These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#9061 - 2017-03-20 21:00:16 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:


It's irrelevant. The point isn't that cloaks don't come with any drawbacks. The point is that the equivalency you want to draw is false. You don't need a PhD in cloakology to know that a module that fits easily in a utility high isn't a station. It certainly deserves to work, but I am not seeing any case for it being 100% effective unless the pilot of the ship opts in to more dangerous uses.

You state that cloaks are linked to local. This is false, as demonstrated in every other part of EVE. Wormholes, low and high sec all have different, if less painful and visible problems with cloaks. It would seem, based on the evidence, that the larger factor interacting with cloaks are cynos, based on the nature of what gets complained about, but no, you want to talk about local.

You state and provide evidence that cloaks are needed as a check on the economy. While apparently true as far as it goes, it still does not meet the bar of providing evidence for 100% safety until the pilot chooses otherwise. Meanwhile, a dynamic where the cloaked ship would need to participate in it's own safety enhances the gameplay for all involved by creating an interactive experience for all involved instead of a stalemate where one side goes AFK and the other side either abandons the space or the game entirely.

You provide no evidence that a single module should be able to negate the combined efforts of an entire alliance on an effectively permanent basis. It is enough that you are in space and they want to hunt you, no other bar need be met to justify making that possible. It does not have to be easy, cheap or quick, but simply possible is the lowest bar that is reasonable.


And in the end the best you can come up with is an Appeal to Authority, from a source that isn't actually addressing the topic at hand, but is merely quoting an earlier statement from someone who wasn't even an authority. Once again, at best it's an observation of how things are now, not a statement of intent. This would be relevant if this was the "How Things are Now" forum instead of "Features and Ideas". The rules themselves are inconsistent, with first stating * You consent to PvP when you click "undock". followed by * In most cases, the only way to be 100% safe from aggression inside the game is to be docked in a station. Being cloaked in a secret safespot could work too.. Unless of course you are still confused as to the many differences between a module and a station. The wording of the quote is soft on that point as well, though in practice the cloak is far safer than the dock.


And here we see your ignorance again. To use a cloaking device you have to train the skill to do so, and if you are going to train that skill it is best to train it to 4 if not 5 to minimize the downsides. So it isn’t just an empty slot one slaps a cloak on.

And your claim of 100% safety is just a bald faced lie. Ships with cloaks die all the time. They are only 100% after they have avoided all the things that could have killed them getting to that safe spot and cloaking. That is like saying, travelling around NS is completely safe…if we discount all the things that could kill you. It is idiotic.

And that entire alliance thing is a load of crap. If it took an entire alliance to take the space then it should take the entire alliance to hold it too. Getting it does not mean you have to work for it, and yeah, if that means ratting in a fleet or even a group…then so be it. And don’t give me that “one man” bullcrap because you often trot out the “but cyno” bullcrap too. Which is it? One player or many?

And it isn’t an appeal to authority, it is pointing out that your comments are wrong and they are wrong because you don’t understand what you are talking about. Because you haven’t gone out there and done these things you come sounding like an arrogant and clueless doofus.

And it is hilarious, when shown a post by a Dev who is pretty clearly quoting the claim that being cloaked at a secret safe spot can provide 100% safety with approval you suddenly can’t admit you were wrong. You have to go on and make up more nonsense.

The only person here who is intellectually dishonest is you Mike. You grasp and any and every straw vs. simply saying, “Oh, okay. There is a Dev who has quoted that statement with apparent approval.” Oh and that “authority” is an “authority” you yourself indicated would be sufficient…ad Dev. Please Mike. You should stop your pathetic posting as it just underscores your foolishness.

Oh, and if cloaks are 100% safe, how can a cloaked player be camped in a system?

"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
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#9062 - 2017-03-21 03:24:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
How long does it take to train cloaking 4? It's been a long time since I did it, but I don't think it was much over a week, if that. So Trivial skill, trivial fitting requirements, trivial cost... yet somehow equivialent to a station and meant to subvert an entire alliances efforts on a solo ship. I wasn't ignorant of it, it's just meaningless trivia that does not impact on the issue under discussion.

Cloak is 100% safe *until he chooses otherwise*. You like to skip that part, but it's pretty important. Especially when you want to claim that local makes other people 100% safe. Apparently not the cloaker though. He can't rely on the magical power of local. I wonder why that is if local, which works the same for everyone (disclaimer: other than loading time which I support a change for), only makes some people 100% safe and not others. Oh right... because it's not local, its the active playstyle of those you are hunting. The inactive ones are easy targets.

I did acknowledge that cyno represented group activity, and have no issue with that being the meat of the threat. The point was that as much as you like to talk about local like it was the root of the problem, no one really talks about it until it's time to whine that you need a hard counter to it, despite how easily demonstrated it is that this is not the case.

You need to look at your own argument on the front loaded effort point. It's Ok for a cloaked ship to get into position and then be immune till he decides otherwise, but its not ok for an alliance to spend effort takeing space, and then less effort maintaining it? Which is it? I am sure many denizens of EVE look forward to putting out some effort to become safe and then staying that way forever until they change their mind. Unless that's not OK, in which case the cloak needs a serious adjustment.

Your attempt to quote a dev quoting a player on the current state of the game is fine. If what was under discussion was how things are, then you would be dead on. But we aren't. I'm asking for justification of safety equivalent to a station from a trivial module. We already know that's what it does, we didn't need a flaming finger on a wall to point that out.

Funny thing about being camped into a system. That only happens if you let it. I mean, its not as if they can't cyno in help even in cynojammed systems, including ships that can bridge them back out. Granted, that's an even higher bar for training time and cost, but it's not as if its impossible. They can also scan for wormholes and get to them first, or just wait out the camp the same way many got there in the first place.

So I guess keep banging on my ignorance, even if it's irrelevant to the discussion. It's not as if you had anything useful to say anyway.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#9063 - 2017-03-21 04:34:39 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:


[snip for space]



Cloaking is a rank 6 skill meaning 6x longer than a rank 1 and 3x than rank 2. And to use the better cloaks you must have it trained to either level 3 or 4 depending on what you want to do--i.e. if you are just a hauler, level 3 is fine, if you intend to use a covert ops cloak 4 is a minimum, but 5 is optimal given the downsides to cloaks.

No, cloaks are not 100% until he chooses otherwise. That is a lie. That is only true once the player/pilot is at a safe spot. You have quietly slipped right over that fact. This statement of your is nothing short of a lie. And no, I covered that part, "until he chooses", here is what I wrote earlier,

Quote:
Does having the ability to pick and choose one's engagements convey and advantage, absolutely. But it is in no way a guarantee of a kill.


And you are again misrepresenting things. To find somebody to engage you can't just sit a safe. You'll never find anyone to engage that way. You have to fly around, you have to fly into anomalies and risk being decloaked. In short, this claim is yet another lie.

And again there is no need for a hard counter. This game has both depending on the circumstances. Your view is that everything must have a hard counter and clearly the Devs disagree with you because there are number facets of the game that do not have hard counters. You can counter the presence of a cloaky camper with better organization.

And I don't even know what you are on about with the effort and alliance nonsense. If you aren't camping the entry points to your space, if you aren't using standing fleets, if you aren't prepared to handle a small hiccup, then get out of f***town and go back to HS. **** on stick here we have you again lecturing those of us who have been in sov holding alliances on how we should be holding our sov. Does it take less effort to hold sov vs. taking it? Probably not. Maybe not the same effort, maybe the effort it not as obvious, but there is still lots of effort. Fueling POS', fueling the JB system, doing logistics (moving stuff in for members, moving stuff out like moon goo, etc.), defense fleets, fleets to keep your members from getting too bored, etc. Again you are talking out of ignorance Mike.

And regarding the safety of cloaks, here is the actual exchange since we know you won't be forthright about that,

Merin Ryskin wrote:
Cloaking creates a designated area, at a high cost in fitting/damage/tank/etc just for having a cloak and a complete inability to activate modules while cloaked. That's the whole point of having one.


And you replied,

Mike Voidstar wrote:
Merin, it does not actually. The only source for that stance is an old wiki statement that observes cloaks at safes are safe, but that's neither a statement of intent nor authored by a dev. If you want to make cloaks equivalent to stations then we need equivalent drawbacks too, like not being able to see space, and the exit point from a cloak becoming known, and in null a method to make them completely unavailable or only functional by sov holders.


I then quoted CCP Phantom who had quoted that passage, with what appears to be approval. So yes, it does appear to be that cloaked at a secret safe spot is intended to give safety approaching and even equaling that of a station. You then make nonsense claim about restrictions like in stations...okay:

1. Can you lock anyone while in station (citadels excepted)? No. Can you lock anyone while cloaked? No.
2. Can you set a clone at a station? Yes. Can you set a clone while cloaked? No.
3. Can you trade with others in station? Yes. Can you trade with others while cloaked? No.
4. Can you access station services while in station? Yes. Can you access station services while cloaked? No.
5, Can you switch ships in station? Yes. Can you switch ships while cloaked? No.

Hmmmm....looking kinda limited to me.

Yes, you can warp around, but then that exposes you to risk, you are no longer "100% safe". Yes, you can see who is on grid with you, but part of having a secret safe is that people aren't on grid with you--i.e. your secret safe is not that safe.

It is at a point like this that one has to ask, "Do you even use cloaks at all? Ever?"

As for being camped into a system, you are again demonstrating your ignorance. In the specific case I was thinking about we went in, in covert ops cloaked ships to clear bubbles. We knew it was a system where the out gates were heavily, heavily camped. We did it to try and let titans get out. Clearly in this instance you are not going to bring in BLOPs ship to bridge everyone out. Exfiltration was going to be "Good luck and godspeed." Again, perhaps if in all the time you've played the game you actually tried out these parts of the game you wouldn't look so foolish. Not only that, but not every cloaking hunter goes with a BLOPs. Some do it solo, in pairs, etc. In that instance you can easily get camped into system--i.e. getting out entails risk....which shows up the lies you've been writing in this thread.

And yes, your ignorance is very relevant because it explains why you don't know what you are talking about. Why you are wrong. Grow a spine, go buy a cloaky ship, go cloaky hunting. You might actually learn it is not as trivial as you make it out to be.

(We all know you won't though....)

"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
Maria Dragoon
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#9064 - 2017-03-21 04:51:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Maria Dragoon
Mike Voidstar wrote:
How long does it take to train cloaking 4? It's been a long time since I did it, but I don't think it was much over a week, if that. So Trivial skill, trivial fitting requirements, trivial cost... yet somehow equivialent to a station and meant to subvert an entire alliances efforts on a solo ship. I wasn't ignorant of it, it's just meaningless trivia that does not impact on the issue under discussion.

Cloak is 100% safe *until he chooses otherwise*. You like to skip that part, but it's pretty important. Especially when you want to claim that local makes other people 100% safe. Apparently not the cloaker though. He can't rely on the magical power of local. I wonder why that is if local, which works the same for everyone (disclaimer: other than loading time which I support a change for), only makes some people 100% safe and not others. Oh right... because it's not local, its the active playstyle of those you are hunting. The inactive ones are easy targets.

I did acknowledge that cyno represented group activity, and have no issue with that being the meat of the threat. The point was that as much as you like to talk about local like it was the root of the problem, no one really talks about it until it's time to whine that you need a hard counter to it, despite how easily demonstrated it is that this is not the case.

You need to look at your own argument on the front loaded effort point. It's Ok for a cloaked ship to get into position and then be immune till he decides otherwise, but its not ok for an alliance to spend effort takeing space, and then less effort maintaining it? Which is it? I am sure many denizens of EVE look forward to putting out some effort to become safe and then staying that way forever until they change their mind. Unless that's not OK, in which case the cloak needs a serious adjustment.

Your attempt to quote a dev quoting a player on the current state of the game is fine. If what was under discussion was how things are, then you would be dead on. But we aren't. I'm asking for justification of safety equivalent to a station from a trivial module. We already know that's what it does, we didn't need a flaming finger on a wall to point that out.

Funny thing about being camped into a system. That only happens if you let it. I mean, its not as if they can't cyno in help even in cynojammed systems, including ships that can bridge them back out. Granted, that's an even higher bar for training time and cost, but it's not as if its impossible. They can also scan for wormholes and get to them first, or just wait out the camp the same way many got there in the first place.

So I guess keep banging on my ignorance, even if it's irrelevant to the discussion. It's not as if you had anything useful to say anyway.



Cloaked ships are never 100% safe till his choosing, as the very act of moving up, and setting up for snatching a kill puts you at risk of being caught, and decloaked, not to mention that upon that act of engaging there is no way for you to disengage, as once you decloak, a lock will prevent you from cloaking back up, thus you are committed.

Your entire argument is convoluted and to be rather simple, silly, your entire argument is based on misconceptions and false hoods, it basics, you actually don't know what you are talking about, as you are, quite frank, making things up as you go. How do you expect anyone to actually take you serious when you argue like this. This is perhaps why most people don't actually take you serious.

You build off that these cloaked ships are the space's boogie man, but I'm here to inform you that is not the case, all cloaked ships are smooshie as all hell, they die under fire to any group that is fitted correctly to protect themselves, and ontop of that, they take massive penalties.

In short, your argument makes no sense, cloakers don't pop out of thin air, they have to make it to your space in the first place, if you have your alliance protect your money makers (AKA, having a defense fleet up when you have mining and farming ops.) then you will NEVER have anything to worry about.

In short your agument is total ballocks, an one speaks volumes of your inexperience at flying any covert ops vessel.

Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated. Confucius

"A man who talks to people who aren't real is crazy. A man who talks to people who aren't real and writes down what they say is an author."
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#9065 - 2017-03-21 15:28:59 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
CCP Phantom wrote:

These are based on Akita T's Golden rules for new players, originally published on the old forums.

Be able to afford a loss

* Never fly something (or with something in the cargo) you can't afford to lose. Yes, not even in highsec. Meaning that you should not fly a ship you cannot afford to replace and refit.

Consent to PvP

* You consent to PvP when you click "undock".
* You are not safe in 1.0 security space. CONCORD is there to punish, not to protect. Get used to the idea.
* In most cases, the only way to be 100% safe from aggression inside the game is to be docked in a station. Being cloaked in a secret safespot could work too.


No, CCP Phantom did not write them, but he sure does seem to be endorsing them.

And is it now time for you to stomp off in a huff and quit again?


I am still convinced that CCP only lets this debate go on as some form of social experiment. They've clearly stated their position on the matter, and it doesn't seem to have changed in the 2+ years this thread has been running.

Also Teckos, thanks for bringing up the scenario of a cloaker getting camped into a system. I imagine it's less common than people getting camped into a station, but it does happen and it has the exact same, annoying "But muh content!" effect.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#9066 - 2017-03-21 16:20:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
Maria Dragoon wrote:



Cloaked ships are never 100% safe till his choosing, as the very act of moving up, and setting up for snatching a kill puts you at risk of being caught, and decloaked, not to mention that upon that act of engaging there is no way for you to disengage, as once you decloak, a lock will prevent you from cloaking back up, thus you are committed.

Your entire argument is convoluted and to be rather simple, silly, your entire argument is based on misconceptions and false hoods, it basics, you actually don't know what you are talking about, as you are, quite frank, making things up as you go. How do you expect anyone to actually take you serious when you argue like this. This is perhaps why most people don't actually take you serious.

You build off that these cloaked ships are the space's boogie man, but I'm here to inform you that is not the case, all cloaked ships are smooshie as all hell, they die under fire to any group that is fitted correctly to protect themselves, and ontop of that, they take massive penalties.

In short, your argument makes no sense, cloakers don't pop out of thin air, they have to make it to your space in the first place, if you have your alliance protect your money makers (AKA, having a defense fleet up when you have mining and farming ops.) then you will NEVER have anything to worry about.

In short your agument is total ballocks, an one speaks volumes of your inexperience at flying any covert ops vessel.


If the cloak isn't 100% safe until he chooses otherwise, how is it possible to hunt one sitting at a safe? How about actually sitting on grid 100KM away from anything? Moving close to your target, decloaking, engaging.... Those are all at the pilot of a cloaked ships choice. A choice that is made with the opportunity for careful evaluation of the circumstance. The counter argument is usually "but the cloaked ship isn't doing anything then", at which point we can note that Pods can't do anything either, and they aren't safe. The bar for being exposed to non-consensual PvP is simply being in space. It does not matter how dangerous or flimsy you are, if you are in space you should be in danger from opposing forces. Cloaks do not meet that most basic standard of EVE gameplay.

My arguments, as far as I can tell, are completely straight forward. If it's in space, it should be vulnerable to non-consensual PvP. The arguments -for- cloaks remaining as the are convoluted, full of false equivalence and red herrings, and often involve extreme low probability events as if they were commonplace. Answering those 'arguments' can seem equally convoluted, because they often involve delving down some pretty deep rabbit holes, but I didn't choose the route or destination for those, you can thank those that made the original points for that.

At this point you jump back into the pool, seemingly, that cloaks should remain capable of 100% safety at the pilots sole option with no counter because they are "smooshie as all hell, they die under fire to any group that is fitted correctly to protect themselves, and ontop of that, they take massive penalties." So answer me why Pods and Shuttles aren't immune to player interaction? Simply being weak and taking penalties can offset an advantage, but you aren't anywhere near making a case for safety equivalent, much less superior, to a station. If it's not in a station, it should be subject to Non-consensual PvP. Very plain and straight forward.

We can discuss cloaks not popping out of thin air too. Here's a thing, no one pops out of thin air. Everyone had to get where ever they are. Some people do it through diplomacy, running many risks from being scammed and betrayed as they carry significant personal assets into the area, rather than a single ship intended to be sacrificed making a kill. You are also aware, I am sure, that cloaks are useful in traveling, and with proper tactics will give you a much higher chance of penetrating hostile space than a ship without one.

And then you delve once again into the discrepancy of safety granted by active vigilance and active gameplay where one must opt into safety to remain safe in the presence of hostiles, versus the cloaked pilot's zero effort method where he gets to opt into danger and is otherwise safe until he chooses. You also seem to forget that ships can come out of wormholes, not just the static gates, and you seem to assume that every gate must be permanently camped 23/7 or the alliance is failing, and that the pilot of a cloaked ship has no ability at all to get through them.

I've flown Cov-ops for years, just for other purposes. Sure, I don't care for predatory PvP, but I do know their costs and limitations.

I'm still waiting to hear a solid argument for why a module with trivial training, fitting, and cost provides safety superior to a station. I'd love to hear why a ship in space needs a module to make it immune to player interaction under any circumstances, much less on a semi-permanent basis.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#9067 - 2017-03-21 16:55:05 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:


Cloaking is a rank 6 skill meaning 6x longer than a rank 1 and 3x than rank 2. And to use the better cloaks you must have it trained to either level 3 or 4 depending on what you want to do--i.e. if you are just a hauler, level 3 is fine, if you intend to use a covert ops cloak 4 is a minimum, but 5 is optimal given the downsides to cloaks.

No, cloaks are not 100% until he chooses otherwise. That is a lie. That is only true once the player/pilot is at a safe spot. You have quietly slipped right over that fact. This statement of your is nothing short of a lie. And no, I covered that part, "until he chooses",.


So is it a lie, or isn't it. Make up your mind, or just read what you just wrote "That is only true...". It's not even as if that was a low probability circumstance, it is extremely commonplace and a well known tactic. Calling the statement a lie seems a little hyperbolic to me, but if that's all you got I guess you should make the most of it.

Teckos Pech wrote:
here is what I wrote earlier,

Does having the ability to pick and choose one's engagements convey and advantage, absolutely. But it is in no way a guarantee of a kill.


No one said it was. But then my point was never about making kills. It was about being in danger on a non-consensual basis.


Teckos Pech wrote:
And you are again misrepresenting things. To find somebody to engage you can't just sit a safe. You'll never find anyone to engage that way. You have to fly around, you have to fly into anomalies and risk being decloaked. In short, this claim is yet another lie.


Did I miss the patch notes where cloaked ships lost the ability to control probes or see local? Sure you have to drop your cloak to launch probes, but only the most extreme bad luck would have you probed and locked before you could reactivate your cloak. If you choose higher risk actions, good for you---but that's not the same thing as being vulnerable to non-consent PvP the entire time you are in space. You picked the actions, you picked the time, and you were otherwise perfectly safe until you choose otherwise. So really, once again calling it a lie seems a tad hyperbolic.

Teckos Pech wrote:
And I don't even know what you are on about with the effort and alliance nonsense. If you aren't camping the entry points to your space, if you aren't using standing fleets, if you aren't prepared to handle a small hiccup, then get out of f***town and go back to HS. **** on stick here we have you again lecturing those of us who have been in sov holding alliances on how we should be holding our sov. Does it take less effort to hold sov vs. taking it? Probably not. Maybe not the same effort, maybe the effort it not as obvious, but there is still lots of effort. Fueling POS', fueling the JB system, doing logistics (moving stuff in for members, moving stuff out like moon goo, etc.), defense fleets, fleets to keep your members from getting too bored, etc. Again you are talking out of ignorance Mike.

Gosh, you like to move things around. The argument I was answering there was the contention that using local and intel networks was effortless, while our beleaguered cloak pilot had to overcome some kind of epic monumental hurdles to get into a system. Apparently front loaded effort is a justification to provide perfect safety to a pilot using a cloak, but it's not ok for front loaded effort to provide anything to anyone playing actively. The actual point was that taking and holding space was not easy, yet gets handwaved as irrelevant by the pro-cloak people, while the effort of crashing a few gates is presented as an epic journey that warrants 100% safety upon arrival for an unlimited time in defiance of all actual logic.

Teckos Pech wrote:
with what appears to be approval

Yes, you quoted an authority, who was quoting someone else who wasn't, with a statement not relevant to any points made. We already know that cloaks provide superior safety to a station. The quote is even contradictory, as it earlier states being in space as the qualifier for non-consensual PvP. Rather than supporting your argument, you have simply restated both sides position. Well Done.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#9068 - 2017-03-21 17:08:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Bronson Hughes
Mike Voidstar wrote:
I'm still waiting to hear a solid argument for why a module with trivial training[1], fitting[2], and cost provides safety superior to a station[3]. I'd love to hear why a ship in space needs a module to make it immune to player interaction under any circumstances[4], much less on a semi-permanent basis[5].


1. Training for a non-CovOps cloak is trivial. Even training into a CovOps cloak is pretty trivial. But training into most CovOps ships isn't exactly trivial. The training limitation comes (in most cases) from the ship, not the module. (I'd just like to point out that docking in a station requires zero training.) (EDIT: Also important to note that the Covert Cyno is quite a long train, which is kind of a big deal given the whole Schrodinger's Hotdrop phenomena.)

2. Fitting a non-CovOps cloak to a non-bonused hull may be easy fittings-wise, but it does impart pretty heavy penalties for combat. CovOps ships generally have fewer slots and less fitting than their non-CovOps counterparts. So, again, the limitation from the CovOps cloak comes more from the ship than from the module. (Again, I'd like to point out that docking in a station requires zero fitting.)

3. In a station, literally the only thing that can happen to you in terms of asset destruction is the destruction of the station. Anything short of that, including improper inputs (aside from accidentally undocking), disconnecting, etc. and you're still safe. Cloaks are less safe than stations because they are more susceptible to input errors (which is, I will grant, a subjective observation), disconnects (you will be visible for brief periods while E-warping or logging back in from space), etc. Also, while in a station, you have the option of leaving the system unopposed by way of a jump clone, an option that is not available to a cloaked pilot without self-destructing their pod (and, presumable, sacrificing their ship).

4. If you are sitting stationary at a safe spot, alone on-grid, and nobody else managed to get a scan hit on you before you cloaked, yes, you are pretty much immune to player interaction under any circumstance.

Just like if you were in a station.

But the instant you warp somewhere, unless it is also an empty-grid safe spot that nobody else has managed to scan, you are subject to player (or environmental) interaction.

Warping to a belt? There's the chance of bouncing off of a 'roid or passing a ship, wreck, etc.

Warping to a gate? There a chance of passing too close to objects deliberately laid to decloak people.

And, of course, there are bubbles that can drag you specifically to land on a camp.

I will grant you that the odds of interaction are quite low, but they are not zero like they are in a station.

5. I do concede that being cloaked in a safe is something that you can do pretty much without interruption. But that's by design. Part of the reason that cloaks exist is specifically so players can do that. CCP has even said as much, so this point is pretty much irrelevant. (See my previous post.)


The way I see this, cloaking offers much of the protection of docking in a station while requiring more effort, more risk, and sacrifices in fitting (compared to flying non-cloaking ships). You risk more, and you get more rewards for it. You sacrifice performance in one area to gain more in another.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#9069 - 2017-03-21 17:26:56 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
So is it a lie, or isn't it. Make up your mind, or just read what you just wrote "That is only true...". It's not even as if that was a low probability circumstance, it is extremely commonplace and a well known tactic. Calling the statement a lie seems a little hyperbolic to me, but if that's all you got I guess you should make the most of it.


It is quite clearly a lie. It is a lie to say 100%. If you said, “very safe” or “has an advantage” that would be more accurate. It is a lie because you have been disabused of this notion again and again and again you yet you keep returning too it.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
No one said it was. But then my point was never about making kills. It was about being in danger on a non-consensual basis.


It also is in no way 100% safe. In fact, that is one way to die in a cloaked ship. If a single cloaked ship engages an opponent, and that guy is on comms and he squeals for help, and he is in a standing fleet, every other ship in system can warp to him at zero. If a guy ratting in a battlecruiser is engaged and 2 procurers warp in….that is now suddenly a very bad situation for the cloaky hunter. But you don’t want this. You want to go shoot a fecking ship with nobody at the keyboard.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
Did I miss the patch notes where cloaked ships lost the ability to control probes or see local? Sure you have to drop your cloak to launch probes, but only the most extreme bad luck would have you probed and locked before you could reactivate your cloak. If you choose higher risk actions, good for you---but that's not the same thing as being vulnerable to non-consent PvP the entire time you are in space. You picked the actions, you picked the time, and you were otherwise perfectly safe until you choose otherwise. So really, once again calling it a lie seems a tad hyperbolic.


To launch probes I have to decloak, and I have to wait to reactivate my cloak…which negates your 100% safe claim. The point is Mike, again and again you want to “have your cake and eat it too”. This is dishonest. And you know it. And you can see local in station too. You can see local in any ship once in system. Once in system local provides no advantage. Now, knowing your extreme level of intellectual of intellectual dishonesty here, not I said, “Once in system….”

Mike Voidstar wrote:
Gosh, you like to move things around. The argument I was answering there was the contention that using local and intel networks was effortless, while our beleaguered cloak pilot had to overcome some kind of epic monumental hurdles to get into a system. Apparently front loaded effort is a justification to provide perfect safety to a pilot using a cloak, but it's not ok for front loaded effort to provide anything to anyone playing actively. The actual point was that taking and holding space was not easy, yet gets handwaved as irrelevant by the pro-cloak people, while the effort of crashing a few gates is presented as an epic journey that warrants 100% safety upon arrival for an unlimited time in defiance of all actual logic


And there you go again. I manage to avoid all the problems to get to my target system with a cloak, and when I get there I am warping around under relative safety of said cloak to find a target. But that isn’t good enough. No, I deserve even less safety despite going through a number of hostile systems, giving hostiles repeated chances to find me and kill me, I am still too safe….because you and your renter alliance are bad. And never mind that it has been pointed out again and again, that a cloaked ship at a safe is not a threat to anyone. I only maintain that safety by also electing to be harmless.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
Yes, you quoted an authority, who was quoting someone else who wasn't, with a statement not relevant to any points made. We already know that cloaks provide superior safety to a station. The quote is even contradictory, as it earlier states being in space as the qualifier for non-consensual PvP. Rather than supporting your argument, you have simply restated both sides position. Well Done.


And yet another lie. Marin made the point that a cloak at a secret safe creates a designated safe zone not unlike being docked. You replied that a Dev never wrote that. I pointed out that a Dev, whom you freely admit is an authority, did quote it and seemingly in an approving manner. Now that your initial comment has been undermined you have to resort to this nonsense to try and weasel out of it. And no, cloaks do not provide superior safety to a station, that is just another nonsense statement on your part.

The point is you are an ignoramus. And you are an ignoramus who steadfastly insists on being an ignoramus. Further, you are aware that the fallacy argument from authority is often stated as argument from an unqualified (unreliable) authority. Yes it is a fallacy, but an argument from ignorance is also a fallacy, and you are quite clearly and obstinate ignoramus. You can fix it. You can go get a cloaky ship and try hunting solo. And the funny thing is, once you have tried it, I’d have to stop using this argument against you. But we all know you won’t. You won’t because you know what will likely happen? Losses of cloaking ships will start showing up on your KB. And suddenly your arguments of perfect safety go right out the window.

"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
#9070 - 2017-03-21 17:33:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Bronson Hughes wrote:

1. Training for a non-CovOps cloak is trivial. Even training into a CovOps cloak is pretty trivial. But training into most CovOps ships isn't exactly trivial. The training limitation comes (in most cases) from the ship, not the module. (I'd just like to point out that docking in a station requires zero training.) (EDIT: Also important to note that the Covert Cyno is quite a long train, which is kind of a big deal given the whole Schrodinger's Hotdrop phenomena.)


Exactly right. I can train into a CovOps cloak in a relatively short period of time (but significantly longer than most other "utility slot modules"), but it is useless unless there is a ship I can put it on. That adds quite a bit to training time. Even if you are going for a bomber, you must first train your racial frigate to V then train the covert ops skill, and past lvl 1 for the ship to be worth a damn, say level 4. And covert ops is a rank 4 skill. Then I need to fit the weapons as well.

So how much time does it take to train to use this module that "goes in a utility slot"? Alot longer than Mike was implying. So either Mike is lying, or he is an ignoramus. Given his track record and to be charitable I'll go with the latter.

Of course, that he obstinately refuses to address this ignorance does pose a problem for his intellectual honesty....

Edit: The covert ops skill is rank 4, I initially stated it was rank 8.

"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
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#9071 - 2017-03-21 18:56:54 UTC
At what point does it matter if a ship is a threat to anyone. There are plenty of ships that are completely incapable of threatening anyone in any way, and far more that are not a credible threat to anyone in a combat ship. None of them deserve any special safety due to that weakness, nor for any training time they require. Harmlessness isn't a factor in if a ship in space should be safe from non-consensual PvP.

Really, really, really simple here...

If it's in space, it's subject to non-consensual PvP.

Cloaks do not meet this most basic standard of play. It's that simple.


All the red herrings about local, stations, drawbacks, etc... None of that is relevant so long as there is a ship in space that is immune to player interaction.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#9072 - 2017-03-21 19:05:26 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
I'm still waiting to hear a solid argument for why a module with trivial training[1], fitting[2], and cost provides safety superior to a station[3]. I'd love to hear why a ship in space needs a module to make it immune to player interaction under any circumstances[4], much less on a semi-permanent basis[5].


1. Training for a non-CovOps cloak is trivial. Even training into a CovOps cloak is pretty trivial. But training into most CovOps ships isn't exactly trivial. The training limitation comes (in most cases) from the ship, not the module. (I'd just like to point out that docking in a station requires zero training.) (EDIT: Also important to note that the Covert Cyno is quite a long train, which is kind of a big deal given the whole Schrodinger's Hotdrop phenomena.)

2. Fitting a non-CovOps cloak to a non-bonused hull may be easy fittings-wise, but it does impart pretty heavy penalties for combat. CovOps ships generally have fewer slots and less fitting than their non-CovOps counterparts. So, again, the limitation from the CovOps cloak comes more from the ship than from the module. (Again, I'd like to point out that docking in a station requires zero fitting.)

3. In a station, literally the only thing that can happen to you in terms of asset destruction is the destruction of the station. Anything short of that, including improper inputs (aside from accidentally undocking), disconnecting, etc. and you're still safe. Cloaks are less safe than stations because they are more susceptible to input errors (which is, I will grant, a subjective observation), disconnects (you will be visible for brief periods while E-warping or logging back in from space), etc. Also, while in a station, you have the option of leaving the system unopposed by way of a jump clone, an option that is not available to a cloaked pilot without self-destructing their pod (and, presumable, sacrificing their ship).

4. If you are sitting stationary at a safe spot, alone on-grid, and nobody else managed to get a scan hit on you before you cloaked, yes, you are pretty much immune to player interaction under any circumstance.

Just like if you were in a station.

But the instant you warp somewhere, unless it is also an empty-grid safe spot that nobody else has managed to scan, you are subject to player (or environmental) interaction.

Warping to a belt? There's the chance of bouncing off of a 'roid or passing a ship, wreck, etc.

Warping to a gate? There a chance of passing too close to objects deliberately laid to decloak people.

And, of course, there are bubbles that can drag you specifically to land on a camp.

I will grant you that the odds of interaction are quite low, but they are not zero like they are in a station.

5. I do concede that being cloaked in a safe is something that you can do pretty much without interruption. But that's by design. Part of the reason that cloaks exist is specifically so players can do that. CCP has even said as much, so this point is pretty much irrelevant. (See my previous post.)


The way I see this, cloaking offers much of the protection of docking in a station while requiring more effort, more risk, and sacrifices in fitting (compared to flying non-cloaking ships). You risk more, and you get more rewards for it. You sacrifice performance in one area to gain more in another.


Yet, at no point did you address a Need for cloaks to provide that level of safety, nor a justification.

Plenty of ships require lots of training, have high costs, and/or are weak-to-incapable of combat. If none of them are immune to non-consensual PvP under any circumstance but using a cloak, what makes the cloak so special?
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#9073 - 2017-03-21 19:36:48 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
I'm still waiting to hear a solid argument for why a module with trivial training[1], fitting[2], and cost provides safety superior to a station[3]. I'd love to hear why a ship in space needs a module to make it immune to player interaction under any circumstances[4], much less on a semi-permanent basis[5].


1. Training for a non-CovOps cloak is trivial. Even training into a CovOps cloak is pretty trivial. But training into most CovOps ships isn't exactly trivial. The training limitation comes (in most cases) from the ship, not the module. (I'd just like to point out that docking in a station requires zero training.) (EDIT: Also important to note that the Covert Cyno is quite a long train, which is kind of a big deal given the whole Schrodinger's Hotdrop phenomena.)

2. Fitting a non-CovOps cloak to a non-bonused hull may be easy fittings-wise, but it does impart pretty heavy penalties for combat. CovOps ships generally have fewer slots and less fitting than their non-CovOps counterparts. So, again, the limitation from the CovOps cloak comes more from the ship than from the module. (Again, I'd like to point out that docking in a station requires zero fitting.)

3. In a station, literally the only thing that can happen to you in terms of asset destruction is the destruction of the station. Anything short of that, including improper inputs (aside from accidentally undocking), disconnecting, etc. and you're still safe. Cloaks are less safe than stations because they are more susceptible to input errors (which is, I will grant, a subjective observation), disconnects (you will be visible for brief periods while E-warping or logging back in from space), etc. Also, while in a station, you have the option of leaving the system unopposed by way of a jump clone, an option that is not available to a cloaked pilot without self-destructing their pod (and, presumable, sacrificing their ship).

4. If you are sitting stationary at a safe spot, alone on-grid, and nobody else managed to get a scan hit on you before you cloaked, yes, you are pretty much immune to player interaction under any circumstance.

Just like if you were in a station.

But the instant you warp somewhere, unless it is also an empty-grid safe spot that nobody else has managed to scan, you are subject to player (or environmental) interaction.

Warping to a belt? There's the chance of bouncing off of a 'roid or passing a ship, wreck, etc.

Warping to a gate? There a chance of passing too close to objects deliberately laid to decloak people.

And, of course, there are bubbles that can drag you specifically to land on a camp.

I will grant you that the odds of interaction are quite low, but they are not zero like they are in a station.

5. I do concede that being cloaked in a safe is something that you can do pretty much without interruption. But that's by design. Part of the reason that cloaks exist is specifically so players can do that. CCP has even said as much, so this point is pretty much irrelevant. (See my previous post.)


The way I see this, cloaking offers much of the protection of docking in a station while requiring more effort, more risk, and sacrifices in fitting (compared to flying non-cloaking ships). You risk more, and you get more rewards for it. You sacrifice performance in one area to gain more in another.


Yet, at no point did you address a Need for cloaks to provide that level of safety, nor a justification.

Plenty of ships require lots of training, have high costs, and/or are weak-to-incapable of combat. If none of them are immune to non-consensual PvP under any circumstance but using a cloak, what makes the cloak so special?


So points 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are clearly being conceded. The only remaining question is why is it justified.

And would you stop lying about being immune. If they were immune they'd not show up on the kill boards.

"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
#9074 - 2017-03-21 19:41:15 UTC
I will also add that your claim of immunity is pure baloney, and since it is baloney you have done literally nothing to show that cloaks are over powered. All we have is your self admitted "hyperbole" (i.e. lying). How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you use hyperbole vs. reasonable rhetoric. And then to whine about other people using fallacies....how truly pathetic.

"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
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#9075 - 2017-03-21 20:01:15 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Plenty of ships require lots of training, have high costs, and/or are weak-to-incapable of combat. If none of them are immune to non-consensual PvP under any circumstance but using a cloak, what makes the cloak so special?

When you acknowledge that cloaks only make ships immune to PvP under an exceedingly limited set of circumstances, we can discuss the justification necessary for that limited immunity.

Deal?

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#9076 - 2017-03-21 20:06:24 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
At what point does it matter if a ship is a threat to anyone. There are plenty of ships that are completely incapable of threatening anyone in any way, and far more that are not a credible threat to anyone in a combat ship. None of them deserve any special safety due to that weakness, nor for any training time they require. Harmlessness isn't a factor in if a ship in space should be safe from non-consensual PvP.

Really, really, really simple here...

If it's in space, it's subject to non-consensual PvP.

Cloaks do not meet this most basic standard of play. It's that simple.


All the red herrings about local, stations, drawbacks, etc... None of that is relevant so long as there is a ship in space that is immune to player interaction.


This has already be covered Mike. Those ships allow the player to have a direct effect on the game.

"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
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#9077 - 2017-03-21 21:08:52 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Plenty of ships require lots of training, have high costs, and/or are weak-to-incapable of combat. If none of them are immune to non-consensual PvP under any circumstance but using a cloak, what makes the cloak so special?

When you acknowledge that cloaks only make ships immune to PvP under an exceedingly limited set of circumstances, we can discuss the justification necessary for that limited immunity.

Deal?



Exceedingly limited? You mean the extremely common and most well known use for them?

They have an unreasonably high standard of safety for nearly any use where they might, through pilot error, be broken. For the level of safety they provide at a safe spot there isn't even that thin shred of justification.

I'm willing to listen, but seriously it needs to be a pretty solid reason.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#9078 - 2017-03-21 21:12:01 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
At what point does it matter if a ship is a threat to anyone. There are plenty of ships that are completely incapable of threatening anyone in any way, and far more that are not a credible threat to anyone in a combat ship. None of them deserve any special safety due to that weakness, nor for any training time they require. Harmlessness isn't a factor in if a ship in space should be safe from non-consensual PvP.

Really, really, really simple here...

If it's in space, it's subject to non-consensual PvP.

Cloaks do not meet this most basic standard of play. It's that simple.


All the red herrings about local, stations, drawbacks, etc... None of that is relevant so long as there is a ship in space that is immune to player interaction.


This has already be covered Mike. Those ships allow the player to have a direct effect on the game.


And has been covered, that's not where the bar to being subject to PvP lies. Is it in space? Then it should be at risk.

Not is it in space and doing something. If that were the case then just shutting off modules would be enough to grant immortality. Not is it in space and capable of doing something, because then Pods and Shuttles would be immortal.

In Space. That is all. Cloaks do not meet that standard.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#9079 - 2017-03-21 21:18:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
At what point does it matter if a ship is a threat to anyone. There are plenty of ships that are completely incapable of threatening anyone in any way, and far more that are not a credible threat to anyone in a combat ship. None of them deserve any special safety due to that weakness, nor for any training time they require. Harmlessness isn't a factor in if a ship in space should be safe from non-consensual PvP.

Really, really, really simple here...

If it's in space, it's subject to non-consensual PvP.

Cloaks do not meet this most basic standard of play. It's that simple.


All the red herrings about local, stations, drawbacks, etc... None of that is relevant so long as there is a ship in space that is immune to player interaction.


This has already be covered Mike. Those ships allow the player to have a direct effect on the game.


And has been covered, that's not where the bar to being subject to PvP lies. Is it in space? Then it should be at risk.

Not is it in space and doing something. If that were the case then just shutting off modules would be enough to grant immortality. Not is it in space and capable of doing something, because then Pods and Shuttles would be immortal.

In Space. That is all. Cloaks do not meet that standard.


Part of the problem is you are just too literal. PvP is not limited to just shooting the guy. PvP is pretty much everything in the game. You are almost always in competition with other players. To the extent that a cloaked guy in systems is "competing with you in terms of gathering resources" it is up to you to find a way around that. Rat/mine while in the standing fleet. Do it in the same anomaly if you need too. These are counter that renders the cloaked ships attempt to keep you from using your system useless. Competition in game can be either direct or indirect. Your insistence that it must always be direct is the issue.

Second when a cloaked ship is in space it can indeed end up being forced into non-consensual PvP. Go to zkillboard and look up the ship type Crane. Roll

OMG: 9 Crane's died yesterday....but, but, but Mike said they were immune when in space. Guess we can chalk this up to more lies.

Edit II: Oh no! 11 died the day before yesterday. Oh well, so much for Mike and his "immune in space." Oh wait, maybe they were killed in station. Yeah, that must be it. Roll

Edit the third: And 45 blockade runners were some how miraculously destroyed despite being immune while in space.

"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
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#9080 - 2017-03-21 21:22:18 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
I will also add that your claim of immunity is pure baloney, and since it is baloney you have done literally nothing to show that cloaks are over powered. All we have is your self admitted "hyperbole" (i.e. lying). How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you use hyperbole vs. reasonable rhetoric. And then to whine about other people using fallacies....how truly pathetic.

We covered overpowered a long time ago. You won it in fact, though you appear to be an exceedingly poor winner.

By the barest definition, the Devs decide what is overpowered. As the current uses of cloaks have been handwaved into being considered balanced, then balanced they are.

Good thing this is the forum for features and ideas, and this thread devoted to discussing the "topic of balance, changes, or feedback on the mechanic of using a cloak', rather than how things are. You are trying to win this with semantics, but even you must accept that a cloaked ship is immune to other players actions unless it gets within 2k of something- a circumstance completely under the control of the pilot of the cloaked ship. It does not have to be at a safe, it just needs to not run into things. I concede freely that the likelihood of that goes way up if the pilot chooses to move around, but it's still under that pilots control and cannot be influenced in any way by outside action.

I'd like to really understand how you can support a claim that cloaks are not 100% immune while at a safe, and still much, much safer than any other ship while using a cloak at other times.

Sure, ships with cloaks die, and sometimes foolish pilots run them into smartbomb camps or something even when the cloak is on... but nearly universally any situation that kills a cloaked ship (not just a ship with a cloak fit to it) would have killed or severely damaged any other ship as well.