Player Features and Ideas Discussion

You are a peach, there is no doubt. Your ability to discuss things in a civil and honest manner are peerless.


There are 2 discussions going on here. First, there is Teckos dragging in local (with emphasis on the delay, as that's the only unbalanced issue with local), stations, and god knows what else in an effort to draw false equivalencies to cloaks.

To this I respond with the compromise involving gate cloaks keeping people out of local while it lasts, as that addresses the only real imbalance on that particular attempt to muddy the waters of the discussion.

Then you jump on the loading time not being relevant, because you are unwilling to accept that attentive players should be able to evade. Teckos maintains it is relevant, you maintain it isn't, and you mindlessly attack me when I answer his argument rather than joining the discussion in progress.

I *do* understand how cloaked PvP works just fine. I have issue with it, as it guarantees a lock on combat initiative. PvP balance vs. PvE balance in the game is radically in favor of PvP all over the game as it is, with avoiding combat all together being the best tactic overall. You favor a system that provides you easy access to the fight you have chosen and immunity to any fight you don't choose.

You aren't even attacking the proposal that you yourself asked for. You are attacking me for proposing it and calling it garbage on the general principal that it does exactly what you asked for--- providing a means of locating cloaks without making cloaks useless. I get you don't want a system where cloaks can be broken with time and effort, because it means you have to actually participate in your own safety (something you claim is trivial for your chosen target, but which is somehow too much burden for you to bear yourself).

The problem with cloaks exists, at least according to the people that were starting anti-cloak threads several times a day for years until this thread was created and all such requests were locked and directed here. Not even the same people, but new people, often several per day, for years, all being shouted down by the same few regular posters. You still see new people starting these threads today. The problem exists, but those that benefit from the situation as it stands are hell bent on keeping it as it is. My only real interest in the debate is the deeply flawed logic, especially coming from the pro-cloak group though the anti-cloak folks have had their moments too.

And there is no direct counter which you keep banging on about. And the only indirect counter is one you want removed.

Tell us again about your views on balance?



The gate cloak is a few seconds. Not much time to try and locate a ratter or miner in system.



An attentive player should have a chance to evade, not 100%. Your position is that the hunter should be relying on the ratter being inattentive.

Seriously you want a chance to find a cloaked ship...fine. How about a chance to catch even an attentive ratter?



No you don't. You have never done it. Ever. You don't know what you are talking about. Go out and get even a single kill in a cloaking ship and then you can write the above.

No Mike it is a discussion about AFK cloaking. You want to make it a general discussion cloaks. AFK cloaking and local are inextricably linked. It is you who is always and with every post off topic.

No. They lock any and every thread about cloaking, and redirect them here. This thread is about cloaking.

That's from the original post, 400 and some pages ago.


AFK camps are a symptom of how cloaks currently work, because they reverse the EVE norm of opting into safety. When that is resolved then those who complain about cloaked campers in their systems will truly have no legitimate complaints.

It's not about local, except for those that want to use the false equivalency to bolster their baseless position.

That is some nice selective quoting. This thread is about AFK cloaking as ATK cloaking is never a problem.

AFK cloaking is clearly a symptom of local. No local no AFK cloaking.

From the OP....


Not to mention the title: AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals

You pick the one part that supports your view and ignore all the others that don't. The very definition of selective quoting.

So we see you are lying.

And yes AFK cloaking is a symptom of local no matter how much you want to deny it.

Sorry, I did miss a mention that wasn't directly linking another thread, which was instead referring to those other threads. Hardly a *lie*.

The entire body of the post talks about cloaks, and even mentions tactics involving staying cloaked for long periods of time, but does not specify that the pilots of cloaks being AFK are a mandatory part of the discussion, nor even mention it except in the title. The other linked threads often discuss it, usually as a tactic to derail them from the real issue, which is cloaking itself.

It's certainly a visible pressure point of the subject, but it's not the only problem that cloaks have.

Your whole platform revolves around bringing unrelated aspects of the game and creating false equivalency. You selectively compare superficial similarities while ignoring context and any differences that invalidate your claim.

Equivalency with local is easily debunked by a number of factors: It works the same for all involved (with the concession that the loading time should be addressed), It's use requires coordinated and ongoing effort to remain effective, there are other possible counters, cloaks are still problematic in wormholes in a number of ways despite the lack of local, and the safety provided is the result of active and attentive gameplay rather than a static uncounterable default condition.

No, I've simply pointed out that YOUR ideas are garbage. Don't confuse the utter **** of your ideas with some general rule that everyone who disagrees with me is garbage. I'm open to being convinced, you've just failed badly at doing so.



Only if you nitpick "RNG" to mean only literally the server picking a random number. In the broader sense of "completely unpredictable event that the player has no control over the outcome of" then yes, it's RNG. If you decide to scan down a particular signature whether it is random or legitimate is entirely random. There's very little opportunity to be smart about figuring it out, all you can really do is tediously scan down signature after signature until you get lucky and hit the correct one. That's RNG gameplay even if no literal random number is generated.



You're right, I don't believe in some right to face an aggressor that takes priority over all else. And a cloaked ship is not necessarily an aggressor. Your mechanic works exactly the same when we're talking about the right to "face" the covert ops frigate running exploration sites that had to cloak up because there are too many combat ships in space. It reveals a lot about the carebear mindset that any unknown ship is automatically classified as an "aggressor" for hindering their mindless PvE farming, no matter what threat they are actually intending to make.

And, remember, a cloaked ship gives up significant amounts of firepower and defense in exchange for the ability to use that cloak. If they aren't getting control of the initiative in exchange then there's no point in taking a cloaked ship over a more powerful conventional ship. Not being able to face an "aggressor" in a covert ops ship is a feature, not a bug.



It's hardly an "edge concern" when it's a core part of your idea. If you want to drop the broken idea and just put the detected ship on the overview like all other "visible" ships then I'll happily discuss the new idea instead, but you don't get to handwave away criticism with "edge case".

Same problems they have everywhere else. They are a way of life in wormholes, with practically no ship being without one. There is much less pain from it as they aren't linked with cyno's, but they are so pervasive I have heard complaints that some ships should have cov-ops built in or have an extra slot to accommodate one. I have heard complaints from hunters that their targets cloak up indefinitely, losing them capital kills.

There are orders of magnitude less people in wormholes, with a different culture and much higher reward, so there are less complaints, but the problems don't go away with local, they just shift focus and are much quieter. If anything, the lack of local magnified the problems, as Intel is so valuable.

Yes, I'm sure the dreads use cloaks. And battleships? And HACs...never mind the very substantial targeting delay.

You really need to try PvP with cloaking ships so you better understand how combat works. Your lack of hands on experience is coming through loud and clear.