These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The answer to the ultimate question of Life, the Universe, and Cloaking.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mag's
Azn Empire
#201 - 2011-12-21 18:15:58 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Mag's wrote:
You illustrated my point quite nicely, thank you.

So, you really do believe that nullsec will flourish with carebears when it ecomes more dangerous without becoming more profitable?
Yet another example, nicely done sir. Cool

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#202 - 2011-12-21 18:17:05 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Mag's wrote:
You illustrated my point quite nicely, thank you.

So, you really do believe that nullsec will flourish with carebears when it ecomes more dangerous without becoming more profitable?
Yet another example, nicely done sir. Cool

I'll take evasion of the question as confirmation.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Mag's
Azn Empire
#203 - 2011-12-21 18:17:57 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Mag's wrote:
You illustrated my point quite nicely, thank you.

So, you really do believe that nullsec will flourish with carebears when it ecomes more dangerous without becoming more profitable?
Yet another example, nicely done sir. Cool

I'll take evasion of the question as confirmation.
You're on a roll, well done. Cool

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#204 - 2011-12-21 18:18:39 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
What makes you think the carebears will become more profitable than the ones that left? Have you added the auxilliary cost all this preparation, guarding and loss in productivity to your calculations?



Look the op hasn't really considered anything other than he likes wormholes and thinks it would be cool if everywhere in eve was more like wormholes. Nevermind the 90% of the eve population who prefer to stay in places with local.

Nevermind that wormhole gameplay leads to 1/3 the amount of pvp per player as low sec and less than half that of null sec where you have local.


CCP Diagoras wrote:

Kill reports per character during November 2011 by sec group:

High sec: 0.67
Low sec: 3.04
Null sec: 2.29
Wormhole space: 1.03


Wormholes are a great place to sit waiting around for a long time in order to gank something. That is what this proposal would bring all of eve much closer to. Its just that not a lot of pvpers want pvp to take even longer. At least not solo or small gang pvpers. Thats why by and large only people who don't do small scale pvp are supporting this.


Of course no one is going to want to fight forever to gain sovereignty if by owning and upgrading that sovereignty you won't get benefits of being able to rat there easier than you can in a worm hole.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#205 - 2011-12-21 18:23:43 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
What makes you think the carebears will become more profitable than the ones that left? Have you added the auxilliary cost all this preparation, guarding and loss in productivity to your calculations?



Look the op hasn't really considered anything other than he likes wormholes and thinks it would be cool if everywhere in eve was more like wormholes. Nevermind the 90% of the eve population who prefer to stay in places with local.

Nevermind that wormhole gameplay leads to 1/3 the amount of pvp per player as low sec and less than half that of null sec where you have local.



Reset.

This proposal was developed in response to the claims by far too many that afk cloakers are such a problem that cloaks need to be broken. They took no consideration of the fact that by doing so they break a significant part of wormhole life.

Between you and me, and don't tell anyone, I prefer things be left alone. However, if there is indeed a need for a change (that argument is a threadnaught of it's own), then the change should be one that doesn't break wormhole living simply to alleviate the fears of a few nullsec carebears.

This was not proposed specifically to change null. It was proposed to preserve the integrity of wormholes, which other proposals fail heavily to do.

Just wanted to clear up where I'm coming from.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#206 - 2011-12-21 18:39:23 UTC
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Reset.

This proposal was developed in response to the claims by far too many that afk cloakers are such a problem that cloaks need to be broken. They took no consideration of the fact that by doing so they break a significant part of wormhole life.

Between you and me, and don't tell anyone, I prefer things be left alone. However, if there is indeed a need for a change (that argument is a threadnaught of it's own), then the change should be one that doesn't break wormhole living simply to alleviate the fears of a few nullsec carebears.

This was not proposed specifically to change null. It was proposed to preserve the integrity of wormholes, which other proposals fail heavily to do.

Just wanted to clear up where I'm coming from.
Indeed.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#207 - 2011-12-21 20:11:05 UTC
Ingvar Angst wrote:
This was not proposed specifically to change null. It was proposed to preserve the integrity of wormholes, which other proposals fail heavily to do.

Just wanted to clear up where I'm coming from.

And yet your suggestions do nothing but give way too much power for cloaked ships and make null worse for those who try to actually live in null.

Come up with sensible counters and tradeoffs.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#208 - 2011-12-21 20:16:04 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
This was not proposed specifically to change null. It was proposed to preserve the integrity of wormholes, which other proposals fail heavily to do.

Just wanted to clear up where I'm coming from.

And yet your suggestions do nothing but give way too much power for cloaked ships and make null worse for those who try to actually live in null.

Come up with sensible counters and tradeoffs.


It's give and take at least. You gain by dropping off local while cloaking, but it's balanced by losing access to local while cloaked as well as placing a delay on being able to fire a cyno off. It forces cloaked vessels to actively do something to be a threat... an afk person becomes a complete non-issue.

Ideas that break cloaks give nothing in return... there's no balance at all. Just a nerf to cloaks, which in turn nerf other areas of the game non-related to the mystical "afk cloak" issue.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#209 - 2011-12-21 20:35:35 UTC
Ingvar Angst wrote:
It's give and take at least. You gain by dropping off local while cloaking, but it's balanced by losing access to local while cloaked as well as placing a delay on being able to fire a cyno off. It forces cloaked vessels to actively do something to be a threat... an afk person becomes a complete non-issue.

Ideas that break cloaks give nothing in return... there's no balance at all. Just a nerf to cloaks, which in turn nerf other areas of the game non-related to the mystical "afk cloak" issue.

Oh puhleaze. Covops cloaks can be deactivated for 2 seconds if you absolutely must see if you've hit a system where there are people. Nevermind the fact the map already shows this, dotlan shows where ratting and mining grounds are etc etc etc, and the places you need to warp to for victims are available without local. Meanwhile, the effort of just living somewhere rose dramatically.

Your suggestion is like taking a steel bridge and giving back a roap bridge. You're going to have to give more than that to get those kinds of advantages for the scale to be more or less equal.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#210 - 2011-12-21 22:28:44 UTC
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
What makes you think the carebears will become more profitable than the ones that left? Have you added the auxilliary cost all this preparation, guarding and loss in productivity to your calculations?



Look the op hasn't really considered anything other than he likes wormholes and thinks it would be cool if everywhere in eve was more like wormholes. Nevermind the 90% of the eve population who prefer to stay in places with local.

Nevermind that wormhole gameplay leads to 1/3 the amount of pvp per player as low sec and less than half that of null sec where you have local.



Reset.

This proposal was developed in response to the claims by far too many that afk cloakers are such a problem that cloaks need to be broken. ...


Cloaks are not currently a problem. But your proposed solution to the non-problem causes all sorts of problems.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#211 - 2011-12-21 22:58:52 UTC
Cearain wrote:


Cloaks are not currently a problem.


In this we are in total agreement. Lol

Interesting that the people that live outside wormholes can jump on this idea with claims of causing problems yet they refuse to acknowledge that their cloak-breaking ideas cause problems regarding wormholes.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#212 - 2011-12-21 23:07:06 UTC
What problems haven't been addressed?

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

RIP Vile Rat
YuuKnow
The Scope
#213 - 2011-12-22 02:12:32 UTC  |  Edited by: YuuKnow
Did you just revive a month old thread?

This idea would lead to abuse unless those cloaked ships could be detected somehow. Image a large 1000 ship invasion fleet that moves next to a warring Alliance's home system and cloaks .

They will not show on local.
They cannot be detected.
They cannot be countered
They can sit as long as they want with a constant threat to the other alliance's sovereignty with no way to even know if they are still there.

Would make Alliance space unprotectable. This would make a means to detect cloak ships *MORE* necessary, not less.
Kasperow
Starside Industries
#214 - 2011-12-22 10:51:25 UTC
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Satav wrote:
hmm,

I like it.

Except for the cyno-delay. No one would be able bring in caps/supers efficiently anymore. But good idea on the disappearing from local.

+1


Hence the exception for Black Ops however. They need the love.

What about Covert-Ops? I can get behind this whole method for fixing cloaks, but maybe let Covert Ops Cloaking Devices stay in local? Would make sense considering their spying-purpose, but considering their low ISK-value they're already abused. Black-Ops definitely need some advantage, considering how overlooked they seem to be.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#215 - 2011-12-22 11:21:32 UTC
YuuKnow wrote:
They will not show on local.
They cannot be detected.
They cannot be countered
They can sit as long as they want with a constant threat to the other alliance's sovereignty with no way to even know if they are still there.
They will not show on local, per the request of the AFK-cloak-whiners.
They can still very easily be detected.
They are ridiculously easy to counter since they'll either be in very weak ships or they'll be in ships that auto-nerfs themselves and make them far easier to defeat.

…and no, they can't sit as long as they like without anyone knowing they're there.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#216 - 2011-12-22 11:31:24 UTC
Tippia wrote:
They will not show on local, per the request of the AFK-cloak-whiners.

You mean per request of the afk cloakers who don't like the suggestions that have them either be detectable somehow, or that they need to do something to maintain their cloak.

Tippia wrote:
They can still very easily be detected.

Really? I thought you wanted them to be completely undetectable and invisible.

Tippia wrote:
They are ridiculously easy to counter since they'll either be in very weak ships or they'll be in ships that auto-nerfs themselves and make them far easier to defeat.

To counter something, you'll have to know where and when it'll appear.

Tippia wrote:
…and no, they can't sit as long as they like without anyone knowing they're there.

Why not? Got ants in your pants or something?

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

RIP Vile Rat
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#217 - 2011-12-22 12:02:29 UTC
Frontier internet 877-462-8188


Ingvar Angst wrote:
Cearain wrote:

Your proposal is giving people less intel. By giving people less intel it dumbs the game down. That is because with no intel there is no information to consider or weigh when you make choices.


Dumbs it down? Really? Look at wormhole space. More dangerous than null dreamt of being, yet hardly "dumbed down". It would simply require intel gathering to be an active endeavor when cloaked. You'd have to go around and see what's to be seen, watch what needs watching. It would be easier still than wormholes, yet more challenging.

Not everyone considers that a bad thing.


Don’t mistake tedium for challenge. Sitting around all day with a scanner trying to find the perfect kill ala wh pvp is tedious not necessarily challenging.

But yep when you give people less information to use in their gaming analysis you dumb it down. I explained why in my earlier post. You didn’t really question that specific analysis so I won’t repeat it.

There are good reasons why the amount of pvp in whs is anemic compared to low and null sec. You and I disagree about the impact of no local. But It is the reason I don’t pvp there. I’m sure I’m not alone.

If there was a local I would certainly jump in wormholes looking for some pvp – especially if one happened to be in system I was in.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#218 - 2011-12-22 12:21:12 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Frontier internet 877-462-8188


Ingvar Angst wrote:
Cearain wrote:

Your proposal is giving people less intel. By giving people less intel it dumbs the game down. That is because with no intel there is no information to consider or weigh when you make choices.


Dumbs it down? Really? Look at wormhole space. More dangerous than null dreamt of being, yet hardly "dumbed down". It would simply require intel gathering to be an active endeavor when cloaked. You'd have to go around and see what's to be seen, watch what needs watching. It would be easier still than wormholes, yet more challenging.

Not everyone considers that a bad thing.


Don’t mistake tedium for challenge. Sitting around all day with a scanner trying to find the perfect kill ala wh pvp is tedious not necessarily challenging.

But yep when you give people less information to use in their gaming analysis you dumb it down. I explained why in my earlier post. You didn’t really question that specific analysis so I won’t repeat it.

There are good reasons why the amount of pvp in whs is anemic compared to low and null sec. You and I disagree about the impact of no local. But It is the reason I don’t pvp there. I’m sure I’m not alone.

If there was a local I would certainly jump in wormholes looking for some pvp – especially if one happened to be in system I was in.


Well, we definitely have a different take on what it means to "dumb it down". My opinion is that giving all the intel away at a glance, without doing anything to actively gather it, is a more "dumbed down" method than requiring active gathering of intel, at least for cloaked vessels. But heck... these forums would be pretty dry if everyone agreed on everything.

Local in wormholes would suck. There'd be no adventure left if that were the case. Wormhole PvP would be ruined. OPs would be nearly impossible to plan and completely impossible to plan covertly, people would be scrambling to their pos the first sign of someone unknown showing up, carebears with no business being in wormholes would be in there and start complaining about "afk cloaking"... ugh. That would kill the game for me.

Are you really so disillusioned about wormhole PvP that you think it's "sitting around looking for the perfect kill"? Not that I've seen or heard, at least in our alliance. We have groups that sontaneously form up and begin to scan out holes to dive in and see if there are any targets of opportunity in there. If not, they scan the static(s) to that hole and keep on diving. It's a very active thing, hunting in the dark trying to see before you're seen. Kind of a wolf pack mentality, you know? Anyone sitting around waiting for PvP to come to them would likely become bored and consider it tedious... can agree with that.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#219 - 2011-12-22 12:24:10 UTC
Kasperow wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Satav wrote:
hmm,

I like it.

Except for the cyno-delay. No one would be able bring in caps/supers efficiently anymore. But good idea on the disappearing from local.

+1


Hence the exception for Black Ops however. They need the love.

What about Covert-Ops? I can get behind this whole method for fixing cloaks, but maybe let Covert Ops Cloaking Devices stay in local? Would make sense considering their spying-purpose, but considering their low ISK-value they're already abused. Black-Ops definitely need some advantage, considering how overlooked they seem to be.


It wouldn't make sense for the more advanced cloaks to stay in local while the prototypes disappear in my opinion. Besides, all that would do is have the afk cloaking types do so in covops.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#220 - 2011-12-22 13:15:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Lord Zim wrote:
You mean per request of the afk cloakers
No, I mean per the request of AFK-cloak-whiners. They're the ones who feel that people not doing anything is a problem, and disconnecting cloakers from local solves that problems completely.

…but that's assuming that we actually believe said whiners when they make such laughable claims, and don't suspect that they're hiding behind such a complete non-issue in order to try to push for something that skews the balance even further in their own direction. If they are indeed seeing AFK cloakers as a problem, then they wouldn't have any issues with IA's solution. The problem is, of course (and as their continued whinging shows) that the actual problem isn't the one they prefer to (falsely) claim it is…
Quote:
Really? I thought you wanted them to be completely undetectable and invisible.
That's because you don't like to read what I actually write and prefer to draw up immensely idiotic straw men.
Quote:
To counter something, you'll have to know where and when it'll appear.
No, you don't.
Quote:
Why not?
Because the game already provides the tools to detect such a force. The problem is that AFK-cloak-whiners are cluless n00bs who don't understand any of the game mechanics they're dealing with (which also explains why they can't identify the actual problem, nor generate proposals that don't break the game in hilarious new ways). Their ignorance is not a mechanics or balancing problem.