These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4001 - 2015-12-07 17:03:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
He just wants to make sure any and all risk is purely one sided.


Hardly, that's just your strawman to try and dismiss criticism.

Why else would I propose something that makes it harder to actively hunt people? Removing local from nullsec hugely hampers roaming gangs.


Quote:

All the blurf about how every freighter should explode at his mere I'll intent if not escorted because it's a capital ship just evaporated.


Why? Because I don't think your whining justifies completely breaking cloaking devices?


Quote:

Every snide remark about PvE players just wanting to protect their ISK at the expense of his own playstyle


You mean, exactly like you two have been arguing for? You've even gotten caught admitting that this is about nothing more than isk/hr numerous times.

Try and project all you want, you've been true to dishonest carebear form the whole time.


Truly hilarious stuff. You are out in the wind on this one. Tell some more direct lies. Spread more fertilizer and maybe you can grow some honesty. I doubt it, but you might.

Such a tiny risk directed at you, and suddenly 100% safety is ok, and everything is fine. La De da! RoflRoll

I mean, look at that back pedal. No local makes it harder to hunt? Because coming into the system and hitting Dscan is soooo hard. And you only have to do it once, unlike your prey who have to do whatever they are doing while refreshing every 5 seconds for all eternity. Totally equal there, no problem. You can even launch probes and cloak, they won't know a thing till you land on them. Sounds perfectly fair and balanced on both ends. RollRoll

Pure, 100% hogwash. All you want is to be totally safe while you hunt down people because risk on your end is unacceptable.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4002 - 2015-12-07 17:09:20 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Your suggestion breaks several things to solve a non problem.

Said non problem? "Waah, I can't rat afk if there's a non-blue in local!"

Roll



Don't forget that "local isn't any defence but DONT YOU DARE TAKE IT AWAY"

And "it's not reasonable that I should have to be prepared for PvP in no security space when I am ratting because my isk/hour is > all"

and my favourite "whilst I should not have to so much as fit a long point on my ratting ship, as this is unreasonable; any returning super capital pilot had jolly well better be paging all the nerds for a support fleet. Because that's not an unreasonable ask."


It's hilarious.


You are misunderstanding the position. We want no security space to allow for unsolicited PvP for all players, not matter how they are fit.



And the simplest way to achieve that, is to bin local.

But noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo that's not cool.


You would have to bin local completely. Otherwise a cloaked ship (that would still retain its invulnerability to unsolicited PvP) would merely have to say something to make sure everyone knows there is a hostile in system they need to be wary of.


You might think that, but that doesn't happen because people don't care/take steps.

It's wormhole 101: There is always a cloaky proteus.

You just stop caring.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4003 - 2015-12-07 17:12:56 UTC
Mike
You caught what I said about the timer based approach a few posts back?

Morrigan
I am just saying that if the idea is to remove local to remove the implicit threat, then you have to remove speak otherwise the implicit threat can be made there. Not caring is fine, but not scalable.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4004 - 2015-12-07 17:13:15 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Truly hilarious stuff. You are out in the wind on this one. Tell some more direct lies. Spread more fertilizer and maybe you can grow some honesty. I doubt it, but you might.


Now, folks, this is what flustered looks like. He knows that, after how dishonest he was in the last thread, that if I show up, I'll discredit him immediately. So since he knows he cannot defend his hideous posting record, he tries to attack me instead by projecting his own faults onto me and accusing me of them.

Quote:

Such a tiny risk directed at you, and suddenly 100% safety is ok, and everything is fine.


Cloaks are not 100% safety, liar. You and Jergens have been repeating that lie over and over in the thread, but anyone who has actually used cloaking devices in any real capacity, and I remind you that you have admitted that you have not, knows it to be a complete, utter lie.

You're seriously incapable of telling the truth, aren't you?


Quote:

No local makes it harder to hunt? Because coming into the system and hitting Dscan is soooo hard.


And here he backtracks over his own statements in the thread, in which he claims that merely staying awake at all through your automatic drone ratting counted as significant effort.

Never expect consistency, intellectual or otherwise, from this man.

He is the very worst kind of person.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4005 - 2015-12-07 17:14:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
Morrigan LeSante wrote:


You might think that, but that doesn't happen because people don't care/take steps.

It's wormhole 101: There is always a cloaky proteus.

You just stop caring.


Of course not. You don't have Concord, instead your barrier of entry is the location itself. You always know that whatever comes will be one for one and you can either take it or you cant.

I will not be one to say WH are safe, but the inherant risks are far different.

But hey, so long as it's your assets being protected all safe and snug it's all good.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4006 - 2015-12-07 17:17:08 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Truly hilarious stuff. You are out in the wind on this one. Tell some more direct lies. Spread more fertilizer and maybe you can grow some honesty. I doubt it, but you might.


Now, folks, this is what flustered looks like. He knows that, after how dishonest he was in the last thread, that if I show up, I'll discredit him immediately. So since he knows he cannot defend his hideous posting record, he tries to attack me instead by projecting his own faults onto me and accusing me of them.

Quote:

Such a tiny risk directed at you, and suddenly 100% safety is ok, and everything is fine.


Cloaks are not 100% safety, liar. You and Jergens have been repeating that lie over and over in the thread, but anyone who has actually used cloaking devices in any real capacity, and I remind you that you have admitted that you have not, knows it to be a complete, utter lie.

You're seriously incapable of telling the truth, aren't you?


Quote:

No local makes it harder to hunt? Because coming into the system and hitting Dscan is soooo hard.


And here he backtracks over his own statements in the thread, in which he claims that merely staying awake at all through your automatic drone ratting counted as significant effort.

Never expect consistency, intellectual or otherwise, from this man.

He is the very worst kind of person.


Too rich. Keep trying.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4007 - 2015-12-07 17:17:20 UTC
I'm about ready to suggest that old Mike here has never actually been in a wormhole.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4008 - 2015-12-07 17:18:15 UTC
Jerghul wrote:

I am just saying that if the idea is to remove local to remove the implicit threat, then you have to remove speak otherwise the implicit threat can be made there. Not caring is fine, but not scalable.



Won't make any odds. There are other ways to spook the locals.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4009 - 2015-12-07 17:21:59 UTC
Kaarous
Please explain to me how a cloaked ship in a system is vulnerable to unsolicited PVP.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4010 - 2015-12-07 17:22:05 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I'm about ready to suggest that old Mike here has never actually been in a wormhole.


You are about ready to suggest anything at all that might look like you had a shred of credibility left.

Tell us some more lies. Your last one had at least three direct lies. Not just twisting, exaggeration, or hyperbole... Out and out pants on fire lies.

Or tell us more how it's your ship that needs 100% safety to be able to do its job, but everyone else needs to be vulnerable or you can't take it.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4011 - 2015-12-07 17:22:59 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Jerghul wrote:

I am just saying that if the idea is to remove local to remove the implicit threat, then you have to remove speak otherwise the implicit threat can be made there. Not caring is fine, but not scalable.



Won't make any odds. There are other ways to spook the locals.


Then removing local will not fix the concern I have.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4012 - 2015-12-07 17:25:37 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:


You might think that, but that doesn't happen because people don't care/take steps.

It's wormhole 101: There is always a cloaky proteus.

You just stop caring.


Of course not. You don't have Concord, instead your barrier of entry is the location itself. You always know that whatever comes will be one for one and you can either take it or you cant.


What?

That doesn't even make sense.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4013 - 2015-12-07 17:27:06 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Kaarous
Please explain to me how a cloaked ship in a system is vulnerable to unsolicited PVP.


Please explain to me why you think the decision to decloak is entirely up to them.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4014 - 2015-12-07 17:28:09 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I'm about ready to suggest that old Mike here has never actually been in a wormhole.


You are about ready to suggest anything at all that might look like you had a shred of credibility left.

Tell us some more lies. Your last one had at least three direct lies. Not just twisting, exaggeration, or hyperbole... Out and out pants on fire lies.

Or tell us more how it's your ship that needs 100% safety to be able to do its job, but everyone else needs to be vulnerable or you can't take it.


Again with the projection. He knows that anyone reading this thread will know him for a liar, and desperate for a way out, he latches on to accuse me of his own faults.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4015 - 2015-12-07 17:29:41 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:


You might think that, but that doesn't happen because people don't care/take steps.

It's wormhole 101: There is always a cloaky proteus.

You just stop caring.


Of course not. You don't have Concord, instead your barrier of entry is the location itself. You always know that whatever comes will be one for one and you can either take it or you cant.


What?

That doesn't even make sense.


Concord does not prevent PvP, it just provides a barrier to entry.

In null sec that barrier is provided by securing the space and hunting those not welcome.

In WH it's similar, but the location itself is a barrier as well. Few are willing to go there, and the exits aren't stable.

Lo sec has a few willing to try and secure various areas, but mostly stays very fluid for lack of strong tools to get that job done.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4016 - 2015-12-07 17:31:19 UTC
This https://zkillboard.com/kills/w-space/ suggests otherwise.

WH are far and away the most dangerous areas of space where even the best prepared WILL lose ships. Without exception.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4017 - 2015-12-07 17:32:12 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Kaarous
Please explain to me how a cloaked ship in a system is vulnerable to unsolicited PVP.


Please explain to me why you think the decision to decloak is entirely up to them.


Sigh. You are doing your cause a disservice.

I will just carry on developing suggestions then :).

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4018 - 2015-12-07 17:35:36 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Mike
You caught what I said about the timer based approach a few posts back?

Morrigan
I am just saying that if the idea is to remove local to remove the implicit threat, then you have to remove speak otherwise the implicit threat can be made there. Not caring is fine, but not scalable.


I caught it. You are on the wrong track. You want a mechanic that makes you safer. I am suggesting a mechanic to give you a tool to degrade their safety without just shutting it off. No cookie for those not willing to work for it on either side.

Rather than a timer that ends the cloak on a schedule known and controllable by the user of the cloak, I suggest a way for a hunter to actively degrade the safety of the cloak, with counters an active cloaker can take to restore it.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4019 - 2015-12-07 17:39:47 UTC
Jerghul wrote:

Sigh. You are doing your cause a disservice.


Your claim is that cloaked players are invulnerable.

So tell me then. Why do you think that nothing can decloak them? Because there are things that can.


Quote:

I will just carry on developing suggestions then :).


And the world shudders with the weight of yet more dumb ideas.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4020 - 2015-12-07 17:40:59 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
This https://zkillboard.com/kills/w-space/ suggests otherwise.

WH are far and away the most dangerous areas of space where even the best prepared WILL lose ships. Without exception.


In part because the ruleset ensures both attackers and defenders are at risk and fights less one sided. Which is great, but not everyone wants all that being in a wormhole requires, which goes far beyond a lack of local.

But it won't break them to make safety more of an active effort, and that effort would be evenly spread, not placed upon just one or another.