These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Cloaking device with fuel

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#201 - 2013-08-15 15:28:41 UTC
Nag'o wrote:

They are not influencing others the same way the afk pilot is because being docked or at the towers gives them the tactical disadvantage of having their location exposed.


Yes they are. I don't know if they are docked or cloaked now do I. That is if I enter a hostile system in a non-cloaky pvp ship and see a guy in local who is neutral/hostile and there is a station and it is sov space, then he could be docked or undocked and cloaked, right?

So, how about docking fuel. When that runs out, and you can only have enough for 15 minutes, out you go into space in whatever ship you are in. Seems fair to me.

Oh, I'm sorry did you want to have your cake and eat it too?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#202 - 2013-08-15 15:29:11 UTC
Nag'o wrote:
They are not influencing others the same way the afk pilot is because being docked or at the towers gives them the tactical disadvantage of having their location exposed.



So then it IS about removing any possible advantage someone who isn't-you might ever conceivably have? Got it.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#203 - 2013-08-15 15:31:08 UTC
Nag'o wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Nag'o wrote:
They are not influencing others the same way the afk pilot is because being docked or at the towers gives them the tactical disadvantage of having their location exposed.

Their location is not exposed if they are docked.

The hostile player knows from local they are present, but since they cannot dock to directly confirm this location, it is an assumption.

So, you have both sides, listed in local, for hours on end, never knowing exactly where the other is.

How is this not balanced?


They cannot dock only in nullsec, and only if he does not have access to the station. I'm trying to broaden the perspective here.


So your argument is confined only to high sec, low sec, and NPC null. In sov null, everyone docked should have a fuel timer...or just a timer, then bam...out they go into the arms of whomever is waiting outside the station.

Glad we agree. Roll

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#204 - 2013-08-15 15:31:47 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Nag'o wrote:
They are not influencing others the same way the afk pilot is because being docked or at the towers gives them the tactical disadvantage of having their location exposed.



So then it IS about removing any possible advantage someone who isn't-you might ever conceivably have? Got it.


It is starting to look that way.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#205 - 2013-08-15 15:34:21 UTC  |  Edited by: TheGunslinger42
Nag'o wrote:
The only uncertainty cloaked players should give is about their location. Because cloaking is just about hiding.


Except it doesn't even really do that very well, does it? Thanks to local. Or, if you're such a champion of cloaking not giving info about location, then I suppose along with this change you also want cloaked ships to disappear from local? Right?

Also, why shouldn't it also obscure what the person is doing as well as where they are? Why should you be given free intel on how active they are and what they're doing?

Hint: You want that so you can reduce uncertainty and risk to yourself.

No
Nag'o
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#206 - 2013-08-15 15:36:15 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Nag'o wrote:
They are not influencing others the same way the afk pilot is because being docked or at the towers gives them the tactical disadvantage of having their location exposed.



So then it IS about removing any possible advantage someone who isn't-you might ever conceivably have? Got it.


No, it is removing an advantage from a mechanic everyone can use, including me.


Brain hackz0r. Execute schizophrenia virus. Hyper-phishing activated. Downloading reality.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#207 - 2013-08-15 15:37:59 UTC
Nag'o wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Nag'o wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Nag'o wrote:
They are not influencing others the same way the afk pilot is because being docked or at the towers gives them the tactical disadvantage of having their location exposed.

Their location is not exposed if they are docked.

The hostile player knows from local they are present, but since they cannot dock to directly confirm this location, it is an assumption.

So, you have both sides, listed in local, for hours on end, never knowing exactly where the other is.

How is this not balanced?


They cannot dock only in nullsec, and only if he does not have access to the station. I'm trying to broaden the perspective here.

You cannot broaden the perspective by ignoring fundamental details about the situation.

That is narrowing the perspective, since you are filtering out these details from being considered.

If the advantage of sov is to build structures for use by allied forces, and local is given to all, and cloaking is available to all, what exactly are you trying to balance?

Should you demonstrate the lack of need for cloaking by friendly forces in sov space, it simply won't be used.
BUT IT IS being used.
Do you think your scouts watching gate traffic were sitting on grid to these, while flying mining ships?

Stop trying to create a narrow set of limits that only benefit one side, as by definition that is exactly what unbalanced means.


No. I'm trying to BROADEN the issue by adding the use of cloaking in all aspects, not only nullsec afk camping, wich is what you're doing. I already addressed this matter of the owned station by saying that, in the big picutre, it's a justified privilege for having control of the system.


Oh bunk. If AFK cloaking only happened in high sec this would be a non-issue. Because local is often times full of people and you'd have no way of knowing who is cloaked or not, and the threat levels are dramatically different (i.e. if he isn't a war target you'd not even care at all). Please, the issue of cloaking and especially AFK cloaking is a null issue.

But if you really are on about people simply being AFK why aren't you advocating some sort of timer for people in POS, AFK in space in high sec, AFK in stations (everywhere), etc.? As soon as those issues come up you run away from them saying they are "different". But they aren't they are impacting the game and as such, according to you, it should not be allowed.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Janna Sway
Ember Inc.
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#208 - 2013-08-15 15:40:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Janna Sway
Nag'o wrote:
Janna Sway wrote:
Quote:
It's not about removing the threat, it's about making people active in the game. The threat will not be removed if the player is not allowed to go afk while cloaked.


In EVE you are never supposed to even assume that any pilot in local is even afk at any time and you have to play accordingly, even in highsec.
If a pilot in a system irritates you through his cloaking or his inactivity, then you can simply use the stargate to the neighboring system.

Are you even bothered when someone is AFK-cloaking in highsec? - Of course not.
Cloaking is almost absolutely irrelevant in highsec, except your corporation is at war with another corporation or in factional warfare.
Cloaking only matters in places where CONCORD is not present, and CONCORD is only active in highsec.
Cloaking is a form of self-defence and if someone decides to be cloaked in a system for the next 10 years, every day, 24/7, then this is his own good right.
Nobody is permitted to dictate anybody else how to shape his time in EVE and especially, nobody is permitted to force someone to fight if he does not want to.
If someone decides to cloak up and be untargetable, then so be it, and you have to respect his decision.

Never assume that anyone is AFK in EVE, ever. And if you do, then change your attitude.
There is no "safe" in EVE and all "people ARE active at all times, as long as they are listed in "L-O-C-A-L".

With all respect, please close the thread and dump it into the year long list of nonsense, sorry.


Why does it seems that all you 'change local' people are avoiding speaking of the troublesome middle child, the lowsec.



Because we are dealing with a pest plant which is growing with the game, since the game exists. We want to get rid of the pest plant by uprooting the pest plant, and the root is called LOCAL. The root is invisible to the eye and what you see are the leaves. The leaves are force field AFK'ers, AFK-cloakers, ECCM sensor booserers, safespot campers, the troublesome middle child, the lowsec, and a billion other visible things. Just check the year long list of nonsense for reference of what people are complaining about.

You can cut and shape a pest plant all life long, you won't get rid of it. You have to uproot it.
a) deal with it and live with it
b) update the rudimental local
c) introduce the wormhole space local system in lowsec, nullsec, and maybe even in highsec.
Nag'o
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#209 - 2013-08-15 15:41:56 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:


Hint: You want that so you can reduce uncertainty and risk to yourself.



Uncertainty? Yes, about if there are real people playing or not.
Risk? Hell, no. Where's the fun in that?


Brain hackz0r. Execute schizophrenia virus. Hyper-phishing activated. Downloading reality.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#210 - 2013-08-15 15:42:03 UTC
Nag'o wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Nag'o wrote:
They are not influencing others the same way the afk pilot is because being docked or at the towers gives them the tactical disadvantage of having their location exposed.



So then it IS about removing any possible advantage someone who isn't-you might ever conceivably have? Got it.


No, it is removing an advantage from a mechanic everyone can use, including me.


As has been discussed that advantage works both ways.

If a pilot is AFK and cloaked, he cannot engage you. You will see him in local and can remain safe in a POS, docked, or by using a cloak of your own at a safe.

If the AFK pilot does come back and does engage you, you made a decision to accept that risk, and you can engage him right back. You can't then complain about a potentially bad decision on your part after the fact. This is like wanting to buy car insurance after you've had a car accident. It is nonsense.

And, you have a similar advantage when docked or even in a POS depending on the ships available to you.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Nag'o
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#211 - 2013-08-15 15:44:09 UTC
Janna Sway wrote:
Nag'o wrote:
Janna Sway wrote:
Quote:
It's not about removing the threat, it's about making people active in the game. The threat will not be removed if the player is not allowed to go afk while cloaked.


In EVE you are never supposed to even assume that any pilot in local is even afk at any time and you have to play accordingly, even in highsec.
If a pilot in a system irritates you through his cloaking or his inactivity, then you can simply use the stargate to the neighboring system.

Are you even bothered when someone is AFK-cloaking in highsec? - Of course not.
Cloaking is almost absolutely irrelevant in highsec, except your corporation is at war with another corporation or in factional warfare.
Cloaking only matters in places where CONCORD is not present, and CONCORD is only active in highsec.
Cloaking is a form of self-defence and if someone decides to be cloaked in a system for the next 10 years, every day, 24/7, then this is his own good right.
Nobody is permitted to dictate anybody else how to shape his time in EVE and especially, nobody is permitted to force someone to fight if he does not want to.
If someone decides to cloak up and be untargetable, then so be it, and you have to respect his decision.

Never assume that anyone is AFK in EVE, ever. And if you do, then change your attitude.
There is no "safe" in EVE and all "people ARE active at all times, as long as they are listed in "L-O-C-A-L".

With all respect, please close the thread and dump it into the year long list of nonsense, sorry.


Why does it seems that all you 'change local' people are avoiding speaking of the troublesome middle child, the lowsec.



Because we are dealing with a pest plant which is growing with the game, since the game exists. We want to get rid of the pest plant by uprooting the pest plant, and the root is called LOCAL. The root is invisible to the eye and what you see are the leaves. The leaves are force field AFK'ers, AFK-cloakers, ECCM sensor booserers, safespot campers, and billion other visible things. Just check the year long list of nonsense for reference of what people are complaining about.

You can cut and shape a pest plant all life long, you won't get rid of it. You have to uproot it.
a) deal with it and live with the pest plant
b) update the rudimental local
c) introduce the wormhole space local system in lowsec, nullsec, and maybe even in highsec.


Yeah, remove local in highsec. Now timed cloak sounds like a horrible idea to me too.

Brain hackz0r. Execute schizophrenia virus. Hyper-phishing activated. Downloading reality.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#212 - 2013-08-15 15:44:37 UTC
Nag'o wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:


Hint: You want that so you can reduce uncertainty and risk to yourself.



Uncertainty? Yes, about if there are real people playing or not.
Risk? Hell, no. Where's the fun in that?


This change would render AFK cloaking untenable as a strategy. As such, the only way to catch is is to hope you are either unlucky or screwed up while going about your PVE activites...and since you have the clear advantage given how local works, this will absolutely tilt things in your favor and reduce both risk and uncertainty. It is undeniable.

Again, answer this:

Tell me this, who see's who first. The pilot jumping into a system (does he see the people already in system), or the pilot(s) already in system (do they see the new comer first)?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#213 - 2013-08-15 15:47:18 UTC
Nag'o wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:


Hint: You want that so you can reduce uncertainty and risk to yourself.



Uncertainty? Yes, about if there are real people playing or not.
Risk? Hell, no. Where's the fun in that?




Except the former begets the latter, and that's why you want it. That's why your ideas don't just trash "afk cloaking" but are also a massive hindrance to countless active players.
Nag'o
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#214 - 2013-08-15 16:07:21 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Nag'o wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:


Hint: You want that so you can reduce uncertainty and risk to yourself.



Uncertainty? Yes, about if there are real people playing or not.
Risk? Hell, no. Where's the fun in that?




Except the former begets the latter, and that's why you want it. That's why your ideas don't just trash "afk cloaking" but are also a massive hindrance to countless active players.



It doesn't since a cloaked pilot only represents a risk when he is active, right? Removing afk cloaking is not removing the risk.


Brain hackz0r. Execute schizophrenia virus. Hyper-phishing activated. Downloading reality.
RoAnnon
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#215 - 2013-08-15 16:13:06 UTC
Nag'o wrote:
No, it is removing an advantage from a mechanic everyone can use, including me.


If everyone can use it, then it's balanced... You're making no sense Nag'o, your arguments are going in circles.

Nag'o wrote:
It's not about removing the threat, it's about making people active in the game. The threat will not be removed if the player is not allowed to go afk while cloaked.


So again, you're trying to force people to stay at their keyboards and not go AFK? For that to be be balanced across the game it would have to apply to people docked in stations and floating in a POS too...

Are you really so closed-minded that you cannot see that point, or all of the inconsistencies in the posts you've made?


So, you're a bounty hunter. No, that ain't it at all. Then what are you? I'm a bounty hunter.

Broadcast4Reps

Eve Vegas 2015 Pub Crawl Group 9

Houston EVE Meet
Nag'o
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#216 - 2013-08-15 16:18:17 UTC
RoAnnon wrote:
Nag'o wrote:
No, it is removing an advantage from a mechanic everyone can use, including me.


If everyone can use it, then it's balanced... You're making no sense Nag'o, your arguments are going in circles.

Nag'o wrote:
It's not about removing the threat, it's about making people active in the game. The threat will not be removed if the player is not allowed to go afk while cloaked.


So again, you're trying to force people to stay at their keyboards and not go AFK? For that to be be balanced across the game it would have to apply to people docked in stations and floating in a POS too...

Are you really so closed-minded that you cannot see that point, or all of the inconsistencies in the posts you've made?



Not everyone, just who does not have their ships 'parked'. People in open space should be necessarily active, yes.








Brain hackz0r. Execute schizophrenia virus. Hyper-phishing activated. Downloading reality.
Nag'o
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#217 - 2013-08-15 16:20:01 UTC
If not active, at lest exposed to some risk.

Brain hackz0r. Execute schizophrenia virus. Hyper-phishing activated. Downloading reality.
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
#218 - 2013-08-15 16:24:05 UTC
Nag'o wrote:
If not active, at lest exposed to some risk.


And how is that different\applied to a ship in a POS bubble? There is no risk for them going AFK for a bio or whatever. Would you eject them for 15 minutes of inactivity as they are deemed to be "AFK"?

[b]Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee" Undocking - More Routes Out of Station[/b] Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up!
Nag'o
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#219 - 2013-08-15 16:25:59 UTC
Maximus Aerelius wrote:
Nag'o wrote:
If not active, at lest exposed to some risk.


And how is that different\applied to a ship in a POS bubble? There is no risk for them going AFK for a bio or whatever. Would you eject them for 15 minutes of inactivity as they are deemed to be "AFK"?


They re not in open space. Their ship is 'parked' in an owned space.

Brain hackz0r. Execute schizophrenia virus. Hyper-phishing activated. Downloading reality.
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
#220 - 2013-08-15 16:27:15 UTC
Nag'o wrote:
If not active, at lest exposed to some risk.


I think you fear the "possibly a paper-thin cloaky pilot" that may\may not be AFK because of the uncertainty you feel and that you should be able to kill him even though he wouldn't stand a chance unless he hot-drops a fleet on your head and then it's not him that's standing a chance just that the tables have turned on you and he is still paper-thin.

On the other side is that you want the easy kills and if you were looking for PvP Proper why not find someone who want's some in return?

Either way it's all sounding a bit cowardly...

[b]Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee" Undocking - More Routes Out of Station[/b] Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up!