These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CCP stll needs to do something about cloaks

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Hans Zwaardhandler
Resilience.
The Initiative.
#221 - 2013-06-14 21:52:42 UTC
Ace Menda wrote:
Hans Zwaardhandler wrote:
Ace Menda wrote:
Hans Zwaardhandler wrote:
Great, leave for a few hours to get lunch, read some stuff and do other things and this thread explodes a bit more.

For the crowd of people that like to trot out the "We should definitely allow local to be removed because **** carebears" everytime a AFK cloaking thread comes along, that leads to those people leaving nullsec and heading back to high because the risk of the unseen cyno pilot from nowhere outweighs the reward. Removing local doesn't fix the problem, because while on paper it sounds like a great idea, it will never be implemented due to the fact that nullsec =/= wormhole space.


No...give you carebears the safety there is now...

Yeah...that is proper risk/reward balancing.

If you can't deal with PvP. GTFO of null-sec and maybe think about playing a bit of WoW...it suits you better.

Those who yell we need local and need CCP to nerf cloaks are just risk adverse and don't like that people can shoot their carebear asses.


I'm sorry, I didn't know that removing local and disagreeing with your opinion of "We shouldn't do that because there is no check to stop hotdrops for people" made me unable to deal with PvP, meant I should leave null, and go and play World of Warcraft on the rather thin basis of having a different mindset than you.

Nevermind actually reading the rest of the thread of course; my point hasn't been that we need to nerf cloaks, my point has been that those that like to shout about how we need to remove local so we can have "moar risk" are myopically shortsighted without realizing that what they are saying is completely idiotic.


And how is it idiotic.

It's idiotic to those who want safety...who want intel channels to work so they get warnings.

If there was no local, you wouldn't even know about that guy that is AFK (Which means AWAY from keyboard, so he can't do nothign at all against you) guy in system so you wouldn't even care.

Removing local does make it more risky in null...but it's null, if you can't deal with the risk, you don't belong there.


It's idiotic because the people going "Yeah, we remove local, it will be just like wormholes", but news flash, it isn't. As has been said in many threads (including this one if you were to actually go back and sift through it and, I don't know, read it), wormholes and nullsec are not created equal, removing local is a stupid endeavor that "fixes" the problem in the same way leveling poor constructed and leaking levies in the approach of a storm does on the grounds that they are an eyesore.

The issue isn't risk, and it's not about not knowing; it's the fact that people seem to think that if you remove local for nullsec, it will magically become similar to wormhole space. But, it's not, because unless you are situated into a deep pocket, it is difficult to police multiple entry points and prevent a cyno ship from punching through, whereas in wormhole space you don't have that worry.

Feel free to go back and read the rest of the thread.

Or not, and make up your own ideal world where removing local is the best thing ever.
Black Dranzer
#222 - 2013-06-14 21:58:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Dranzer
Let me delve into my inner narcissist for a bit.

Every suggestion I make is well thought out, objective, and overall a decent idea. Admittedly there are often minor issues, but the core is usually fairly decent.

Yet every time I make a suggestion some cockball comes along and tells me that A) My idea sucks because it's not his opinion, or B) My idea is great except it needs this one other change which completely destroys the entire point of all the changes I've suggested. They do not read. They do not absorb. They have no appreciation of the fact that changes are holistic and that if I have a list of 5 changes, it's not because I felt five was a nice number, it's because that particular situation needs five changes in order to actually be effective. They will take one half of the change into mind, discard the existence of the other half, and then tell me why my implementation sucks, simply because they are incapable of holding more than one thing in their mind at a time. I know I'm not the only person who suffers from this. I've seen some good ideas of FnI and the assembly hall rejected for the stupidest ******* reasons.

But enough about me.

Some people say that local should be hidden or disabled. Others say the issue is that you can't hunt down cloakers. They say these things whilst remaining blind to the fact that these ideas are not mutually exclusive.

The fact that a cloaker's presence is known to the entire system is just as ******** as the fact that he can't be hunted down. Neither of these are good things. A straight-up removal of local is a "dirty fix" that I don't support because it has too much wide-ranging impact. I've posted my suggestions before, but they're not even that important at this point.

This needs a solution, and it's getting to the point where it doesn't matter what that solution is.

CCP have ideas. They've had ideas. They've been hmming and haaaing trying to think of the best solution.

Here's the best solution:

ANYTHING.

Anything. Any change. Do SOMETHING. But don't leave cloaking alone. Don't leave local alone.

The theme for the winter expansion had better be intel, because Jesus Christ we need it.

Walking in Stations as a Social Hub: Business vs Pleasure in Incarna
Ace Menda
Gemini Lounge
#223 - 2013-06-14 22:01:49 UTC
Hans Zwaardhandler wrote:
Ace Menda wrote:
Hans Zwaardhandler wrote:
Ace Menda wrote:
Hans Zwaardhandler wrote:
Great, leave for a few hours to get lunch, read some stuff and do other things and this thread explodes a bit more.

For the crowd of people that like to trot out the "We should definitely allow local to be removed because **** carebears" everytime a AFK cloaking thread comes along, that leads to those people leaving nullsec and heading back to high because the risk of the unseen cyno pilot from nowhere outweighs the reward. Removing local doesn't fix the problem, because while on paper it sounds like a great idea, it will never be implemented due to the fact that nullsec =/= wormhole space.


No...give you carebears the safety there is now...

Yeah...that is proper risk/reward balancing.

If you can't deal with PvP. GTFO of null-sec and maybe think about playing a bit of WoW...it suits you better.

Those who yell we need local and need CCP to nerf cloaks are just risk adverse and don't like that people can shoot their carebear asses.


I'm sorry, I didn't know that removing local and disagreeing with your opinion of "We shouldn't do that because there is no check to stop hotdrops for people" made me unable to deal with PvP, meant I should leave null, and go and play World of Warcraft on the rather thin basis of having a different mindset than you.

Nevermind actually reading the rest of the thread of course; my point hasn't been that we need to nerf cloaks, my point has been that those that like to shout about how we need to remove local so we can have "moar risk" are myopically shortsighted without realizing that what they are saying is completely idiotic.


And how is it idiotic.

It's idiotic to those who want safety...who want intel channels to work so they get warnings.

If there was no local, you wouldn't even know about that guy that is AFK (Which means AWAY from keyboard, so he can't do nothign at all against you) guy in system so you wouldn't even care.

Removing local does make it more risky in null...but it's null, if you can't deal with the risk, you don't belong there.


It's idiotic because the people going "Yeah, we remove local, it will be just like wormholes", but news flash, it isn't. As has been said in many threads (including this one if you were to actually go back and sift through it and, I don't know, read it), wormholes and nullsec are not created equal, removing local is a stupid endeavor that "fixes" the problem in the same way leveling poor constructed and leaking levies in the approach of a storm does on the grounds that they are an eyesore.

The issue isn't risk, and it's not about not knowing; it's the fact that people seem to think that if you remove local for nullsec, it will magically become similar to wormhole space. But, it's not, because unless you are situated into a deep pocket, it is difficult to police multiple entry points and prevent a cyno ship from punching through, whereas in wormhole space you don't have that worry.

Feel free to go back and read the rest of the thread.

Or not, and make up your own ideal world where removing local is the best thing ever.


Nobody EVER said it would become W space...

If you did some reading yourself, but apparantly you don't want time of yoru ISK making, you would have seen that people compared it to W-space and shown that no local doesn't mean it's impossible to do stuff.

And like it has been said...patrolling is easy..

Bubble gate...put some ships on it to shoot anything that jumps through...problem solved...you killed the cyno ship before it becomes a threat.

But then you will just whine again how that means you can't make ISK in your carebear endeavors. Guess what...that's how null-sec works.

1.) Fight for your right
2.) Accept your just a schmuck who doesn't deserve null access in the first place cause you can't even keep a simple cyno frigate out of your system.

Are you in need of some nice chat? Are you new and want some help? Look no further and join: Crazy Dutch Guy
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#224 - 2013-06-14 22:02:39 UTC
Black Dranzer wrote:

The theme for the winter expansion had better be intel, because Jesus Christ we need it.


Who's "we"?

You got a mouse in your pocket?

☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Johnny McCynoalt
Plundering Penguins
Solyaris Chtonium
#225 - 2013-06-14 22:04:13 UTC
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
Ramona McCandless wrote:
[
Thanks, after calling me a **** you just ignore my response to your comments.


Thats... nice.





His response was before your re-response. I'm on my phone and every time I try to post I have to save all my work hit the button and paste it again 2 or 3 times before it actually sticks. Anyways.

What you quoted was me saying that being afk and cloaked compounded the threat of the person because only they would know when they were back from afk. Your inability to get this point leads to the assumption that either you didn't read the text or you lack the mental fortitude to comprehend it.

As for T3s. Well first of all you have to understand that price and prereqs do not make something balanced. Saying that the expense and training time offsets their OPness is erroneous. The reason that they're OP is the same reason they're the fleet of choice for large engagements. They're strengths are many and their weaknesses are few. And because they can warp while cloaked they can choose their targets to make sure they are at the least risk possible. Each one of the T3s has one tank weakness and the rest of the stats are strengths. T3s are just OP in general.

And as for dumber, last I checked it was a word. Hmm strange.


Did....did you really just imply that ships with higher cost and skill requirements should not also be more powerful?

Are cheaper, easier to train ships supposed to be more powerful, then? Are all ships supposed to be equally powerful? Should a titan, which costs around 100 bil, just be a more expensive version of a free rookie ship, but with slightly different strengths/weaknesses/roles?

If more expensive, more skill-intensive ships are not supposed to be more powerful, why are they more expensive and why do they have higher skill requirements?

Would you have all ships cost exactly the same and have the exact same skill requirements, so that they can all be equally powerful?

In that case, why not just remove every ship but one from the game? We can all fly Ibises and enjoy perfect balance!

World of Warcraft is THAT way, sir.
Black Dranzer
#226 - 2013-06-14 22:05:58 UTC
Doc Fury wrote:
Who's "we"?

The Eve Online Community.

Sorry, I assumed you were smart enough to figure that out based on context. I'll speak slower and use more simple words next time.

Walking in Stations as a Social Hub: Business vs Pleasure in Incarna
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#227 - 2013-06-14 22:11:16 UTC
Black Dranzer wrote:
Doc Fury wrote:
Who's "we"?

The Eve Online Community.

Sorry, I assumed you were smart enough to figure that out based on context. I'll speak slower and use more simple words next time.



I thought you were smart enough to know you don't speak for me, or anyone other than you.



☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Johnny McCynoalt
Plundering Penguins
Solyaris Chtonium
#228 - 2013-06-14 22:13:36 UTC
Black Dranzer wrote:
Let me delve into my inner narcissist for a bit.

Every suggestion I make is well thought out, objective, and overall a decent idea. Admittedly there are often minor issues, but the core is usually fairly decent.

Yet every time I make a suggestion some cockball comes along and tells me that A) My idea sucks because it's not his opinion, or B) My idea is great except it needs this one other change which completely destroys the entire point of all the changes I've suggested. They do not read. They do not absorb. They have no appreciation of the fact that changes are holistic and that if I have a list of 5 changes, it's not because I felt five was a nice number, it's because that particular situation needs five changes in order to actually be effective. They will take one half of the change into mind, discard the existence of the other half, and then tell me why my implementation sucks, simply because they are incapable of holding more than one thing in their mind at a time. I know I'm not the only person who suffers from this. I've seen some good ideas of FnI and the assembly hall rejected for the stupidest ******* reasons.

But enough about me.

Some people say that local should be hidden or disabled. Others say the issue is that you can't hunt down cloakers. They say these things whilst remaining blind to the fact that these ideas are not mutually exclusive.

The fact that a cloaker's presence is known to the entire system is just as ******** as the fact that he can't be hunted down. Neither of these are good things. A straight-up removal of local is a "dirty fix" that I don't support because it has too much wide-ranging impact. I've posted my suggestions before, but they're not even that important at this point.

This needs a solution, and it's getting to the point where it doesn't matter what that solution is.

CCP have ideas. They've had ideas. They've been hmming and haaaing trying to think of the best solution.

Here's the best solution:

ANYTHING.

Anything. Any change. Do SOMETHING. But don't leave cloaking alone. Don't leave local alone.

The theme for the winter expansion had better be intel, because Jesus Christ we need it.


The saddest part is, CCP will probably listen to this guy. Making changes in response to whining on the forums, without putting thought into it, seems to be one of their hallmarks lately.

WE may think "World of Starcraft" is a joke, but for CCP, it's a dream to be realized.
Typhis Deterious
NO D1C3
#229 - 2013-06-14 22:14:16 UTC
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
Ramona McCandless wrote:
[
Thanks, after calling me a **** you just ignore my response to your comments.


Thats... nice.





His response was before your re-response. I'm on my phone and every time I try to post I have to save all my work hit the button and paste it again 2 or 3 times before it actually sticks. Anyways.

What you quoted was me saying that being afk and cloaked compounded the threat of the person because only they would know when they were back from afk. Your inability to get this point leads to the assumption that either you didn't read the text or you lack the mental fortitude to comprehend it.

As for T3s. Well first of all you have to understand that price and prereqs do not make something balanced. Saying that the expense and training time offsets their OPness is erroneous. The reason that they're OP is the same reason they're the fleet of choice for large engagements. They're strengths are many and their weaknesses are few. And because they can warp while cloaked they can choose their targets to make sure they are at the least risk possible. Each one of the T3s has one tank weakness and the rest of the stats are strengths. T3s are just OP in general.

And as for dumber, last I checked it was a word. Hmm strange.

There is this thing called Meta Level for items in game, and thee higher the Meta number the more powerful it will be. Get it? It is bad enough that they dumbed down scanning so any moron with a week in game can do it as well as most anyone else. But you would also like to take months of training time for ships and modules and wipe your rear with it? Why the heck would anyone train anything if it didn't improve survival and lethality?
Black Dranzer
#230 - 2013-06-14 22:14:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Dranzer
Doc Fury wrote:
I thought you were smart enough to know you don't speak for me, or anyone other than you.

I never spoke for you, or anybody else. I didn't say we wanted an intel expansion, I said we needed one.

Walking in Stations as a Social Hub: Business vs Pleasure in Incarna
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#231 - 2013-06-14 22:18:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Doc Fury
Black Dranzer wrote:
Doc Fury wrote:
I thought you were smart enough to know you don't speak for me, or anyone other than you.

I never spoke for you, or anybody else. I didn't say we wanted an intel expansion, I said we needed one.



I don't need it. I bet others don't either. So that just leaves you making unsubstantiated claims regarding the needs of everyone again.

☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Hans Zwaardhandler
Resilience.
The Initiative.
#232 - 2013-06-14 22:24:37 UTC
Ace Menda wrote:
Nobody EVER said it would become W space...

If you did some reading yourself, but apparantly you don't want time of yoru ISK making, you would have seen that people compared it to W-space and shown that no local doesn't mean it's impossible to do stuff.

And like it has been said...patrolling is easy..

Bubble gate...put some ships on it to shoot anything that jumps through...problem solved...you killed the cyno ship before it becomes a threat.

But then you will just whine again how that means you can't make ISK in your carebear endeavors. Guess what...that's how null-sec works.

1.) Fight for your right
2.) Accept your just a ******* who doesn't deserve null access in the first place cause you can't even keep a simple cyno frigate out of your system.


So much bitter in this post, mate. I haven't even undocked today, mostly have been on TS3 with friends and chatting here and there in game and out of game, and fulfilling my daily allotment of forum warrioring here.. I haven't made a single tangible isk all day.

But it has generally been said that if we were to remove local like wormholes, PvP and cloaky camper problems would be magically fixed for nullsec (somehow).

Nice personal attacks by the way J'Poll. Care to post with your main here, or did he collect another forum ban for you being naughty in other threads?
Black Dranzer
#233 - 2013-06-14 22:29:17 UTC
Doc Fury wrote:
I don't need it. I bet others don't either.

At the risk (lol) of insulting you, I believe you lack the judgement to accurately gauge what you or anybody else needs.

You don't want cloaking or local changes. A lot of people probably don't want these changes. A lot of people don't want any changes. This does not mean those changes would not be beneficial.

It's not even a question of if; Intel is getting an overhaul. The only question is when. And frankly, I can't think of many better candidates. Though I'm open to suggestions.

Walking in Stations as a Social Hub: Business vs Pleasure in Incarna
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#234 - 2013-06-14 22:36:41 UTC
Black Dranzer wrote:
Doc Fury wrote:
I don't need it. I bet others don't either.

At the risk (lol) of insulting you, I believe you lack the judgement to accurately gauge what you or anybody else needs.

You don't want cloaking or local changes. A lot of people probably don't want these changes. A lot of people don't want any changes. This does not mean those changes would not be beneficial.

It's not even a question of if; Intel is getting an overhaul. The only question is when. And frankly, I can't think of many better candidates. Though I'm open to suggestions.



Where's your blue DEV stripe? Oh, that's right you don't have one because you aren't a DEV.

Why not start speaking for yourself instead of trying to tell everyone else what you think they need?

☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Black Dranzer
#235 - 2013-06-14 22:44:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Dranzer
Doc Fury wrote:
Why not start speaking for yourself instead of trying to tell everyone else what you think they need?

Speaking for ones self and speaking as to the needs of others are not mutually exclusive. You're not giving me much to retort here.

If you doubt the intentions of CCP, go dig through some of the fanfest panels. There's nothing too explicit but it's clear they have have some ambitions to make changes to intel and/or cloaking in the future.

Don't be so scared of a little change.

Walking in Stations as a Social Hub: Business vs Pleasure in Incarna
SmilingVagrant
Doomheim
#236 - 2013-06-14 22:45:46 UTC
My cloak works fine.
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#237 - 2013-06-14 22:48:02 UTC
Black Dranzer wrote:
Doc Fury wrote:
Why not start speaking for yourself instead of trying to tell everyone else what you think they need?

Speaking for ones self and speaking as to the needs of others are not mutually exclusive. You're not giving me much to retort here.

If you doubt the intentions of CCP, go dig through some of the fanfest panels. There's nothing too explicit but it's clear they have have some ambitions to make changes to intel and/or cloaking in the future.

Don't be so scared of a little change.


You are saying the EVE community needs something.

Since you claim to be speaking for me when you say "we" (a part of the EVE community as you defined it) I am saying *citation needed*.

☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Ace Menda
Gemini Lounge
#238 - 2013-06-14 22:49:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Ace Menda
Hans Zwaardhandler wrote:
Ace Menda wrote:
Nobody EVER said it would become W space...

If you did some reading yourself, but apparantly you don't want time of yoru ISK making, you would have seen that people compared it to W-space and shown that no local doesn't mean it's impossible to do stuff.

And like it has been said...patrolling is easy..

Bubble gate...put some ships on it to shoot anything that jumps through...problem solved...you killed the cyno ship before it becomes a threat.

But then you will just whine again how that means you can't make ISK in your carebear endeavors. Guess what...that's how null-sec works.

1.) Fight for your right
2.) Accept your just a ******* who doesn't deserve null access in the first place cause you can't even keep a simple cyno frigate out of your system.


So much bitter in this post, mate. I haven't even undocked today, mostly have been on TS3 with friends and chatting here and there in game and out of game, and fulfilling my daily allotment of forum warrioring here.. I haven't made a single tangible isk all day.

But it has generally been said that if we were to remove local like wormholes, PvP and cloaky camper problems would be magically fixed for nullsec (somehow).

Nice personal attacks by the way J'Poll. Care to post with your main here, or did he collect another forum ban for you being naughty in other threads?


Yes. It would fix cloaky camping.

Cause it will be useless to camp people if they don't know you are there.

And at least I voice my own opinions and don't dance to the tune my master tells me to dance to like a muppet.

Are you in need of some nice chat? Are you new and want some help? Look no further and join: Crazy Dutch Guy
Typhis Deterious
NO D1C3
#239 - 2013-06-14 22:50:11 UTC
Ok DOc your sig is killing me. I can just imagine Rorshach saying Hodor at the end of that.
SmilingVagrant
Doomheim
#240 - 2013-06-14 22:51:22 UTC
Ace Menda wrote:


Yes. It would fix cloaky camping.

Cause it will be useless to camp people if they don't know you are there.

And at least I voice my own opinions and don't dance to the tune my master tells me to dance to like a muppet.


What is wrong with cloaky camping?