These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Proposal] AFK game play - the cloaked vessel

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lilly Naari
Enclave Security Forces
#261 - 2014-04-14 20:04:44 UTC
Mag's wrote:


It's their game and their rules and they apply them as they see fit. So as cloaking has been around since 2004 and AFKing with cloaks not long after, if it had been deemed an exploit or glitch, then we would know about it already.

So no, your claim is not based on, or has any relation to know facts. It matters not how you see it, it matters how CCP see it in this regard.


Actually Devs have stated on numerous occasion that cloaking is not functioning how they desire it to. So they have told you, I would guess however that it hasn't been delt with because lets be honest, its not game breaking and pretty trivial. And most people just choose to ignore them.


Quote:
Well as you already said yourself that the point of AFKing is Psychological warfare, then the counter is not to let it bother you. After all, that warfare is taking place in your head. Hence the term.

But it also requires the use of another mechanic to work, one that you seem to have ignored in your attempt to break cloaks.

So with that other mechanic in mind, the list is as follows:
You can close local.
Refit your ship for more of a PvP role.
Form a fleet.
Set up a trap.

But you actually said it wasn't about being AFK, it was merely about cloaks. You should at least decide what you are arguing against first. My actual point was that cloaks do have counters, just not ones that break them or that you may like.[quote]

Actually what I said was whether someone was afk or not was irrelevant. And technically it is. (I'll explain this below), in the rebuttal to why you think my premise is flawed.

[quote]

Your premiss is that the cloaker has 100% immunity while cloaked and this makes it unbalanced. Well that premiss is flawed because you don't take into account that that immunity goes both ways, therefore actually making it balanced.


Ah but your forgetting that a cloaked player can not be seen, while the non cloaked player can easily be seen by one who is cloaked, therefore, this gives the cloaked individual a massive advantage over someone who is not cloaked.

Hence they are not equals, and it is not balanced. And since a non cloaked individual has 0 defense and no way to hunt down or detect said cloaked individual, it is in fact massively imbalanced, and my premise is thus Correct, and Not flawed.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#262 - 2014-04-14 20:14:13 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Lilly Naari wrote:
1. You all have been debating this with me for the past 2 hours, yet none of you have yet to give me one example of how to effectively counter an Afk cloaker. And thereby show why my premise is flawed.

2. You all are debating opinions, and have yet to express actual examples (as I ahve) of why your information or opinion is correct and mine is wrong.


3. Saying someone is wrong because you think they are, does not make them wrong, it simply means you think they are. Showing evidence of a counter currently in game to an Afk Cloaker, would be proving my desire for one irrelevant since it would already exist.

4. Just as giving me a valid reason why a Player should be allowed to AFK in open space with 0 fear of consequence in a game world where every action you take has one, would also be a viable rebuttal.

Neither of which have been addressed or given by any of you.

I like points.

1. I believe many suggestions could be offered, about how to counter so-called AFK cloaking.
Since it apparently needs to meet your approval, however, we can safely assume you will never give it, thus it is not possible to meet this detail currently.

2. Your premise itself is an opinion, based on your interpretation of game details.
Fact: an AFK cloaked pilot is incapable of inflicting harm or damage to items in game, and is thus pointless to counter further.
Fact: Since you are concerned about active players behavior, as only active players can attack or through hot dropping bring others to attack, your labeling them as AFK is not appropriate beyond showing that they have mislead you to believe this.
And then:
Fact: Since your genuine interest apparently centers around how you object to being mislead by other players, might I suggest you try different tactics.

3. That first part is gold. You should print T-shirts.
The Counter: In sov null, where this has meaningful context, it is possible to see only the name and the standings in local, to know more than enough to realize you must take an action to protect yourself.
As evasion is often the only available means to prevent attack by miners, and some ratters, this is often the choice made.
How do you know they are cloaked? You don't. HOWEVER, you also don't know how they got past your gate camps either, suggesting something sneaky or clever happened.

4. Outposts, specifically player made ones, are placed in open space. People docked there are safe.
By this precedent, players have the ability to re-zone areas in system as being safe. Frequently this also occurs with a POS being set up as well.
Considering that being cloaked only re-zones the immediate area, and can be countered by simply getting within 2,000 meters of the ship, it is hardly as safe or secure as some have implied. It seems to rely quite directly on the fragile secrecy of it's location, to be precise.

I suspect these points will not satisfy you, as per my response at point 1.
I would further state that I believe you are working backwards from your desired conclusion, cloaked ships becoming more limited, and will refuse to acknowledge any response which does not support this.

Have a lovely day.

AFK players are able to inflict harm. The term "AFK cloaker" refers to a person who is AFKs cloaked for the majority of its time. It does not preclude that player from becoming temporarily active to kill somebody or drop a cyno. Attempting to deny AFK cloakers being a threat through those sort of semantic tricks damages a persons credibility.

I'm an AFK cloaker and it's obvious to me that AFKing for long periods of time so that people begin to relax and become vulnerable is my modus operandi. Just because I become active and kill somebody for 10 minutes out of a 24 hour day doesn't mean my AFK cloaking is not harmful. It is, very much so, both in that 10 minutes and psychologically at all other times.

Outposts and POS are not the same thing. The map gives you a good indication of how many are docked. You can watch the outpost and 100% see them undock every time. With cloaking you cannot do that. There is no indication that a cloaker has become active like a docked player indicates.

POS is similar, while you can sit safe in POS you can also be scanned and observed. You cannot scan and observe a cloaked player like you can someone in a POS.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Mag's
Azn Empire
#263 - 2014-04-15 00:12:40 UTC
Lilly Naari wrote:
Actually Devs have stated on numerous occasion that cloaking is not functioning how they desire it to. So they have told you, I would guess however that it hasn't been delt with because lets be honest, its not game breaking and pretty trivial. And most people just choose to ignore them.
They may have said it's not functioning how they desire it and you may be able to cite those posts, but that's a far cry from saying it's an exploit, glitch or bug.

So no, they haven't told me.

Lilly Naari wrote:
Ah but your forgetting that a cloaked player can not be seen, while the non cloaked player can easily be seen by one who is cloaked, therefore, this gives the cloaked individual a massive advantage over someone who is not cloaked.

Hence they are not equals, and it is not balanced. And since a non cloaked individual has 0 defense and no way to hunt down or detect said cloaked individual, it is in fact massively imbalanced, and my premise is thus Correct, and Not flawed.


It may be an advantage, but let's face it that's the whole point of a cloak. Although they are far from being covert.

But you were talking of immunity and that goes both ways. As and until the cloaker decloaks, both side are as immune from each other. The cloaker has 0 offence and no way to kill the none cloaker until he decloaks. Making it balanced and thus making your premiss flawed.

You seem intent on moving goals posts, in order to try and make your stance valid. I have to say, it's not working so well.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#264 - 2014-04-15 00:17:30 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Lilly Naari wrote:
Actually Devs have stated on numerous occasion that cloaking is not functioning how they desire it to. So they have told you, I would guess however that it hasn't been delt with because lets be honest, its not game breaking and pretty trivial. And most people just choose to ignore them.
They may have said it's not functioning how they desire it and you may be able to cite those posts, but that's a far cry from saying it's an exploit, glitch or bug.

So no, they haven't told me.

Lilly Naari wrote:
Ah but your forgetting that a cloaked player can not be seen, while the non cloaked player can easily be seen by one who is cloaked, therefore, this gives the cloaked individual a massive advantage over someone who is not cloaked.

Hence they are not equals, and it is not balanced. And since a non cloaked individual has 0 defense and no way to hunt down or detect said cloaked individual, it is in fact massively imbalanced, and my premise is thus Correct, and Not flawed.


It may be an advantage, but let's face it that's the whole point of a cloak. Although they are far from being covert.

But you were talking of immunity and that goes both ways. As and until the cloaker decloaks, both side are as immune from each other. The cloaker has 0 offence and no way to kill the none cloaker until he decloaks. Making it balanced and thus making your premiss flawed.

You seem intent on moving goals posts, in order to try and make your stance valid. I have to say, it's not working so well.

Total crap. Often cited and proposed but still total crap. A cloaked player doesn't have to even decloak to kill someone. All they need to do is sit near the uncloaked player. Done it many times myself to kill someone.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Mag's
Azn Empire
#265 - 2014-04-15 00:25:06 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:

Total crap. Often cited and proposed but still total crap. A cloaked player doesn't have to even decloak to kill someone. All they need to do is sit near the uncloaked player. Done it many times myself to kill someone.
Oh dear lord. This does not mean that the cloak was at fault, it simply means the person who died wasn't watching local or was a part of any intel channels.

But hey, let's move the posts some more before they settle in. Roll

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Seraph IX Basarab
Outer Path
Seraphim Division
#266 - 2014-04-15 01:01:07 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
Lilly Naari wrote:
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:


Actually being AFK cloaky IS part of PVP. It works to wear down morale. It frustrates the enemy. It helps destablize a region. You have a very limited understanding of what pvp entitles if you think pvp starts when you lock onto an enemy and ends when one of you is dead.

And no actual pvpers have made any whine about cloaky gameplay because the competent ones understand how it works and how to counter act it.



I do not count psychological warfare as part of PvP. I count it as Psychological warfare. Which is war on the mind and moral of ones enemies.

While yes this is exactly what the AFK cloaker is used for, it should have a counter. Any method of attack in game regardless of it's source should not be 100% immune to counter. Since you are labeling this as a form of attack, their should be some sort of mechanic whcih can be used to defend against it. otherwise in your own words it is the Eulas exact definition of an exploit or glitch.


The counter is you fit your ship properly to deal with pvp threats.

Or remove local for cloaked ships.

You have a good fit to deal with 100 Tengu? That's how many I saw dropped on someone the other day.


Seems like the issue there is cyno dropping, not cloaking.
Seraph IX Basarab
Outer Path
Seraphim Division
#267 - 2014-04-15 01:03:06 UTC
Lilly Naari wrote:
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
Cloakly gameplay is a way to give the "small group" a chance to do anything to a larger group. Sorry if you want to sit behind a blob wall and rat your heart away but nobody but other carebears share your opinion.


I never said anything was wrong with cloaky game play, in fact I am all for it, my main ship is an SB. (I am not a care-bear by the way and I am a beta player , I do not rat or mine either :) )

1. What I stated was that AFKers should have consequences for sitting afk in open space.

* You find a ship sitting afk in open space your going to kill it right? If your a pvper the answer is YES.

* You know a ship is Afk in open space but it's cloaked so you can't find it to kill it. = Garbage.

Care-bears are the ones who want to be able to Afk cloak, or those too lazy to actually work on their pvp skills.

So you my friend are either a care-bear, or too lazy to do any real pvp. Which is it? Because if you were neither and were a real pvper you wouldn't care if I could somehow hunt down your Cloaky ship, because you'd be ready and willing to fight or run from me.


Obviously however you care a great deal about protecting your ability to sit afk 100% immune to attack with no consequence.

And that's really the bottom line. Laziness is not part of, and has no place in pvp. Laziness is something for care-bears. And if AFKing isn't the very definition of lazy, I don't know what is.



You don't have a single kill under your name so you can't claim jack about flying cov ops. The reason i afk cloak is because whining carebears dock up the moment anyone enters local and wait for them to leave. That's the only reason. Not because i'm lazy or don't want to do "actual pvp."
Lilly Naari
Enclave Security Forces
#268 - 2014-04-15 01:11:07 UTC


Quote:

You don't have a single kill under your name so you can't claim jack about flying cov ops. The reason i afk cloak is because whining carebears dock up the moment anyone enters local and wait for them to leave. That's the only reason. Not because i'm lazy or don't want to do "actual pvp."


lol its called posting on an alt. You never post with your main on these forums, it's paramount to suicide. You should know this. Just makes you an easy target.
Seraph IX Basarab
Outer Path
Seraphim Division
#269 - 2014-04-15 01:24:20 UTC
Lilly Naari wrote:


Quote:

You don't have a single kill under your name so you can't claim jack about flying cov ops. The reason i afk cloak is because whining carebears dock up the moment anyone enters local and wait for them to leave. That's the only reason. Not because i'm lazy or don't want to do "actual pvp."


lol its called posting on an alt. You never post with your main on these forums, it's paramount to suicide. You should know this. Just makes you an easy target.



Really? Because that sounds like bullshit. I'm here. Who wants to target me? Roll
Nofearion
Destructive Brothers
Fraternity.
#270 - 2014-04-15 02:04:18 UTC
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
Lilly Naari wrote:


Quote:

You don't have a single kill under your name so you can't claim jack about flying cov ops. The reason i afk cloak is because whining carebears dock up the moment anyone enters local and wait for them to leave. That's the only reason. Not because i'm lazy or don't want to do "actual pvp."


lol its called posting on an alt. You never post with your main on these forums, it's paramount to suicide. You should know this. Just makes you an easy target.



Really? Because that sounds like bullshit. I'm here. Who wants to target me? Roll


Just to add to the silliness, I have alts that I post on forums for certain things that I do not want to reveal who I am.
However I know Seraph and he is quite well known, this is also the same for Nikk Narrel.
In this instance we all believe strongly in our views to express on our mains.
However this is off topic.

The only thing on the last few pages that has made any sense to me in regards to the original topic has been the afk notifier. is an interesting option. Would this apply equally to all players I think I could see its advantages.
However it would still give intel much too easily.
The idea of station kick out, cloak timers and such has been discussed on this thread and others. I was a fan at one time of having a timer on cloaks, However I have since changed my mind having seen the horrible cons and possibilities.

AS to cloaking in general. CCPFozzy has stated that the AFK cloaking mechanics do serve a purpose as a valid tactic for smaller entities against larger ones. That is the psych warfare. It is and has been since it came out in 2004 been admitted by devs and the community as needing work. However ultimately it is very low on the priority list for obvious reasons and many members of the EVE community are very polarized on how to improve it.

The original point of this thread was just one aspect of using cloaks, To be fair to that end all aspects of using cloaks, defence and offence has been offered.
Please consider these points

1. Once a cloak capable pilot has successfully entered a system and cloaked up- there is no viable mechanic to interact with that pilot as long as that pilot remains cloaked.
2. once point one is achieve there is no mechanic to effectively tell if the cloaked pilot is afk or not
3. The threat of force projection is there regardless of whether the pilot is afk or not
4. Current pve mechanics encourage maximization of profit leaving most pve ships incapable of meaningful pvp
5. The threat of force projection limits targets for cloaked pilots and encourages AFK game play.

It is my opinion that
a. Non cloaked or cloaked pilots should have a reasonable chance through diligent effort to find and interact with a cloaked ship.
b. A cloaked pilot should have a reasonable chance to avoid detection and or interaction.
c. No mechanic should encourage AFK play.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#271 - 2014-04-15 13:30:59 UTC
Nofearion wrote:
Please consider these points

1. Once a cloak capable pilot has successfully entered a system and cloaked up- there is no viable mechanic to interact with that pilot as long as that pilot remains cloaked.
2. once point one is achieve there is no mechanic to effectively tell if the cloaked pilot is afk or not
3. The threat of force projection is there regardless of whether the pilot is afk or not
4. Current pve mechanics encourage maximization of profit leaving most pve ships incapable of meaningful pvp
5. The threat of force projection limits targets for cloaked pilots and encourages AFK game play.

It is my opinion that
a. Non cloaked or cloaked pilots should have a reasonable chance through diligent effort to find and interact with a cloaked ship.
b. A cloaked pilot should have a reasonable chance to avoid detection and or interaction.
c. No mechanic should encourage AFK play.

It is my view, that the two absolutes imposed on intel both need to be changed, in order for either to be changed.
(Both or none, if balance is to be maintained)
Local must stop giving out actionable intel, this is a chat channel being used as a substitute for player effort. Obviously tools need to exist, and players need time to adapt over into their usage.
Cloaks must stop granting absolute protection, based off of the above being in place. It would destroy a key game element should local tell players when to hunt cloaked ships, in addition to being ABLE to hunt cloaked ships.

There is a third element, which I feel should also be respected. Leave the wormholes alone. They don't want changes, they are not a part of this environment being disputed. They LIKE not having local, and being unable to find each other while cloaked.
Let's not spoil their game to fix ours.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#272 - 2014-04-15 14:17:00 UTC
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
Lilly Naari wrote:
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:


Actually being AFK cloaky IS part of PVP. It works to wear down morale. It frustrates the enemy. It helps destablize a region. You have a very limited understanding of what pvp entitles if you think pvp starts when you lock onto an enemy and ends when one of you is dead.

And no actual pvpers have made any whine about cloaky gameplay because the competent ones understand how it works and how to counter act it.



I do not count psychological warfare as part of PvP. I count it as Psychological warfare. Which is war on the mind and moral of ones enemies.

While yes this is exactly what the AFK cloaker is used for, it should have a counter. Any method of attack in game regardless of it's source should not be 100% immune to counter. Since you are labeling this as a form of attack, their should be some sort of mechanic whcih can be used to defend against it. otherwise in your own words it is the Eulas exact definition of an exploit or glitch.


The counter is you fit your ship properly to deal with pvp threats.

Or remove local for cloaked ships.

You have a good fit to deal with 100 Tengu? That's how many I saw dropped on someone the other day.


Seems like the issue there is cyno dropping, not cloaking.

They're both related, as you well know.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#273 - 2014-04-15 14:31:46 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
You have a good fit to deal with 100 Tengu? That's how many I saw dropped on someone the other day.


Seems like the issue there is cyno dropping, not cloaking.

They're both related, as you well know.

Cyno dropping is also related to local's intel ability, every bit as much as AFK cloaking is, and for the exact same reason.

The need for cyno dropping, only exists since it offers the only means to deliver forces to a target before that target has more than enough free warning time to evade the threat.

It is common knowledge, that if a player can reliably avoid another player, then they are effectively immune to the threat that hostile player could bring.

Eliminate the predictable and overly effective warning, and hot dropping will cease to be needed, or used.
In fact, you can add a spool up mechanic to force it out of existence, so long as balance is kept in exchange.

The key factor, I see too often being glossed over, is that the devs have declared this to be currently in balance, regardless of whether it is the ideal solution they would prefer.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#274 - 2014-04-15 16:05:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
You have a good fit to deal with 100 Tengu? That's how many I saw dropped on someone the other day.


Seems like the issue there is cyno dropping, not cloaking.

They're both related, as you well know.

Cyno dropping is also related to local's intel ability, every bit as much as AFK cloaking is, and for the exact same reason.

The need for cyno dropping, only exists since it offers the only means to deliver forces to a target before that target has more than enough free warning time to evade the threat.

It is common knowledge, that if a player can reliably avoid another player, then they are effectively immune to the threat that hostile player could bring.

Eliminate the predictable and overly effective warning, and hot dropping will cease to be needed, or used.
In fact, you can add a spool up mechanic to force it out of existence, so long as balance is kept in exchange.

The key factor, I see too often being glossed over, is that the devs have declared this to be currently in balance, regardless of whether it is the ideal solution they would prefer.

Completely disagree with you. Cyno dropping is related to risk aversion and the desire to get kills without having to pvp. Cloaking and cyno's are not themselves bad but put together they create a stupidly imbalanced mechanic.

A cyno turns a newb ship into a super carrier, capable of carrying in its hold 36 trillion m3 of ships and pilots while cloaking the pilots from local. A newb ship should be a newb ship, not a ship capable of destroying a large fleet with a single module that takes 5 days to train.

The same goes for cloaky ships. They're imbalanced, they're constantly used and they're an I WIN button that prevents PvP, not encourages it.

I have never seen a dev post saying they think cyno dropping is balanced. Some of the developers though say stupid things. One of them was that the're happy with the way sov is and they have no immediate plans to change it. Sov is complete shite.

Just because they're a dev doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. Very likely they say stupid things like the sov thing because they have limited experience actually in the game playing against players.

I'd also like to say, if you don't like Local, and its intel, why did you join EVE? I joined in 2003 and there was local then. We don't need risk averse people who cannot figure out how to kill people without cynos. There are FPS type games where you can camp spawn points and get teleported around killing people.

You are also more than free to go to wormhole space and PvP. Why aren't you there if you hate local so much. Because you love local for yourself, you just don't like people using it to avoid you ganking them.

Edit:

Case in point - in a small gang moments ago, cloaky legion comes up the pipe, known cyno dropper flys around and tries to get engaged, while his alliance sits around a Titan 10 jumps away. Did we try to engage him, no, because we'd get dropped by 20, 30 or more ships with capital support. That player has effectively made himself immune from non-consentual pvp and immune to all small to mid sized gangs in the area. And you think we're the carebears trying to avoid pvp?

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#275 - 2014-04-15 16:23:39 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Completely disagree with you. Cyno dropping is related to risk aversion and the desire to get kills without having to pvp. Cloaking and cyno's are not themselves bad but put together they create a stupidly imbalanced mechanic.

A cyno turns a newb ship into a super carrier, capable of carrying in its hold 36 trillion m3 of ships and pilots while cloaking the pilots from local. A newb ship should be a newb ship, not a ship capable of destroying a large fleet with a single module that takes 5 days to train.

The same goes for cloaky ships. They're imbalanced, they're constantly used and they're an I WIN button that prevents PvP, not encourages it.

I have never seen a dev post saying they think cyno dropping is balanced. Some of the developers though say stupid things. One of them was that the're happy with the way sov is and they have no immediate plans to change it. Sov is complete shite.

Just because they're a dev doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. Very likely they say stupid things like the sov thing because they have limited experience actually in the game playing against players.

In point of fact, you misrepresent the larger context of the PvP experience with what you say.

Getting kills without having to PvP? Did they tickle the PvE ship to death, perhaps?

No.

The simple fact, is that the PvE ship, in this context, relied exclusively on evasion as a defense.
Whether it was because they were anti-social, or simply because they could not gather others to help them with defense, they chose to play in numbers too small to resist the attacking force.

They chose to rely exclusively on evasion, simply because they had a near perfect warning device that gave them the ability to do this. Only by ignoring it to some degree does a hot dropping hostile have ANY chance of reaching their target.

Why, pray tell, would hot dropping be needed in this environment?
Because no other options are available with any meaningful chance to catch the targets before they reach safety.

If you want to stop hot dropping, your only real option is to remove the reason it is used.

Without it, PvE ships have a near perfect defense in sov null, with only the limited fighting ability ships able to slip past gate camps to reach them at all.

Accept and repeat this all important truth:
We WANT encounters to happen.
While obtaining a direct benefit such as transport or direct income from mining or other NPC interaction, no ship is to be exempt from encounters for any reason.
Docked, cloaked, logged off, or sitting behind POS shields cuts off the ship from direct benefit, so is exempt while under these conditions.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#276 - 2014-04-15 16:32:25 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Completely disagree with you. Cyno dropping is related to risk aversion and the desire to get kills without having to pvp. Cloaking and cyno's are not themselves bad but put together they create a stupidly imbalanced mechanic.

A cyno turns a newb ship into a super carrier, capable of carrying in its hold 36 trillion m3 of ships and pilots while cloaking the pilots from local. A newb ship should be a newb ship, not a ship capable of destroying a large fleet with a single module that takes 5 days to train.

The same goes for cloaky ships. They're imbalanced, they're constantly used and they're an I WIN button that prevents PvP, not encourages it.

I have never seen a dev post saying they think cyno dropping is balanced. Some of the developers though say stupid things. One of them was that the're happy with the way sov is and they have no immediate plans to change it. Sov is complete shite.

Just because they're a dev doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. Very likely they say stupid things like the sov thing because they have limited experience actually in the game playing against players.

In point of fact, you misrepresent the larger context of the PvP experience with what you say.

Getting kills without having to PvP? Did they tickle the PvE ship to death, perhaps?

No.

The simple fact, is that the PvE ship, in this context, relied exclusively on evasion as a defense.
Whether it was because they were anti-social, or simply because they could not gather others to help them with defense, they chose to play in numbers too small to resist the attacking force.

They chose to rely exclusively on evasion, simply because they had a near perfect warning device that gave them the ability to do this. Only by ignoring it to some degree does a hot dropping hostile have ANY chance of reaching their target.

Why, pray tell, would hot dropping be needed in this environment?
Because no other options are available with any meaningful chance to catch the targets before they reach safety.

If you want to stop hot dropping, your only real option is to remove the reason it is used.

Without it, PvE ships have a near perfect defense in sov null, with only the limited fighting ability ships able to slip past gate camps to reach them at all.

Accept and repeat this all important truth:
We WANT encounters to happen.
While obtaining a direct benefit such as transport or direct income from mining or other NPC interaction, no ship is to be exempt from encounters for any reason.
Docked, cloaked, logged off, or sitting behind POS shields cuts off the ship from direct benefit, so is exempt while under these conditions.

Rubbish. You want to avoid risk in PvP. You want to sit in local cloaked and completely immune from combat, unable to be scanned or probed while you warp around, scanning and probing, looking for an easy kill on someone that hasn't decided to be completely immune from non-consentual PvP.

You're the risk averse person, not the person that is ratting. You're the one that's hiding waiting for your chance to get an easy kill against a ship that for whatever reason CCP devs decided, is not able to be fit for PvP and PvE at the same time.

Now before you get all upset and stuff, I have done this too. But I'm not going to pretend its because of the uber intel of local, its because I wanted kills and didn't want to get killed.

Lets be honest.

If you want to fight its easy to get a fight in EvE. Its easy to catch a ratter or missioner. Its just not uber easy as cloaking up and killing people when they're vulnerable.

Wormholes are great, you can sit your gang in the entrance to a null and send one ship out as bait. When its engaged you jump your gang in. No cloaking in local required. But people want it easier than many vs 1. They want to teleport entire fleets onto one target these days. Because they're risk averse carebears. And that's where I think the game is broken. There should be risk to BOTH sides.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#277 - 2014-04-15 17:12:31 UTC
LOL, it is so easy to assume these details, as you have clearly done.

Infinity Ziona wrote:
Rubbish. You want to avoid risk in PvP. You want to sit in local cloaked and completely immune from combat, unable to be scanned or probed while you warp around, scanning and probing, looking for an easy kill on someone that hasn't decided to be completely immune from non-consentual PvP.

You're the risk averse person, not the person that is ratting. You're the one that's hiding waiting for your chance to get an easy kill against a ship that for whatever reason CCP devs decided, is not able to be fit for PvP and PvE at the same time.

Now before you get all upset and stuff, I have done this too. But I'm not going to pretend its because of the uber intel of local, its because I wanted kills and didn't want to get killed.

Lets be honest.

If you want to fight its easy to get a fight in EvE. Its easy to catch a ratter or missioner. Its just not uber easy as cloaking up and killing people when they're vulnerable.

Wormholes are great, you can sit your gang in the entrance to a null and send one ship out as bait. When its engaged you jump your gang in. No cloaking in local required. But people want it easier than many vs 1. They want to teleport entire fleets onto one target these days. Because they're risk averse carebears. And that's where I think the game is broken. There should be risk to BOTH sides.

For starters, I have enormous risk control in PvP. I am a miner.
While I have the skills and hardware to AFK Cloak, I don't bother with it at all.
It's just not my play style.

I find it too boring to sit endless hours, waiting for someone to assume I am not there when I am. If they assumed I was not there, when I really wasn't there, it means nothing to me.

I don't care about causing resource deprivation reactions in others.

You want to be honest? Good, let's do that.

1. I want Exhumers and ratting ships able to fight effectively against cloaking oriented ships.
2. As part of this, I would add a spool up effect to hot dropping. Being on grid with your target, and lighting a cyno, should be a death sentence to the cyno boat every time. That PvE ship should melt the locked down cyno boat like butter on a stove.
3. I would add in enough to the Venture in order to make it practical to use in hostile areas, so play could happen in more places.

I want to play BOTH sides of this conflict, PvE vs stealthed guerrilla assault, because this is the clever side of EVE, where the game doesn't win or lose based on simple DPS or sheer numbers. Being clever carries more weight, and fooling your opponent is a victory unto itself.

By contrast, it sounds to me like you just want the so-called AFK cloaked pilots to leave.
How am I supposed to play with other players if they leave?

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#278 - 2014-04-15 17:30:38 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
LOL, it is so easy to assume these details, as you have clearly done.

Infinity Ziona wrote:
Rubbish. You want to avoid risk in PvP. You want to sit in local cloaked and completely immune from combat, unable to be scanned or probed while you warp around, scanning and probing, looking for an easy kill on someone that hasn't decided to be completely immune from non-consentual PvP.

You're the risk averse person, not the person that is ratting. You're the one that's hiding waiting for your chance to get an easy kill against a ship that for whatever reason CCP devs decided, is not able to be fit for PvP and PvE at the same time.

Now before you get all upset and stuff, I have done this too. But I'm not going to pretend its because of the uber intel of local, its because I wanted kills and didn't want to get killed.

Lets be honest.

If you want to fight its easy to get a fight in EvE. Its easy to catch a ratter or missioner. Its just not uber easy as cloaking up and killing people when they're vulnerable.

Wormholes are great, you can sit your gang in the entrance to a null and send one ship out as bait. When its engaged you jump your gang in. No cloaking in local required. But people want it easier than many vs 1. They want to teleport entire fleets onto one target these days. Because they're risk averse carebears. And that's where I think the game is broken. There should be risk to BOTH sides.

For starters, I have enormous risk control in PvP. I am a miner.
While I have the skills and hardware to AFK Cloak, I don't bother with it at all.
It's just not my play style.

I find it too boring to sit endless hours, waiting for someone to assume I am not there when I am. If they assumed I was not there, when I really wasn't there, it means nothing to me.

I don't care about causing resource deprivation reactions in others.

You want to be honest? Good, let's do that.

1. I want Exhumers and ratting ships able to fight effectively against cloaking oriented ships.
2. As part of this, I would add a spool up effect to hot dropping. Being on grid with your target, and lighting a cyno, should be a death sentence to the cyno boat every time. That PvE ship should melt the locked down cyno boat like butter on a stove.
3. I would add in enough to the Venture in order to make it practical to use in hostile areas, so play could happen in more places.

I want to play BOTH sides of this conflict, PvE vs stealthed guerrilla assault, because this is the clever side of EVE, where the game doesn't win or lose based on simple DPS or sheer numbers. Being clever carries more weight, and fooling your opponent is a victory unto itself.

By contrast, it sounds to me like you just want the so-called AFK cloaked pilots to leave.
How am I supposed to play with other players if they leave?

So basically you don't afk, you're a miner. Well I am an afk cloaking pilot which is why my corp is called Cloakers. One of us knows what they're talking about and one of us doesn't.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Superform
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#279 - 2014-04-16 09:55:57 UTC
sounds like you need to go back to high sec
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#280 - 2014-04-16 13:21:10 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
So basically you don't afk, you're a miner. Well I am an afk cloaking pilot which is why my corp is called Cloakers. One of us knows what they're talking about and one of us doesn't.

Ad hominem for the win. Try debating, next time... perhaps it might have better results for you.

FYI: I have both sides of this equation, if you actually understood what I wrote. I am a BLOPs pilot as well as every class of covert craft in the game. (some in multiple races)

I am also a miner, with the skills to boost effectively from an orca, or put any exhumer on the map with any T2 crystal.

While you are claiming to be a covert pilot who uses AFK cloaking, and are campaigning to have those options reduced so you will find that role made more difficult, assuming it remains practical at all.

I THOUGHT you asked for honesty here... is THIS how you demonstrate that quality?

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...