These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2701 - 2013-11-04 18:33:41 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Your wording implied the frigate should not have a chance to kill the battleship.

Being entitled means to have the right to do something, a type of permission, if you will.
Being entitled to have a chance, is almost like saying they have permission to play a game.

A frigate is not entitled to a chance to kill a battleship with a cyno blob.

So, either the battleship is outside the game, or the frigate is not allowed to play....
Your wording is suspect, as I have trouble accepting you mean to say the frigate should have NO chance to fight the battleship.

I'll rephrase it then: The frigate is not entitled to getting CCP to alter the game mechanics so as to make it easier for the frigate to catch and kill a pve battleship. The "entitlement to the chance" uses far fewer words though.

I quite agree.

I believe the quantity and quality of effort on both sides of a conflict should be the determining factors.

No change required.

It is good to hear that you are not seeking that CCP change the game mechanics of local to make it easier for the frigate to catch and kill a pve battleship.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Vas Eldryn
#2702 - 2013-11-05 03:29:13 UTC
CCP is actually making it easier for interceptors and interdictors to catch a battleship with the warp speed changes, been listening to the arguments on the test server page..... some are saying the changes make dictors and ceptors too OP.

I'm not on the test server, so haven't tested this myself... but this favors active tackling (my style of PVP) and makes miners and PVE pilots more vulnerable ... no changes to local needed.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2703 - 2013-11-05 05:42:50 UTC
Vas Eldryn wrote:
CCP is actually making it easier for interceptors and interdictors to catch a battleship with the warp speed changes, been listening to the arguments on the test server page..... some are saying the changes make dictors and ceptors too OP.

I'm not on the test server, so haven't tested this myself... but this favors active tackling (my style of PVP) and makes miners and PVE pilots more vulnerable ... no changes to local needed.


Vas....you just can't keep away. P

I was wondering about ceptors and dictors post rubicon, they sound like welcome changes.

Still not a fan of free intel though.

"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
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2704 - 2013-11-05 14:08:12 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Vas Eldryn wrote:
CCP is actually making it easier for interceptors and interdictors to catch a battleship with the warp speed changes, been listening to the arguments on the test server page..... some are saying the changes make dictors and ceptors too OP.

I'm not on the test server, so haven't tested this myself... but this favors active tackling (my style of PVP) and makes miners and PVE pilots more vulnerable ... no changes to local needed.


Vas....you just can't keep away. P

I was wondering about ceptors and dictors post rubicon, they sound like welcome changes.

Still not a fan of free intel though.

I think CCP has been looking for a way to increase risk, and also avoid the cloaking / local hotbutton. This could be their solution.

I have trouble believing CCP wants to give sov based PvE ships a "bye*" automatically just because they made the right fitting choices.
(*The position of one who draws no opponent for a round in a tournament and so advances to the next round)
The simple fact that you CAN cut the hostile out of the running, and still make enough ISK to satisfy many, is OP in my opinion due to the automated aspect present.
No, I do not like that the only counter is AFK cloaking for this, either. Two wrongs do not make things right, and I feel they are both wrong.

Bringing in the third party solution could solve this, by breaking the dominant effect local intel has.
Who cares if a guy is cloaked in your system? If your intel channel doesn't warn you about the inty in the next system, you are toast.
Effort is suddenly required, and the cloaked pilots doing this for kills before can now inty up.

This also means, hopefully once proven effective at increasing risk, that the rewards will also increase to balance.
Null should always be worth the effort, and that should never be comparable to high sec on either detail.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Deviant X
Deviant Inc
#2705 - 2013-11-05 14:36:55 UTC
I am a carebear. It's true.

But I dislike local. When I visualize space, I imagine a huge void. How can I instantly know somebody appears 50+AU's away? It makes zero sense. I am also a big fan of any mechanic that opens Null to the individual player. No local means large alliances need to actively police and probe their core, renter systems. It will shrink logistic lines and open up the game to more people.

I think your name should appear in local when you say something. I'd go further to say your portrait goes away after 15 minutes of no typing in local.

I think stations should have a separate channel. Keep it like the current local. You see everybody docked in a system. You can chat and trade openly. This makes more sense to me .....
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2706 - 2013-11-05 17:25:58 UTC
Deviant X wrote:
I am a carebear. It's true.

But I dislike local. When I visualize space, I imagine a huge void. How can I instantly know somebody appears 50+AU's away? It makes zero sense. I am also a big fan of any mechanic that opens Null to the individual player. No local means large alliances need to actively police and probe their core, renter systems. It will shrink logistic lines and open up the game to more people.

I think your name should appear in local when you say something. I'd go further to say your portrait goes away after 15 minutes of no typing in local.

I think stations should have a separate channel. Keep it like the current local. You see everybody docked in a system. You can chat and trade openly. This makes more sense to me .....

"makes zero sense" .. lol .. space jam, instant travel across light years, and projectiles which travel a hundred kilometers instantly for instant damage. Love it. The stargates communicating through their instant connections makes perfect sense compared to those. Shields which mitigate all damage of a MWD Battleship at 1 km/s colliding with .. anything. Ships which land inside asteroids without damage and are shot out at 5km/s, stations which can be killed to zero hp and not be destroyed, and indestructible gates, and we hear talk of instant communications not making sense, unless it is through a chat or regarding a docked ship? Serously?

My first instinct when an Eve player claims to be "x" is that they are the opposite of "x" Wanting to see what is inside a station in which you cannot dock sounds like the perspective of someone who moves through hostile space, not a carebear. Wanting hostile ships to slip behind enemy lines with less effort and greater effect sounds like a pvper, not a carebear. If you want credibility, it is usually good to start with the truth. But let's go ahead and blame local for effortless intel on whether or not you are really a carebear, Deviant, because that really was fairly easy and obvious.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2707 - 2013-11-05 17:54:03 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Deviant X wrote:
I am a carebear. It's true.

But I dislike local. When I visualize space, I imagine a huge void. How can I instantly know somebody appears 50+AU's away? It makes zero sense. I am also a big fan of any mechanic that opens Null to the individual player. No local means large alliances need to actively police and probe their core, renter systems. It will shrink logistic lines and open up the game to more people.

I think your name should appear in local when you say something. I'd go further to say your portrait goes away after 15 minutes of no typing in local.

I think stations should have a separate channel. Keep it like the current local. You see everybody docked in a system. You can chat and trade openly. This makes more sense to me .....

"makes zero sense" .. lol .. space jam, instant travel across light years, and projectiles which travel a hundred kilometers instantly for instant damage. Love it. The stargates communicating through their instant connections makes perfect sense compared to those. Shields which mitigate all damage of a MWD Battleship at 1 km/s colliding with .. anything. Ships which land inside asteroids without damage and are shot out at 5km/s, stations which can be killed to zero hp and not be destroyed, and indestructible gates, and we hear talk of instant communications not making sense, unless it is through a chat or regarding a docked ship? Serously?

The world of EVE is fiction.

Your expectations inside of it go beyond what our known technology can support, so it is all imaginary.
A popular cartoon, for example, depicted Jetsons in flying cars and having robots, but using cash rather than credit cards.
And that was just in the entry sequence of the show.
We assume a lot when predicting the future, and in games it is that perception that is catered to, not reality.


Andy Landen wrote:
My first instinct when an Eve player claims to be "x" is that they are the opposite of "x".

Debating someone by suggesting they have impure motives, in order to deprive their argument of value.

For shame.
I expect better of you than this.

All you do here is suggest that someone looking for a challenge could not exist, but that they must instead be seeking an easier game experience.
Never mind that EVE is considered by many to be one of the more challenging MMOs, you seem to think players seeking a challenge must be bearing false testimony.

Andy Landen wrote:
Wanting to see what is inside a station in which you cannot dock sounds like the perspective of someone who moves through hostile space, not a carebear. Wanting hostile ships to slip behind enemy lines with less effort and greater effect sounds like a pvper, not a carebear. If you want credibility, it is usually good to start with the truth. But let's go ahead and blame local for effortless intel on whether or not you are really a carebear, Deviant, because that really was fairly easy and obvious.

To deny the obvious is insanity.

Local requires no effort. Therefore, what it provides is also free from effort.

Competition requires effort. Therefore, local does not promote competition, it side steps it entirely.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2708 - 2013-11-05 18:56:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Nikk Narrel wrote:

Andy Landen wrote:
My first instinct when an Eve player claims to be "x" is that they are the opposite of "x".

Debating someone by suggesting they have impure motives, in order to deprive their argument of value.

For shame.
I expect better of you than this.

All you do here is suggest that someone looking for a challenge could not exist, but that they must instead be seeking an easier game experience.
Never mind that EVE is considered by many to be one of the more challenging MMOs, you seem to think players seeking a challenge must be bearing false testimony.

In the first place, who cares if he is a carebear or not. Are we supposed to accept his argument simply because he is a carebear (or not)? Whether or not he is a carebear is absolutely immaterial and inconsequential to the validity of his points. Are we to accept his position simply because he represents a portion of carebears? Are we supposed to believe that fewer carebears oppose local and therefore we should simply concede right now? Is he trying to imply that other "carebears" share his position simply because he claims to be one? It makes no difference what he really is, but his support of strongly non-pve activities indicates an interest in fooling us.

The best way to avoid making a discussion personal is to avoid invoking reasons based on personal attributes of who you are. The second best way is to avoid making personal judgments like "for shame (on you)" and "(I) expect better of you," etc. There is only shame is avoiding the issues in order to make it personal with irrelevant attacks directly at the people who oppose you. But when a person makes a personal claim and then contradicts that claim in the same post, it is only fitting to expose the contradictions. The only thing that I deprived him from his argument was that he represented anyone in the pve camp, unless you can believe that carebears like to roam through hostile space and know who are in the stations without them knowing that you are in system. Frankly, I have never seen any carebear even remotely come close to that perspective. So if his entire argument was based in convincing us that he was a carebear and that we should believe him because he was a carebear, then his argument needs to bring a whole lot more to the table than that.

If you have played Eve for long, you will know that trust is not easily come by, and betrayal and lies are the name of the game. But a discussion based on logic and facts does not care about trust or personal claims. Productive discussion only follows impersonal and objective exposition and analysis.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2709 - 2013-11-05 19:07:35 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:

Andy Landen wrote:
My first instinct when an Eve player claims to be "x" is that they are the opposite of "x".

Debating someone by suggesting they have impure motives, in order to deprive their argument of value.

For shame.
I expect better of you than this.

All you do here is suggest that someone looking for a challenge could not exist, but that they must instead be seeking an easier game experience.
Never mind that EVE is considered by many to be one of the more challenging MMOs, you seem to think players seeking a challenge must be bearing false testimony.

In the first place, who cares if he is a carebear or not. Are we supposed to accept his argument simply because he is a carebear (or not)? Whether or not he is a carebear is absolutely immaterial and inconsequential to the validity of his points. Are we to accept his position simply because he represents a portion of carebears? Are we supposed to believe that fewer carebears oppose local and therefore we should simply concede right now? Is he trying to imply that other "carebears" share his position simply because he claims to be one? It makes no difference what he really is, but his support of strongly non-pve activities indicates an interest in fooling us.

The best way to avoid making a discussion personal is to avoid invoking reasons based on personal attributes of who you are. The second best way is to avoid making personal judgments like "for shame (on you)" and "(I) expect better of you," etc. The is only shame is in leaving the argument in order to make it personal with irrelevant attacks directly at the people who oppose you. But when a person makes a personal claim and then contradicts that claim in the same post, it is only fitting to expose the contradictions. The only thing that I deprived him from his argument was that he represented anyone in the pve camp, unless you can believe that carebears like to roam through hostile space and know who are in the stations without them knowing that you are in system. Frankly, I have never seen any carebear even remotely come close to that perspective. So if his entire argument was based in convincing us that he was a carebear and that we should believe him because he was a carebear, then his argument needs to bring a whole lot more to the table than that.

If you have played Eve for long, you will know that trust is not easily come by, and betrayal and lies are the name of the game. But a discussion based on logic and facts does not care about trust or personal claims. Productive discussion only follows impersonal and objective exposition and analysis.

Then you should have skipped over his claims as irrelevant, and focused on debating his views as presented.

That is the disappointment aspect I pointed out, you are trying to debate his honesty, not the merit of his argument which did not rely on his back story.

I myself am about as carebear as it gets, (in null at least), and I freely admit I argue against local for my benefit as a carebear.
Could I play in other ways? Probably, but they don't fit me as a player well enough to pursue them above the mining profession.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2710 - 2013-11-05 19:28:54 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:

Then you should have skipped over his claims as irrelevant, and focused on debating his views as presented.

That is the disappointment aspect I pointed out, you are trying to debate his honesty, not the merit of his argument which did not rely on his back story.

I myself am about as carebear as it gets, (in null at least), and I freely admit I argue against local for my benefit as a carebear.
Could I play in other ways? Probably, but they don't fit me as a player well enough to pursue them above the mining profession.

Perhaps I should have skipped his back story. But since the entirety of his argument screamed pvp, I felt compelled to point out that carebears do not think that way and would not naturally hold his perspective. Not to say we oppose challenge, just that we don't appreciate the "challenges" he is promoting. I don't appreciate people saying that we should support a different position because it is claimed that the opposition is stronger and our side is weaker. The strength of numbers of those on a side should have little to do with our consideration of the issues, especially when we are being misled about there being a change in the strength of a side. I challenged the back story because it invoked an appeal to a false sense of change in the number of supporters as its primary argument for changing local. If some people care about the number of supporters, it is fair to keep a more accurate and rational understanding of the real levels of support for a particular perspective.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2711 - 2013-11-05 19:49:09 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:

Then you should have skipped over his claims as irrelevant, and focused on debating his views as presented.

That is the disappointment aspect I pointed out, you are trying to debate his honesty, not the merit of his argument which did not rely on his back story.

I myself am about as carebear as it gets, (in null at least), and I freely admit I argue against local for my benefit as a carebear.
Could I play in other ways? Probably, but they don't fit me as a player well enough to pursue them above the mining profession.

Perhaps I should have skipped his back story. But since the entirety of his argument screamed pvp, I felt compelled to point out that carebears do not think that way and would not naturally hold his perspective. Not to say we oppose challenge, just that we don't appreciate the "challenges" he is promoting. I don't appreciate people saying that we should support a different position because it is claimed that the opposition is stronger and our side is weaker. The strength of numbers of those on a side should have little to do with our consideration of the issues, especially when we are being misled about there being a change in the strength of a side. I challenged the back story because it invoked an appeal to a false sense of change in the number of supporters as its primary argument for changing local. If some people care about the number of supporters, it is fair to keep a more accurate and rational understanding of the real levels of support for a particular perspective.

It sounds like you are assuming that someone who likes PvE, by necessity must favor your arguments protecting local while diminishing the impact of cloaking.

I disagree.

I point out, that the rewards for my PvE are directly tied to the risk, or relative lack thereof, and are thus a far greater time sink than I can afford.
Now, I can make a greater effort, and by that I strictly mean quality, as quantity is something my life choices have denied being available to me.
I own that; a full time job, and family with children, are not things which all players necessarily deal with, so I can respect how some others might prefer a safer yet longer gaming period for the same rewards.

But I want a harder challenge, in exchange for faster rewards.
In mining.

For the same reason a longer grind is not a good match for me, being able to do more group oriented PvE like incursions are also not a good match. Players like myself have little overlap with others of like mind, so it is not a reliable play type.
I rarely have the luxury of finding more than a couple of others able to be online and active while I am about.

So, what do players like myself need, and therefore want?
Short and intense play sessions, where the quality of effort better translates to rewards.

Mining, as it currently stands in null, is in the same state of affairs as ratting. There is an effective cap to your returns, as balance for the free intel existing.
As to moving into a wormhole, been there, tried that. Not my style, as it is a major time sink for logistic reasons. No outposts had the major impact on the game to me, while no local there was nice but trivial.

Does that mean I would risk entire play sessions as being wasted due to hostiles, possibly even with me losing more than I started with? Heck yeah!
I am paying to play a fun and challenging game here, not world of snorecraft.

And, where else but null would you expect to find such a challenge in mining?

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Markus Blaze
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2712 - 2013-11-05 21:16:36 UTC
Just wanted to check in and see if CCP is allowing SB and other cloakies to one-shot things yet? Question If not I do not understand why there are so many words in people's posts. D-scan and local work wonders for keeping me from getting ganked by a cloaked ship.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2713 - 2013-11-06 05:56:23 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:

In the first place, who cares if he is a carebear or not. Are we supposed to accept his argument simply because he is a carebear (or not)? Whether or not he is a carebear is absolutely immaterial and inconsequential to the validity of his points. Are we to accept his position simply because he represents a portion of carebears? Are we supposed to believe that fewer carebears oppose local and therefore we should simply concede right now? Is he trying to imply that other "carebears" share his position simply because he claims to be one? It makes no difference what he really is, but his support of strongly non-pve activities indicates an interest in fooling us.


Your attempt to paint him as being a liar is a dishonest debating technique called "poisoning the well", it is basically, he lied about this, what else is he lying about? You basically cut him off at the knees right from the start and cast doubt on everything else he says by this tactic. its effective, no doubt but it is also dishonest.

"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
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#2714 - 2013-11-07 07:50:02 UTC
bump

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.
BloodMia
The Scope
#2715 - 2013-11-07 10:26:52 UTC
Markus Blaze wrote:
.... D-scan and local work wonders for keeping me from getting ganked by a cloaked ship.


Nothing wrong there!
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2716 - 2013-11-07 10:38:30 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
It sounds like you are assuming that someone who likes PvE, by necessity must favor your arguments protecting local while diminishing the impact of cloaking.

I disagree.

I point out, that the rewards for my PvE are directly tied to the risk, or relative lack thereof, and are thus a far greater time sink than I can afford.
Now, I can make a greater effort, and by that I strictly mean quality, as quantity is something my life choices have denied being available to me.
I own that; a full time job, and family with children, are not things which all players necessarily deal with, so I can respect how some others might prefer a safer yet longer gaming period for the same rewards.

But I want a harder challenge, in exchange for faster rewards.
In mining.

For the same reason a longer grind is not a good match for me, being able to do more group oriented PvE like incursions are also not a good match. Players like myself have little overlap with others of like mind, so it is not a reliable play type.
I rarely have the luxury of finding more than a couple of others able to be online and active while I am about.

So, what do players like myself need, and therefore want?
Short and intense play sessions, where the quality of effort better translates to rewards.

Mining, as it currently stands in null, is in the same state of affairs as ratting. There is an effective cap to your returns, as balance for the free intel existing.
As to moving into a wormhole, been there, tried that. Not my style, as it is a major time sink for logistic reasons. No outposts had the major impact on the game to me, while no local there was nice but trivial.

Does that mean I would risk entire play sessions as being wasted due to hostiles, possibly even with me losing more than I started with? Heck yeah!
I am paying to play a fun and challenging game here, not world of snorecraft.

And, where else but null would you expect to find such a challenge in mining?
That's all great and all, but it sounds like what you want isn't PVE, It's PVP. Not everyone shares your view, and most pure PVE players don't want to have their time wasted because some random neckbeard had a quick ship. Essentially what you are saying is that your idea of what PVE is is superior, thus that should be what it is. But it isn't.
You say you don't want world of snorecraft, yet YOU chose to engage in the activity that is closest to it, and now want changes to make it more like PVP. Nobody forced you to pick PVE, your picked it of your own free will.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Jake Sake
Alts Galore
#2717 - 2013-11-07 13:23:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Jake Sake
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:

....
...But I want a harder challenge, in exchange for faster rewards.
In mining....
...Short and intense play sessions, where the quality of effort better translates to rewards.

Mining, as it currently stands in null, is in the same state of affairs as ratting. There is an effective cap to your returns, as balance for the free intel existing....

....Does that mean I would risk entire play sessions as being wasted due to hostiles, possibly even with me losing more than I started with? Heck yeah!
I am paying to play a fun and challenging game here, not world of snorecraft.

And, where else but null would you expect to find such a challenge in mining?

... what you want isn't PVE, It's PVP....
...You say you don't want world of snorecraft, yet YOU chose to engage in the activity that is closest to it, and now want changes to make it more like PVP....

What reward is in PvP? The only reward for PvP I can find is territory gain/protection (not necessarily the only one but include Sov holding/gaining). Apart from that there are no rewards in PvP. Some esoteric things like emotions, ego increase or feeling of potency aside (as well as corpse collecting). PvP contain only risks and no rewards. Edit: Oh yeah, I forgot about loot from wrecks. But find me at least one active and dedicated PvPer whose only motivation for PvP is looting dead bodies aka wrecks.

As for mining: you do understand (I hope) that the person in question might have few (as in several or even a pack) of alts for mining and boosting? Having a Rorq/Orca run boosts (maybe even tractoring cans with ore and compressing it) and 5+ hulks/skiffs/covetors mining out some ore site (which you might want to remember now can be warped to as soon as your inty / recon jumps in a sector) could be if not challenging but quite exhausting. It is well rewarded though. You mine for an hour or two and have quite a lot of ore/ice. As for risks... well you know (I hope) how much one Exhumer costs. And dedicated miner have bunch of those and manage them all at the same time. They not have warp off speed of a frigate, even rats have some level of threat during those mining sessions.

Think about a subject before you try to answer it.
Jake Sake
Alts Galore
#2718 - 2013-11-07 13:30:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Jake Sake
Markus Blaze wrote:
Just wanted to check in and see if CCP is allowing SB and other cloakies to one-shot things yet? Question If not I do not understand why there are so many words in people's posts. D-scan and local work wonders for keeping me from getting ganked by a cloaked ship.


Markus Blaze
CURRENT CORPORATION
Brutor Tribe [B] from 2013.10.20 15:15 to this day
PREVIOUS CORPORATION(S)
Tribal Liberation Force [TLIB] from 2013.09.26 12:49 to 2013.10.20 15:15.
Republic Military School [RMS] from 2006.03.13 05:05 to 2013.09.26 12:49.


Right... a pro at a subject of evading being ganked by a cloaky permacamper in Sov null (where cloaky campers operate).
Jake Sake
Alts Galore
#2719 - 2013-11-07 13:59:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Jake Sake
Lucas Kell wrote:
That's all great and all, but it sounds like what you want isn't PVE, It's PVP. Not everyone shares your view, and most pure PVE players don't want to have their time wasted because some random neckbeard had a quick ship. Essentially what you are saying is that your idea of what PVE is is superior, thus that should be what it is. But it isn't.
You say you don't want world of snorecraft, yet YOU chose to engage in the activity that is closest to it, and now want changes to make it more like PVP. Nobody forced you to pick PVE, your picked it of your own free will.


That's all great and all, but it sounds like you did the same mistake as the person you quoted you claim had.

1. ...and most pure PVE players...
What is this ^?! Are you a child? How can you claim what most "pure" PvE players want? Do you have a collective mind connection with absolutely every single PvE player to know what majority of them wants? Btw, that should include me too! And what the f*** is a "pure PvE" player? The one who only interacts with environment? But we can argue that other players are environment too. Plus there's effectivelly no place in EVE where one would interact only with NPC environment.

2. ...some random neckbeard had a quick ship...
This ^ dude will have little effect for a PvE player. The problem are AFK cloakers who just sit there for weeks. And you cannot know if he's active or not. And trying to bail him out is impossible (at least for experienced ones), or nearly impossible (for newb cloaky campers). Some "random neckbeard who had a quick ship" and entered your system in search of PeeVeePee can be just avoided, simply docking or going to POS and AFK or log for 30 mins / few hours / this evening. Active people who are on a prowl for victims will leave your system after few minutes (best case scenario) or 1-2 evenings (worst case scenario).

3. ...Essentially what you are saying is that your idea of what PVE is is superior, thus that should be what it is. But it isn't....
There were no such claims. You just made that yourself, reread and contemplate.

For other part I answered in other post, sorry for taking two posts to quote one. :/
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#2720 - 2013-11-07 15:12:06 UTC
Lol, Dat change to cloaks on SiSi...

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3840442#post3840442

Maybe it's just a bug, but I guess we'll only see after Rubicon has gone life. Lol

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.