These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

'Local' is a problem? Why is that? (further study on AFK cloaking subject)

First post
Author
Mag's
Azn Empire
#221 - 2013-06-19 21:16:09 UTC
Sarcasim wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Sarcasim wrote:
Heart of weakness? Puuuuleaaaseee your playing a video game and sniping the forums 24/7. Your a snapshot and poster child for this heart of weakness



And yet it's you asking mommy (ccp) to help you while I spend my time figuring things out for myself. THAT what you are doing is weakness sir. Good day!



I was probably out killing commies for mommy while your mommy was still changing your yellow shat filled diapers. People have given numerous and valid concerns when it comes to afk cloaking to which all you can say is change is a weakness. As is there is no viable counter to the cloaker afk or not regardless of the tripe counters you have offered or tools you say. Again its everyone has to play your way BS.

It’s a big enough concern to generate vast replies and post on the subject. So all these people are weak?

You sir are pathetic.
Of course there are counters to those AFK and cloaked. But let's be honest here, it's not those AFK ones you wish to nerf, it's the active ones. But even then you have counters, so we return to there being no problem.

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

Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#222 - 2013-06-19 21:19:01 UTC
Sarcasim wrote:


I was probably out killing commies for mommy while your mommy was still changing your yellow shat filled diapers.


and yet you're too chicken$%^& to deal with a nerd who is afk from the computer. Says much

Quote:

People have given numerous and valid concerns when it comes to afk cloaking to which all you can say is change is a weakness. As is there is no viable counter to the cloaker afk or not regardless of the tripe counters you have offered or tools you say. Again its everyone has to play your way BS.


So, expecting grown men to find a way to deal with problems rather than running to some icelandic game devloper and begging is "making everyone play my way" lol.
Quote:

It’s a big enough concern to generate vast replies and post on the subject. So all these people are weak?


If they think afk cloaking is a probem, yes. Not everyone is so weak and lazy that playing a video game is hard. You can hide behind "numerous and valid concerns", but the truth is you are simply an entitled little kid who can't even deal with video game problems.

I pity you sir.

Quote:

You sir are pathetic.


i'll remember that when I'm not hiding my spaceship pixels in a station like you are because some big bad cloaky stealth bomber is aggravating the PTSD you got killing all those commies lol.
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#223 - 2013-06-19 21:19:40 UTC
Another nice list is developing for my locator agent.

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#224 - 2013-06-19 21:24:37 UTC
Victoria Sin wrote:
I've always thought that cloaking should need fuel, like Heavy Water or Liquid Ozone.

Any particular reason?

Sarcasim wrote:
People have given numerous and valid concerns when it comes to afk cloaking to which all you can say is change is a weakness. As is there is no viable counter to the cloaker afk or not
…aside from, you know, shooting them (in any of the myriad of variations of that particular tactic), or just tricking them. And no, no-one has given any kind of valid concern when it comes to AFK cloaking. Largely because something that can't hurt you (twice over) is not a concern.

They have concerns, yes. None of them have anything to do with cloaking, and even less to do with AFK:ness. So when they try to hide behind that nonsensical issue, all they're doing is suggesting game-breaking changes that address nothing. If they started being honest about what issues they're actually having, then maybe they'd be able to actually argue for changes. Hell, their arguments might even become reasonable. But as long as they're suggesting that they're being threatened by something that can't possible hurt them, they will only ever achieve being a laughing-stock.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#225 - 2013-06-19 21:25:05 UTC
Eeio wrote:


In any case I was pointing out that I would never just ignore a hostile if he was sitting in a homesystem.


And that's the mistake you make, having a "homesystem" lol. You choose to react rather than dealing with the problem before it occurs, and then have a problem with someone who is simply doing what the game allows.

I just can't imagine running to the DEVs and saying "wahhhhh, that guy is scary, give me some way to kill him" when it's been so easy to deal with these cloaky punks for the last 5 years of my EVE life.

I'll beat the dead horse, but I just think it's very weak minded thinking. Why are people playing the game in null in the 1st place if they are scared, if i was so much a panty-waist that a dude with a cloak (who may be bluffing like many cloaky campers are) could scare me, I'd not leave high sec. As much as I love my Mach, i's just freaking pixels.

I think some of you guys need to go outside and get some fresh air lol.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#226 - 2013-06-19 21:33:10 UTC
Tippia wrote:
If they started being honest about what issues they're actually having, then maybe they'd be able to actually argue for changes. Hell, their arguments might even become reasonable.



I honestly doubt they'd be reasonable then, because the actual issues (force projection via cynos being the 1st thing that jumps up, but of course isn't the only issue) they worry about can be dealt with with existing tools. Tools they don't want to use because it may gimp their fit or "playstlye" or their (holy grail) isk per hour.

Which makes these "nerf cloaking/local/whatever people" NO DIFFERNT from the high sec miners who couldn't figure out how to deal with dudes in destoyers and needed ccp intervention...and are STILL getting ganked lol......

I mean DAMN, ccp made lcoal blink, they don't even have to watch local or intel channels nearly as closely as we had to before, and that's STILL not good enough, they need some way to hunt cloakers who can't even hurt them, not because the cloaking is unbalanced, but because THEY are scared...

Incredible.
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#227 - 2013-06-19 21:48:41 UTC
Tippia wrote:
AFK cloakers are not a problem by virtue of being both AFK and cloaked. One means they can't do anything and the other means they can't do anything. Nothing squared = nothing.

Jenn aSide wrote:
If you give people the ability to hunt cloakys, cloakys will be less useful in altering nullbear isk making behavior,


Tippia and Jenn aSide seem to be on the same side of this argument, but their two statements (above) are causing me some cognitive dissonance. If "cloakys can't do anything" (Tippia's statement), then how can they "alter nullbear ISK-making behavior" (Jenn aSide's statement)?

Either cloaky ships have no effects, or they have one or more effects; it can't be both.

MDD
Kijo Rikki
Killboard Padding Services
#228 - 2013-06-19 21:56:11 UTC
MailDeadDrop wrote:
Tippia wrote:
AFK cloakers are not a problem by virtue of being both AFK and cloaked. One means they can't do anything and the other means they can't do anything. Nothing squared = nothing.

Jenn aSide wrote:
If you give people the ability to hunt cloakys, cloakys will be less useful in altering nullbear isk making behavior,


Tippia and Jenn aSide seem to be on the same side of this argument, but their two statements (above) are causing me some cognitive dissonance. If "cloakys can't do anything" (Tippia's statement), then how can they "alter nullbear ISK-making behavior" (Jenn aSide's statement)?

Either cloaky ships have no effects, or they have one or more effects; it can't be both.

MDD


They can be both, because to the risk averse and those unwilling to adapt, it has an effect, but to those who are more daring or simply know how to deal with it, it has very little if any affect at all. It's all perspective, and the bottom line is an afk cloak physically has zero effect, and has the potential to have a mental effect.

You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam. 

MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#229 - 2013-06-19 22:00:51 UTC  |  Edited by: MailDeadDrop
Kijo Rikki wrote:
They can be both, because to the risk averse and those unwilling to adapt, it has an effect, but to those who are more daring or simply know how to deal with it, it has very little if any affect at all. It's all perspective, and the bottom line is an afk cloak physically has zero effect, and has the potential to have a mental effect.


You may be on to something, but the statements are still at odds: neither implied a dependency on perspective. Both were absolute statements. I'm hoping one or both of them will revise their statements. I'm also hoping to get past the absolute pronouncements in this thread (not just theirs) and into the reasoning behind them.

What I suspect is closer to an absolutely true statement is this combination of facts:
1. an AFK cloaked ship is indistinguishable from an actively piloted cloaked ship
2. an actively piloted cloaked ship piloted by a non-blue pilot is most likely up to no good Lol
3. the first indicator that the pilot of a cloaked ship is active and not AFK is when they uncloak to execute their plan
4. the active pilot of a cloaked ship dictates the time and place of the encounter; the "recipient" of the event
has no opportunity to dictate to the pilot of the cloaked ship the time of the encounter (short of "never",
i.e. dock up) and limited opportunity to dictate the place.


MDD
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#230 - 2013-06-19 22:04:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
MailDeadDrop wrote:
If "cloakys can't do anything" (Tippia's statement), then how can they "alter nullbear ISK-making behavior" (Jenn aSide's statement)?
Because the cloakers aren't doing anything; the nullbears are. The cloakers have no control over it — only the bears do, and they hate the decision they make when given that control.

This also explains why we're don't see any kind of problem and oppose most of the suggested solutions: if you don't like your decisions, the solution is not to ask for the decision to be removed — it's to stop making that particular decisions.

Just because you can trigger this self-defeating behaviour in others doesn't mean that the AFK cloaker is actually doing anything.
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#231 - 2013-06-19 22:07:47 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Just because you can trigger this self-defeating behaviour in others doesn't mean that the AFK cloaker is actually doing anything.

Au contraire, by definition if you can trigger the behavior then you are indeed having an effect.

MDD
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#232 - 2013-06-19 22:14:32 UTC
MailDeadDrop wrote:
Au contraire, by definition if you can trigger the behavior then you are indeed having an effect.
…all without doing anything. It's still entirely in the hands of the scaredbears — they are the only active party; the only ones who can decide what does or does not happen. It's also entirely unrelated to both cloaks and being AFK.
Dorion Strag
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#233 - 2013-06-19 22:21:12 UTC
Dear Nullbears;

Your arguments that removing local would cause all null corps/alliances to fall apart or cause PvE to become non viable as well as your endless tears about how a single cloaky ship in your system somehow ruins your ability to do anything other than sit in station are all rendered invalid by the existence of successful WH corps.

The inability to immediately detect the slightest possibility of danger does not prevent successful PvE.
The ability of cloaky ships to hunt down and destroy you does not prevent successful PvE.
The Inability to establish 100% complete control over a system does not prevent successful PvE.

This is a proven FACT.

That is all.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#234 - 2013-06-19 22:21:17 UTC
MailDeadDrop wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Just because you can trigger this self-defeating behaviour in others doesn't mean that the AFK cloaker is actually doing anything.

Au contraire, by definition if you can trigger the behavior then you are indeed having an effect.

MDD


Even if you want to allow the idea that they're having an effect... so what? Should we remove something from the game just because someone else interpreted it one way and made their own decisions with how to respond?

I could log on fifteen alts and park them all in a pos or station somewhere and go afk, someone passing through might interpret that as "oh golly this system is busy, I better steer clear/log off!". Should we then remove my ability to park my fifteen alts in a pos/station because someone read it as meaning one thing and made a choice based on that (and then decided they didn't like the choice they made)?

I don't even see this as an issue with any mechanic any more, it's purely a result of how different people interpret things, and what they decide to do about it. Then whining about something that is solely about their state of mind and playstyle
Eeio
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#235 - 2013-06-19 22:37:39 UTC
Its still interesting how the rhetoric here goes.

I actually felt Jenn and Tippia contributed with valid arguments.

But reading these last few pages and the constant increasing namecalling has sadly made me decide to ignore everything you say.

Behave, or become irrelevant.
Lady Spank
Get Out Nasty Face
#236 - 2013-06-19 23:30:57 UTC
I don't like AFK cloaking because it requires me to log in to do, and I really can't be bothered.

(ಠ_ృ) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (ಠ_ృ)

Sarcasim
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#237 - 2013-06-20 01:42:36 UTC
MailDeadDrop wrote:
Kijo Rikki wrote:
They can be both, because to the risk averse and those unwilling to adapt, it has an effect, but to those who are more daring or simply know how to deal with it, it has very little if any affect at all. It's all perspective, and the bottom line is an afk cloak physically has zero effect, and has the potential to have a mental effect.


You may be on to something, but the statements are still at odds: neither implied a dependency on perspective. Both were absolute statements. I'm hoping one or both of them will revise their statements. I'm also hoping to get past the absolute pronouncements in this thread (not just theirs) and into the reasoning behind them.

What I suspect is closer to an absolutely true statement is this combination of facts:
1. an AFK cloaked ship is indistinguishable from an actively piloted cloaked ship
2. an actively piloted cloaked ship piloted by a non-blue pilot is most likely up to no good Lol
3. the first indicator that the pilot of a cloaked ship is active and not AFK is when they uncloak to execute their plan
4. the active pilot of a cloaked ship dictates the time and place of the encounter; the "recipient" of the event
has no opportunity to dictate to the pilot of the cloaked ship the time of the encounter (short of "never",
i.e. dock up) and limited opportunity to dictate the place.


MDD


Good luck with that. They will do do what they do for every thread they dislike.
Sarcasim
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#238 - 2013-06-20 01:49:05 UTC
I still don’t understand why it would be an issue for a cloaker to press a button to remain cloaked every 15-30 min. Most of these people argued in other threads against afk mining yet argue for afk cloaking, Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#239 - 2013-06-20 01:50:51 UTC
MailDeadDrop wrote:
4. the active pilot of a cloaked ship dictates the time and place of the encounter; the "recipient" of the event
has no opportunity to dictate to the pilot of the cloaked ship the time of the encounter (short of "never",
i.e. dock up) and limited opportunity to dictate the place.

Docking up, you say.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

E-2C Hawkeye
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#240 - 2013-06-20 01:51:38 UTC
Sarcasim wrote:
MailDeadDrop wrote:
Kijo Rikki wrote:
They can be both, because to the risk averse and those unwilling to adapt, it has an effect, but to those who are more daring or simply know how to deal with it, it has very little if any affect at all. It's all perspective, and the bottom line is an afk cloak physically has zero effect, and has the potential to have a mental effect.


You may be on to something, but the statements are still at odds: neither implied a dependency on perspective. Both were absolute statements. I'm hoping one or both of them will revise their statements. I'm also hoping to get past the absolute pronouncements in this thread (not just theirs) and into the reasoning behind them.

What I suspect is closer to an absolutely true statement is this combination of facts:
1. an AFK cloaked ship is indistinguishable from an actively piloted cloaked ship
2. an actively piloted cloaked ship piloted by a non-blue pilot is most likely up to no good Lol
3. the first indicator that the pilot of a cloaked ship is active and not AFK is when they uncloak to execute their plan
4. the active pilot of a cloaked ship dictates the time and place of the encounter; the "recipient" of the event
has no opportunity to dictate to the pilot of the cloaked ship the time of the encounter (short of "never",
i.e. dock up) and limited opportunity to dictate the place.


MDD


Good luck with that. They will do do what they do for every thread they dislike.

Happy to see I am not the only one that see this.