These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#9781 - 2017-06-01 07:30:03 UTC
Max Deveron wrote:
ok so the point has been proven then, Local works the 'same' for everyone.

So i guess it is only a matter of player strategies and effort as that other guy was saying.


No.

If you are in system local gives you and advance warning.

This has been proven.

Local does NOT work the same.

"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

Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#9782 - 2017-06-01 18:02:09 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Max Deveron wrote:
ok so the point has been proven then, Local works the 'same' for everyone.

So i guess it is only a matter of player strategies and effort as that other guy was saying.


No.

If you are in system local gives you and advance warning.

This has been proven.

Local does NOT work the same.


Not sure what you are arguing, unless it is your obstinate stupidity.

"if a player (you) are in system"....it can give player 2 seconds advance warning of incoming, not will but can....if player is not AFK.

"if player is not in system"....player has to hope possible targets are AFK, busily multiboxing, or otherwise complacent. (this goes for Highsec ganking as well not just wardecs, or known competition of sites of those that attempt to steal them all the time)

SO yes, Local DOES work the same for EVERYONE, it just depends what side of local you are on to what effect you are getting/giving.

Quit being such a ******, everyone knows this is the mechanic, and you trying to argue a non truth really makes you stupid and uneducated sounding, not just a troll.......just stupid.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#9783 - 2017-06-01 18:26:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Max Deveron wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Max Deveron wrote:
ok so the point has been proven then, Local works the 'same' for everyone.

So i guess it is only a matter of player strategies and effort as that other guy was saying.


No.

If you are in system local gives you and advance warning.

This has been proven.

Local does NOT work the same.


Not sure what you are arguing, unless it is your obstinate stupidity.

"if a player (you) are in system"....it can give player 2 seconds advance warning of incoming, not will but can....if player is not AFK.

"if player is not in system"....player has to hope possible targets are AFK, busily multiboxing, or otherwise complacent. (this goes for Highsec ganking as well not just wardecs, or known competition of sites of those that attempt to steal them all the time)

SO yes, Local DOES work the same for EVERYONE, it just depends what side of local you are on to what effect you are getting/giving.

Quit being such a ******, everyone knows this is the mechanic, and you trying to argue a non truth really makes you stupid and uneducated sounding, not just a troll.......just stupid.


No.

You, Max Deveron are in system and looking at local. I jump in and am looking at local. You will have a brief period of time (1-2 seconds) where you will see me in local and can take actions whereas I will not be able too.

As such local gives you a distinct advantage. If you have an alt on another account you can test this yourself.

As such local does not work the "same". Local gives the incumbent and advantage. It does not work the same. There is simply no argument here. It has been demonstrated over and over again so that even people like Mike do not deny it anymore.

"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

Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#9784 - 2017-06-01 19:15:26 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Max Deveron wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Max Deveron wrote:
ok so the point has been proven then, Local works the 'same' for everyone.

So i guess it is only a matter of player strategies and effort as that other guy was saying.


No.

If you are in system local gives you and advance warning.

This has been proven.

Local does NOT work the same.


Not sure what you are arguing, unless it is your obstinate stupidity.

"if a player (you) are in system"....it can give player 2 seconds advance warning of incoming, not will but can....if player is not AFK.

"if player is not in system"....player has to hope possible targets are AFK, busily multiboxing, or otherwise complacent. (this goes for Highsec ganking as well not just wardecs, or known competition of sites of those that attempt to steal them all the time)

SO yes, Local DOES work the same for EVERYONE, it just depends what side of local you are on to what effect you are getting/giving.

Quit being such a ******, everyone knows this is the mechanic, and you trying to argue a non truth really makes you stupid and uneducated sounding, not just a troll.......just stupid.


No.

You, Max Deveron are in system and looking at local. I jump in and am looking at local. You will have a brief period of time (1-2 seconds) where you will see me in local and can take actions whereas I will not be able too.

As such local gives you a distinct advantage. If you have an alt on another account you can test this yourself.

As such local does not work the "same". Local gives the incumbent and advantage. It does not work the same. There is simply no argument here. It has been demonstrated over and over again so that even people like Mike do not deny it anymore.


oh STFU already....
at least Linus had the decency to admit he came to this thread just to troll people.
You and your arguments have no more relevancy for this conversation anymore.
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale
#9785 - 2017-06-01 19:53:54 UTC
Max Deveron wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Max Deveron wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Max Deveron wrote:
ok so the point has been proven then, Local works the 'same' for everyone.

So i guess it is only a matter of player strategies and effort as that other guy was saying.


No.

If you are in system local gives you and advance warning.

This has been proven.

Local does NOT work the same.


Not sure what you are arguing, unless it is your obstinate stupidity.

"if a player (you) are in system"....it can give player 2 seconds advance warning of incoming, not will but can....if player is not AFK.

"if player is not in system"....player has to hope possible targets are AFK, busily multiboxing, or otherwise complacent. (this goes for Highsec ganking as well not just wardecs, or known competition of sites of those that attempt to steal them all the time)

SO yes, Local DOES work the same for EVERYONE, it just depends what side of local you are on to what effect you are getting/giving.

Quit being such a ******, everyone knows this is the mechanic, and you trying to argue a non truth really makes you stupid and uneducated sounding, not just a troll.......just stupid.


No.

You, Max Deveron are in system and looking at local. I jump in and am looking at local. You will have a brief period of time (1-2 seconds) where you will see me in local and can take actions whereas I will not be able too.

As such local gives you a distinct advantage. If you have an alt on another account you can test this yourself.

As such local does not work the "same". Local gives the incumbent and advantage. It does not work the same. There is simply no argument here. It has been demonstrated over and over again so that even people like Mike do not deny it anymore.


oh STFU already....
at least Linus had the decency to admit he came to this thread just to troll people.
You and your arguments have no more relevancy for this conversation anymore.

There just isn't anything but troll value here. People like you only see what they want to see and dismiss everything else for ~reasons~. You're not here for any worthwhile discussion, you're only here to time and again proclaim how ignorant you are.

Anyone worthwhile can have a decent, troll-free discussion with me. People that are thick-headed, dumb or ignorant right off the bat and dismiss logical arguments for the sole reason that they don't fit into said persons agenda aren't worth being taken serious.
You want a discussion with me? Start with showing your capability of understanding basic logic 101. All you've shown so far is your incapability of understanding and comprehending logic and until that changes you offer nothing but troll value.

When you don't know the difference between there, their, and they're, you come across as being so uneducated that your viewpoint can be safely dismissed. The literate is unlikely to learn much from the illiterate.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#9786 - 2017-06-01 20:52:32 UTC
Max Deveron wrote:


oh STFU already....
at least Linus had the decency to admit he came to this thread just to troll people.
You and your arguments have no more relevancy for this conversation anymore.


Okay, so you are a deliberately obtuse dimwit.

Thanks.

"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

Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#9787 - 2017-06-02 01:21:59 UTC


Blink
Uhm, I'm sorry what was that again son?
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#9788 - 2017-06-02 17:00:29 UTC
Linus Gorp wrote:
People like you only see what they want to see and dismiss everything else for ~reasons~. You're not here for any worthwhile discussion, you're only here to time and again proclaim how ignorant you are.


With respect to Max, yes.

I mean look at this,

Quote:
"if a player (you) are in system"....it can give player 2 seconds advance warning of incoming, not will but can....if player is not AFK.

"if player is not in system"....player has to hope possible targets are AFK, busily multiboxing, or otherwise complacent. (this goes for Highsec ganking as well not just wardecs, or known competition of sites of those that attempt to steal them all the time)

SO yes, Local DOES work the same for EVERYONE, it just depends what side of local you are on to what effect you are getting/giving.


WITF?

Oh, everything is fine local works exactly the same because the other guy might be AFK or not paying attention. This is a basic denial of facts--i.e. reality. Max actually notes that it does not work the same depending on which "player you are" but then concludes...no it does work the same.

The gymnastics the carebears go through to justify their world view is simply astonishing. Mike at least will put forward an argument that is at least looks more coherent than that jumble is idiocy and stupidity.

"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

Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#9789 - 2017-06-03 17:46:03 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Max Deveron wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Max Deveron wrote:
ok so the point has been proven then, Local works the 'same' for everyone.

So i guess it is only a matter of player strategies and effort as that other guy was saying.


No.

If you are in system local gives you and advance warning.

This has been proven.

Local does NOT work the same.


Not sure what you are arguing, unless it is your obstinate stupidity.

"if a player (you) are in system"....it can give player 2 seconds advance warning of incoming, not will but can....if player is not AFK.

"if player is not in system"....player has to hope possible targets are AFK, busily multiboxing, or otherwise complacent. (this goes for Highsec ganking as well not just wardecs, or known competition of sites of those that attempt to steal them all the time)

SO yes, Local DOES work the same for EVERYONE, it just depends what side of local you are on to what effect you are getting/giving.

Quit being such a ******, everyone knows this is the mechanic, and you trying to argue a non truth really makes you stupid and uneducated sounding, not just a troll.......just stupid.


No.

You, Max Deveron are in system and looking at local. I jump in and am looking at local. You will have a brief period of time (1-2 seconds) where you will see me in local and can take actions whereas I will not be able too.

As such local gives you a distinct advantage. If you have an alt on another account you can test this yourself.

As such local does not work the "same". Local gives the incumbent and advantage. It does not work the same. There is simply no argument here. It has been demonstrated over and over again so that even people like Mike do not deny it anymore.



And thus the boilerplate. Local works the same for everyone, everywhere it is a factor, Except for the mostly insignificant loading delay. That can easily be addressed by allowing gate cloaks to keep you out of local until it breaks. We don't need to keep rehashing that particular point every 5 seconds, it's known, acknowledged, and accepted that though it's a very minor thing it can be addressed with a simple change.

It's the only point you have come up with in support of your position of any merit or logical consistency whatsoever, but it does not apply to anything but the gate cloak, not all cloaks everywhere.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#9790 - 2017-06-04 05:55:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Mike Voidstar wrote:



And thus the boilerplate. Local works the same for everyone, everywhere it is a factor, Except for the mostly insignificant loading delay. That can easily be addressed by allowing gate cloaks to keep you out of local until it breaks. We don't need to keep rehashing that particular point every 5 seconds, it's known, acknowledged, and accepted that though it's a very minor thing it can be addressed with a simple change.

It's the only point you have come up with in support of your position of any merit or logical consistency whatsoever, but it does not apply to anything but the gate cloak, not all cloaks everywhere.


Not according Max it isn't. Then again, Max probably needs to be reminded to close his mouth.

Second, it points out how local is the problem and AFK cloaking is a symptom.

Frankly, I don't get your issue with cloaking Mike. You keep asserting that a cloak is too powerful because if I go to a secret safe, cloak up I am 100% safe. Remove local then who cares? So I am 100%. Big deal. I am not earning any ISK. I am not imposing any sort of threat on anyone. I am not acquiring any other sort of in game asset. If I am AFK I cannot even gather intelligence. If I am ATK, again...who cares? Presumably if you could scan me down after a period of time I'd not sit still long enough for you to catch me. I'd set up a sequence of safes and just roll them.

Really, when you talk about the safety of a cloak it is a ship cloaked at a secret safe spot. Not a cloaked ship moving as those die all the time. Basically you are complaining, IMO, about AKF cloaking but you do everything to not say you are complaining about AFK cloaking.

Yes, cloaks grant considerable safety, but they come on what are essentially pre-nerfed ships compared to their counter parts that cannot fit the covert ops cloak. I contend this is working as the Dev's intended by and large with the exception of AFK cloaking...which the Devs may not have intended as they did not intend for local to be an intel tool.

"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

Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#9791 - 2017-06-04 21:20:16 UTC
As has been explained, the primary problem isn't what you are doing, afk or not. It's that you are in space and passively immune to interaction of any kind that isn't consensual.

Sure the absolute 100% only applies at a secret safe... Or, you know... anywhere more than 2k away from another object. You drop to perhaps only 95% safe if you fly with a modicum of intelligence once you are in system. Passing through a gate is the only truly significant risk you take, and the cloak makes that much easier than a ship without one and is further mitigated by traveling in off peak times and through wormholes. You want to build this risk up as if it was some sort of monumental effort that the locals didn't also have to take in getting into the system too, but the reality is they used diplomacy and endured different risks, not less risk.

Then there is the relative effort. Sure, your cloaky, assuming he is traveling, has to be careful going through gates and when moving around to sites and such---all of which are calculated risks taken at the pilots option and the danger only lasts for a few seconds. The target has to maintain a similar level of care and vigilance at all times while operating, with the only mitigation involving multiple people doing the same. You want to compare a few seconds of extra care taken as a calculated risk combined with semi-permanent 100% risk free breaks at your own prerogative vs. hours of extra care taken by multiple people during their entire operative periods.

I am fine with forcing you to constantly roll safes--- bearing in mind that botting and scripts aren't a part of this discussion. Each one involves opportunity for pilot error, requires at least some pilot attention, and has a chance to fail given sufficient effort of the opposition. It also means that the other uses of a cloak become more reasonable, as they will now see a level of risk that isn't hovering around the 100% immune level for tasks that should be risky.
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#9792 - 2017-06-04 21:53:13 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
As has been explained, the primary problem isn't what you are doing, afk or not. It's that you are in space and passively immune to interaction of any kind that isn't consensual.

Sure the absolute 100% only applies at a secret safe... Or, you know... anywhere more than 2k away from another object. You drop to perhaps only 95% safe if you fly with a modicum of intelligence once you are in system. Passing through a gate is the only truly significant risk you take, and the cloak makes that much easier than a ship without one and is further mitigated by traveling in off peak times and through wormholes. You want to build this risk up as if it was some sort of monumental effort that the locals didn't also have to take in getting into the system too, but the reality is they used diplomacy and endured different risks, not less risk.

Then there is the relative effort. Sure, your cloaky, assuming he is traveling, has to be careful going through gates and when moving around to sites and such---all of which are calculated risks taken at the pilots option and the danger only lasts for a few seconds. The target has to maintain a similar level of care and vigilance at all times while operating, with the only mitigation involving multiple people doing the same. You want to compare a few seconds of extra care taken as a calculated risk combined with semi-permanent 100% risk free breaks at your own prerogative vs. hours of extra care taken by multiple people during their entire operative periods.

I am fine with forcing you to constantly roll safes--- bearing in mind that botting and scripts aren't a part of this discussion. Each one involves opportunity for pilot error, requires at least some pilot attention, and has a chance to fail given sufficient effort of the opposition. It also means that the other uses of a cloak become more reasonable, as they will now see a level of risk that isn't hovering around the 100% immune level for tasks that should be risky.


As has been explained, someone cloaked in a safe can't earn ISK and can't hurt anyone, so it's not a big deal.

Having intel channels and local chat in sov null for PvE-ers however, makes a person 100% immune to danger 100% of the time. Get rid of local, and the problem is solved.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#9793 - 2017-06-05 00:04:11 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
As has been explained, the primary problem isn't what you are doing, afk or not. It's that you are in space and passively immune to interaction of any kind that isn't consensual.

Sure the absolute 100% only applies at a secret safe... Or, you know... anywhere more than 2k away from another object. You drop to perhaps only 95% safe if you fly with a modicum of intelligence once you are in system. Passing through a gate is the only truly significant risk you take, and the cloak makes that much easier than a ship without one and is further mitigated by traveling in off peak times and through wormholes. You want to build this risk up as if it was some sort of monumental effort that the locals didn't also have to take in getting into the system too, but the reality is they used diplomacy and endured different risks, not less risk.

Then there is the relative effort. Sure, your cloaky, assuming he is traveling, has to be careful going through gates and when moving around to sites and such---all of which are calculated risks taken at the pilots option and the danger only lasts for a few seconds. The target has to maintain a similar level of care and vigilance at all times while operating, with the only mitigation involving multiple people doing the same. You want to compare a few seconds of extra care taken as a calculated risk combined with semi-permanent 100% risk free breaks at your own prerogative vs. hours of extra care taken by multiple people during their entire operative periods.

I am fine with forcing you to constantly roll safes--- bearing in mind that botting and scripts aren't a part of this discussion. Each one involves opportunity for pilot error, requires at least some pilot attention, and has a chance to fail given sufficient effort of the opposition. It also means that the other uses of a cloak become more reasonable, as they will now see a level of risk that isn't hovering around the 100% immune level for tasks that should be risky.


As has been explained, someone cloaked in a safe can't earn ISK and can't hurt anyone, so it's not a big deal.

Having intel channels and local chat in sov null for PvE-ers however, makes a person 100% immune to danger 100% of the time. Get rid of local, and the problem is solved.


It does not have to be a big deal. You are in space and passively immune to interaction while still maintaining the capability to do things an opponent would want to disrupt. The desire to hunt you is all that is needed if you are not docked or in force fields. You can claim it's not a big deal, and I suppose it isn't for you. Your opponents disagree, and that's all that matters.

And your claim of 100% immune 100% of the time is an outright hyperbolic lie. So long as even a single button push must be made upon demand to utilize that safety means they weren't safe at all until they did so. Intel Channels (player effort) and watching local (more player effort) are required for a *chance* at safety, whereas cloaks guarantee it for an unlimited time with no chance to disrupt it unless the cloaking pilot decides to allow for it themselves.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#9794 - 2017-06-05 01:11:45 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
As has been explained, the primary problem isn't what you are doing, afk or not. It's that you are in space and passively immune to interaction of any kind that isn't consensual.


This is factually untrue. People in cloaked ships die all the time, even when the cloak module is activated they are decloaked and die.

The only time this is true is when one is already at a secret safe with the cloak activated....which means either the person is ATK and sitting there doing nothing except maybe gathering intel (and working as intended) or is AFK and is not even acquiring that.

Quote:
Sure the absolute 100% only applies at a secret safe... Or, you know... anywhere more than 2k away from another object. You drop to perhaps only 95% safe if you fly with a modicum of intelligence once you are in system. Passing through a gate is the only truly significant risk you take, and the cloak makes that much easier than a ship without one and is further mitigated by traveling in off peak times and through wormholes. You want to build this risk up as if it was some sort of monumental effort that the locals didn't also have to take in getting into the system too, but the reality is they used diplomacy and endured different risks, not less risk.


Yes and no. Yes if you are at a secret safe you have a very high degree of protection. Lets just call it 100% safety. Aside from that there are varying degrees of danger in that somebody can happen along and decloak you. I have jumped into a gate camp, been more than 2km away from the nearest object, but when I drop my gate cloak and in that split second before I engage the covert ops cloak a fast mover will start moving towards me and there have been occasions where I have been decloaked, scramed, webbed and killed. Or depending on the ship landing in a bubble and again somebody moving too close to you. This perfect safety is extremely limited both in when it happens and what the player can do while that safe.

Quote:
Then there is the relative effort. Sure, your cloaky, assuming he is traveling, has to be careful going through gates and when moving around to sites and such---all of which are calculated risks taken at the pilots option and the danger only lasts for a few seconds. The target has to maintain a similar level of care and vigilance at all times while operating, with the only mitigation involving multiple people doing the same. You want to compare a few seconds of extra care taken as a calculated risk combined with semi-permanent 100% risk free breaks at your own prerogative vs. hours of extra care taken by multiple people during their entire operative periods.


They are both calculated risks Mike. That is where you are going off the rails. If you want the rewards of ratting in NS you should have to take risks. If I want to hunt deep in hostile by myself or with a small group of people then a cloaked ship is the ship to use. Cloaked ships are weaker than their non-cloaking counter parts by and large. And I am in hostile territory. When I engage your buddies could show up at any second and bail you out. In fact, that is the way it should work. And yeah, you should not be able to gather ISK and not have to remain aware. See you keep sliding right over that difference as if it is trivial, but it is actually key. Suppose I want to take a break, so I safe up with the cloak activated. What do I get?

ISK? No.
Ore/minerals? No.
Ice? No.
Any kind of spiffy modules? No.
Any spiffy blueprints? No.
Do I earn SP faster? No.

In fact, as I have pointed out, I am actually forgoing all of those things. That forgoing of benefits has a name, it is called opportunity cost. So not only am I not getting anything, unlike the poor ratter or miner, I am incurring a cost on top of it.

This is called balance Mike. I get nothing and incur a cost. Yes, you have to pay attention to get ISK or ore, or ice or whatever else it is you are engaged in. So yes, you have to pay more attention. For a reason. You are acquiring resources. I am not. Why should I have to pay equal attention to what is going on in game when I get nothing at all?

Yes, one could say the same thing about sitting at a safe in say a HAC. Thing is, the HAC was not designed to go into hostile territory alone or in a small group. Here is what the Eve Uni website has to say about covert ops cloaks,

You can only fit the CovOps cloak on covops frigates, stealth bombers, force recon cruisers, blockade runner industrials, and strategic cruisers - Tech 3 ships - with the Covert Reconfiguration subsystem. (link all these in chat, including a T3 & Covert Subsystem). There are four versions of these ships, one for each race.

Lets go see what they say about force recons,

Force recon ships are the cruiser-class equivalent of covert ops frigates. While not as resilient as combat recon ships, they are nonetheless able to do their job as reconnaissance vessels very effectively, due in no small part to their ability to interface with covert ops cloaking devices and set up cynosural fields for incoming capital ships.

Wow, looks like they are supposed to be sneaky. Basically a cruiser version of the covert ops frigates. Now what do those descriptions say,

Designed for commando and espionage operation, its main strength is the ability to travel unseen through enemy territory and to avoid unfavorable encounters.

Golly, look at that. Move unseen (hah, yeah there is that local thing again) and avoid unfavorable encounters. All working as intended, IMO.

"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

Kangar Roo
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#9795 - 2017-06-05 23:30:51 UTC
How about a mobile cyno inhibitor that inhibits covert cynos?
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#9796 - 2017-06-06 07:50:04 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Passing through a gate is the only truly significant risk you take


Or when you try to do anything besides sit passively in space and congratulate yourself on how safe you are. Run a PvE site? Risk. Mine? Risk. Attack a PvP target? Lots of risk. This is the simple fact you keep ignoring, AFK cloaking is just a means to an end, and every end goal that cloaking sets up involves risk before you can get any reward from it.

Quote:
The target has to maintain a similar level of care and vigilance at all times while operating, with the only mitigation involving multiple people doing the same.


Or, more realistically, click "dock" and be 100% safe long before anyone can catch them. At which point both the AFK cloaker and the target are 100% safe, and neither of them is accomplishing anything besides sitting there being 100% safe.

Quote:
I am fine with forcing you to constantly roll safes


Thank god you aren't CCP, because that's incredibly stupid. Constantly moving between safespots is 100% safe just like being cloaked in a safespot under the current mechanics, it just involves more tedious and completely mindless button-clicking. Nothing is added to the game in exchange, so it should not work this way.;

Quote:
Each one involves opportunity for pilot error


Lolwut? If you're incompetent enough to make mistakes when moving between safespots then you're probably going to die very quickly if you try to do anything besides sit passively at a safespot while cloaked. The cloaked ships that are a meaningful threat to anyone are flown by people who are not going to screw up such a basic task.

Quote:
and has a chance to fail given sufficient effort of the opposition.


Lolwut? No, it doesn't. The chance of failure is zero. Getting a probe result on a safespot takes longer than the time you spend in that safespot. A ship that is constantly moving is literally impossible to catch.
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#9797 - 2017-06-06 07:52:36 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
And your claim of 100% immune 100% of the time is an outright hyperbolic lie. So long as even a single button push must be made upon demand to utilize that safety means they weren't safe at all until they did so. Intel Channels (player effort) and watching local (more player effort) are required for a *chance* at safety, whereas cloaks guarantee it for an unlimited time with no chance to disrupt it unless the cloaking pilot decides to allow for it themselves.


Oh FFS, stop with this idiotic argument. The chance of getting caught while watching local and docking as soon as a threat appears is approximately the same as the chance of getting caught while AFK cloaking because your cat walked across the keyboard and hit the cloak button. The guarantee of safety that local provides is effectively absolute, and only the most incompetent players will even come close to being caught. And at that point you need to accept that the same incompetent players will find ways to die while AFK cloaked, so AFK cloaking is not 100% safe either.
alex tow
Real One Corp
Equinox Space Technologies
#9798 - 2017-06-06 13:34:23 UTC
Quote:
Oh FFS, stop with this idiotic argument. The chance of getting caught while watching local and docking as soon as a threat appears is approximately the same as the chance of getting caught while AFK cloaking because your cat walked across the keyboard and hit the cloak button. The guarantee of safety that local provides is effectively absolute, and only the most incompetent players will even come close to being caught. And at that point you need to accept that the same incompetent players will find ways to die while AFK cloaked, so AFK cloaking is not 100% safe either.


and you we talking about an "idiotic argument"...*sigh*
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#9799 - 2017-06-06 18:54:03 UTC
Ok... once again for the really slow...


Cloaking is PASSIVELY 100% safe, and it barely degrades at all unless you are passing through an unscouted gate. Even in that case, the cloak provides more safety to evade a camp than is enjoyed by a ship without one. Your safety requires no action or even awareness on your part.

The supposed safety of local is an Active thing. It requires paying attention on a constant and continuous basis, often involving multiple players across several solar systems. It requires flying in a safe manner, staying aligned, properly dealing with PVE targets, and is subject to plenty of pilot error and real life distractions. You aren't passively safe, you have to fly right and take appropriate action at a moment of the attacker's choosing and convenience.

You are trying to draw a comparison between Apples and Orangutans... There's nothing there even remotely similar.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#9800 - 2017-06-06 19:01:56 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:
...



TLDR;

"I don't want to have to do anything at all to maintain my perfectly safe status while hunting others, any suggestion that I even need to remain at the keyboard is unreasonable"