These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#321 - 2012-01-18 14:09:07 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Oh, so it's safety if I'm paying attention.

yes, if paying attention = watching local then its too much safety for too little effort. Obvious.
This is why people afk cloak, to take you this kind of safety. Thats absolutely all right and viable.

I don't give a flying **** about AFK cloaking. I've used it myself to **** people off, it's hilarious. I think it should stay because people get all spergy and ******** over it.

And it brings out the ******** gankers who just want to remove local because they're so bad at ganking they can't even catch the unwary.

Robert Caldera wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
And I've tried this theory of undocking in a velator and just hanging around, multiple times. It's died every time.


you tried that in a wrong place.

Oh really. A backwater end system with nobody else in system is "a wrong place"? What's the "right place" then?

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

RIP Vile Rat

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#322 - 2012-01-18 14:15:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
Lord Zim wrote:
And it brings out the ******** gankers who just want to remove local because they're so bad at ganking they can't even catch the unwary.

like I said.. nearly absolute safety for almost no effort. You disagree?

Lord Zim wrote:
Oh really. A backwater end system with nobody else in system is "a wrong place"? What's the "right place" then?

then you are either very bad at eve or very unlucky.
As I said, for the most parts of zero, there arent hostiles for hours or even days.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#323 - 2012-01-18 14:18:22 UTC
Come on guys, let this fail and unbalanced idea thread die.

Neither of you want AFKing to stop in it's present state, so why argue over the same old stuff?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#324 - 2012-01-18 14:25:58 UTC
Lord Zim isnt even playing this game anymore, just sperging in forums about it.
His last eve-kill record was in fact a loss of a VELATOR, 2 years ago, which he still cant get over apparently! :-D
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#325 - 2012-01-18 14:31:38 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
And it brings out the ******** gankers who just want to remove local because they're so bad at ganking they can't even catch the unwary.

like I said.. nearly absolute safety for almost no effort. You disagree?

No, it's not "like you said". You said "absolute safety", not "nearly absolute safety".

Robert Caldera wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Oh really. A backwater end system with nobody else in system is "a wrong place"? What's the "right place" then?

then you are either very bad at eve or very unlucky.
As I said, for the most parts of zero, there arent hostiles for hours or even days.

"very bad at eve or very unlucky"? Is that the best you can come up with? It's all done to test the "it's absolute safety" bullshit people like you spew forth time and time again, when you know perfectly well it isn't "absolute safety".

I guess next you'll say that having the possibility of detecting cloaked ships will bring forth "absolute safety" as well.

Robert Caldera wrote:
Lord Zim isnt even playing this game anymore, just sperging in forums about it.
His last eve-kill record was in fact a loss of a VELATOR, 2 years ago, which he still cant get over apparently! :-D

This isn't my active PVP alt. Hope that helps.

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

RIP Vile Rat

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#326 - 2012-01-18 14:46:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
Lord Zim wrote:

No, it's not "like you said". You said "absolute safety", not "nearly absolute safety".

its practically the same. You cant be killed if you watch local and dont want to get involved in pvp. The chance of that is very very slim. Watch local -> never get killed. Stop hairsplitting, its the same as if I would tell you there is a way of finding afk cloaker by closing <2000m to him. The chance is practically not there unless he is a f*cking dumb r*tard and deserves to die.

Lord Zim wrote:

I guess next you'll say that having the possibility of detecting cloaked ships will bring forth "absolute safety" as well..

yes, it will. Having the ability of probing out cloaked ships would kill afk cloaking, which is exactly something I tried to tell you about in my previous postings.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#327 - 2012-01-18 15:00:51 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:

No, it's not "like you said". You said "absolute safety", not "nearly absolute safety".

its practically the same. You cant be killed if you watch local and dont want to get involved in pvp. The chance of that is very very slim. Watch local -> never get killed.

So you want to take "keep an eye on local and intel" safety, and turn that into "stare at the result of my cloak detector being spammed while drooling at the keyboard " safety?

Guess what you really want to do is force people in nullsec to move to hisec to run L4s or incursions, all because you can't get a gank.

Robert Caldera wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
I guess next you'll say that having the possibility of detecting cloaked ships will bring forth "absolute safety" as well..

yes, it will. Having the ability of probing out cloaked ships would kill afk cloaking, which is exactly something I tried to tell you about in my previous postings.

Oh, I'm sure you'll ***** and whine about it after local's removed as well.

"they can see me while I'm cloaked, I can't get ganks because the easy prey moved to hisec and the people who are still left actually use the cloak detection methods :( :( :("

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

RIP Vile Rat

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#328 - 2012-01-18 15:03:17 UTC
to be clear, I dont want any changes in regard to cloak and local at all, just pointing out they are interconnected and cant be changed separately without the other.
Endeavour Starfleet
#329 - 2012-01-18 15:15:37 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
a f*gg*t spotted.
get the f*ck out if you dont have any real argument.


Keep this crap out of my topic. There is a flag function to report this kind of crap to the mods.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#330 - 2012-01-18 15:17:04 UTC
And changes to local will have an impact on carebear population, which will lead to gankers yet again whining like a ***** because they still can't get a gank because of "perfect safety".

In addition, I think you'll have a chat with Ingvar soon enough about how he thinks his wormholes have become safer than hisec with that change.

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

RIP Vile Rat

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#331 - 2012-01-18 15:18:49 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
to be clear, I dont want any changes in regard to cloak and local at all, just pointing out they are interconnected and cant be changed separately without the other.

Endeavour Starfleet
#332 - 2012-01-18 15:20:54 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
to be clear, I dont want any changes in regard to cloak and local at all, just pointing out they are interconnected and cant be changed separately without the other.



Afk cloaking can be changed just fine without having to change local.

With my idea. Active cloakers can still find and kill idiots that don't watch local all the same.
XXSketchxx
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#333 - 2012-01-18 15:31:58 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
to be clear, I dont want any changes in regard to cloak and local at all, just pointing out they are interconnected and cant be changed separately without the other.



Afk cloaking can be changed just fine without having to change local.

With my idea. Active cloakers can still find and kill idiots that don't watch local all the same.


You missed the part where afk cloaking doesn't need to be changed.
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#334 - 2012-01-18 15:50:22 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
to be clear, I dont want any changes in regard to cloak and local at all, just pointing out they are interconnected and cant be changed separately without the other.



Afk cloaking can be changed just fine without having to change local.

With my idea. Active cloakers can still find and kill idiots that don't watch local all the same.



No it can't. Because everyone watches local and when they see someone on there that isn't on dscan they will dock up until the anti cloak regiment comes through. It's not going to happen without local removal, and when that occurs you'll be screaming for a revert to the old way. Don't say you weren't warned but there is NO way to have cloaks useful while showing in local and becoming probeable/detectable. It doesn't matter how much you insist otherwise. Period.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#335 - 2012-01-18 15:55:31 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:

With my idea. Active cloakers can still find and kill idiots that don't watch local all the same.

your idea sucks because it allows only kills on total noobs who are their first day in zero and havent learned that they should watch local yet. This is not a valid reasoning why instant local intel is fine but afk cloakers are not.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#336 - 2012-01-18 16:13:21 UTC
I'm going to laugh when CCP announces that the local changes they've been thinking of, ends up being a SOV structure which can be incapped, which allows the inhabitants (and their friends) to see who's in a system, but the roaming gangs get no intel.

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

RIP Vile Rat

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#337 - 2012-01-18 16:30:03 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
I'm going to laugh when CCP announces that the local changes they've been thinking of, ends up being a SOV structure which can be incapped, which allows the inhabitants (and their friends) to see who's in a system, but the roaming gangs get no intel.


OP: Cloaking is not broken, handing out 'I WIN' buttons does nothing to improve game balance.
You know very well cloaked ships are underpowered in combat, so if you could confront them on your terms, you would get free killmails.

Zim: I agree with you conditionally, in that the SOV holders must place a POS module that scans down ships, and has a delay appropriate to that.
Otherwise, outside of gates being set to broadcast in the open whenever they are used, local should be voluntary. It is already used too often to hunt, beyond it's expressed purpose of communication.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#338 - 2012-01-18 16:33:52 UTC
You mean delayed just long enough so you can warp to someone, I take it.

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

RIP Vile Rat

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#339 - 2012-01-18 16:44:23 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
You mean delayed just long enough so you can warp to someone, I take it.


Not at all, you misunderstand, the gate would announce them the moment they entered the system.
(using my variation).

Locals would immediately know about anyone entering the system using a gate.

The ONLY way to enter a system, without being announced, would be a covert cyno, and maintaining a cloak. They can't be scanned down by a module or player under those conditions.

Even then, unless the covert cyno can be used while cloaked, that ship will appear in local if it has not already.
Akatenshi Xi
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#340 - 2012-01-18 23:55:17 UTC
Cloaking is balanced. You turn the cloak on, you disappear. Seems to work to me?