

And my question still stands. Why do pilots like Andy and Lucas and all the others who want to nerf AFK cloaking by nerfing any and all players who happen to go AFK for 30 or more minutes have their game nerfed so that you guys can have a reduction in uncertainty. Or more simply, why should other people have their game play nerfed so yours can be buffed? Don't start prattling on about, "Oh its only a little nerf." Its a nerf. Why should they get nerfed and you get your game play buffed. Why do you deserve this mechanistic improvement in your game play?

As for your last comment, I'm not even sure what you are on about? Cloaks activate as soon as you turn them on. Can you pre-heat your cloak while still under the gate cloak? No. But then you can't pre-heat any module while under the gate cloak (just like you can't pre-heat a module while cloaked). That strikes me as reasonable. Or are you suggesting we buff cloaks so that the transition from gate cloak to cloaking module be seamless?

And you made your "cycle" appeal to the common nature of it. Okay, fine, modules cycle, but the vast majority auto-cycle. So, why should we not let cloaks auto-cycle? Oh...yeah because doing that would not grant a buff to Andy Landen's game.

(All caps for emphasis, not shouting)

I do appreciate that you read my post before responding. It is also good to see that you accept that removing local "would likely have a very strong adverse impact on PvE in null and the game in general."

And I know that you have proposed a tie of local to sov, which leaves non-sov completely in the dark and even sov is occasionally in the dark as various structures are attacked. Which means that for sov local, your idea occasionally "would likely have a very strong adverse impact on PvE in null and the game in general." We still need the specifics on your sov-tied local idea. I usually ignore/dismiss ideas until I see the specifics. My neglect of your sov. based local idea has been in light of your previous and continuing "local is the bad guy, get rid of it and problem solved" campaign. Give us all the specific details of how your local idea would play out in hs, ls, wh, npc null and sov null. We have heard some details, but not others and so the entire concept is rather muddy.

I'll tell you why afk players should get nerfed. Because they are afk and therefore have no right to be in a game they aren't even vaguely aware of at the moment. They deserve the nerf because they are not actively playing. While you might think there is a buff to all active players for having content made available, much like the ability to log on at all to the Eve servers is a buff which provides all players the ability to access server content, players can easily move their operations, thus rendering any systems freed up from afk cloakers merely additional available content. Doing ops in the neighboring system, a player could care less if that particular ssytem was freed up or not, so there is no meaningful buff by the auto-log feature; it just resolves an issue and removes an inconvenience and an afk'er.

Cloaks are not like the vast majority or modules, so we don't have to let them work exactly like all the others. That said, if we do an auto-log, then a cloak cycle is redundant and unnecessarily targets a specific group, however lightly.

On a separate, but related topic on cloaks, I actually would like to see modules like cloaks be able to "pre-heat" during the gate cloak or any time they are not normally permitted to operate. I don't care it the transition is seemless (the time between cloaks is usually so small that there is no chance to target before the cloak activates). Most of the decloaks at gates are by fast interceptors closing to within 2km or by space junk spammed around the gates or around drag bubbles.

Please notice that I am not letting this get at all personal and refuse to consider how it may or may not buff or nerf my personal game, which has been a bit limited due to work and other RL stuff. This is only about mechanics that are healthy for Eve Online and for resolving long-time and frequently-posted issues such as this one.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3124 - 2013-11-25 16:56:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
They wouldn't be reduced in power, but by making cloaking ships considerably easier to use with a higher rate of success, you relegate non-covops ships to a lower class. Like how the invention of the jet engine didn't make standard propeller design any less effective, but in comparison, it's simply not as good.


For sneaking up on people...yeah, non-covert ops ships should be relegated to a lower class.

Crazy, I know.

Roll

As it is, right now interceptors are probably the best ship to "sneak up" on people as in, they can get into system and warp fast, ignore defensive bubbles, and can hold down bigger ships while sig tanking most of that ships weapons.

Covert ops...useless.
And yet weirdly hundreds of kills occur every single day in non-covops, non-interceptor ships in null.


Total non-sequitur. I never said that kills don't happen in null. And I never said covert-ops are totally useless across the board. I mean really, if you are going to dishonestly ignore the context of my comment that's fine,but then getting on your high horse and calling everyone who disagrees with you idiots or high on drugs...and then complain when people aren't nice to you....Christ, your level of entitlement seems to know no bounds.

My comment was that as far as active hunters go, the best ship right now is probably an interceptor. They ignore defensive bubbles, warp fast, and can sig tank vastly larger ships (for the most part).

A covert ops type ship can't do much of that (maybe sig tank...maybe). Local gives them away as soon as they jump in. Defensive bubbles would make it impossible for them to try and warp to an anomaly and attempt to catch the ratter. About the only thing it could do if the PvE guy is really, really terrible is to light a covert cyno.

Covert ops ships do have their uses, but as an active hunter that is not one of them...which is weird when you consider that this is something such a ship would be ideal for...until you understand the game's mechanics.

"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
#3125 - 2013-11-25 17:00:31 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

You know Andy if you could at least be a bit more honest....

I've already admitted many times in this thread that removing local would be too strong a buff to cloaking ships and PvP in general and would likely have a very strong adverse impact on PvE in null and the game in general. You KNOW this, but there you are going on and on again on something WE HAVE ALREADY AGREED UPON.

As for your log off timer, I asked you specifically about a guy in station and you rejected the idea it should apply to them. Did you change your mind? If so, where did you post it?

And my question still stands. Why do pilots like Andy and Lucas and all the others who want to nerf AFK cloaking by nerfing any and all players who happen to go AFK for 30 or more minutes have their game nerfed so that you guys can have a reduction in uncertainty. Or more simply, why should other people have their game play nerfed so yours can be buffed? Don't start prattling on about, "Oh its only a little nerf." Its a nerf. Why should they get nerfed and you get your game play buffed. Why do you deserve this mechanistic improvement in your game play?

As for your last comment, I'm not even sure what you are on about? Cloaks activate as soon as you turn them on. Can you pre-heat your cloak while still under the gate cloak? No. But then you can't pre-heat any module while under the gate cloak (just like you can't pre-heat a module while cloaked). That strikes me as reasonable. Or are you suggesting we buff cloaks so that the transition from gate cloak to cloaking module be seamless?

And you made your "cycle" appeal to the common nature of it. Okay, fine, modules cycle, but the vast majority auto-cycle. So, why should we not let cloaks auto-cycle? Oh...yeah because doing that would not grant a buff to Andy Landen's game.

(All caps for emphasis, not shouting)

I do appreciate that you read my post before responding. It is also good to see that you accept that removing local "would likely have a very strong adverse impact on PvE in null and the game in general."

And I know that you have proposed a tie of local to sov, which leaves non-sov completely in the dark and even sov is occasionally in the dark as various structures are attacked. Which means that for sov local, your idea occasionally "would likely have a very strong adverse impact on PvE in null and the game in general." We still need the specifics on your sov-tied local idea. I usually ignore/dismiss ideas until I see the specifics. My neglect of your sov. based local idea has been in light of your previous and continuing "local is the bad guy, get rid of it and problem solved" campaign. Give us all the specific details of how your local idea would play out in hs, ls, wh, npc null and sov null. We have heard some details, but not others and so the entire concept is rather muddy.

I'll tell you why afk players should get nerfed. Because they are afk and therefore have no right to be in a game they aren't even vaguely aware of at the moment. They deserve the nerf because they are not actively playing. While you might think there is a buff to all active players for having content made available, much like the ability to log on at all to the Eve servers is a buff which provides all players the ability to access server content, players can easily move their operations, thus rendering any systems freed up from afk cloakers merely additional available content. Doing ops in the neighboring system, a player could care less if that particular ssytem was freed up or not, so there is no meaningful buff by the auto-log feature; it just resolves an issue and removes an inconvenience and an afk'er.

Cloaks are not like the vast majority or modules, so we don't have to let them work exactly like all the others. That said, if we do an auto-log, then a cloak cycle is redundant and unnecessarily targets a specific group, however lightly.

On a separate, but related topic on cloaks, I actually would like to see modules like cloaks be able to "pre-heat" during the gate cloak or any time they are not normally permitted to operate. I don't care it the transition is seemless (the time between cloaks is usually so small that there is no chance to target before the cloak activates). Most of the decloaks at gates are by fast interceptors closing to within 2km or by space junk spammed around the gates or around drag bubbles.

Please notice that I am not letting this get at all personal and refuse to consider how it may or may not buff or nerf my personal game, which has been a bit limited due to work and other RL stuff. This is only about mechanics that are healthy for Eve Online and for resolving long-time and frequently-posted issues such as this one.


Okay, I stopped reading that Andy. Here is why:

1. This "agreement" is nothing new as you are implying. I have been holding that position for over 100 pages now. It is the one area where Nikk and I have some disagreement. I know he's argued removing local is not as bad as everyone thinks. I disagree even though I see his points on that issue. At the very least it is a HUGE change I'd want to see implemented on a very, very limited way (i.e. maybe a given region to see what happens there).

2. As for non-Sov null, I have addressed that point so many times I can't believe you brought this up.

That is where I stopped. I stopped because...why should I keep reading?

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

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#3126 - 2013-11-25 17:00:42 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Cloakers:
Gain the ability to sneak up on unsuspecting people with greater ease, with the exception of the largest blobs with huge intel networks
Something cloaked being able to sneak up on something, naw, that could NEVER happen. Well, currently it could never happen, I should say. You simply cannot surprise someone if they have already been told you are present.
Now, as to requiring large blobs with huge intel networks, that is a straw man argument by virtue of the extreme exaggeration of requirements involved. It actually requires only one ship.

1> So if it only requires one ship, where all this "effort" that you keep campaigning for. If a single player can carry on as normal and still get himself the same as local gives now, what is the point in changing it?
Your argument has been that there would be pos modules and an "intel network", which obviously would be better the mroe players you have to contribute.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Non-Cloak PVPers:
Gain the ability for their ship to be utterly useless in solo/small-gang PvP, since they would be swiftly identifiable, making them less useful in PvP thank a non-covops hunting in a wormhole.
Barring recent changes specific to interceptors, exactly how would solo / small gang PvP be negatively affected?
These ships would not appear differently in local, would not have their DPS reduced, and would have the same chance of catching targets as before. They are already swiftly identifiable, as every ship is, at this time.

2> They wouldn't be reduced in power, but by making cloaking ships considerably easier to use with a higher rate of success, you relegate non-covops ships to a lower class. Like how the invention of the jet engine didn't make standard propeller design any less effective, but in comparison, it's simply not as good.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
PvE players:
Gain fancy new modules to hunt cloakers, enabling them to PvP... Which they don't want to do, since they are PvE players.
Really? You finally confess this NOW?
The idea that someone playing PvE should have no need to consider PvP, in your opinion, should be reinforced by game mechanics?
I am fascinated to know you believe this.
It is not directly linked to my idea, although parts of my proposal could make it harder for players to disregard PvP so casually.

3> Confess to what, that people that like PVE and dislike PVP want to aim for more PVE? That's not new bro, where have you been?
You want, as many PVP players do, to FORCE PVP on them. Tough ****, they have every right to play the sandbox game as they see fit. Why should the balance tip in YOUR favour by forcing them to PVP though YOUR mechanics? You say it like your change is NOT a mechanic change.


1. Simple math, really. Right now, you are using ZERO ships to provide that intel, see?
(Local does it all, with no support from you at all)

2. You are stating an opinion here, and I dispute it as having no supporting evidence.
The expectation that cloaked vessels are currently useless still keeps them in use, as you point out repeatedly. Your suggestions are quite specific in removing this outlet for them.
Mine simply trade the absolute of "can't find me" in exchange for "can see me for free".
The cloaked ship is no better or worse off, it simply has more play options from both sides.

Realistically speaking, my idea takes more from cloaking than it gives back. You cannot locate a cloaked ship at all, with realistic tactics, with the current game. And you always knew it was present.
With my change, and modest effort, you can hunt and kill a cloaked ship whenever it comes near you.

If this means some players were being forced to play non cloaking ships before, they now have more options. Non cloaking ships will still retain all the value they held before.

3. Noone is forcing PvP onto them, any more than they are allowed. No part of EVE blocks PvP, in this context.
But, since they chose to play in the group effort oriented section of EVE, they may need to accept that group effort will always have an advantage in this part of the game.
I would point out that they can simply use other members of their group to deal with PvP, just like they do now.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3127 - 2013-11-25 17:02:42 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:


With your changes however, you'd need to be able to go unnoticed long enough to track down a target, which in a non-covops would be impossible, since the defender would have an intel advantage. The only player that would excel would be... the cloaker! Since he get's to avoid anyone that doesn't have a "hunting module" by default.


Not like they don't have this advantage already, right? Local gives away intruders in every system and the defenders have to do nohting. And that intel system is completely beyond the ability of the attackers to undermine...except....by AFK cloaking and AWOXing.

"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
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3128 - 2013-11-25 17:23:53 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:


Teckos Pech wrote:
I shouldn't have to do anything is my point. I am at my keyboard, I am active. I shouldn't have to take any additional steps to keep playing the game. That is my point.
Oh ok, I see. You should not have to click in 45 minutes of play, but at the same time, I should be forced into unwanted PVP by removing a mechanic which has always existed. And I'm the one who is being unreasonable?
If you say so bro.


No, I shouldn't. If I am at my keyboard and watching what is going on or waiting on instructions from the FC, why should I have to do anything else...especially to justify an buff to your game play which you've already admitted you don't deserve?

Well...why should I? Oh...you'll nerf my game so you can then nerf some other guy's game play you don't like.

Yeah...that seems totally reasonable.

For the love of god....
You do realise how entitled you sound right? Telling everyone how you should not have to click once every 15 minutes. How DARE we expect you to have to play the game you are playing!

It's utterly ludicrous to suggest a change to remove local from the game, yet state that you having to click once every 15 minutes would be unreasonable to ask. Get over yourself.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3129 - 2013-11-25 17:30:14 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Total non-sequitur. I never said that kills don't happen in null. And I never said covert-ops are totally useless across the board. I mean really, if you are going to dishonestly ignore the context of my comment that's fine,but then getting on your high horse and calling everyone who disagrees with you idiots or high on drugs...and then complain when people aren't nice to you....Christ, your level of entitlement seems to know no bounds.

My comment was that as far as active hunters go, the best ship right now is probably an interceptor. They ignore defensive bubbles, warp fast, and can sig tank vastly larger ships (for the most part).
So if an interceptor is the best ship right now, how come so many kills come from ships that are not interceptors?
The reason is, you are full of ****. You are guessing that an interceptor is the best, and all those pesky things like facts and statistics are beside the point.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Covert ops ships do have their uses, but as an active hunter that is not one of them...which is weird when you consider that this is something such a ship would be ideal for...until you understand the game's mechanics.
It's not so weird when you realise that they were not put in the game to be uber at PVP. They were put in the game to EXPLORE. It's you guys that want to make them the best PVP ship in the game by smashing long standing mechanics to pieces with a hammer. I'm happy for covops to keep excelling at what they currently do. Exploration and scouting.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#3130 - 2013-11-25 17:32:50 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:


Teckos Pech wrote:
I shouldn't have to do anything is my point. I am at my keyboard, I am active. I shouldn't have to take any additional steps to keep playing the game. That is my point.
Oh ok, I see. You should not have to click in 45 minutes of play, but at the same time, I should be forced into unwanted PVP by removing a mechanic which has always existed. And I'm the one who is being unreasonable?
If you say so bro.


No, I shouldn't. If I am at my keyboard and watching what is going on or waiting on instructions from the FC, why should I have to do anything else...especially to justify an buff to your game play which you've already admitted you don't deserve?

Well...why should I? Oh...you'll nerf my game so you can then nerf some other guy's game play you don't like.

Yeah...that seems totally reasonable.

For the love of god....
You do realise how entitled you sound right? Telling everyone how you should not have to click once every 15 minutes. How DARE we expect you to have to play the game you are playing!

It's utterly ludicrous to suggest a change to remove local from the game, yet state that you having to click once every 15 minutes would be unreasonable to ask. Get over yourself.

Quite right, about needing to click things in order to actively play the game.

Let's start with scanning for cloaked ships, instead of being told they are present with no effort?

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3131 - 2013-11-25 17:33:00 UTC
Seriously, you guys always seem to log on at the same time and pretty much alternate walls of text saying the same stuff. Are you best friends?
I really don't have time to read wall after wall of the same text over and over again.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3132 - 2013-11-25 17:36:06 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:


Teckos Pech wrote:
I shouldn't have to do anything is my point. I am at my keyboard, I am active. I shouldn't have to take any additional steps to keep playing the game. That is my point.
Oh ok, I see. You should not have to click in 45 minutes of play, but at the same time, I should be forced into unwanted PVP by removing a mechanic which has always existed. And I'm the one who is being unreasonable?
If you say so bro.


No, I shouldn't. If I am at my keyboard and watching what is going on or waiting on instructions from the FC, why should I have to do anything else...especially to justify an buff to your game play which you've already admitted you don't deserve?

Well...why should I? Oh...you'll nerf my game so you can then nerf some other guy's game play you don't like.

Yeah...that seems totally reasonable.

For the love of god....
You do realise how entitled you sound right? Telling everyone how you should not have to click once every 15 minutes. How DARE we expect you to have to play the game you are playing!

It's utterly ludicrous to suggest a change to remove local from the game, yet state that you having to click once every 15 minutes would be unreasonable to ask. Get over yourself.

Quite right, about needing to click things in order to actively play the game.

Let's start with scanning for cloaked ships, instead of being told they are present with no effort?
CCP will never implement it.
Seriously, how hard is that to understand. The majority of the playerbase does not want this. It will not happen.
So there is no point going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and about it.

This is about AFK cloaking. Cry about local in your "I hate local" thread.

I tell you what, since this is Teckos' thread, I'm going to start a new one in a bit, about AFK cloaking, and only about AFK cloaking.
Every teary eyed post crying about local will get reported as off-topic, since that's what it is.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#3133 - 2013-11-25 18:02:18 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:

CCP will never implement it.
Seriously, how hard is that to understand. The majority of the playerbase does not want this. It will not happen.
So there is no point going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and about it.

This is about AFK cloaking. Cry about local in your "I hate local" thread.

I tell you what, since this is Teckos' thread, I'm going to start a new one in a bit, about AFK cloaking, and only about AFK cloaking.
Every teary eyed post crying about local will get reported as off-topic, since that's what it is.

You speaking for the majority of the player base?

I don't think so.

The majority of the player base has no idea this thread exists, much less a vested interest of your views inside it.

You are speaking for a niche, of PvE players who want their game to be easier, deny that local is giving free intel that affects this, and refuse to believe that income in null would be affected.

The majority of the player base couldn't care less.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3134 - 2013-11-25 18:02:53 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:

Okay, I stopped reading that Andy. Here is why:

1. This "agreement" is nothing new as you are implying. I have been holding that position for over 100 pages now. It is the one area where Nikk and I have some disagreement. I know he's argued removing local is not as bad as everyone thinks. I disagree even though I see his points on that issue. At the very least it is a HUGE change I'd want to see implemented on a very, very limited way (i.e. maybe a given region to see what happens there).

2. As for non-Sov null, I have addressed that point so many times I can't believe you brought this up.

That is where I stopped. I stopped because...why should I keep reading?

You seem to have this habit of repeatedly stopping reading the posts, sometimes before finishing the first sentence, it seems. I have been nothing but respectful, albeit brutally candid and honest, with you. GO BACK AND READ IT.

I never said the agreement was new. I just wanted to make sure everyone heard it. Unfortunately, I have confused your views with Nikk's far too often for reasons hard to identify. It could be that you two seem to valid a lot of what each other says, which seems to imply agreement with all the ideas contained in those posts. Whatever the reason, I apologize for the confusion and I am trying to set the record straight on what Teckos, OP, advocates.

I cannot recall your response to non-sov null, and I think that it would be useful for anyone else reading to get the straight story from you rather than to just assume incorrectly about your ideas and dismiss them altogether without a second thought. Don't restrain yourself from the chance to make your ideas as clear as possible.

You should keep reading because I am engaging a dialog with productive, objective, rational discussion of the topic of your thread and asking you to tell the world how you feel your topic should be resolved regarding "local" mechanics. Don't stop reading when you realize that your ideas are not as clear with others as you would like, or else people will never know correctly what you advocate. You will find yourself in a perpetual loop of calling people dishonest because they never got the full story on all the details, and 100 more pages of personal attacks will leave your thread floundering for lack of real discussion. Let's change that here, continuing reading my previous post(s), and tell us all the details on how you really feel about "local".

We read so that we know what to write for productive discussion.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3135 - 2013-11-25 18:16:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:


Teckos Pech wrote:
I shouldn't have to do anything is my point. I am at my keyboard, I am active. I shouldn't have to take any additional steps to keep playing the game. That is my point.
Oh ok, I see. You should not have to click in 45 minutes of play, but at the same time, I should be forced into unwanted PVP by removing a mechanic which has always existed. And I'm the one who is being unreasonable?
If you say so bro.


No, I shouldn't. If I am at my keyboard and watching what is going on or waiting on instructions from the FC, why should I have to do anything else...especially to justify an buff to your game play which you've already admitted you don't deserve?

Well...why should I? Oh...you'll nerf my game so you can then nerf some other guy's game play you don't like.

Yeah...that seems totally reasonable.

For the love of god....
You do realise how entitled you sound right? Telling everyone how you should not have to click once every 15 minutes. How DARE we expect you to have to play the game you are playing!

It's utterly ludicrous to suggest a change to remove local from the game, yet state that you having to click once every 15 minutes would be unreasonable to ask. Get over yourself.



Ooooh, nice try. I'm actively playing the game and I'm paying. Yeah, I think it is not reasonable for me to have additional burdens you don't simply because I'm not playing the same way your are.

Don't you get it? I am doing nothing wrong. I'm not even AFK camping, so yeah asking me to do additional stuff to play the game is just ridiculous. I should NOT have to do that so you can get a benefit.

"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
#3136 - 2013-11-25 18:18:15 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

Okay, I stopped reading that Andy. Here is why:

1. This "agreement" is nothing new as you are implying. I have been holding that position for over 100 pages now. It is the one area where Nikk and I have some disagreement. I know he's argued removing local is not as bad as everyone thinks. I disagree even though I see his points on that issue. At the very least it is a HUGE change I'd want to see implemented on a very, very limited way (i.e. maybe a given region to see what happens there).

2. As for non-Sov null, I have addressed that point so many times I can't believe you brought this up.

That is where I stopped. I stopped because...why should I keep reading?

You seem to have this habit of repeatedly stopping reading the posts, sometimes before finishing the first sentence, it seems. I have been nothing but respectful, albeit brutally candid and honest, with you. GO BACK AND READ IT.


You have this habit of misrepresenting my suggested changes. So no, I wont read it. Go back and re-write and re-post. This time get your facts about my suggestions correct. Asking me to re-read your incorrect comments is just nonsense.

"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
Mag's
Azn Empire
#3137 - 2013-11-25 19:34:21 UTC
Jenna Hamalia wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Jenna Hamalia wrote:
And what risk does an AFK cloaker in enemy territory face? I can sit cloaked 24/7 and not even be at the computer and know I am 100% safe. If I'm truly honest about it, I have to ask why I'm able to sit with zero risk in enemy space? Cloak or not, I shouldn't be immune from repercussions.
I see people use this argument, but fail to apply it to both sides equally.


OK, that doesn't even make sense. The *ONLY* risk in the current setup is to the other side.
You argument was that someone AFK and cloaked, can sit 24/7 and not even be at their computer and know they are safe. I'm simply suggesting if that is the case, then apply that same logic to both sides equally.

What about that doesn't make sense?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Jenna Hamalia
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#3138 - 2013-11-25 20:15:48 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Jenna Hamalia wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Jenna Hamalia wrote:
And what risk does an AFK cloaker in enemy territory face? I can sit cloaked 24/7 and not even be at the computer and know I am 100% safe. If I'm truly honest about it, I have to ask why I'm able to sit with zero risk in enemy space? Cloak or not, I shouldn't be immune from repercussions.
I see people use this argument, but fail to apply it to both sides equally.


OK, that doesn't even make sense. The *ONLY* risk in the current setup is to the other side.
You argument was that someone AFK and cloaked, can sit 24/7 and not even be at their computer and know they are safe. I'm simply suggesting if that is the case, then apply that same logic to both sides equally.

What about that doesn't make sense?


Yes, I sit cloaked in enemy space, I gank a few helpless miners to scare them into base and then AFK with no fear I'm going to be killed. Same as they do to my corp... Obviously both sides can AFK cloaked safely in enemy space... Two wrongs don't make a right though. Both sides should be able to evict unwelcome guests (cloaked or otherwise) from their corporate space with some given amount of effort.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#3139 - 2013-11-25 20:23:01 UTC
Jenna Hamalia wrote:
Yes, I sit cloaked in enemy space, I gank a few helpless miners to scare them into base and then AFK with no fear I'm going to be killed. Same as they do to my corp... Obviously both sides can AFK cloaked safely in enemy space... Two wrongs don't make a right though. Both sides should be able to evict unwelcome guests (cloaked or otherwise) from their corporate space with some given amount of effort.

LOL

Hey Lucas, we found one claiming to get kills!

Here I thought noone was ever fooled by that cloaked yet patient tactic. So casual about it too!

How fortunate we are to have one confess here about their evil & overpowered sins....

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Jenna Hamalia
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#3140 - 2013-11-25 20:40:12 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Jenna Hamalia wrote:
Yes, I sit cloaked in enemy space, I gank a few helpless miners to scare them into base and then AFK with no fear I'm going to be killed. Same as they do to my corp... Obviously both sides can AFK cloaked safely in enemy space... Two wrongs don't make a right though. Both sides should be able to evict unwelcome guests (cloaked or otherwise) from their corporate space with some given amount of effort.

LOL

Hey Lucas, we found one claiming to get kills!

Here I thought noone was ever fooled by that cloaked yet patient tactic. So casual about it too!

How fortunate we are to have one confess here about their evil & overpowered sins....


It is simple, you cloak in their space, you AFK while they go hide in the base (nobody can find you, let alone kill you)... You come back some time later and look for miners sitting alone, gank it and watch them all scramble for base again. AFK again and go back to your main, rinse and repeat. Anyone that denies this is the strategy of AFK cloaking is a flat out liar.

Personally I hate it, but until CCP does something to remove the lack of any risk on the cloaker side that's the only way to balance a corporation doing it in your space (do it back to them)... It is lame and at least I'm honest enough to admit it even if the other cloakers on this thread enjoy this type of cowardly gameplay instead of a real fight.