These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

A plan to give balance to cloaking (Images)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#261 - 2012-01-01 00:03:12 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
yeah zim you can't beat him, he's batman


Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule




Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.

Description of Appeal to Ridicule
The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:


X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
Therefore claim C is false.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: "1+1=2! That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"

It should be noted that showing that a claim is ridiculous through the use of legitimate methods (such as a non fallacious argument) can make it reasonable to reject the claim. One form of this line of reasoning is known as a "reductio ad absurdum" ("reducing to absurdity"). In this sort of argument, the idea is to show that a contradiction (a statement that must be false) or an absurd result follows from a claim. For example: "Bill claims that a member of a minority group cannot be a racist. However, this is absurd. Think about this: white males are a minority in the world. Given Bill's claim, it would follow that no white males could be racists. Hence, the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations."

Since the claim that the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations is clearly absurd, it can be concluded that the claim that a member of a minority cannot be a racist is false.

Examples of Appeal to Ridicule

"Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition, but that is just laughable."

"Support the ERA? Sure, when the women start paying for the drinks! Hah! Hah!"

"Those wacky conservatives! They think a strong military is the key to peace!"


Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#262 - 2012-01-01 01:37:23 UTC
This has become a bit of a "Troll Me-Troll You" thread hasn't it. Niether side really seems interested in the argument so much as arguing.

zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Endeavour Starfleet
#263 - 2012-01-01 05:11:45 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Yes, I'm just saying that if a cloaker's access to local was removed, they'd just start using blue alts to provide intel, instead of using them as awoxers, so the end result wouldn't really be all that different.


I have to agree about the blue alt bit. Tho atleast with the blue alt you burn it in one attempt whereas a AFK cloaker only needs the time to refit and return to the system.
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#264 - 2012-01-01 05:30:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Yes, I'm just saying that if a cloaker's access to local was removed, they'd just start using blue alts to provide intel, instead of using them as awoxers, so the end result wouldn't really be all that different.


I have to agree about the blue alt bit. Tho atleast with the blue alt you burn it in one attempt whereas a AFK cloaker only needs the time to refit and return to the system.



Your posts annoy me. I don't mean to be rude, but everything you write is completely wrong. From the beginning to end.

You don't have to burn an alt. If no one knows its your alt why would you burn it? The obvious point you missed was that the alt was a seperate character giving intel on who's in local.

An afk cloaker is a mythical creature that no one can prove exists. But even if it did it can't attack anyone while afk.

Your thought process is juvenile. It wouldn't be so bad if you actually contributed something other than uninformed and poorly thought out points of view.

Knowing the general outlook of EVE devs I know they would disregard everything you say outright but what I worry about is a critical mass of ignorance springing forth by other unqualified juveniles determined to have someone listen to their cries.

Essentially, those who can see the bigger picture within EVE are forced to respond to rubbish threads such as these. Just to prevent the encouragement of more rubbish plans popping up do to the ease of it being unchallenged.

I'd go lighter if I thought for a second a dev response telling you to HTFU cloaking is fine would see you admit you might be wrong, but I know better. It wouldn't. You'd ignore it and continue on under the notion you knew better than the community and the designers & devs themselves.
Endeavour Starfleet
#265 - 2012-01-01 05:42:46 UTC
I could care less if my plan for giving balance to the cloaking system annoys you. And CCP doesn't blindly implement features just because it has many pages. They implement it because they can see on their server log after log of AFK, uncloak then cyno. AFK uncloak then point.

You have the logs themselves against you and the other AFK cloaking supporters. We could ask a former AFK cloaker to confirm what he did while he did it. But you would go on with your bs of "If he is AFK he cant harm you" Even tho the difference between the AFK and active is a second or less with lucky situations for them.

The AFK power itself is what needs to be addressed. And while we will never be able to convince you or ingvar or the others. I doubt you would be able to convince CCP that their own logs are incorrect on the matter.

The likely reason they don't talk about it much is because it is a big tough problem to crack. Some say the cloaking system is a mess of legacy code and while things like an AFK timer or cloak fuel bay might be easier to implement. Ideas such as mine that provide more balance and targeted solution are harder to implement.

In my opinion that is why AFK cloaking is abused so much. Because of the perception that CCP will never do anything about it because of the difficulty involved. However you better hope things don't get so bad that CCP says "Screw this" and implements a 100 line AFK timer bit of code during a team papercuts session. Because compared to my idea an AFK timer or fuel bay would be quite harsh a nerf indeed.
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#266 - 2012-01-01 06:48:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
I could care less if my plan for giving balance to the cloaking system annoys you. And CCP doesn't blindly implement features just because it has many pages. They implement it because they can see on their server log after log of AFK, uncloak then cyno. AFK uncloak then point.


More talk from your ass. There is no such log and if it did exist and detailed that how would it distinguish between afk and just patiently waiting?

Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
You have the logs themselves against you and the other AFK cloaking supporters. We could ask a former AFK cloaker to confirm what he did while he did it. But you would go on with your bs of "If he is AFK he cant harm you" Even tho the difference between the AFK and active is a second or less with lucky situations for them.


What logs? The ones you have fictitiously created and pretend to have proven in existence?

Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
The AFK power itself is what needs to be addressed. And while we will never be able to convince you or ingvar or the others. I doubt you would be able to convince CCP that their own logs are incorrect on the matter.


You haven't established it as anymore of a power than afterburners, missile launchers or shields. We know from your gibberish you don't like it but nothing you have written has a single establishable fact. And again what logs? Link these strawman logs you're referencing.

Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
The likely reason they don't talk about it much is because it is a big tough problem to crack. Some say the cloaking system is a mess of legacy code and while things like an AFK timer or cloak fuel bay might be easier to implement. Ideas such as mine that provide more balance and targeted solution are harder to implement.


No, they don't talk about it because they know the community they have a foothold established with knows its working as intended and like it that way. Risk averse players like yourself are welcome to play EVE if you can live within its system of rules. But the truth is you are on the forums crying because you have no other recourse. Everything in the game is setup to provide you with a neverending chain of punishment and misfortune. You find a surprise gank to be unfair, they find it rewarding and visceral. Your cash however is as green as the rest. The devs are from the pre artifact stealing days of ultima online. Trust me your tears are a daily joke around the office. Its just not financially prudent to tell you that. Trammie.

Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
n my opinion that is why AFK cloaking is abused so much. Because of the perception that CCP will never do anything about it because of the difficulty involved. However you better hope things don't get so bad that CCP says "Screw this" and implements a 100 line AFK timer bit of code during a team papercuts session. Because compared to my idea an AFK timer or fuel bay would be quite harsh a nerf indeed.


If you disregard everything else do me just one favor.

Prove cloaking is

A - Abused
B - Done while AFK

We both know you can't and I assure you 6 months from now you'll still be not a step closer to excluding yourself from pvp, loss, outright despicable ganking and other generally unpleasant privleges the devs grant you.

Sorry Captain Kirk, in EVE phasers are always set to maximum grief.
Endeavour Starfleet
#267 - 2012-01-01 07:17:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Endeavour Starfleet
Do you seriously think CCP does not keep logs of activity within the game? u serious brah?

Do you think in a dispute they would let a victims screenshot determine the outcome when a log will tell them their connection was active at such and such time and that they took such and such actions at such and such times and related players were such and such distance?

What do you think they have the workers going over that data to access balance doing? Actually sitting in systems in GM cloaked craft all day to catch this stuff? If they dont have the ability to recreate any event that happened in new eden they damn sure have the important stuff such as ping status, module activation or deactivation, commands sent to server, movement commands and the like. Storage isnt an issue with the crazy low cost of media these days.

You can pretend CCP is too stupid to be running an MMO all you like. Yet they do have the logs and they do speak volumes more than any "AFK cloaking is balanced" argument.

Edit: That is why I gave my idea. And the reason it is being so vigorously attacked is because it is more than the usual "WAHHHH I LOST MaH HULK NERF CL0ak!!!!" thread. I Present an adaptable solution. not a demand for an autologoff timer or other crap that can affect things far outside of combat cloaking.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#268 - 2012-01-01 15:46:48 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
If I were an alliance leader you wouldnt likely be able to make a blue alt and get in. Depending on how far I wanted to test your sincerity I might need to visually identify you through online, perhaps need real life information or more. That would be dependant on what I had built and how serious I deemed a security breach. That's not deeply thought out but i'd rate myself highly skilled in determining even pathological attempts at deception.

Thinking as I do, manual intelligence gathering is the only guarenteed way to gaining any insight.

A lot of attempts are certainly denied by people not being dumb as rocks, but it only takes that one dumb director to press accept instead of deny. Trust me, I've even seen characters with the characters "A" "W" "O" "X" in the name in large capital letters be accepted. If they're not used for actually awoxing as well, they'd probably be able to use it for weeks or months at a time.

I wish people weren't that dumb about it, but if I had to choose one thing to always depend upon in EVE, I'd have a hard time choosing between depending on stupidity, and laziness.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#269 - 2012-01-01 15:48:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Do you seriously think CCP does not keep logs of activity within the game? u serious brah?

Do you think in a dispute they would let a victims screenshot determine the outcome when a log will tell them their connection was active at such and such time and that they took such and such actions at such and such times and related players were such and such distance?

What do you think they have the workers going over that data to access balance doing? Actually sitting in systems in GM cloaked craft all day to catch this stuff? If they dont have the ability to recreate any event that happened in new eden they damn sure have the important stuff such as ping status, module activation or deactivation, commands sent to server, movement commands and the like. Storage isnt an issue with the crazy low cost of media these days.

You can pretend CCP is too stupid to be running an MMO all you like. Yet they do have the logs and they do speak volumes more than any "AFK cloaking is balanced" argument.

Edit: That is why I gave my idea. And the reason it is being so vigorously attacked is because it is more than the usual "WAHHHH I LOST MaH HULK NERF CL0ak!!!!" thread. I Present an adaptable solution. not a demand for an autologoff timer or other crap that can affect things far outside of combat cloaking.


Fallacy: Burden of Proof

Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")

Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:


Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.



Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule


Description of Appeal to Ridicule
The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:


X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
Therefore claim C is false.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: "1+1=2! That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"

One form of this line of reasoning is known as a "reductio ad absurdum" ("reducing to absurdity").
Nestara Aldent
Citimatics
#270 - 2012-01-01 17:41:05 UTC
Epic trollthread is epic.

Just the fact that after more than a dozen pages ppl still take you seriously Endeavour and answer shows how strong your troll-fu is.

AFK cloaker cant be AFK to gather intel and open a cyno, but you know that, I dont assume you dont.
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#271 - 2012-01-01 18:30:12 UTC
Nestara Aldent wrote:
Epic trollthread is epic.

Just the fact that after more than a dozen pages ppl still take you seriously Endeavour and answer shows how strong your troll-fu is.

AFK cloaker cant be AFK to gather intel and open a cyno, but you know that, I dont assume you dont.


If I thought for a second he was just trolling i'd disregard everything he says. But I don't get that impression. I believe he believes in his position 100%. Do to that I feel inclined to enlighten him for educational purposes.

And its not a ego issue either. Im not just presenting counter arguments against him because I don't feel he's able to overcome them, I am doing it because his notions of fairplay and reprieve from hardship would completely ruin the game.
Endeavour Starfleet
#272 - 2012-01-01 23:04:25 UTC
I highly doubt my plan would ruin the game. Except maybe for those who cant live without coming home from work to a free solo kill.

And no this is not a troll thread. Why would you think I would go to the trouble of getting set up in Sisi to get my images just to troll? This is a serious idea to give balance to cloaking. Presented to CCP for consideration and maybe even testing on Sisi.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#273 - 2012-01-01 23:06:43 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
I highly doubt my plan would ruin the game.
That's because you have absolutely no idea about balance and game mechanics.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Endeavour Starfleet
#274 - 2012-01-01 23:18:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Endeavour Starfleet
Mag's wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
I highly doubt my plan would ruin the game.
That's because you have absolutely no idea about balance and game mechanics.


Again wrong. Otherwise I could have joined the countless others who say "Give em an AFK timer" instead of thinking of a balanced way to address the issue of going afk.

That is why this topic is getting so much attention. It is not a rage topic made after losing a ship but a topic made after observing the situation for quite some time and watching the problem get worse.

If this idea were implemented the AFK cloakers would have to log off and lose their free effect. Or risk being found and destroyed. They will have to join the many other active cloakers in getting their kill.

The thought of losing that daily free "SOLO KILL" sticker is what is driving a good chunk of opposition to this topic in my opinion. Same exact thing as the risk free hisec ganks of freighters before CCP buffed concord.
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#275 - 2012-01-01 23:25:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
I highly doubt my plan would ruin the game.
That's because you have absolutely no idea about balance and game mechanics.


Again wrong. Otherwise I could have joined the countless others who say "Give em an AFK timer" instead of thinking of a balanced way to address the issue of going afk.

That is why this topic is getting so much attention. It is not a rage topic made after losing a ship but a topic made after observing the situation for quite some time and watching the problem get worse.

If this idea were implemented the AFK cloakers would have to log off and lose their free effect. Or risk being found and destroyed. They will have to join the many other active cloakers in getting their kill.

The thought of losing that daily free "SOLO KILL" sticker is what is driving a good chunk of opposition to this topic in my opinion. Same exact thing as the risk free hisec ganks of freighters before CCP buffed concord.


No its pretty much you don't have a clue about balance and you're ego won't let you admit others more intelligent and capable of making the determinations have said that you getting ganked is good for the game and the economy. By all means continue deluding yourself with the us/them fallacy along with the rest of the fallacious opinion you've presented.

Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
I highly doubt my plan would ruin the game. Except maybe for those who cant live without coming home from work to a free solo kill.

And no this is not a troll thread. Why would you think I would go to the trouble of getting set up in Sisi to get my images just to troll? This is a serious idea to give balance to cloaking. Presented to CCP for consideration and maybe even testing on Sisi.


The community doesn't take you seriously, you're alt posting for fear of your own safety and you actually think the devs are going to consider your ideas for a game change? You highly doubt? You've been shredded over 14 pages and still as of yet, not provided any substance to your arguments other than your emotional outcry for protection.

I'm glad that your plans won't even get a dev response or consideration let alone make it to testing.

Im off to afk cloak and get me a sucker kill, and it's great knowing the devs are laughing the entire time I do it. Tissue?



You are not the smartest person in this thread let alone the game, and not even on this page. You are not failing to explain your point to ignorant masses it's that your point is dimwitted. And we as a community have heard it hundreds of times before. You are not breaking ground here. Please take your mining laser and crack through the iron reinforced shell between your ears so that you may recieve enlightenment.
Endeavour Starfleet
#276 - 2012-01-02 00:18:42 UTC
Why would a dev respond to this topic? They already know that once they announce it they will receive a flood of ragequit promises (That of course never happen) and have to clean thread after thread of TOS breaking crap from angry former AFK cloakers that now actually have to be in the vicinity of their computers all day to get their ganks later in the day.

Instead the best way would to announce it in a dev blog days or a week before its implemented. Just enough time for AFK cloakers that cant handle not being AFK anymore to get out. Then implement their timers, Cloaking fuel bays, Direct find probes, or my balanced idea.

Because by the time they decide to implement the idea it will be committed because they haven't started thinking of this issue just because of my topic. This has been going on for years and a solution may still take years. They will have the internal logs to make sure their decision is just (In whatever way they eventually rule). The acceptance that it will not be a popular decision with a certain group of players. And the code ready for testing on Sisi.

Once its time to implement it is when it is time to announce. Just like the CONCORD buff that while ago.
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#277 - 2012-01-02 00:27:04 UTC
Ok snowflake that's what it is. They're so taken back by your awe inspiring logic and sheer determination in spite of dozens of posters telling you that you're clueless and they're waiting to spring the announcement.

Endeavour Starfleet
#278 - 2012-01-02 00:33:51 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Ok snowflake that's what it is. They're so taken back by your awe inspiring logic and sheer determination in spite of dozens of posters telling you that you're clueless and they're waiting to spring the announcement.



I am not 100 percent sure they wont say that they will accept AFK cloaking I am pretty sure tho they will have to make an announcement at once point. It is just that it wont happen in my topic.

Yet until they make said announcement I will continue to defend the ideas I present to add risk to going AFK while cloaked and continue to urge CCP to do something about it when possible. Even if it means a dreaded cloak fuel bay.
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#279 - 2012-01-02 00:41:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Ok snowflake that's what it is. They're so taken back by your awe inspiring logic and sheer determination in spite of dozens of posters telling you that you're clueless and they're waiting to spring the announcement.



I am not 100 percent sure they wont say that they will accept AFK cloaking I am pretty sure tho they will have to make an announcement at once point. It is just that it wont happen in my topic.

Yet until they make said announcement I will continue to defend the ideas I present to add risk to going AFK while cloaked and continue to urge CCP to do something about it when possible. Even if it means a dreaded cloak fuel bay.


You havent defended one idea yet, because you aren't intelligent enough to understand what defending an idea means. And thats harsh I know, but it's the truth. What you have done is ignore every argument of substance, dismissed it as us/them fallacy and continued to make multiple statements of grade school level and hot air.

And they have made a statement of it being okay. Its called it's designed as it is and working as intended. Do you think they forgot to add a fuel cost or a skill cooldown timer and you are revealing some issue that the entire community forgot to address? Or do you believe that it slipped their mind to add a inactivity boot timer?
Endeavour Starfleet
#280 - 2012-01-02 00:59:30 UTC
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Forum_rules

Read it please.

As for "as intended" AFK cloaking really exploded in popularity a few years ago. Cloaks are an OLD and legacy system with virtually no changes for far longer than AFK cloaking has been the serious imbalance in favor of large alliances it is today.

Back in the day the AFKing was low enough that you had to be really unlucky to have one serious about causing effect in your system. Now you have areas where system after system has one at the ready. Yet this isn't going to be the easiest thing to address because no matter what they do. Someone is going to lose their source of effect.

My idea to balance cloaking: Will mean many AFK cloakers who were used to this nearly limitless source of free effect with extremely little risk will have to adapt to an active lifestyle or log off.

A fuel bay idea: Same as before except now you have active operations effected and people cloaked up in bad situations becoming decloaked because they ran out of fuel despite being active at the PC.

AFK timer idea: MANY industries and playstyles affected.

The issue is the problem is growing. Especially as a hotdropable cloak alt takes peanuts worth of time to train.