open All Channels
seplocked Warfare & Tactics
blankseplocked AFK stealth bullying - redesigning the cloak
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 : last (16)

Author Topic

Mackenna
Amarr
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.07.27 18:06:00 - [331]
 

Originally by: Joe Starbreaker

SCENARIO 1: There is no local. You are a ratter/miner in your home systems, and I am an invader who has penetrated your defenses with a stealth bomber. When I want to play EVE, I log in, look for targets, and finding none, I log out.

SCENARIO 2: Local works. You are a ratter/miner in your home systems, and I am an invader who has penetrated your defenses with a stealth bomber. I log in every morning and leave the client running AFK all day. When I want to play EVE, I sit down at the computer, look for targets, and finding none, I leave the keyboard again and watch TV or something.

What's the meaningful difference?


The only meaningful difference is that in scenario 2, you are affecting the (often limited) game time of the people in system who want to engage you. Baiting someone who isn't there is a complete waste of time, after all.

Local is meaningless in both scenarios. Whether I notice that you're there as soon as I enter the system (scenario 2) or I see the info posted in an intel channel from someone who saw you on grid as you entered earlier (scenario 1).. I still know you're there.



B1FF
Posted - 2010.07.27 18:38:00 - [332]
 

Originally by: Mackenna

I maintain that stance. My words in many posts and indeed, my proposal back that up. I don't want to deny anyone a chance at combat in 0.0 space. My beef is that someone who isn't even at the console is keeping a system on alert and there is not a thing I can realistically do about it unless this person consents to pvp.


Two points.

First:
You could just dealert. You're giving them the power. Why give this one person control over many people? It one ******** ship. If you can't handle an attack by one ship then you don't control that space. I just don't understand how one person can disrupt a whole system of people. Assuming a worst case scenario with a fleet of haulers and miners you need one tackler/jammer to deal with the cloaker. But hey shutting down the system works too.

Second:
Eve never has been and never will be safe. Even in space you control.


B1FF
Posted - 2010.07.27 18:46:00 - [333]
 

Originally by: Mackenna
I see the info posted in an intel channel from someone who saw you on grid as you entered earlier


What if noone sees them on the grid as they enter?

Even if they are seen what if they leave and you don't see them leave?

Even if they are seen what if they log and you don't know they did?

Induc
Amarr
Posted - 2010.07.27 19:03:00 - [334]
 

Originally by: Mackenna
The only meaningful difference is that in scenario 2, you are affecting the (often limited) game time of the people in system who want to engage you. Baiting someone who isn't there is a complete waste of time, after all.

But that is the whole point of afk cloaking, making sure you don't know if they're there or not. You can't say you're wasting your time baiting the "alleged" afk cloaker, because you have no idea if he's actually afk or just not stupid enough to take your bait.

The difference between scenario 1 and 2 is that in scenario 2 you get intel without any effort and in scenario 1 you actually need scouts and intel channels. And you can't be sure that the cloaker that entered your system has left unless you have scouts at every exit gate.

Also when you think about it, does it really make sense that you are searching for a cloaked ship in your system? He's cloaked right? So why should you know he's there? Removing local would give covert operations a whole new meaning...

Mackenna
Amarr
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.07.27 19:05:00 - [335]
 

Before I waste my time answering these mostly irrelevant questions, please keep in mind that the discussion is about the merits of changing the way cloaks work.

Originally by: B1FF
What if noone sees them on the grid as they enter?


The point is that your appearance on grid as you enter or leave a system is just as infallible a source of intel as Local chat is, as long as someone is watching.

Originally by: B1FF
Even if they are seen what if they leave and you don't see them leave?


See above.

Originally by: B1FF

Even if they are seen what if they log and you don't know they did?


The Watch List of your Contacts List will answer that question.



B1FF
Posted - 2010.07.27 19:11:00 - [336]
 

Originally by: Mackenna
Before I waste my time answering these mostly irrelevant questions, please keep in mind that the discussion is about the merits of changing the way cloaks work.


Oh this is agenda not discussion. Ignoring flaws with your arguements doesn't solve anything. Sure the things you say are true in your completely fiction world of perfect intel of eveything going across the gate. You can't handle one person to guard but you can have one person on each side of every gate this is just nonsensical.

Since there's no hope of discussion here I'll just leave with this.

Stop giving these people power. Look at the subject line. They're AFK. They can't hurt you. That's what AFK means.

You have all the control. Stop giving it up.

Mackenna
Amarr
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.07.27 19:41:00 - [337]
 

Edited by: Mackenna on 27/07/2010 21:09:48
Originally by: Induc

The difference between scenario 1 and 2 is that in scenario 2 you get intel without any effort and in scenario 1 you actually need scouts and intel channels. And you can't be sure that the cloaker that entered your system has left unless you have scouts at every exit gate.



You probably didn't read it, but keep in mind that my proposal could have people mashing the scan button for up 8.5 hours trying to nail down a cloaker's location..even if you had 10 people doing it together...and the cloaked pilot would be able to completely avoid being scanned down if he/she were at the keyboard when it happened.

But that's probably not enough effort for you.

Originally by: Induc

Also when you think about it, does it really make sense that you are searching for a cloaked ship in your system? He's cloaked right? So why should you know he's there? Removing local would give covert operations a whole new meaning...



Internet Hide and Seek

I'd prefer something with more combat and less "haha, I found you" grab ass, honestly.




Abbot Laarkin
Order Of Mystical Mountain Monks
Posted - 2010.07.27 19:49:00 - [338]
 

Edited by: Abbot Laarkin on 27/07/2010 20:00:59
Originally by: Mackenna
Originally by: Tyriana McLoren
A CLOAKING SHIP is meant to CLOAK.


And a CLOAKING DEVICE exists to counter PROBES and SCANNERS, not LOCAL CHAT, which it has no effect on. Saying that you AFK CLOAK to "diminish the effects of Local-Chat intel" is ignorant an irrelevant because your cloak doesn't affect Local Chat. It keeps on humming away doing what it does regardless.




*Sighs*

You still seem to be unable to understand the basic principal of AFK cloaking.

There is a goal for the cloaker...To kill someone engaged in PvE activities, or similar.

There is a major impediment to this goal....Cloakers appearance in Local (allowing Said PvE pilots to dock/ log/ SS/ Pos etc. without any real effort on their part).

There is an obvious workaround (tactic) to offset this advantage.....AFK Cloak until such time as the PvE pilot becomes bored, frustrated or complacent, and returns to the belt/ plex/ whatever.

This is brought to you by the same methods of reasoning that make Blobbing prevalent,it is an obvious and effective response to game mechanics.
Likewise suicide-ganking..
Spider-tanking..
Sniping...
Smartbombing.
And so on..

All the above are tactics developed in response to using the available mechanics in order to fulfil a desired goal.
Just as AFK cloaking is a tactic developed to achieve a desired goal within the framework of the existing mechanics. It's success, and these threads on the forums show it to be successful, is due to the fact that many pilots simply don't have the initiative to look beyond Local chat when it comes to their own defence.

Whether this is due to ignorance, laziness, lack of imagination, or some combination of these is unimportant. Anything which counters the "safety blanket" that is local-Intel destroys the confidence of those incapable of dealing with a situation creatively. These people will make mistakes, they will rage against the cloaker, and they will whine incessantly about how it is "unfair".

You want fair? Remove local and re-work probing/ scanners/cloaks/ plexes/ rats etc.

But I suppose the removal of local would possibly be far too scary for many, after all how the hell is a Bot supposed to work if it can't monitor Local chat any more? (I have minimal knowledge of bots, but if I understand correctly they are linked to using local as the cue for warp-out?).

Whatever your actual goal, stating that Local has nothing to do with AFK cloaking is utterly absurd.

As it stands now cloaks are fine. The tactics involved in their use may be imperfect, but until such time as Local+probing+scanners are looked into or overhauled, then cloaking should not be messed about with.

If cloaks are "broken" then so to is local, if Local is fine so to are cloaks. This is of course a matter of opinion, but don't touch one unless you are prepared to touch the other.

Peace.


Mackenna
Amarr
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.07.27 20:11:00 - [339]
 

Originally by: B1FF
Ignoring flaws with your arguements doesn't solve anything. Sure the things you say are true in your completely fiction world of perfect intel of eveything going across the gate.



Take a step back. Now try think for a moment..and I mean really think. Go beyond trying to shoot devil's-advocate-quips from the hip and picture the game as it would be if Local were removed.

Without posting scouts, a 200-ship blob could waltz right through buffer systems, into the heart of your sovereign space, undetected. With no warning, everyone would have to do the best they could in whatever ship they were piloting at the time it happened.

Do you honestly think that in that scenario, sov-holding alliances would not require scout duty on the gates?

That is why I'd expect intel to continue to flow as much as it does now. An alliance in the above scenario that didn't bother to post scouts would not maintain sovereignty very long.

Abbot Laarkin
Order Of Mystical Mountain Monks
Posted - 2010.07.27 20:20:00 - [340]
 

Edited by: Abbot Laarkin on 27/07/2010 20:23:29
Originally by: Mackenna
Originally by: B1FF
Ignoring flaws with your arguements doesn't solve anything. Sure the things you say are true in your completely fiction world of perfect intel of eveything going across the gate.



Take a step back. Now try think for a moment..and I mean really think. Go beyond trying to shoot devil's-advocate-quips from the hip and picture the game as it would be if Local were removed.

Without posting scouts, a 200-ship blob could waltz right through buffer systems, into the heart of your sovereign space, undetected. With no warning, everyone would have to do the best they could in whatever ship they were piloting at the time it happened.

Do you honestly think that in that scenario, sov-holding alliances would not require scout duty on the gates?

That is why I'd expect intel to continue to flow as much as it does now. An alliance in the above scenario that didn't bother to post scouts would not maintain sovereignty very long.



You say this as if it is a bad thing?

Personally I consider it ideal, after all that same 200-ship blob has no idea what is waiting for it unless it uses scouts itself.(Go figure, the better prepared/ organised players gain an advantage? Surely notRazz)
In this scenario the balance of power would shift to the defending alliance, it's your home, you should be aware of the risks and be in a position to raise (or maintain) a defence reasonable quickly.

If you are incapable of doing so for some reason then perhaps you should not be in null?

You keep only that which you are strong enough to defend. This to my mind is the underlying principle of null-sec, I'm prepared to "work" to defend what I have.....are you?


Peace.

Mackenna
Amarr
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.07.27 20:36:00 - [341]
 

Edited by: Mackenna on 27/07/2010 20:53:29
Originally by: Abbot Laarkin

*Sighs*

You still seem to be unable to understand the basic principal of AFK cloaking.



I've understood it from the first day I stepped foot in 0.0 space. All of your condescending fluff aside, it is absolutely not necessary to cloak and go afk to desensitize people to your presence.

You could achieve the same goal without needing to cloak at all.

Pilot A: There's a red in the system.
Pilot B: He's been there all day, probably afk.
Pilot A: Has he dropped on anyone?
Pilot B: I haven't heard anything.

- or -

Pilot A: Hey, a red just entered the system.
Pilot B: He's been doing that all day.
Pilot A: Has he dropped on anyone?
Pilot B: No. Just hits bunch of safe spots and leaves.

Same result. The unwary, apathetic, and stupid will ignore the presence of the enemy regardless of how it is done.

I KNOW you can't be arsed to pilot around... I KNOW that cloaking and then going AFK to wait for targets is easier, and thus, is the method that is chosen.

But that does not mean that you must AFK Cloak because Local Chat shows your mug.

I have a goal.

I want to engage someone sitting in my home system in combat.

There is a major impediment to this goal....The person in question appears to be logged in and available for glorious internet spaceship combat. But he isn't.. he's watching TV or doing terrible things to his house pets.

I made a proposal that allows me to do that after a significant combination of effort on my part and serious afk (to the point of complete neglect) on the part of the person cloaked.

Your response, all smugness and unwarranted condescension aside, has been "I won't support that unless we first turn the entire game into "Internet Galactic Hide-N-Seek".

Mackenna
Amarr
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.07.27 20:53:00 - [342]
 

Edited by: Mackenna on 27/07/2010 21:10:49
Originally by: Abbot Laarkin

You say this as if it is a bad thing?



Tell the truth... you hit the quote button, type in "You don't belong in 0.0", and then pick out a few sentences to attempt to give it some context before you hit the post button, don't you?

I didn't make a call on this one way or the other in my post, honestly. The point of the response was directed at B1FF, who I quoted.....for context.....which you missed completely.

I'll spare you the pain of trying to figure it out:
  • B1FF finds it impossible to believe that Alliances holding sovereignty would force their members to take turns as scouts if Local were changed.

  • I disagree. I believe that anyone holding anything of value would naturally want to make sure they had as much warning as they reasonably could get. If Local were gone and with it, the ability to track enemy blobs throughout an entire region via a common channel, much emphasis would be put on gate watching.



Are you with me now?



Abbot Laarkin
Order Of Mystical Mountain Monks
Posted - 2010.07.27 21:11:00 - [343]
 

Originally by: Mackenna

I made a proposal that allows me to do that after a significant combination of effort on my part and serious afk (to the point of complete neglect) on the part of the person cloaked.

Your response, all smugness and unwarranted condescension aside, has been "I won't support that unless we first turn the entire game into "Internet Galactic Hide-N-Seek".



The smugness I suppose would come from the fact that AFK cloakers don't bother me, I kill the ones I can kill and largely ignore the ones I can't. Honestly don't have a problem with it.

The condescension however was unintended, and possibly stems from my inexperience with " public speaking" as it were. If you have construed this as a personal attack on my part then I apologise.Embarassed

That said, "internet galactic Hide-and-seek" sounds like fun to me. I'm often a scout for my corp, it's a style of gameplay that I find both challenging and enjoyable. Obviously others would disagree, that's fine, each to their own. But you are arguing for a type of gameplay that suits you, I am simply responding in kind.

I've spent a lot of time in W-space, partaking of both PvE and PvP. The lack of local is stimulating and adds considerably to the enjoyment. While I realise that to make null sec the same is most likely out of the question, I would dearly love to see something similar in place.

I will continue to "champion" the removal of local in null sec, allied to a complete re-vamp of cloaks/ probes/ d-scan (and possibly rat A.I.), simply because I believe it would vastly improve the game.
This is my opinion, many would disagree. No problem with that, we all pay our money to play as we will.

My main problem with Local is that it is just too easy. Both for the defender and the attacker. I'd like to see a situation where both the examples you cited would be either impossible or largely ineffective.
How to achieve this is beyond me, I'm not a game dev (much to many peoples relief), but from my W-space experience I honestly believe the removal of local would be a good starting point, but it would in no way be the only step required.


Peace.

Joe Starbreaker
M. Corp
Posted - 2010.07.27 21:42:00 - [344]
 

Originally by: Mackenna
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker

SCENARIO 1: There is no local. You are a ratter/miner in your home systems, and I am an invader who has penetrated your defenses with a stealth bomber. When I want to play EVE, I log in, look for targets, and finding none, I log out.

SCENARIO 2: Local works. You are a ratter/miner in your home systems, and I am an invader who has penetrated your defenses with a stealth bomber. I log in every morning and leave the client running AFK all day. When I want to play EVE, I sit down at the computer, look for targets, and finding none, I leave the keyboard again and watch TV or something.

What's the meaningful difference?


The only meaningful difference is that in scenario 2, you are affecting the (often limited) game time of the people in system who want to engage you. Baiting someone who isn't there is a complete waste of time, after all.

Local is meaningless in both scenarios. Whether I notice that you're there as soon as I enter the system (scenario 2) or I see the info posted in an intel channel from someone who saw you on grid as you entered earlier (scenario 1).. I still know you're there.

What a way to confuse subject and object, cause and effect! Someone who is AFK does not affect the gameplay of others. Others react to the AFK player. You then say that local is meaningless, but if it were taken away then alliances would implement entirely new mandatory intelligence-gathering activities. So is it meaningless, or meaningful? Apparently, your answer is Yes.

The real substantive difference between the scenarios is that in SCENARIO #1 everyone is well-accustomed to dealing with surprise PVP, and they have already factored uncertainty into their gameplay. This affects the ships they choose, the way they cooperate and communicate, etc. In SCENARIO #2, many players (such as yourself) are accustomed to the certainty of absolute safety, and are neither willing nor able to deal with danger and uncertainty. Some of them adapt. Others come on the forums and whine.

Mackenna
Amarr
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.07.27 23:11:00 - [345]
 

Originally by: Joe Starbreaker

What a way to confuse subject and object, cause and effect! Someone who is AFK does not affect the gameplay of others. Others react to the AFK player.



You'll find quote after quote in this thread from people who gush about how much fun it is to intimidate others by cloaking up in their systems.

Originally by: Joe Starbreaker

You then say that local is meaningless, but if it were taken away then alliances would implement entirely new mandatory intelligence-gathering activities. So is it meaningless, or meaningful? Apparently, your answer is Yes.



Context is everything, Joe. You provided one example where Local provided intel and one where it didn't.

How meaningful is something that can be readily replaced by a change in protocol? How hard is it to park an alt 350km off of the hostile side of the first gate in the pipe and notice when something (or especially a blob of somethings) pops up red as it warps in and activates it?

Add to that the small horde of people who've come in here saying that they only afk-cloak because of the intel that local provides and you may start to see why I once again stated that local intel is meaningless to this discussion.

Originally by: Joe Starbreaker

The real substantive difference between the scenarios is that in SCENARIO #1 everyone is well-accustomed to dealing with surprise PVP, and they have already factored uncertainty into their gameplay. This affects the ships they choose, the way they cooperate and communicate, etc.



B.S. Anyone with anything to lose is going to make sure they get as much warning as they can in order to set up a defense.

Originally by: Joe Starbreaker

In SCENARIO #2, many players (such as yourself) are accustomed to the certainty of absolute safety, and are neither willing nor able to deal with danger and uncertainty. Some of them adapt. Others come on the forums and whine.



There must be some official Idiot's MMO forum playbook that I managed to miss my free copy of, because I'm increasingly certain that you chuckle-heads all use the same one.

Some examples of this idiotic lunacy follow:

  • Apparently, proposing a change to the game, regardless of how much thought you put into it, is just whining.

    (caveat: unless you don't like having to deal with the consequences of being a d*** to new subscribers in empire)
    Joe doesn't want to adapt.


  • Despite the fact that this is a game, an MMO, advertised as being the most player-driven one ever conceived, with regular changes provided by the developers that include (often comprehensive) changes to the mechanics, you somehow find it acceptable to say utter **** like "Adapt!"

    Your cute little toe-stab into the waters of a dark, brooding Machiavellian fantasy is just that, Mr. Internet bad-ass.



  • People who support and defend a claim out in the wild edges of the game are apparently care-bears who just want to PVE in peace. It's not like they run around blowing other people's s*** up or anything.

    Conversely, people who set up an alt with a cloaked ship, log in and out of enemy space every day ensuring that all of their PvP is consensual, are predators.


  • The TL;DR mentality is so pervasive that you'll probably (well, you probably will if you don't read this bullet item) respond to the previous item as if it were my actual thoughts, as opposed to the heavy sarcasm that it actually is.




Mackenna
Amarr
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.07.27 23:19:00 - [346]
 

Edited by: Mackenna on 27/07/2010 23:19:39
Originally by: Abbot Laarkin

That said, "internet galactic Hide-and-seek" sounds like fun to me. I'm often a scout for my corp, it's a style of gameplay that I find both challenging and enjoyable. Obviously others would disagree, that's fine, each to their own. But you are arguing for a type of gameplay that suits you, I am simply responding in kind.

I've spent a lot of time in W-space, partaking of both PvE and PvP. The lack of local is stimulating and adds considerably to the enjoyment. While I realise that to make null sec the same is most likely out of the question, I would dearly love to see something similar in place.

I will continue to "champion" the removal of local in null sec, allied to a complete re-vamp of cloaks/ probes/ d-scan (and possibly rat A.I.), simply because I believe it would vastly improve the game.
This is my opinion, many would disagree. No problem with that, we all pay our money to play as we will.

My main problem with Local is that it is just too easy. Both for the defender and the attacker. I'd like to see a situation where both the examples you cited would be either impossible or largely ineffective.
How to achieve this is beyond me, I'm not a game dev (much to many peoples relief), but from my W-space experience I honestly believe the removal of local would be a good starting point, but it would in no way be the only step required.

Peace.



Abbot,

Well said. Thanks for giving your opinion on this.

You certainly have my respect for a well-stated, enlightening contribution to the discussion.

Tyriana McLoren
Caldari
The Republic of Free Trade
Posted - 2010.07.28 00:19:00 - [347]
 

Edited by: Tyriana McLoren on 28/07/2010 00:20:02
Dude is obviously a troll. And most likely he is Voith. They both have no logic at all.
Originally by: Mackenna
Originally by: Tyriana McLoren
You, once again just like Voith, only tend to see what you want to see/read in only 1 sentence out of many blocks of words.
This is called, or rather related to, selective hearing. But seeing as how you don't know a single thing about how things related to one another, we'll just let it go at the simple and obvious conclusion that you are infact weetawded. Period. Full Stop. End of Story.

You just described exactly what you did: You attacked a (sarcastic) analogy, ignoring the direct statement below it. I'll let it go and repeat the salient point you ignore:

If local were removed, you'd still be cloaking as much as you do now and for the same reasons, as well.
No, you replied with 2 idiotic statements. One which you now deem (sarcastic) and another of which I've never even said in this entire post. I have not once stated that cloaking was a byproduct of local. I was trying to get your simplistic mind to realize that you were wrong when you said there was no connection between the two at all... and along those lines, I've been arguing against the original gripe of AFK cloakers. You've come in as Johnny-comelately spewing about cloaking in general. So get your facts straight. That is why I did not respond to you second comment... because it wasn't relevant to what I was originally trying to get you to see/understand. Which just proves what you quoted from me above, you don't actually read. What's wrong? No pictures to water it down for you?

Quote:
Yet even with that, you'll continue to claim that you only use this tactic because of local insta-updates.And a CLOAKING DEVICE exists to counter PROBES and SCANNERS, not LOCAL CHAT, which it has no effect on. Saying that you AFK CLOAK to "diminish the effects of Local-Chat intel" is ignorant an irrelevant because your cloak doesn't affect Local Chat. It keeps on humming away doing what it does regardless.

Again 'with that' you simply fail at all of your 'logic' in that you don't actually read what's posted by the people responding. I have never said that I use cloaking because of local chat. You are confusing me with some of the others in here.
So, you can now TROLL away. I've got a wall sitting next to me that seems to learn faster than you.

Lia'Vael
Caldari
Migrant Fleet
Posted - 2010.07.28 00:41:00 - [348]
 

Originally by: Mackenna

You'll find quote after quote in this thread from people who gush about how much fun it is to intimidate others by cloaking up in their systems.


One moment here I'll stop you there, taunting and goading other players and their reactions to their taunting has nothing to do with how cloaking is. That is purely socialization and if someone does not wish to interact with them through chat they can ignore them. Pull your head from out your bum and clean your ears. AFK means away from keyboard therefore interaction with others is null.

now you may continue

Joe Starbreaker
M. Corp
Posted - 2010.07.28 02:25:00 - [349]
 

Edited by: Joe Starbreaker on 28/07/2010 02:25:55
Originally by: Mackenna
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
What a way to confuse subject and object, cause and effect! Someone who is AFK does not affect the gameplay of others. Others react to the AFK player.
You'll find quote after quote in this thread from people who gush about how much fun it is to intimidate others by cloaking up in their systems.
Yes. The intimidation is a reaction. It is driven by the people reacting. No one who is AFK is forcing you to react in a particular way. Don't confuse subject and object. I believe Sun Tzu had a good bit about strategies that prompt the enemy to react in error.
Quote:
How meaningful is something that can be readily replaced by a change in protocol? How hard is it to park an alt 350km off of the hostile side of the first gate in the pipe and notice when something (or especially a blob of somethings) pops up red as it warps in and activates it?
What are you talking about here? The particular "change in protocol" you propose is the difference between (A) lazy solo players doing PVE with perfect safety in their faction-fit trophy ships without checking intel channels, and (B) an organized, cautious alliance enforcing intel channel discipline and apparently paying players to man several observation posts throughout their space; space which would necessarily be limited in expanse by the onerous burden of intel and defense.

The only people for whom this would be "just a meaningless change of protocol" are the people programming PVE bots. Given what you're trying to achieve with this post, Voith, it seems that that's exactly what you want to do.
Quote:
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
In SCENARIO #2, many players (such as yourself) are accustomed to the certainty of absolute safety, and are neither willing nor able to deal with danger and uncertainty.
There must be some official Idiot's MMO forum playbook that I managed to miss my free copy of
Seems like I touched a nerve!

Mackenna
Amarr
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.07.28 03:38:00 - [350]
 

Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
Seems like I touched a nerve!


Now that you've made the purpose of your visit to this thread nice and clear, I can move on to paying attention to people who actually want to discuss the game.

Thanks.

IbanezLaney
Caldari
Dingo took my corp name
Posted - 2010.07.28 04:30:00 - [351]
 

Lots of people seem to hate afk cloaks but still no one has properly explained with a legit reason why the cloaks need a nerf.

How does someone afk cloaked affect your game?
Why does a cloaked player suddenly become more dangerous when they leave their computer?

The cloaks are a great feature and if someone has gone to the effort of training for them they should retain all the features they trained for.
They also have other uses apart from creating imaginary fear in people.

Whats next - want the planets and stars to be removed cause they are just sitting there too with no one controlling them???? OMG I'M SO SCARED OF THEM. GET RID OF EM NOWWWW.

Then again - maybe it would be ok to nerf the cloak if a fair nerf was applied to say mining modules like - mining lazors switch off for no reason after a time period just like some people want cloaks to do.
Same problem, same fix.
It would stop some of those pesky people from going afk which is apparently very scary.



Lia'Vael
Caldari
Migrant Fleet
Posted - 2010.07.28 06:56:00 - [352]
 

Originally by: IbanezLaney
Lots of people seem to hate afk cloaks but still no one has properly explained with a legit reason why the cloaks need a nerf.

How does someone afk cloaked affect your game?
Why does a cloaked player suddenly become more dangerous when they leave their computer?

The cloaks are a great feature and if someone has gone to the effort of training for them they should retain all the features they trained for.
They also have other uses apart from creating imaginary fear in people.

Whats next - want the planets and stars to be removed cause they are just sitting there too with no one controlling them???? OMG I'M SO SCARED OF THEM. GET RID OF EM NOWWWW.

Then again - maybe it would be ok to nerf the cloak if a fair nerf was applied to say mining modules like - mining lazors switch off for no reason after a time period just like some people want cloaks to do.
Same problem, same fix.
It would stop some of those pesky people from going afk which is apparently very scary.


Someone AFK does not affect the game in any way, cloaked or not they do nothing and are nothing.

Now just because someone who is AFK has fitted a cloak is absolutely no reason to change the cloak without implementing an afk kick feature, the "AFK cloaker" is just a thinly veiled complaint to change the cloak mechanics with no real basis to their arguments. The problem with some people is that local shows a red and people that are either running bots or are not fit for 0.0 at all will complain, in EVE you are not safe in high sec how would you be safe in null? Sane people would adapt and utilize alliance resources and group together.

The cloaks are balanced as is, they have drawbacks and are about as frightening as a fluffy little bunny rabbit newborn. The cloak specialized ships require a different approach of thought and as such tactics which utilize their strengths.

TL;DR People are trying to use a false angle (AFK players) to change something which isn't a problem to begin with (cloaks) because they're nullbears/idiots/pathetic/botting.

159Pinky
Trans-Solar Works
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2010.07.28 09:00:00 - [353]
 

Edited by: 159Pinky on 28/07/2010 09:01:05
Originally by: Mackenna

The only meaningful difference is that in scenario 2, you are affecting the (often limited) game time of the people in system who want to engage you. Baiting someone who isn't there is a complete waste of time, after all.

Local is meaningless in both scenarios. Whether I notice that you're there as soon as I enter the system (scenario 2) or I see the info posted in an intel channel from someone who saw you on grid as you entered earlier (scenario 1).. I still know you're there.




If you want to fight: there are other ways to get them than baiting a single person in system ( who may or may not be afkk ) to gank him when he agresses you. Oh and, if after 30 minutes the guys still doesn't attack your bait, why continue to bait? Just keep doing what you were doing before.

Wrong, with local active everyone can see who enters, and the only tools they, the players, need is a) common sense to have the window open and b) common sense to pay attention to the window.
When local is removed it becomes far less easy: you will need dedicated scouts = alts who aren't doing anything else ( mining, ratting , ... ) = a loss of income. And those scouts are far less accurate than local, you can always miss a person coming through. And there's a delay on it: you need to spread the intel through the correct channels = requires the alliance to have some structure to pass the word. And above that you, as a player, need is a) common sense to have the intel chat open and b) common sense to pay attention to the chat.

Conclusion: with local only the player needs a certain attitude; without local you will need a player attitude and an corp / alliance / nap fest / .... structure to gather intel.

Sir Asterix
Posted - 2010.07.28 11:48:00 - [354]
 

Seems to me the solution to catching AFK cloakers is to creat a device that sends a pulse of energy through the system de-cloaking any cloaked vessels. AFK cloakers will re-main de-cloaked as no one is present to re-activate the cloak and active players will simply activate their cloaks.


159Pinky
Trans-Solar Works
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2010.07.28 12:57:00 - [355]
 

Originally by: Sir Asterix
Seems to me the solution to catching AFK cloakers is to creat a device that sends a pulse of energy through the system de-cloaking any cloaked vessels. AFK cloakers will re-main de-cloaked as no one is present to re-activate the cloak and active players will simply activate their cloaks.




The problem with this suggestion is that ppl will use it to catch all cloakers. You can anchor 10 bubbles on a small gate so any ship that comes in has to fly a few km before leaving the bubbles and warping off. Right now you can move trough with a cloaky ship without getting cought because you hit cloak and evade the ships lookking for you( this is a skill if you're only with a few ships and will also put that ship at risk [ it's in the bubble after all ] ).

With your proposition you just sit at medium - long range, the moment someone comes in and cloaks up you hit the device and boom there goes that one. So this will make gatecamping so much easier. ( Because: there is a reactivation delay on the cloak, and once you're locked = no more cloaking )

So I don't really like your idea ugh


Mackenna
Amarr
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.07.28 13:38:00 - [356]
 

Originally by: 159Pinky
Originally by: Sir Asterix
Seems to me the solution to catching AFK cloakers is to creat a device that sends a pulse of energy through the system de-cloaking any cloaked vessels. AFK cloakers will re-main de-cloaked as no one is present to re-activate the cloak and active players will simply activate their cloaks.




The problem with this suggestion is that ppl will use it to catch all cloakers. You can anchor 10 bubbles on a small gate so any ship that comes in has to fly a few km before leaving the bubbles and warping off. Right now you can move trough with a cloaky ship without getting cought because you hit cloak and evade the ships lookking for you( this is a skill if you're only with a few ships and will also put that ship at risk [ it's in the bubble after all ] ).

With your proposition you just sit at medium - long range, the moment someone comes in and cloaks up you hit the device and boom there goes that one. So this will make gatecamping so much easier. ( Because: there is a reactivation delay on the cloak, and once you're locked = no more cloaking )

So I don't really like your idea ugh



If the cool down on the "pulse device" were longer than the current cloaking reactivation delay, this would not be the case. At worst, the cloaked pilot may have to hit the button one more time (than they do now) while motoring away from a gate camp.

I could support this.

Danny Lonnegan
Caldari
United Amarr Templar Legion
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2010.07.28 14:30:00 - [357]
 

Originally by: Mackenna
Originally by: 159Pinky
Originally by: Sir Asterix
Seems to me the solution to catching AFK cloakers is to creat a device that sends a pulse of energy through the system de-cloaking any cloaked vessels. AFK cloakers will re-main de-cloaked as no one is present to re-activate the cloak and active players will simply activate their cloaks.




The problem with this suggestion is that ppl will use it to catch all cloakers. You can anchor 10 bubbles on a small gate so any ship that comes in has to fly a few km before leaving the bubbles and warping off. Right now you can move trough with a cloaky ship without getting cought because you hit cloak and evade the ships lookking for you( this is a skill if you're only with a few ships and will also put that ship at risk [ it's in the bubble after all ] ).

With your proposition you just sit at medium - long range, the moment someone comes in and cloaks up you hit the device and boom there goes that one. So this will make gatecamping so much easier. ( Because: there is a reactivation delay on the cloak, and once you're locked = no more cloaking )

So I don't really like your idea ugh



If the cool down on the "pulse device" were longer than the current cloaking reactivation delay, this would not be the case. At worst, the cloaked pilot may have to hit the button one more time (than they do now) while motoring away from a gate camp.

I could support this.

Wait, what? No, that's not the worst that would happen. The worst that would happen is that the cloaked ship--which has the hit points of a box kite--is decloaked for 30 seconds in a bubble with a hostile gate camp targeting him. Once he's locked, he can't recloak, but that doesn't really matter because he won't live 30 seconds anyway.

Unless the decloaking pulse has a long cooldown or doesn't effect ships at stargates, it would indeed make bubble camps even more effective than they already are.

Mackenna
Amarr
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.07.28 15:00:00 - [358]
 

Originally by: Danny Lonnegan
Originally by: Mackenna
Originally by: 159Pinky
Originally by: Sir Asterix
Seems to me the solution to catching AFK cloakers is to creat a device that sends a pulse of energy through the system de-cloaking any cloaked vessels. AFK cloakers will re-main de-cloaked as no one is present to re-activate the cloak and active players will simply activate their cloaks.




The problem with this suggestion is that ppl will use it to catch all cloakers. You can anchor 10 bubbles on a small gate so any ship that comes in has to fly a few km before leaving the bubbles and warping off. Right now you can move trough with a cloaky ship without getting cought because you hit cloak and evade the ships lookking for you( this is a skill if you're only with a few ships and will also put that ship at risk [ it's in the bubble after all ] ).

With your proposition you just sit at medium - long range, the moment someone comes in and cloaks up you hit the device and boom there goes that one. So this will make gatecamping so much easier. ( Because: there is a reactivation delay on the cloak, and once you're locked = no more cloaking )

So I don't really like your idea ugh



If the cool down on the "pulse device" were longer than the current cloaking reactivation delay, this would not be the case. At worst, the cloaked pilot may have to hit the button one more time (than they do now) while motoring away from a gate camp.

I could support this.

Wait, what? No, that's not the worst that would happen. The worst that would happen is that the cloaked ship--which has the hit points of a box kite--is decloaked for 30 seconds in a bubble with a hostile gate camp targeting him. Once he's locked, he can't recloak, but that doesn't really matter because he won't live 30 seconds anyway.

Unless the decloaking pulse has a long cooldown or doesn't effect ships at stargates, it would indeed make bubble camps even more effective than they already are.


Well, there's probably more to it than this.

I made the assumption that this proposed device was not going to be a ship's module. The assumption here is that it would be part of an outpost or perhaps the industrial hub. This means, among other things, that to do this with a gate camp would mean coordinating over voice with someone at the hub or outpost: "Hit it now, Bill!" The inherent lag in voice communication is probably enough to make it not-so-viable at a gate camp, but I still get your point and I'm not trying to nerf everyone's ability to cloak.

So, yes.. a safe cloaking zone, say a 100km bubble around the gate, where the pulse didn't work would still be fine.




Voith
Posted - 2010.07.29 03:29:00 - [359]
 

Originally by: Tyriana McLoren
Edited by: Tyriana McLoren on 28/07/2010 00:20:02
Dude is obviously a troll. And most likely he is Voith. They both have no logic at all.
Originally by: Mackenna
Originally by: Tyriana McLoren
You, once again just like Voith, only tend to see what you want to see/read in only 1 sentence out of many blocks of words.
This is called, or rather related to, selective hearing. But seeing as how you don't know a single thing about how things related to one another, we'll just let it go at the simple and obvious conclusion that you are infact weetawded. Period. Full Stop. End of Story.

You just described exactly what you did: You attacked a (sarcastic) analogy, ignoring the direct statement below it. I'll let it go and repeat the salient point you ignore:

If local were removed, you'd still be cloaking as much as you do now and for the same reasons, as well.
No, you replied with 2 idiotic statements. One which you now deem (sarcastic) and another of which I've never even said in this entire post. I have not once stated that cloaking was a byproduct of local. I was trying to get your simplistic mind to realize that you were wrong when you said there was no connection between the two at all... and along those lines, I've been arguing against the original gripe of AFK cloakers. You've come in as Johnny-comelately spewing about cloaking in general. So get your facts straight. That is why I did not respond to you second comment... because it wasn't relevant to what I was originally trying to get you to see/understand. Which just proves what you quoted from me above, you don't actually read. What's wrong? No pictures to water it down for you?

Quote:
Yet even with that, you'll continue to claim that you only use this tactic because of local insta-updates.And a CLOAKING DEVICE exists to counter PROBES and SCANNERS, not LOCAL CHAT, which it has no effect on. Saying that you AFK CLOAK to "diminish the effects of Local-Chat intel" is ignorant an irrelevant because your cloak doesn't affect Local Chat. It keeps on humming away doing what it does regardless.

Again 'with that' you simply fail at all of your 'logic' in that you don't actually read what's posted by the people responding. I have never said that I use cloaking because of local chat. You are confusing me with some of the others in here.
So, you can now TROLL away. I've got a wall sitting next to me that seems to learn faster than you.


Thats right, everyone who calls your bull**** is secretly me in disguise.

WE'RE BATMAN!

Xorv
Posted - 2010.07.29 07:25:00 - [360]
 

Originally by: Sir Asterix
Seems to me the solution to catching AFK cloakers is to creat a device that sends a pulse of energy through the system de-cloaking any cloaked vessels. AFK cloakers will re-main de-cloaked as no one is present to re-activate the cloak and active players will simply activate their cloaks.



Make it so Cov-ops ships don't need to use gates to jump between systems AND remove Local then something like you suggested might be reasonable.

Originally by: IbanezLaney
Lots of people seem to hate afk cloaks but still no one has properly explained with a legit reason why the cloaks need a nerf.


Maybe lots do, but mostly I just see the same two people posting over and over, and over again, no matter how many times their arguments against AFK cloakers are torn up into tiny pieces genuinely by 'lots of people'. ... and your right they haven't come up with a legit reason, I guess they compensate that by endless repetition of their illegitimate reasons.





Pages: first : previous : ... 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 : last (16)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only