These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1361 - 2013-09-17 14:26:51 UTC  |  Edited by: TheGunslinger42
Andy Landen wrote:
Or you could grow some balls (no offense) and look for actually pvp targets that are actually flying in space and already looking for a fight. It's not like anyone is forcing you to endlessly fixate on the easy, juicy pve targets as if you are entitled to them or something.


This attempt at an argument is in fact an irrelevant smear, one that has been thoroughly refuted countless times. Here though, I'll do it again: What you're suggesting - that we should only go after willing pilots who are looking for PVP - demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of this game. What you are asking for is that PVP only be consensual, and that none-PVP focused ships (like industrials, ratting ships, etc) be "left alone". They cannot be left alone because they are so inextricably linked with the economy, with the territory control in null, with absolutely everything else in game.

They mine the materials that build ships, they get the bounties that allow players to buy ships, etc, and as a result they are extremely valuable, from the level of a single individual up to the biggest alliances and coalitions. Asking that we leave them alone when they play such a huge role in shoring up entities abilities to operate is ridiculous. We cannot simply ignore them because they have an effect on the rest of the game. I can see this, perhaps you can't, but rest assured the role they play means they CANNOT be simply ignored or granted immunity.

Additionally, all types of PVP - whether it's against a giant fleet looking for trouble, or an individual miner - are all valid forms of PVP. Quite frankly, I don't give a flying crap if you cry and try and smear me for partaking in a form of PVP (re: against you) that you don't like. Deal with it.

Andy Landen wrote:
There are these really cool things called bookmarks and fleet warp at distance. They don't show up on killmails, ever. They even work for blue awoxers. I'll say it again, I could care less if the hostile is AFK, he must always be treated as if he were an imminent threat, because he just may well could be. The only issue is if there is a cyno and what is on the other end of it. No cyno, then fine, let the bugger come at me at the time of his choosing. No problem at all. I probably won't even safe up regardless of the ship I am in or if I am in the middle of a pve op.


You are simply wrong here. A cloaker who has been in system for most of the day does not always need to be treated as if he is a big, imminent threat. This is a big flaw in the reasoning carebears have: They think that only one possible interpretation is possible, they think that only one cause of action is possible. They are wrong. The fact that you only ever interpret it one way is your problem, it is not indicative that it is the ONLY interpretation, or the ONLY action that can be taken.

You need to understand that just because you always think or do one thing does not mean that everyone else thinks or does the same, or that the game needs to be changed to better suit your extremely limited ability to judge situations. Look at Nikk, for example: He does not interpret things or act the same way you do.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1362 - 2013-09-17 14:28:40 UTC
JIeoH Mocc wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:

So you're not OK with removing the ability of an AFK cloaker to appear as a threat, yet you are perfectly happy to have cloakers removed from local, and will consider it my own fault if I'm caught? Surely I have the right to choose unwilling to PvP though? I have an active subscription, so that's my right. That's what you said.
And I'm more than happy to leave it as is, no changes. I move system if a cloaker pesters me, so it doesn't affect me that much, it just leave more of null empty. But since my coalition owns half of it, it's not really the end of the world. Renters are undoubtedly saddened by cloakers however.

Of course you have that right, only it shouldn't be backed up by any mechanic adjustment for that need of yours.
You can mine in highsec, where those ganking you will get concorded - protected by mechanics (kind of flawed) to unwill PvP
And also i never said i wanted cloakers to be off local, i don't care about that. I am happy as it is right now, actually.
If anything, I'd like to see local gone from Nullsec
Don't care much bout renters, honestly.

Or, I can continue to mine in null.

And local being removed from null would break the game. There's already another discussion going on with that in half these posts, that's pretty much what the argument is about. Some of us want AFK cloaking changed. Some say local is the cause, thus local has to change. But a change in local is a huge change which in all likelihood will never be feasible to change.

And it's great how you don;t care about this group, and you don;t care about that group, but that's why you are biased towards your own playstyle only. You're happy for changes that make you life easier, and **** anyone else basically.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1363 - 2013-09-17 14:31:37 UTC
Vas Eldryn wrote:
those pilots may not have had an AFK cyno cloaked ship in their system for over 7 months now.


Might I suggest you look into a new corp/alliance in this case. One that will find ways to deal with that problem?

"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
#1364 - 2013-09-17 14:32:29 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:

AFK Cloaker tactics are used for one of two reasons.
1. To mess with your head. If you call their bluff, nothing happens at all. It is dubious if they even have a cyno fitted, but if they feel it works well enough, the scarecrow is meant to drive the birds from the field.

2. To desensitize pilots. Seeing the name in local for ten minutes, and the all-or-nothing style PvE player won't undock.
After 1 hour, they are still not likely to consider it.
But after 12 hours, many are willing to gamble that a hidden pilot could not possibly be active for that long, and at best they may be checking back periodically. It is human nature to assume common grounds, so if the PvE pilot was logged in consistently to notice this, and has been AFK much of the time, then the hidden pilot too must be AFK.
Expecting them to return 18 to 20 hours after they first appeared makes sense to many, so on the night side of this equation it is probably safe.
Now, if the hidden pilot checks on the crop at an odd hour, they may find a harvest ready.

They do it because it works against idiots, who insist on all-or-nothing fits.
It keeps them docked up in some cases, and on kill mails for others.
And really, isn't that what a null miner wants? Fewer competing miners sucking up the good ore.

Let's educate you and gunslinger here on a few points:
1) Every encounter begins with the assumption that there will be an engagement and that the hostile ship will light a cyno. PVE ships cost 3-10 hours of ratting, so it is generally unwise to allow them to operate in an environment where a hostile pilot may discover them within 3-10 minutes (net loss). Bring a gang of pvp ships and you have a chance.
2) Only inexperienced pilots get desensitized, the rest move to another system. 3-10 minutes of ratting is not worth the PVE ship loss. Intel is checked for safe movement to another system if the hostile remains in the system for long enough. The assumption is that if the hostile is in system, he is active. Even if he is logged off, he is treated as if his log-on trick could catch someone. Only inexperienced pilots do not consider the risks of a 3-10 hour cost PVE ship for a few minutes of ratting.

So if the hidden pilot checks on his "harvest" he will find that his juicy targets are operating in another system the entire time and that he is merely wasting his time and account camping a system with a few players in station doing other stuff and keeping an eye on him to make him feel like he is having an effect on the system.

Added: Gunslinger, you are really detracting from productive discussions with all your personal attacks on others. This thread would be a lot better if you just stopped replying and started thinking about what is being said for a while.


1. This is an assumption. You can also presume they will bring you candy and flowers. You should always be prepared for encounters, as limiting yourself to operating exclusively under limited conditions reduces your opportunities to play.
As to PvE ships costing as much as you suggest, try other alternatives. The all or nothing play style seems to be stumbling over this flaw.

2. Low effort intel grants low intel benefits. If you only have a single account, in null, then you should be used to relying on others to some degree. If you have multiple, then playing more defensively should be expected. Teamwork is the implied way to operate outside of high sec, as Concord acts as a crude team for you inside of it.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1365 - 2013-09-17 14:34:17 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
That falls under the category of hiding threats, which I flatly reject. Hiding threats will kill pve, especially when cynos may be hidden too and there are no mass limits on the ships which may jump into the system, unlike wormholes where neither cynos nor gates without mass restrictions exist.


You mention wormholes, which is interesting, because hiding threats is possible there and guess what, PVE in wormholes happens all the time. There are no cynos, but there are these things called K162s. They open up at random, and can easily let in a dozen T3s and a capital ship or two. Since it takes very, very little to overwhelm a lone industrialist or lone PVEr, that is more than enough. Your death would be just as guaranteed if you faced them as it would be if you faced a full sized null fleet. So your "but wormholes are different" excuse is a load of bunk. As if your claim it would kill pve. We've got three years of proof showing it DOESNT, friend
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1366 - 2013-09-17 14:36:45 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
...

Meanwhile, a cloaker has to obfuscate his history - whether it be with alts, or jumping through hoops to prevent his alt from appearing on killboards - organise a fleet, keep that fleet waiting and ready, make his way deep behind enemy lines, wait for god knows how long, before finally having the possibility of catching a target.

Or you could grow some balls (no offense) and look for actually pvp targets that are actually flying in space and already looking for a fight. It's not like anyone is forcing you to endlessly fixate on the easy, juicy pve targets as if you are entitled to them or something.

This is not good.

While consensual PvP is fine, LIMITING such encounters only for mutual consent is NOT fine.

EVE is not about being polite, or asking permission, before lighting up someone's ship.

You know this.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1367 - 2013-09-17 14:37:56 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Additionally, all types of PVP - whether it's against a giant fleet looking for trouble, or an individual miner - are all valid forms of PVP. Quite frankly, I don't give a flying crap if you cry and try and smear me for partaking in a form of PVP (re: against you) that you don't like. Deal with it.
No, they can all be killed. But you are asking for it to be easier to kill already defenseless ships. And that makes you a coward. A PvP carebear. Let's see more of your tears about how miners can evade you too easily.

TheGunslinger42 wrote:
You are simply wrong here. A cloaker who has been in system for most of the day does not always need to be treated as if he is a big, imminent threat. This is a big flaw in the reasoning carebears have: They think that only one possible interpretation is possible, they think that only one cause of action is possible. They are wrong. The fact that you only ever interpret it one way is your problem, it is not indicative that it is the ONLY interpretation, or the ONLY action that can be taken.

You need to understand that just because you always think or do one thing that everyone else thinks or does the same, or that the game needs to be changed to better suit your extremely limited ability to judge situations. Look at Nikk, for example: He does not interpret things or act the same way you do.
Wrong.
A cloaker that's been in system all day could still at any point return and attack you, thus you must keep your guard up at all times. Any time you treat them as no threat, you are opening a massive vulnerability. So any experienced player will always treat them as an active hostile, thus affording them the ability to evade them.
Nikk is either lying about his chosen profession or he's not very bright. He states he uses a venture, which would be utterly pointless in null, since it would pull nowhere close to the isk/hour you can pull from high sec. Since mining is not exactly the most exciting of activities, why would anyone do it inefficiently. You may as well rat instead and make twice as much. Anything less than 3 characters mining and you can solo rat more in null than you can mine.
All in all, if he is a miner, he's very inexperienced.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1368 - 2013-09-17 14:38:06 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
The use of local as an intel tool and other precautions.

So change what is causing all these things. Change local and how intel is gathered. It is a big thing and tricky. Still if it can be done right it could make the game more interesting. And maybe give a bump to null sec PvE. After all, I want all those miners and ratters to be able to buy a new ship if their current one goes boom from time-to-time.
Again you say this like it's just that simple. Like changing local with have n adverse affects, and it's just a case of following your sig and away we go. It's not that simple. Honestly I don't think it's even possible to do it without it being game breaking. There's too many systems that work fine as it currently stands, but that would be entirely over or under powered should they make your changes to local.
The problem is you see everything from your blinkered perspective, rather than actually seeing what it's like from all side and coming to a rational decision. Honestly if the choice was your idea or no change, I'd chose no change in a heartbeat. At least as it is at the moment it works.


CCP has changed many aspects of the game over the years, some quite complex with far reaching implications. Would it be tough? Sure. Is it impossible? Only if nobody tries.

And if you really want to leave local alone, then it needs a counter...AFK cloaking.

"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
#1369 - 2013-09-17 14:42:12 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
JLeoH, you are just trolling now. A ship is not just a ship. Ships and fits are chosen with great attention to their needs. Some are dangerous and others are easy kills and you know it, so stop the trolling already.

To Nikk,
Quote:
For live intel, only local is helping the hostiles. They can't find anything off grid without scanning, which is hit or miss success.
If they are in a good scanning ship, they are less effective in combat.

Local only helps hostiles after they arrive and only while they are in system, and really it isn't that big of a help for them unless they can spread out across many systems and report movements. There is this really cool thing called warping to anomalies and belts. No scanners needed. All hits a few seconds after entering system, and no misses. No scanning ship, no probes, no nothing. Though a scanning ship and a bubbling ship can do wonders to augment a roam, but that digresses from this thread a bit. I never worry about lone ships with no cynos, but a single cyno presents a potentially infinite risk from the same lone ship. The issue here should be cynos on cloaked ships.

Are you joking?

Have you not considered, that when a hostile loads system, that local is telling them INSTANTLY how many targets are available?
If it shows only them in system, do you expect they waste time scanning, or launching probes?

Maybe they warp to a few belts, in case someone is... OOps, nope, noone but the hunter in local!
NEXT SYSTEM!

Seriously, you are not considering their view, when you think they have jedi like powers to detect PvE pilots.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1370 - 2013-09-17 14:44:28 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
No, they can all be killed. But you are asking for it to be easier to kill already defenseless ships. And that makes you a coward. A PvP carebear. Let's see more of your tears about how miners can evade you too easily.


Your ad hominem and smears mean nothing to me, they only demonstrate how weak your arguments are. I am not asking for it to be easier to kill locals, I'm asking that it not be made impossible. You yourself have stated you already have 99% safety, and yet you are asking that one or two of the methods left for people to catch you be removed. I am arguing against that, and saying at the very least the chance we have now - which by your own statements is miniscule - must be maintained.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1371 - 2013-09-17 14:45:36 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
The problem is you see everything from your blinkered perspective, rather than actually seeing what it's like from all side and coming to a rational decision. Honestly if the choice was your idea or no change, I'd chose no change in a heartbeat. At least as it is at the moment it works.


Part of the problem is your are a presumptuous prig who thinks that nobody does what you do. I do PvE. Regularly. I have lost expensive PvE ships. I just don't whine about it, especially to CCP and demand a mechanics change. So yes, I've been on both sides. I've been blowing up expensive ratting ships...and I've lost expensive PvE ships. So stop pretending you know my game experience.

Oh, and please spare us any whines about insults. At this point in the thread you've called everyone who does not agree with you an idiot, liar, and troll on several occasions.

"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.
#1372 - 2013-09-17 14:47:13 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Lucas, I've not bothered quoting the post I'm responding to because the quote formatting seems to be entirely messed up, but its post 1331.

You have yet again blatantly lied and misrepresented our position. You still construct pathetic strawmen, insisting I want you to have "no chance" to evade me when I have literally stated I do want you to have that ability and chance on multiple occasions. Your continued deliberate lies demonstrate your dishonesty throughout this thread.

I want you to have the ability and the chance to evade PVP. However, I also want the other party to also have a chance at success. You yourself have literally stated you have "99%" chance to escape as a result of local, and the only effort and work you do to gain this 99% safety is looking at local.

That leaves the other person with a 1% chance of catching you, despite them having to do a lot more work than just looking at local.

And yet you're asking for the methods they use to achieve this 1% success rate be removed, and for them to have to put in even more effort for even less of a chance.

That is not balanced. That is not good game design. You constant lying about the issues and opposing arguments are tiresome, and that of a child.
Well firstly, lets make sure you get this. that 1% is NOT AFK cloaking. It's bouncing off a rock, looking away for the wrong 10 seconds, or getting the dreaded warp bug. I avoid mining in systems with cloakers, so they are a 0% threat to me already. The reason i dislike them is they kill off systems in null for days at a time for no effort.

Secondly, that's 99% chance of escape if I put in 100% effort, and work my ass off at doing what my ship does, evading. The same as how you have a 99% chance to evade me if I'm in a combat ship by simply not engaging, with your 1% "being get to close to an object and decloak".

Removing a cloaker from local would give me nearly 0% chance of evading you. You can jump into a system, spend half a second decloaked and warp to 100km off of a grav. You then fly away, warp down to an object near me, decloaking as you do, lock me up and kill me. Unless I am both 100% aligned and 100% paying attention, I'm dead. I've had no chance to even realise you were there until it's too late. My only chance to survive involve me having multiple ships on standby, scouts on gates, and a tank strong enough to withstand you long enough for you to get killed (considering you could bomb and volley me with torps, and I'd probably die before you did, leaving you green on your KB. How can you not see that is unfair?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1373 - 2013-09-17 14:48:56 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
No, they can all be killed. But you are asking for it to be easier to kill already defenseless ships. And that makes you a coward. A PvP carebear. Let's see more of your tears about how miners can evade you too easily.


What!?!?!?! Not a sociopath for killing defenseless people!?!?!?!

Well I guess that is something. Roll

Here is a hint, why not stop making statements about the person playing the game such as coward, since you don't know them in real life and you only know the persona they have adopted in game. That is, that guy who likes to play the dirt bag scammer in game...could be a guy you get along with wonderfully in real life and would trust implicitly. We all adopt persona's in this game for fun...because it is a game...just a game.

Lighten up a bit. Before you stroke out.

Sheesh.

"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
#1374 - 2013-09-17 14:50:28 UTC
I find it astonishing that lucas is claiming Nikk must be a "liar" because he stated he doesn't use blingy, minmaxed, overly expensive ships when he is in dangerous areas of space with little or no backup.

The fact that the concept of compromise, trading efficiency for safety, is so alien to lucas, or at least so unacceptable that he screams everyone is lying about it when someone says they do it is truly astounding.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1375 - 2013-09-17 14:52:50 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
The problem is you see everything from your blinkered perspective, rather than actually seeing what it's like from all side and coming to a rational decision. Honestly if the choice was your idea or no change, I'd chose no change in a heartbeat. At least as it is at the moment it works.


Part of the problem is your are a presumptuous prig who thinks that nobody does what you do. I do PvE. Regularly. I have lost expensive PvE ships. I just don't whine about it, especially to CCP and demand a mechanics change. So yes, I've been on both sides. I've been blowing up expensive ratting ships...and I've lost expensive PvE ships. So stop pretending you know my game experience.

Oh, and please spare us any whines about insults. At this point in the thread you've called everyone who does not agree with you an idiot, liar, and troll on several occasions.

Who's whining? You want you precious local changes, all I want is the thing that makes null so empty removed. Honestly though, I really don't care if it stays as is as long as local doesn't change.
You show absolutely no signs of considering any of your posts from any side other than a cloaked PvPer. You are totally happy to utterly destroy other methods of gameplay, forcing industry into high sec, since it would become too inefficient to do in null with your changes. Force PVE players to use PvP fits and make sure they only take light damage, in case they get randomly jumped.
And yes, I have called idiotic posts idiotic, and I've called trolls trolls. Your explosive rage into a personal attack is purely because you have no other way to respond, since you only have a single argument, which is to remove local. And that, as always, is a bad idea.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1376 - 2013-09-17 14:55:22 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
If you want to play dumb, that's your call.

Without local, a cyno being used on grid to a target is MORONIC.
The target has either no idea you are there, or has already left. At no point does the cyno on grid make sense.
Pop your buddies in, from one system over, point the target, and burn asap.
(HINT: the backup force pops in right before the point is made, because local is not broadcasting the arrival of this group)

The ONLY difference, is that if the pointing ship gets popped, the other ships still arrive if the cyno was not on grid.
WITH Local, the pointing ship opens a cyno, but if it gets popped, any ship not in transit already never arrives.

1. Except, burning a single cloaky ship into a system undetected would be relatively easy. Trying to get a fleet of ships in undetected would be near impossible, since they would show on d-scan, show as a massive blob of ships to any scouts.
2. And set tidi off on their way though. Even a large group of covops would struggle, as any one person not cloaking perfectly in sync decloaks other, which causes a chain of decloaking.
3. A cyno fleet doesn't have to come from next door, it can be quite a few jumps away. A cyno would get these ships in without alerting everyone that a massive fleet is on the move.

4. Also, if you pop a cyno while ships are in transit, they still arrive, they just get randomly positioned in the destination system.

You just handed me my points on a silver platter, and I suspect you won't realize it till you read this.

Numbered from above:
1. So, you are expecting either a scout or to have sensors covering the entrance for you. Maybe even your own D scan.
You just qualified for having already left the target area, which was stated previously as a result. Effort = results.

2. TiDi?? You are expecting a fleet of several hundred to attack your mining or ratting ship? Are you PvE'ing in a supercap here??

3. Of course it can be from a few jumps away. Specifically, in the first system with low enough population not to be a threat, so they can gate out in an unknown direction.

4. Not being on grid, they are not a threat till they warp to you. Unless you are pointed by a second ship, you can leave.
(You popped the pointing / cyno ship already in this example)

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1377 - 2013-09-17 14:56:16 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Well firstly, lets make sure you get this. that 1% is NOT AFK cloaking. It's bouncing off a rock, looking away for the wrong 10 seconds, or getting the dreaded warp bug. I avoid mining in systems with cloakers, so they are a 0% threat to me already. The reason i dislike them is they kill off systems in null for days at a time for no effort.


Which makes your statements even more sickening. You're saying that the 1% chance you have of getting caught is a result of getting stuck on a rock, or not looking at the screen, or other little odd bugs. You realise that discounting things like that, you're saying you have 100% chance at escaping. No matter how much time or effort the other pilot puts in, no matter how smart they are or how skilled, you have 100% chance at success unless you encounter a bug.

Do you not understand how that is not balanced, how that is extremely broken?

And if you have this 100% safety, why are you calling for changes that make it even more difficult for the other person? You've already admitted that you have perfect safety thanks to local.

You have now shown, quite clearly, that you want the hunter to have 0 chance to catch you. You want perfect safety at all times, and the only time you want to be engaged in pvp is when you choose to.

If you don't realise why that is a colossal misunderstanding of how this game works there is simply no hope
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1378 - 2013-09-17 15:01:29 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
I find it astonishing that lucas is claiming Nikk must be a "liar" because he stated he doesn't use blingy, minmaxed, overly expensive ships when he is in dangerous areas of space with little or no backup.

The fact that the concept of compromise, trading efficiency for safety, is so alien to lucas, or at least so unacceptable that he screams everyone is lying about it when someone says they do it is truly astounding.
No, I clearly stated he's either a liar, or inexperienced. I guess the one thing I missed out is the chance that he legitimately likes watching mining lasers cycle. If you are null mining in a venture, you may as well either mine in high sec in safety, or rat in null and buy the minerals, since both of those things result in a higher yield. It's not about being blingy, or minmaxxed, you can mine in a cheap retriever and mine more than a venture.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1379 - 2013-09-17 15:05:46 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Well firstly, lets make sure you get this. that 1% is NOT AFK cloaking. It's bouncing off a rock, looking away for the wrong 10 seconds, or getting the dreaded warp bug. I avoid mining in systems with cloakers, so they are a 0% threat to me already. The reason i dislike them is they kill off systems in null for days at a time for no effort.


Which makes your statements even more sickening. You're saying that the 1% chance you have of getting caught is a result of getting stuck on a rock, or not looking at the screen, or other little odd bugs. You realise that discounting things like that, you're saying you have 100% chance at escaping. No matter how much time or effort the other pilot puts in, no matter how smart they are or how skilled, you have 100% chance at success unless you encounter a bug.

Do you not understand how that is not balanced, how that is extremely broken?

And if you have this 100% safety, why are you calling for changes that make it even more difficult for the other person? You've already admitted that you have perfect safety thanks to local.

You have now shown, quite clearly, that you want the hunter to have 0 chance to catch you. You want perfect safety at all times, and the only time you want to be engaged in pvp is when you choose to.

If you don't realise why that is a colossal misunderstanding of how this game works there is simply no hope

No, I don't see how that's imbalanced, as you ALSO have a 100% chance to survive, since you can't be found. Unless you encounter a bug, you can't be found, and can't be killed. You can say "oh but I have to travel, that's unsafe" but at the same time, if I traveled, I'd also not be safe, in fact I'd be more at risk since I can't covops cloak my miner. All of this, yet I'm the one misunderstanding?

The only changes I want are to stop AFK people lowering some null systems population on purpose and without effort. They know what effect it has, and that's why the do it.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1380 - 2013-09-17 15:12:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
The problem is you see everything from your blinkered perspective, rather than actually seeing what it's like from all side and coming to a rational decision. Honestly if the choice was your idea or no change, I'd chose no change in a heartbeat. At least as it is at the moment it works.


Part of the problem is your are a presumptuous prig who thinks that nobody does what you do. I do PvE. Regularly. I have lost expensive PvE ships. I just don't whine about it, especially to CCP and demand a mechanics change. So yes, I've been on both sides. I've been blowing up expensive ratting ships...and I've lost expensive PvE ships. So stop pretending you know my game experience.

Oh, and please spare us any whines about insults. At this point in the thread you've called everyone who does not agree with you an idiot, liar, and troll on several occasions.

Who's whining? You want you precious local changes, all I want is the thing that makes null so empty removed. Honestly though, I really don't care if it stays as is as long as local doesn't change.
You show absolutely no signs of considering any of your posts from any side other than a cloaked PvPer. You are totally happy to utterly destroy other methods of gameplay, forcing industry into high sec, since it would become too inefficient to do in null with your changes. Force PVE players to use PvP fits and make sure they only take light damage, in case they get randomly jumped.
And yes, I have called idiotic posts idiotic, and I've called trolls trolls. Your explosive rage into a personal attack is purely because you have no other way to respond, since you only have a single argument, which is to remove local. And that, as always, is a bad idea.


Did you not read this post?

It shows I am thinking about this problem. I discuss both benefits and losses. Granted it is hugely simplified, but FFS this is a discussion form and not some academic paper where I can start getting into upper-hemi continuous functions, quasi concave utility functions and trotting out Fatou's Lemma. Nor do I have the data necessary to do a thorough analysis on how to change things and the implications.

Once again, you are wrong. I have not advocated simply removing local. I want local to be a chat channel with intel being a separate mechanic.

"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