These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Xcom
Eclipse Strike Unit
Jump On Contact..
#9201 - 2017-04-18 19:29:27 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Xcom wrote:
This is a link to the game balance panel.
youtube.com/watch?v=AkNHv7nEzGM&feature=youtu.be&t=1955
-Question was asked about active anti afk-cloaky camping.
-Answer was dodged by the devs with a solid confirmation that its not even being looked into and most likely is so far down there priority list that its not even in any plans they have for the future. Its basically tied to OA and that's stuff is way down the pipeline, most likely not in any of our lifetimes. Its kinda sad how they also joked getting this question repeatedly.

Its so sad that they are dodging this particular topic as if they are seriously scared of it. Smells like someone bribed them to bury it. CCP sitting on the fence on this topic just fuels the fire that alienates everyone on either side of the fence.

At least we now know that this is sadly more of a feature then an unintended mechanic that will be around for a long time to come.


Maybe the Devs don't see the problem you see. The issue is you want to increase your safety without any effort--i.e. you want CCP to increase your safety. That is antithetical to the game's core philosophy. You want increased safety? Well go out there and do what you need to achieve that, stop whining to CCP to do what you can do for yourself.

Watch the panel instead of babbling like a fool. They see it as a problem, just a very low priority one and somehow refuse to get involved, probably because of people like you.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#9202 - 2017-04-19 00:36:14 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Xcom wrote:
This is a link to the game balance panel.
youtube.com/watch?v=AkNHv7nEzGM&feature=youtu.be&t=1955
-Question was asked about active anti afk-cloaky camping.
-Answer was dodged by the devs with a solid confirmation that its not even being looked into and most likely is so far down there priority list that its not even in any plans they have for the future. Its basically tied to OA and that's stuff is way down the pipeline, most likely not in any of our lifetimes. Its kinda sad how they also joked getting this question repeatedly.

Its so sad that they are dodging this particular topic as if they are seriously scared of it. Smells like someone bribed them to bury it. CCP sitting on the fence on this topic just fuels the fire that alienates everyone on either side of the fence.

At least we now know that this is sadly more of a feature then an unintended mechanic that will be around for a long time to come.


Maybe the Devs don't see the problem you see. The issue is you want to increase your safety without any effort--i.e. you want CCP to increase your safety. That is antithetical to the game's core philosophy. You want increased safety? Well go out there and do what you need to achieve that, stop whining to CCP to do what you can do for yourself.

Watch the panel instead of babbling like a fool. They see it as a problem, just a very low priority one and somehow refuse to get involved, probably because of people like you.


Chatted with a few devs on this. Generally goes along the line of scrub wants afk cloaking nerfed, I point out its the only counter to local, we all chat and drink beers then agree afk cloaking can't be nerfed without local getting nerfed too.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#9203 - 2017-04-19 03:49:35 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Xcom wrote:
This is a link to the game balance panel.
youtube.com/watch?v=AkNHv7nEzGM&feature=youtu.be&t=1955
-Question was asked about active anti afk-cloaky camping.
-Answer was dodged by the devs with a solid confirmation that its not even being looked into and most likely is so far down there priority list that its not even in any plans they have for the future. Its basically tied to OA and that's stuff is way down the pipeline, most likely not in any of our lifetimes. Its kinda sad how they also joked getting this question repeatedly.

Its so sad that they are dodging this particular topic as if they are seriously scared of it. Smells like someone bribed them to bury it. CCP sitting on the fence on this topic just fuels the fire that alienates everyone on either side of the fence.

At least we now know that this is sadly more of a feature then an unintended mechanic that will be around for a long time to come.


Maybe the Devs don't see the problem you see. The issue is you want to increase your safety without any effort--i.e. you want CCP to increase your safety. That is antithetical to the game's core philosophy. You want increased safety? Well go out there and do what you need to achieve that, stop whining to CCP to do what you can do for yourself.

Watch the panel instead of babbling like a fool. They see it as a problem, just a very low priority one and somehow refuse to get involved, probably because of people like you.


See Baltec's post. Roll

"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
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#9204 - 2017-04-19 04:09:04 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:

Local is the counter to cloaks. Local will tell you they are there every single time, and if they are active and enter your system it will do so with advanced warning.

Oh, and not everything needs a direct counter. Covert ops cloaks are balanced in terms of the hulls that can fit them. In case you had not noticed they are not the most robust hulls in the game and their DPS is not particularly awesome either.

And as I noted in my response to Xcom, asking CCP for buffs to your safety is simply wrong when there are ways you can achieve that in game already.


And in wormholes where there is no functional local, or in neo-null where local becomes a function of the sov holder and the invader doesn't get the priviledge..? See now seeding as a tactic is completely viable as well. I'm not so much concerned with getting dropped by a known value in my local screen, let's face some truths here - even if the cloaky has no local for himself he still has d-scan and combat probes.

Even the SR-71 was detectable and could be fired upon (granted none were ever lost in active service, perhaps a byproduct of being used in combat scenarios against 1960's era tech or defunct militaries primarily Serbia and the ME) and this is a perfect example. It was detectable, even though it couldn't be shot down by the enemies it flew against.

Maybe we need to look at this backwards - what question did the covops cloak answer?
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#9205 - 2017-04-19 04:11:27 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Xcom wrote:
This is a link to the game balance panel.
youtube.com/watch?v=AkNHv7nEzGM&feature=youtu.be&t=1955
-Question was asked about active anti afk-cloaky camping.
-Answer was dodged by the devs with a solid confirmation that its not even being looked into and most likely is so far down there priority list that its not even in any plans they have for the future. Its basically tied to OA and that's stuff is way down the pipeline, most likely not in any of our lifetimes. Its kinda sad how they also joked getting this question repeatedly.

Its so sad that they are dodging this particular topic as if they are seriously scared of it. Smells like someone bribed them to bury it. CCP sitting on the fence on this topic just fuels the fire that alienates everyone on either side of the fence.

At least we now know that this is sadly more of a feature then an unintended mechanic that will be around for a long time to come.


Maybe the Devs don't see the problem you see. The issue is you want to increase your safety without any effort--i.e. you want CCP to increase your safety. That is antithetical to the game's core philosophy. You want increased safety? Well go out there and do what you need to achieve that, stop whining to CCP to do what you can do for yourself.

Watch the panel instead of babbling like a fool. They see it as a problem, just a very low priority one and somehow refuse to get involved, probably because of people like you.



A big part of the problem at this point is that the current crop of Devs are from the playerbase, and specifically the part of the playerbase that enjoys and promotes this kind of predatory PvP.


The fact that baltec and those like him can sit back with the Devs and *laugh* at the large numbers of people that are coming to them with this problem and then go on to enjoy their buzz is a big part of why we aren't allowed to even discuss the topic anymore outside of this thread. The very fact that this particular issue was causing so much noise that it was drowning out the entire rest of F&I so that they felt the need to create this thread and close any and all other threads that even mention cloaking should be all the indication you need that there is a problem that needs resolving.

But hey, it's just the sheeple lured into the game that were interested in the actual game, not anyone important, so who cares.

The issue isn't that anyone wants to increase their safety without effort. It's not as if the request is to make local zap intruders automatically. What is being asked for is a way to hunt another player through active gameplay on their own terms instead of passively creating a barrier of entry that will always be overcome. Static defense will always lose if the opposition is given enough time to do as it likes.

The very idea that a single guy in local means everyone that wants to use that space must compromise fits, get on coms, in fleet, and check Dscan like a ferret on a triple expresso is reasonable while the direct combat inclined being able to ship into something that can find him and either force an engagement or run him off is unthinkable is stupid and just plain bad game design.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#9206 - 2017-04-19 04:57:32 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

A big part of the problem at this point is that the current crop of Devs are from the playerbase, and specifically the part of the playerbase that enjoys and promotes this kind of predatory PvP.


Oh for the love of God...you are clearly playing the wrong game.

Quote:
The fact that baltec and those like him can sit back with the Devs and *laugh* at the large numbers of people that are coming to them with this problem and then go on to enjoy their buzz is a big part of why we aren't allowed to even discuss the topic anymore outside of this thread. The very fact that this particular issue was causing so much noise that it was drowning out the entire rest of F&I so that they felt the need to create this thread and close any and all other threads that even mention cloaking should be all the indication you need that there is a problem that needs resolving.


What large numbers? You got nothing on this. All you got is that people complain about this, but there is nothing in terms of people who really see this as a problem. Note, there could be lots of people or it could just be a vocal minority of whiners and Bads­™.

Quote:
But hey, it's just the sheeple lured into the game that were interested in the actual game, not anyone important, so who cares.

The issue isn't that anyone wants to increase their safety without effort. It's not as if the request is to make local zap intruders automatically. What is being asked for is a way to hunt another player through active gameplay on their own terms instead of passively creating a barrier of entry that will always be overcome. Static defense will always lose if the opposition is given enough time to do as it likes.


It so totally is increasing safety without effort. You can increase your safety now, but you don't do it because it entails effort. You can get on comms...man that is hard. You can get in the standing fleet, again lots of effort. You can rat in a group, don't hurt yourself with the effort there. You so totally want CCP to make your game safer. Please do not pretend otherwise.

Quote:
The very idea that a single guy in local means everyone that wants to use that space must compromise fits, get on coms, in fleet, and check Dscan like a ferret on a triple expresso is reasonable while the direct combat inclined being able to ship into something that can find him and either force an engagement or run him off is unthinkable is stupid and just plain bad game design.


Checking d-scan? Are you stupid? Why would you do that? What do you expect to see on d-scan? A cloaked ship? Yeah, get on comms, get in the standing fleet, maybe group up with a couple of buddies. Three guys in Ishtars will do anywhere from 1,800-2,000 DPS. Yeah, terrible actually having to change your strategy.

Roll

"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
Xcom
Eclipse Strike Unit
Jump On Contact..
#9207 - 2017-04-19 04:58:17 UTC
@Mike Voidstar I don't think the devs think like baltec or play eve like him. Its that they are super political about there words. Its as if they have been told to not give false positives or hints to anything. Agree with everyone and everything to not **** anyone off. I get why they do it, don't **** of the player base when you can sit on the fence on any stance. But at some point you just have to grow some balls and take action.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#9208 - 2017-04-19 04:59:30 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

Local is the counter to cloaks. Local will tell you they are there every single time, and if they are active and enter your system it will do so with advanced warning.

Oh, and not everything needs a direct counter. Covert ops cloaks are balanced in terms of the hulls that can fit them. In case you had not noticed they are not the most robust hulls in the game and their DPS is not particularly awesome either.

And as I noted in my response to Xcom, asking CCP for buffs to your safety is simply wrong when there are ways you can achieve that in game already.


And in wormholes where there is no functional local, or in neo-null where local becomes a function of the sov holder and the invader doesn't get the priviledge..? See now seeding as a tactic is completely viable as well. I'm not so much concerned with getting dropped by a known value in my local screen, let's face some truths here - even if the cloaky has no local for himself he still has d-scan and combat probes.


You ever notice wormholers never come and complain about cloaking ships....why is that?

And I don't care about RL examples, this is not RL it is a video game. Nerfing cloaks without nerfing local is unbalanced.

"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
#9209 - 2017-04-19 05:01:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Xcom wrote:
@Mike Voidstar I don't think the devs think like baltec or play eve like him. Its that they are super political about there words. Its as if they have been told to not give false positives or hints to anything. Agree with everyone and everything to not **** anyone off. I get why they do it, don't **** of the player base when you can sit on the fence on any stance. But at some point you just have to grow some balls and take action.


No, the Devs have been pretty consistent. When I posted a comment by, IIRC, CCP Fozzie, Mike went into a sulk for days because the comment was something like, "We are not concerned about cloaking ships as a cloaked ship does surprisingly little DPS."

Here is the quote,

CCP Fozzie wrote:
It's very important that it be possible to disrupt peoples' money-making in nullsec, and AFK cloaking is one of the most effective ways. We're not worried about cloaked ships being overpowered because cloaked ships do very little DPS.

But we understand it has a pretty big psychological effect. We would like to make some changes...it may not be the changes people are expecting, though. For instance, I can tell you that AFK cloaking is not an issue in wormhole space and there are pretty good reasons for that.


Source

Hmmm...let me see....

They aren't too worried about cloaking ships, and the changes aren't what people will expect with a reference to a part of the game that has no local.

From that link there is also this fun bit....

Quote:
When later asked whether this meant that local was being removed from null, Fozzie could "neither confirm nor deny".


Somewhere back up stream in this thread I post a link to the source as well. Or you can go listen to the sound cloud at the link.

"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
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#9210 - 2017-04-19 05:12:02 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
A big part of the problem at this point is that the current crop of Devs are from the playerbase, and specifically the part of the playerbase that enjoys and promotes this kind of predatory PvP.


Lolwut? "Predatory PvP" is one of EVE's defining principles, and has been since day one. Your endless bleating about how unfair it is that the weak are rightfully slaughtered suggests that EVE is not the game for you.

Quote:
The very idea that a single guy in local means everyone that wants to use that space must compromise fits, get on coms, in fleet, and check Dscan like a ferret on a triple expresso is reasonable while the direct combat inclined being able to ship into something that can find him and either force an engagement or run him off is unthinkable is stupid and just plain bad game


And, as we have explained to you over and over again, things like flying with combat fits and being on coms at all times are things you should already be doing. You do them if there is an AFK cloaker in system, you do them if only friendlies are in system because you never know when a threat might show up. That "empty" local might be hiding a gank fleet waiting logged off in an anomaly, using a spy alt to tell them when you've warped into the trap. An interceptor might slip through your defenses and get point on you because you weren't paying attention. Etc. Competent players understand this, and take appropriate precautions to ensure their safety in dangerous territory. And those players have very little to fear from AFK cloaking.

The problem here is not that these things are necessary, it's that pathetic carebears expect be able to farm 23/7 in complete safety just because their alliance put their name on the system. They want it to be just like highsec, where they can mindlessly farm away without ever having to make any effort to secure their own safety, and anything that could possibly threaten their ISK per hour needs to be nerfed out of the game. These people do not belong in EVE, and should not be coddled with the nerfs they demand.
Xcom
Eclipse Strike Unit
Jump On Contact..
#9211 - 2017-04-19 05:20:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Xcom
Point in case. Pointless arguing when all people want to do is to stick it to the post above. Words and fragmented ideas taken out of context and hacked to pieces just to prove a point that won't even be constructive when twisted as much as it has. Why even try to prove your point when its wasted on people that don't agree, yet worse twist the ideas of the person who your responding to so the response isn't even reflecting the core idea that person is trying to convey. Waste of time!
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#9212 - 2017-04-19 05:31:15 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Point in case. Pointless arguing when all people want to do is to stick it to the post above. Words and fragmented ideas taken out of context and hacked to pieces just to prove a point that won't even be constructive when twisted as much as it has. Why even try to prove your point when its wasted on people that don't agree, yet worse twist the ideas of the person who your responding to so the response isn't even reflecting the core idea that person is trying to convey. Waste of time!


I know, I keep hoping you guys will grasp what the core philosophy of the game is one of these days...yes a silly hope, but one must have dreams. P

"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
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#9213 - 2017-04-19 07:14:44 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Quote:
And in wormholes where there is no functional local, or in neo-null where local becomes a function of the sov holder and the invader doesn't get the priviledge..? See now seeding as a tactic is completely viable as well. I'm not so much concerned with getting dropped by a known value in my local screen, let's face some truths here - even if the cloaky has no local for himself he still has d-scan and combat probes.


You ever notice wormholers never come and complain about cloaking ships....why is that?

And I don't care about RL examples, this is not RL it is a video game. Nerfing cloaks without nerfing local is unbalanced.


Yeah and in video games its normally acceptable to have some kind of rock/paper/scissors balance for any mechanic present. Things like neutrals parked in your stations you can't evict, things like open markets that neutrals can buy from in sov space, things like wormholes not allowing supers or titans or being able to crush holes and no cynos and where was your argument about cloaky campers in wormholes again? Getting any mileage from a spy in a wormhole takes *work* the same is true for null but only to a degree. If you want to parrot Fozzie try to remember he might not even be inclined to try and think of something more engaging regarding cloaky camping. The SR-71 comparison was totally apt whether you accept it or not, the fact is that the ship was vulnerable to interception it was merely a matter of having the right interceptor.

Well I complained about watchlists being free intel and what is local camping with a cloaky? In wormholes there's a whole other degree of how fights can boil down, solo ships SHOULD die to ganks when they occur, the gank delivery method is entirely different however since you can't just fire a cyno and drop straight on top of the guy, you actually need to make a marginal effort to find a target not the least of which is scanning down the wormhole to start with and getting through without being caught. And when the wormhole connection dies after 24-48hrs then the ganks are liable to stop aren't they? Gee its almost like this problem solves itself. Your use of wormholes is approaching false equivalencey because the two kinds of space are fundamentally different.

If Fozzie really wants null space to be vulnerable to disruption maybe he should work on some other facet of the game because I don't see roams or guys like chase or stunt sitting in a system for a week to get one kill. Some other facet of the game like more k-k space wormholes or opening up pathways in to null so that there are at least a couple more choke points instead of like 3 per astrocardinal region. Last I checked hostiles still have access to local in enemy sov, maybe, MAYBE if they didn't I could see your point but presently they do so they already get their free intel too. Do they need covops cloaks? They could use ANY ship with a non-covops cloak. They use covops cloak because it answers a question noone remembers. What's to stop you from using say an interdictor with a bubble and a cyno? If you land on a carrier he will be bubbled and then get dropped but at least you forced the attacking ship to uncloak first which increased his vulnerability and made him detectable briefly much like submarines of old which needed to approach the surface before firing due to their own basic limitations.

Also Fozzie quote about covops ships doing little damage which ones are those lol some of the deadliest ships in the game are stratios and asteros because they derive their killing power from more than just sheer dps. Not to mention bombers with 80km range and 600dps. Or BLOPS who do plenty of DPS as they are. Come on son low dps cloaky ships like what T3C? Yeah I guess so but there just aren't that many covops hulls and aside from T3C and scanning frigs most of the other hulls feel like they do plenty of DPS to me or they have utility slots to compensate ala stratios/Sin.

Quote:
Point in case. Pointless arguing when all people want to do is to stick it to the post above. Words and fragmented ideas taken out of context and hacked to pieces just to prove a point that won't even be constructive when twisted as much as it has. Why even try to prove your point when its wasted on people that don't agree, yet worse twist the ideas of the person who your responding to so the response isn't even reflecting the core idea that person is trying to convey. Waste of time!


Your job is to convince people to agree with you, you are not privy to them just agreeing with you because you said something. Taking things out of context and trying to strawman your discussion, sure, but just because you have something to say doesn't mean it was a good idea. Also yes your point is in the case you're making, somewhere. You meant to say case in point which is to suggest that showing 1 example of an issue could be used as your whole case entirely.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#9214 - 2017-04-19 07:31:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Caleb Seremshur wrote:


major snippage....



Try a passive tanked VNI against that stratios....you'll have lots of dead stratii, IMO.

And get in the standing fleet. Get on voice comms....when that cloaky engages you, call for help. If you have your own cyno fit light it.

Holy ****, turn their tactics back on them.

"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
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#9215 - 2017-04-19 07:47:29 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:


major snippage....



Try a passive tanked VNI against that stratios....you'll have lots of dead stratii, IMO.

And get in the standing fleet. Get on voice comms....when that cloaky engages you, call for help. If you have your own cyno fit light it.

Holy ****, turn their tactics back on them.


I'll ask a subject matter expert when he logs on next. I have my severe doubts a stratios will die to a VNI in most scenarios. I don't think any VNI will be tanking that much damage and live.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#9216 - 2017-04-19 08:09:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

A big part of the problem at this point is that the current crop of Devs are from the playerbase, and specifically the part of the playerbase that enjoys and promotes this kind of predatory PvP.


Oh for the love of God...you are clearly playing the wrong game.

Quote:
The fact that baltec and those like him can sit back with the Devs and *laugh* at the large numbers of people that are coming to them with this problem and then go on to enjoy their buzz is a big part of why we aren't allowed to even discuss the topic anymore outside of this thread. The very fact that this particular issue was causing so much noise that it was drowning out the entire rest of F&I so that they felt the need to create this thread and close any and all other threads that even mention cloaking should be all the indication you need that there is a problem that needs resolving.


What large numbers? You got nothing on this. All you got is that people complain about this, but there is nothing in terms of people who really see this as a problem. Note, there could be lots of people or it could just be a vocal minority of whiners and Bads­™.

Quote:
But hey, it's just the sheeple lured into the game that were interested in the actual game, not anyone important, so who cares.

The issue isn't that anyone wants to increase their safety without effort. It's not as if the request is to make local zap intruders automatically. What is being asked for is a way to hunt another player through active gameplay on their own terms instead of passively creating a barrier of entry that will always be overcome. Static defense will always lose if the opposition is given enough time to do as it likes.


It so totally is increasing safety without effort. You can increase your safety now, but you don't do it because it entails effort. You can get on comms...man that is hard. You can get in the standing fleet, again lots of effort. You can rat in a group, don't hurt yourself with the effort there. You so totally want CCP to make your game safer. Please do not pretend otherwise.

Quote:
The very idea that a single guy in local means everyone that wants to use that space must compromise fits, get on coms, in fleet, and check Dscan like a ferret on a triple expresso is reasonable while the direct combat inclined being able to ship into something that can find him and either force an engagement or run him off is unthinkable is stupid and just plain bad game design.


Checking d-scan? Are you stupid? Why would you do that? What do you expect to see on d-scan? A cloaked ship? Yeah, get on comms, get in the standing fleet, maybe group up with a couple of buddies. Three guys in Ishtars will do anywhere from 1,800-2,000 DPS. Yeah, terrible actually having to change your strategy.

Roll



Large numbers based on hundreds of threads asking for a resolution to the issue over the years. So many threads they now just automatically lock any thread mentioning cloaking at all. I don't see the same treatment for other perineal issues like WCS in faction war, war decs, bumping, etc... I've been on this account since 2008, kicking around in the forums both old and new, and seen days with a dozen threads started on this all by different people, and all of them getting trolled and shouted down by more or less the same group of folks. The vocal minority in this game is the predator PvP guys who finally found a place where grief tactics are considered fair play, and they don't like it when their favorite toys get changed to give other people a shot at playing their own way in the 'sandbox'.

Assuming you want to operate in space with hostiles present, Dscan can be useful for seeing approaching ships and such--- unless you were just supposed to be running because there was a hostile present. Letting them on grid with you is generally a death sentence and if you can save the bait ship it saves a bit of PITA and hassle of fitting another one.

But it would be so terrible if that cloaked guy actually had to concern himself with becoming someone's prey right? I just saw you in another thread talking about how everything in game should be subject to pvp, but I guess that only applies when you personally want it to.

Sure, you can use all the passive techniques you want to raise the barrier of entry, but so long as that's all you can do then eventually the other guy will win- every time. Sooner or later your vigilance will slip, or they will be able to bring more to bear than you can field, and in the mean time they can wait in absolute safety for that time to come. All you really want is to raise your own safety by making all of the game over into wormholes with cynos and static gates, presumably because you hate fun and the game as a whole.

But in the end I don't have to convince you. Which is good, because even when you concede a point you just wait for someone else to post something for which your pre-prepared fallacies fit and you start the same downward spiral again. All I really hope to accomplish is not to let the shouting of the pro afk crowd drown out the fact that there is a real issue here that needs to be adjusted. That cloaks in their current state do not conform to stated design goals, and are overall harmful to the game. You can generate all the noise you like, but in the end it's just the same tired set of fallacies that has been trotted out since page one of the thread, and it's all been debunked again and again. It won't change the facts that there is a problem (even if only for those subhuman "bads" that don't deserve to enjoy the game because they don't play your way), and that cloaks in their current state is broken by any sort of sober, logical standard that does not involve Fozzie handwaving the issue away because stopping PvE-ers from making ISK is the most important thing.
Xcom
Eclipse Strike Unit
Jump On Contact..
#9217 - 2017-04-19 10:43:56 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Quote:
Point in case. Pointless arguing when all people want to do is to stick it to the post above. Words and fragmented ideas taken out of context and hacked to pieces just to prove a point that won't even be constructive when twisted as much as it has. Why even try to prove your point when its wasted on people that don't agree, yet worse twist the ideas of the person who your responding to so the response isn't even reflecting the core idea that person is trying to convey. Waste of time!


Your job is to convince people to agree with you, you are not privy to them just agreeing with you because you said something. Taking things out of context and trying to strawman your discussion, sure, but just because you have something to say doesn't mean it was a good idea. Also yes your point is in the case you're making, somewhere. You meant to say case in point which is to suggest that showing 1 example of an issue could be used as your whole case entirely.

Trust me, keep posting in this thread and you will get what I'm trying to say. Even when people agree with you they have to find a new angle to keep the arguing rolling.

Its not that its bad arguing about a subject that is under revision. Its that every single idea in this thread is harassed and killed before anyone have a chance to revise and explore it. When you think about a cloaking thread you imagine that people come here to discuss ideas about a particular subject. Not that some fascist crowd shows up and starts beating down any idea that shows up just because its not in line with there "core philosophy".

After 460 pages its honestly better to close this thread and start a new one. One that is restricted around discussion around the cloaking concept and ban any loops that we are stuck in. Its not even worth having a discussion when the same 4-5 names takes over and keeps posting the same repeated "cloaking needs fixed", "no local needs priority" loop.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#9218 - 2017-04-19 11:06:43 UTC
Xcom wrote:

Its not that its bad arguing about a subject that is under revision. Its that every single idea in this thread is harassed and killed before anyone have a chance to revise and explore it.


They get shot down because they are ****.

First stumbling block is and always will be the fact that if you want to wipe out AFK cloaking you have to wipe out local chat as it is today. The two cannot be separated because afk cloaking is the only counter we have vs the intel systems based upon local chat.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#9219 - 2017-04-19 11:14:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Posts 9216 and 9217 are truly excellent, I could not agree with you chaps more.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Xcom
Eclipse Strike Unit
Jump On Contact..
#9220 - 2017-04-19 11:21:00 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Xcom wrote:

Its not that its bad arguing about a subject that is under revision. Its that every single idea in this thread is harassed and killed before anyone have a chance to revise and explore it.


They get shot down because they are ****.

First stumbling block is and always will be the fact that if you want to wipe out AFK cloaking you have to wipe out local chat as it is today. The two cannot be separated because afk cloaking is the only counter we have vs the intel systems based upon local chat.

Exhibit A

Another attempt to drive the thread into the same loop. Yet another "local comes first" attempt.

Soon after another post will go. "No cloaking is not linked to local" or "AFK cant be justified".

Wow just wow.

Not even a idiot could have missed it by now.