These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CCP Kill AFKING-Summer Expansion 2012 Campaign
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#381 - 2012-01-20 11:50:57 UTC
I dont believe you are not - you are proposing titans for asymmetric warfare after all. If an entity can field a blob if titans (like PL) its a dominating force and doesnt fit in the concept of asymmetric warfare at all.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#382 - 2012-01-20 11:58:37 UTC
Funny, because what PL keeps harping on about is how titans are "the one counter to a mass of maelstroms", i.e. the very definition of asymmetric warfare. Few vs many.

And you were saying numbers, yourself.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#383 - 2012-01-20 12:14:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
titan blob vs maelstrom blob = asymmetric warfare, seriously?
Stop trolling.
Maybe I didnt express myself that clear but I really didnt think of PL in a thread about afk cloakers and guerilla warfare.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#384 - 2012-01-20 12:26:12 UTC
Fine, redefine "asymmetric" if you want. Doesn't change the fact that they enable a smaller (but titan-heavy) alliance from standing up to a larger (but more subcap-focused) foe.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#385 - 2012-01-20 12:30:46 UTC
asymmetric = cant win in a direct confrontation.
guerilla warriors or much veaker smaller opponents.
an alliance which fields a blob of supercapitals worth trillions of ISK doesnt qualify for that.
Stop fu*king trolling!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#386 - 2012-01-20 12:35:43 UTC
Your definition of asymmetric warfare is flawed.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#387 - 2012-01-20 12:37:36 UTC
its not.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#388 - 2012-01-20 12:43:20 UTC
So titans would not constitute a "technological advantage which outweighs the numerical advantage of the enemy"?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#389 - 2012-01-20 12:55:38 UTC
it is but to put it simply, its actually just "using few very big ships vs. many small ships".
Nothing to do with asymmetric warfare which is about small weak vs. huge and strong opponent. David vs. Goliath or something, not about red goliath vs. blue goliath.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#390 - 2012-01-20 13:16:54 UTC
No, asymmetric warfare isn't just "weak vs huge and strong", that's limiting the definition to a very select definition.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#391 - 2012-01-20 13:23:46 UTC
however, PL and RDN arent davids at all, their supercap blobs will blow even goons away in a direct confrontation, they are goliaths.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#392 - 2012-01-20 13:27:14 UTC
Sounds asymmetrical to me.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#393 - 2012-01-20 13:30:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
well whatever your definition of that is, you now know what I and pretty everyone else mean with it.
Start a separate thread if you like to question this or whatever.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#394 - 2012-01-20 13:35:15 UTC
I knew perfectly well what you meant, and that is but a subset of what can be called "asymmetric warfare".

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Mag's
Azn Empire
#395 - 2012-01-20 14:15:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Ghost of Truth wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Do you honestly think you're the first to try and use the EULA to try and justify your ideals in regards to AFKing? Just because you think it's an exploit, doesn't make it so. I think you'll find that's CCP's job.

CCP bans people for using exploits. But I'll take it from the lack of a list of banned players from you, that they have never classed AFKing with cloaks, as an exploit. So you obviously don't really know what CCP thinks in that regard now, do you? Blink



the EULA is a two party agreement.CCP or a PLAYER can call on to that.Just FYI.
And? The EULA just outlines what they expect of you and what you could expect back, it still remains their decision to make changes and or act upon it. As far as what is or is not classed as an exploit, that still remains CCPs job not yours.

Ghost of Truth wrote:
Gerrick Palivorn wrote:
If you can call on the EULA to get an afk cloaker banned for afk cloaking, please provide evidence and I will give you a cookie.


Prepare the cookie pot then.Becasue that is what i am doing..

edit:I cant ban a player of course..But I can call CCP that there they broke the EULA by not enforcing the quality clauses listed there, or not informing for its comapny position for a perceived, by my part, infrigment of the EULA.
Let us know when you succeed. In the mean time, I won't be holding my breath. Blink

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Ghost of Truth
Mad Dawg Industries
#396 - 2012-01-21 19:23:01 UTC
Still here, Still Kicking...
Valea Silpha
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#397 - 2012-01-21 20:27:45 UTC
L0rdF1end wrote:
You know they are already contemplating adding a ship designed at hunting down cloaked ships?

Have a read of the recent CSM minutes.
A solution of some kind will come, when and how is yet to be confirmed.

For now, take an alt and go cloak up in their PVE systems.


Just because they are likely to put such a thing into game doesn't mean that its a good idea. And it doesn't give any indication what kind of solution we are likely to expect.

A hard counter to cloaking will essentially kill every covert cloak ship, so there is no way they are going to do that. Otherwise, good luck ever getting through a gatecamp.

What's rather more likely is something that, with enough time and skill will let you probe out a cloaked ship, and drop something that will illuminate them.

And that's a different kettle of fish. It means you can't just sit still and be AFK all day, but otherwise doesn't effect cloakers. It directly handles the problem that people think they have (afk cloakers) while at the same time completely not solving the problem that they actually have (ACTIVE cloakers).
FHM
Doomheim
#398 - 2012-02-10 05:16:42 UTC  |  Edited by: FHM
This thread is stupid and the author is stupid, ******** moron care-bare who is being denied PVE because of a cloacky neut in his local. EVE is not a easy game and it should not be go play a single player for that. We are talking about how we could remove local channel so you never know when anyone is in local.

All of null sec and low sec should be like WH space so you never know who's in local that's make it even harder. Anyhow it is sweet to see your pathetic tears and NO WHOEVER IS NOT ******** OR BRAIN DAMAGED WILL BE AGAINST THIS.

Learn to deal whit it or un-sub we dont need more high sec space.

To not leave without a proposal:

Giving an ability to scan down cloacked ships is stupid and ********. There should be no such thing because it would be game braking. Just because few retards cant deal whit AFK cloackers they shouldn't nerf it.

A) AFK cloacking is a great mechanic to deny your enemy income and therefore should not be changed

Now what is problematic is the cloacky ability of cov ops ships to pass past gatecamps so easy most of the time you dont even get to lock a sb.

I would propose 2 things:

1) A smart bomb like module that can be activated every 5 minutes. It will send out a smart bomb like wave and decloack any ship in range of 10km and this module could only be fitted to ELECTRONIC ATTACK FRIGATES

-> This would make E-WAR frigs a viable pick for roams, fleets etc.. Since they are to rarely used today.

2) A cyno-jammer like pos module that disables system wide cloaking at the expanse of denying system owner to have Military, Industry or Strategic system level higher than 2.

-> This pos module would also greatly effect systems anomalies re-spawn rate instead of 15min it would take like 1 day for them to re-spawn or longer.

-> This module would effect everyone in the system.
Alxea
Unstable Pirate Sharks Of The Damed Sea
#399 - 2012-02-11 15:07:22 UTC
Ghost of Truth wrote:
THis is a CALL to CCP to fix AFKing in the next Expansion.I
ts THEIR responsibilty to find a solution on this hot issue, and not the players whith dozens and dozens of threads all this years.

WE DONT want to Break or Change Cloaking

WE DONT want to have SAFE mode on.

WE WANT the AFKIing CLOAKING to STOP

Thsi is not a Thread about opinions, trolling or headbashing.There is a thread for that.Go over there.


This is a thread requesting CCp to take a position on the matter, and as a suggestion for the next expansion.If you agree, just Bump!!

So you fear the surprise butt sex while bearing in your fav 0.0 system now do ya! Twisted
Ghazbaran
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#400 - 2012-02-11 15:48:37 UTC


I have really had it when people say AFK cloaking is a legitimate way of playing the game. For everyone information AFK cloaking is not actually playing. AFK = Away from keyboard. That means that when a player is AFK cloaking in a system for more that 10 or so hours, odds are he is actually not playing. Therefore come up with better responses than metagaiming, or legitimate ways of playing. If you are not on the Keyboard most of the time and your character is online then you are not playing.

The issue is not whether AFK cloakers affect gameplay, It's how it is possible for a person who is not actually playing the game does.