These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#981 - 2013-09-12 14:42:54 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
TheGunslinger42:
Let me simplify.
A cloaker, AFK or not, brings with it an inherent risk.
Risk mitigation requires null inhabitants to alter behavior.
You believe it's OK for a player to be able to affect the behavior of others while not playing, and that doing that 23/7 for months is not harassment.

Is that essentially what you are saying?


The problem is this part:

Quote:
You believe it's OK for a player to be able to affect the behavior of others while not playing, and that doing that 23/7 for months is not harassment.


I can do that to you not in a cloaked ship and even docked. We have blue standings, I can jump in my JF into whatever system has a station close to where you rat and start putting stuff on the market and start impacting your game. I can even do it logged off.

You also know that some alliances like PL merely have to be "in the area" to impact fleet compositions. Even if the majority of the alliance is not logged in.

"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
Zen Dijun
Absolute Order XVIII
Absolute Will
#982 - 2013-09-12 14:42:59 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Zen Dijun wrote:
All that being said, the only true way to mitigate the threat is to have your own team providing some cover for your operations. EVE was meant to be played enmasse. So, if you don't like the AFK cloaker, then you should consider joining/creating a corp that can help you counter their tactics. If you are unable to enjoy those accommodations, then plan on moving around to find quiet systems. There are many possible resolutions to AFK idiots.

It's easy to say have your own team, but since the cloaker is in control of whether he bridges his mates in, he has the advantage. He will only bridge in if they have a good chance of success (because he is also risk averse). And there could be a group of up to 254 other players on the other end of the jump.

We do move systems, and we're generally OK with that. But then people go on whining about how most of null is empty. Well of course it is, when there's a system with risk and a system with no risk, we move to the riskless system leaving the other empty. If you want more people in null, add a way to actively mitigate that risk. If not, then put up with the fact that we will move, leaving null mostly empty.



Null is empty because folks cannot ensure success. It seems from PVP, PVE, to Industry, that folks don't want to engage unless they're certain of success. Null sec is just a pain... Null is empty and will stay that way due to the constant change, instability, inability to fully secure, steep uphill costs, and lets not forget the constant breaking up of alliances and coalitions. Null is nothing more than an expensive headache. A null sec investment is an investment of massive proportions. You need players who have no need of sleep or a life to sustain null sec holdings.

The only true way to enjoy null sec follows the same pattern of worm holes. Come in for a time, plunder what you can, and depart shortly thereafter.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#983 - 2013-09-12 14:43:24 UTC
JIeoH Mocc wrote:
That's wrong. stay aligned - warp out - laugh at the droppers. Avoiding the drop is only one of the options, and it's your choice.
Get a gang, get a scout, access the dropped ships - have a fight. It's after all, YOUR system, right?
Is it that hard?
Yes, since the cloaker will only drop his mates on when he's guaranteed a win. You act like the cloaker is some crazy pirate. He's not, 9/10 times the cloaker is just looking for an easy KB inflation against shiny targets. And sure, you can stay aligned, but it takes so much more effort than what we currently do, which is just move to another system. But then we get all the "you're too risk averse" tears. Basically you won;t be happy until we just wait to be hotdropepd every time a cloaker enters system.

JIeoH Mocc wrote:
There you go again, and you said you don't call anyone AFK :(
I didn't say I don't refer to AFK cloakers, I said you can't tell the difference thus I don't label a cloaker in game as AFK or not.

JIeoH Mocc wrote:
A very flawed analogy, since there are so many ways to deal with the "risk" of being camped by a cloaky, rather than just undock and die by it. You could attempt to fire one at my head without permission, and if i survive - you'd get blasted yourself since i don't carry empty guns =)
There's nothing flawed about it. You state that an AFK cloaker can't hurt anyone, which is true. The same as an empty gun can't hurt anyone. But you would still react to me trying to fire a gun at your head the same way, regardless of if it was loaded or not. Since you can;t tell if it's loaded until it's too late, you must treat both guns as if they were loaded. In the same way you must treat any cloaker as active, regardless of if they are active or AFK.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#984 - 2013-09-12 14:48:06 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
The problem is this part:

Quote:
You believe it's OK for a player to be able to affect the behavior of others while not playing, and that doing that 23/7 for months is not harassment.


I can do that to you not in a cloaked ship and even docked. We have blue standings, I can jump in my JF into whatever system has a station close to where you rat and start putting stuff on the market and start impacting your game. I can even do it logged off.

You also know that some alliances like PL merely have to be "in the area" to impact fleet compositions. Even if the majority of the alliance is not logged in.
That's a system that is by design. AFK cloaking in a null system introducing risk that reduces system levels is not by design, its a combination of multiple features coming together to cause a problem. honestly, I couldn't give a **** about AFK cloaking for the most part. What I care about is how the same people that are pro AFK cloaking cry about how "risk averse" null players are. Since I can't tell an active cloaker from an AFK cloaker I'll continue to treat both the same, so I'll continue to be risk averse. Don't like risk aversion? Don't AFK cloak then.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#985 - 2013-09-12 14:54:55 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:

Local is an entirely separate discussion. It's easy to say "Huzzah! The problem is local!" but removing local has so many other implications. Save that for another "Remove local" thread.


The two are linked. When ratting you use it for intel, either directly by watching local in the system you are in possibly with bubbles on the in gate(s) to buy you enough time to warp off should a neutral come into system. Or indirectly via scouts in other systems, intel channels, etc.

AFK cloaking is only effective given how local currently works, especially for resource denial. All the people who want to PvE see the AFK cloaker in local chat. They know he is there, if not his exact location.

Trying to separate the two is part of the problem as it ignores the issue of balance. As has been noted numerous times, the current situation is sub-optimal, but balanced.

Just out of curiosity who thinks AFK cloaking is "good game play"?

I don't. I think it is boring and I'd rather have a system that includes risk for both sides but also rewards for both sides. That means sometimes the hunters get a kill, sometimes not. At the same time the guy doing PvE (and I'm not being elitist here, I'd be willing to bet all of us PvE at least sometimes) no longer has to put up with some guy AFK cloaking for days on end who is hoping for a kill.

I'd also like to point out an element of this discussion that often gets ignored. Null sec rewards (mainly PvE). By making null less risky and dangerous, you also run the risk of having the rewards nerfed too. By increasing the risks, there is a stronger case to be made for possibly increasing the rewards to null sec PvE.

"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
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#986 - 2013-09-12 14:58:21 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
The problem is this part:

Quote:
You believe it's OK for a player to be able to affect the behavior of others while not playing, and that doing that 23/7 for months is not harassment.


I can do that to you not in a cloaked ship and even docked. We have blue standings, I can jump in my JF into whatever system has a station close to where you rat and start putting stuff on the market and start impacting your game. I can even do it logged off.

You also know that some alliances like PL merely have to be "in the area" to impact fleet compositions. Even if the majority of the alliance is not logged in.
That's a system that is by design. AFK cloaking in a null system introducing risk that reduces system levels is not by design, its a combination of multiple features coming together to cause a problem. honestly, I couldn't give a **** about AFK cloaking for the most part. What I care about is how the same people that are pro AFK cloaking cry about how "risk averse" null players are. Since I can't tell an active cloaker from an AFK cloaker I'll continue to treat both the same, so I'll continue to be risk averse. Don't like risk aversion? Don't AFK cloak then.


Cloaking is no different to any of those other things: The knowledge that another player is around represents risk, you can use the tools available to you, and the patterns you notice in those other players, and a bit of guess work to determine how much of a threat and respond (or not) accordingly. Asking for that uncertainty to be removed is bad, mkay. It removes the requirements that players put in effort, it removes risk, it removes fun.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#987 - 2013-09-12 15:03:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
The problem is this part:

Quote:
You believe it's OK for a player to be able to affect the behavior of others while not playing, and that doing that 23/7 for months is not harassment.


I can do that to you not in a cloaked ship and even docked. We have blue standings, I can jump in my JF into whatever system has a station close to where you rat and start putting stuff on the market and start impacting your game. I can even do it logged off.

You also know that some alliances like PL merely have to be "in the area" to impact fleet compositions. Even if the majority of the alliance is not logged in.
That's a system that is by design. AFK cloaking in a null system introducing risk that reduces system levels is not by design, its a combination of multiple features coming together to cause a problem. honestly, I couldn't give a **** about AFK cloaking for the most part. What I care about is how the same people that are pro AFK cloaking cry about how "risk averse" null players are. Since I can't tell an active cloaker from an AFK cloaker I'll continue to treat both the same, so I'll continue to be risk averse. Don't like risk aversion? Don't AFK cloak then.


I could argue that AFK cloaking is a direct result of game design: e.g. local chat as an intel tool and cloaking devices.

As for don't like risk aversion/don't AFK cloak, I'm sorry I find that silly. Are you saying you wont hit the warp button as soon as you see a neutral in system, coming down the pipe, or reported in the intel channel heading your way? You'll still be just as risk averse whether or not AFK cloaking takes place or not.

Thus, nerfing cloaks is an indirect buff to null sec PvE. That buff is by reducing risk. Now you get the same reward for less risk. You'll also likely see your rewards diminished. Either directly by CCP who takes an active interest in the in game economy (think of them as like the Federal Reserve/Central Bank) or indirectly by having more competition from other PvE players. Or even both. After all, CCP wont necessarily care who is getting the isk, but that, in their opinion, too much isk may be flowing into the game.

Yes, yes, I realize it looks like there is a contradiction in there. How could more isk be flowing into the game, but you are getting less, but if you think that is really a contradiction I'd suggest you look at the fallacy of composition.

Lastly, this discussion is really a game balance issue. And like in any system, if you change one part of the system it will have an effect on other parrts of the system. Looking at any change while ignoring the how that change impacts the rest of the system is how you end up with balance issues.

"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
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#988 - 2013-09-12 15:06:33 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
The two are linked. When ratting you use it for intel, either directly by watching local in the system you are in possibly with bubbles on the in gate(s) to buy you enough time to warp off should a neutral come into system. Or indirectly via scouts in other systems, intel channels, etc.

AFK cloaking is only effective given how local currently works, especially for resource denial. All the people who want to PvE see the AFK cloaker in local chat. They know he is there, if not his exact location.

Sure, the two are linked as removing local would solve AFK cloaking, that I don't deny. But removing local has a considerably wider area of effect than just that. It's like saying "I need to turn off my light, so I'm going to blow up the power plant." It get's the job done but it does considerably more too.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#989 - 2013-09-12 15:10:58 UTC
Whenever the game assumes I need help, and denies me the rewards of my own efforts by providing the rewards for no effort, I lose the ability to compete in that aspect.

Everyone is getting the same reward, for the same lack of effort.

To compete, I must be able to make a better effort, and consequently a better reward. Either I have intel more consistently, or I know about things with greater detail, than the other players.

This gives me educated options other players lack, because they did not make the efforts i did to get them.

As a team player, I have more value than the next guy, because my intel being provided is more useful. The quality of my contributions gains meaning and significance.
Our alliance suddenly is harder to attack, we seem to know better than others when someone is coming, who they are with, and where they are.

Or you can have local chat like it is now, and never be able to locate a cloaked ship under typical circumstances.

As a side note, you can affect game play without even being logged into the game. Tell people that alliance XXX has multiple cyno ships logged off in a system, and that system is suddenly viewed as high risk, since you can look away for ten seconds, only to look back and find yourself in a pod.

That is the nature of this game.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#990 - 2013-09-12 15:12:01 UTC
Azrael Dinn wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Azrael Dinn wrote:
...


You know Azrael that is a load of bunk. You know that most of us favor changing local and cloaks. What we don't favor is simply changing cloaks.


Yes I know most of you favor it and I do too... I just have a thing with gunslinger and my comment was directed towards him and him only. This topic gets my blood boiling sometimes. Sorry



Then why not join "us"? You don't have to voice exactly the same opinion, but you come across as definitively anti-cloak. You don't have to agree 100% with "us". For example Mag's is more of a status quo guy, whereas I'm more of a "change local/change cloaks" guy. Instead of the snarky and misleading "breaks cloaks"™, you could use "change cloaks and local"™.

C'mon Azreal...you know resistance is futile....

"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
#991 - 2013-09-12 15:13:34 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Azrael Dinn wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Azrael Dinn wrote:
...


You know Azrael that is a load of bunk. You know that most of us favor changing local and cloaks. What we don't favor is simply changing cloaks.


Yes I know most of you favor it and I do too... I just have a thing with gunslinger and my comment was directed towards him and him only. This topic gets my blood boiling sometimes. Sorry



Then why not join "us"? You don't have to voice exactly the same opinion, but you come across as definitively anti-cloak. You don't have to agree 100% with "us". For example Mag's is more of a status quo guy, whereas I'm more of a "change local/change cloaks" guy. Instead of the snarky and misleading "breaks cloaks"™, you could use "change cloaks and local"™.

C'mon Azreal...you know resistance is futile....

Plus, we have cookies!

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#992 - 2013-09-12 15:14:02 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
As for don't like risk aversion/don't AFK cloak, I'm sorry I find that silly. Are you saying you wont hit the warp button as soon as you see a neutral in system, coming down the pipe, or reported in the intel channel heading your way? You'll still be just as risk averse whether or not AFK cloaking takes place or not.
Of course if I'm in a mining barge or a PVE boat, I'll dock up, but you can almost guarantee I'll undock immediately in a combat ship.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Thus, nerfing cloaks is an indirect buff to null sec PvE. That buff is by reducing risk. Now you get the same reward for less risk. You'll also likely see your rewards diminished. Either directly by CCP who takes an active interest in the in game economy (think of them as like the Federal Reserve/Central Bank) or indirectly by having more competition from other PvE players. Or even both. After all, CCP wont necessarily care who is getting the isk, but that, in their opinion, too much isk may be flowing into the game.
It's not a buff, because we can already avoid that risk by moving systems. At the end of the day though, the AFK cloaker already gets to introduce risk while not even being there. He can have the same effect as an active cloaker with 0 effort. I don't think there should be any ability to put 0 effort in and expect a favorable result. AFK mining included in that.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Lastly, this discussion is really a game balance issue. And like in any system, if you change one part of the system it will have an effect on other parrts of the system. Looking at any change while ignoring the how that change impacts the rest of the system is how you end up with balance issues.
But since it's such a core issue, you have to separate it. You can;t change the entire systems and just cross your fingers and hope it all works out. Small changes need to be implemented to bring things in balance slowly.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#993 - 2013-09-12 15:16:39 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
The two are linked. When ratting you use it for intel, either directly by watching local in the system you are in possibly with bubbles on the in gate(s) to buy you enough time to warp off should a neutral come into system. Or indirectly via scouts in other systems, intel channels, etc.

AFK cloaking is only effective given how local currently works, especially for resource denial. All the people who want to PvE see the AFK cloaker in local chat. They know he is there, if not his exact location.

Sure, the two are linked as removing local would solve AFK cloaking, that I don't deny. But removing local has a considerably wider area of effect than just that. It's like saying "I need to turn off my light, so I'm going to blow up the power plant." It get's the job done but it does considerably more too.


Just for clarity...I'm going to post this:

I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.
I am not simply saying: Remove Local.

Sorry for the repetition, but I've been responding to that kind of claim alot lately. I am for changing how intel gathering works, separate it from local. Create a new mechanic, one where players in sov null have to work for it. In high sec, it could be provided for free...something the "Empires do". Maybe make different watered down variants for Low Sec and NPC null. Something that could make cloaking ships more useful than simply getting a cyno into the target system more efficiently, scouting, and AFK cloak camping.

"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
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#994 - 2013-09-12 15:24:04 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Just for clarity...I'm going to post this:

I am not simply saying: Remove Local.

Sorry for the repetition, but I've been responding to that kind of claim alot lately. I am for changing how intel gathering works, separate it from local. Create a new mechanic, one where players in sov null have to work for it. In high sec, it could be provided for free...something the "Empires do". Maybe make different watered down variants for Low Sec and NPC null. Something that could make cloaking ships more useful than simply getting a cyno into the target system more efficiently, scouting, and AFK cloak camping.

We know. Yet still disagree. Any action that involves changing local is already too complex to be considered as a solution. It's a completely separate issue with it's own issues to balance. I know you have those 2 link which you think will somehow save the universe from itself by categorizing people in local, but that alone is complex enough, I don;t think that the game is even remotely designed to handle that kind of separation. Not to mention that removing cloakers from local chat meas that blops groups can travel with considerably more ease. You ideas are overly complex and themselves would need considerable balancing. Simply put, they are unrealistic.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#995 - 2013-09-12 15:25:35 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
As for don't like risk aversion/don't AFK cloak, I'm sorry I find that silly. Are you saying you wont hit the warp button as soon as you see a neutral in system, coming down the pipe, or reported in the intel channel heading your way? You'll still be just as risk averse whether or not AFK cloaking takes place or not.
Of course if I'm in a mining barge or a PVE boat, I'll dock up, but you can almost guarantee I'll undock immediately in a combat ship.


That's great, but most wont. They dock up and that's that. Why? That ship might have a cyno. People always want the upper hand. You prove this claim with what you wrote above. And there is nothing wrong with that, but it makes solving this issue tricky.

Quote:
It's not a buff, because we can already avoid that risk by moving systems. At the end of the day though, the AFK cloaker already gets to introduce risk while not even being there. He can have the same effect as an active cloaker with 0 effort. I don't think there should be any ability to put 0 effort in and expect a favorable result. AFK mining included in that.


It is still a buff as you'll almost surely be moving to a system with a lower true sec rating and thus getting less rewards, or a system that is not upgraded. Or a system without a station hence you may drop a POS (i.e. an isk sink, unless one is already there for moon mining or some other reason).

Quote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lastly, this discussion is really a game balance issue. And like in any system, if you change one part of the system it will have an effect on other parrts of the system. Looking at any change while ignoring the how that change impacts the rest of the system is how you end up with balance issues.
But since it's such a core issue, you have to separate it. You can;t change the entire systems and just cross your fingers and hope it all works out. Small changes need to be implemented to bring things in balance slowly.


No, because it is a core issue you really don't want to separate it. It not only impacts just PvE and things like intel, it could impact things like how sov warfare is conducted as well. It is a big, big issue which is why CCP hasn't touched it. I really think they'd like to change it, but because the implications for game balance are so sweeping they are very hesitant. Which I think it reasonable, BTW. It is a big issue, don't go making some change willy nilly. Hence CCP Explorer's comment about needing solid ideas from the community--i.e. us players. To be quite honest, it would be helpful if CCP were bit more engaged in the discussion as well, but that is their call.

"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
#996 - 2013-09-12 15:29:04 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Just for clarity...I'm going to post this:

I am not simply saying: Remove Local.

Sorry for the repetition, but I've been responding to that kind of claim alot lately. I am for changing how intel gathering works, separate it from local. Create a new mechanic, one where players in sov null have to work for it. In high sec, it could be provided for free...something the "Empires do". Maybe make different watered down variants for Low Sec and NPC null. Something that could make cloaking ships more useful than simply getting a cyno into the target system more efficiently, scouting, and AFK cloak camping.


We know. Yet still disagree. Any action that involves changing local is already too complex to be considered as a solution. It's a completely separate issue with it's own issues to balance.


But is not a separate issue. Let me quote Mag's,

"When an AFK cloaker is in your system, what mechanic is he using to interact with you."

Hint: It isn't the cloaking device. The mechanic is precisely the same if I did not have a cloak and entered your system (assuming we weren't blue Smile )

"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
#997 - 2013-09-12 15:32:52 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Azrael Dinn wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Azrael Dinn wrote:
...


You know Azrael that is a load of bunk. You know that most of us favor changing local and cloaks. What we don't favor is simply changing cloaks.


Yes I know most of you favor it and I do too... I just have a thing with gunslinger and my comment was directed towards him and him only. This topic gets my blood boiling sometimes. Sorry



Then why not join "us"? You don't have to voice exactly the same opinion, but you come across as definitively anti-cloak. You don't have to agree 100% with "us". For example Mag's is more of a status quo guy, whereas I'm more of a "change local/change cloaks" guy. Instead of the snarky and misleading "breaks cloaks"™, you could use "change cloaks and local"™.

C'mon Azreal...you know resistance is futile....

Plus, we have cookies!


Nikk has a deadly coffee brand we'll share with you....c'mon...I know you are wavering...

"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
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#998 - 2013-09-12 15:36:20 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Just for clarity...I'm going to post this:

I am not simply saying: Remove Local.

Sorry for the repetition, but I've been responding to that kind of claim alot lately. I am for changing how intel gathering works, separate it from local. Create a new mechanic, one where players in sov null have to work for it. In high sec, it could be provided for free...something the "Empires do". Maybe make different watered down variants for Low Sec and NPC null. Something that could make cloaking ships more useful than simply getting a cyno into the target system more efficiently, scouting, and AFK cloak camping.

We know. Yet still disagree. Any action that involves changing local is already too complex to be considered as a solution. It's a completely separate issue with it's own issues to balance. I know you have those 2 link which you think will somehow save the universe from itself by categorizing people in local, but that alone is complex enough, I don;t think that the game is even remotely designed to handle that kind of separation. Not to mention that removing cloakers from local chat meas that blops groups can travel with considerably more ease. You ideas are overly complex and themselves would need considerable balancing. Simply put, they are unrealistic.


It is not a "completely separate issue", how local currently operates is the direct cause of these types of gameplay. You cannot alter just one half and maintain the level of uncertainty and risk that is desired and necessary in nullsec.

But we all know the truth: Some people want to remove absolutely all uncertainty and risk to themselves. They want the game to be pre-won for them. They are bad at EVE and should go back to highsec.
Becham
Sensible People
Sigma Grindset
#999 - 2013-09-12 15:37:00 UTC
No ship should be safe while undocked and the pilot is afk. Talk about carebear.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1000 - 2013-09-12 15:38:01 UTC
Becham wrote:
No ship should be safe while undocked and the pilot is afk. Talk about carebear.


So you favor some new mechanic for ejecting ships with an AFK player from say...a POS? Okay, great! Smile

"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