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 : ... 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 ... : last (16)

Author Topic

Lia'Vael
Caldari
Migrant Fleet
Posted - 2010.07.10 05:24:00 - [181]
 

Originally by: Larinioides cornutus
Everything Larinioides cornutus said.


Originally by: Voith
Everything Voith said.


Of course the passive-aggressive (Larinioides cornutus) and the professional whiner (Voith). Let me start with I honestly pity both of you, truly and full heartily.

Voith seems to want gates to be perfectly safe, cloaky ships and covert cynos to be killed, non-mutual war decs to cost more than a gold plated pigmy (sounds fishy for a person that wants 'risk', been decced too hard in the past? boohoo cry more for me), low security status folks to have heavier penalties (going so far as to suggest a persons alt(s) should be involved), only one of his statements I can agree with is adding more entrances to low sec.

On the other hand we have Larinioides cornutus who seems to equate terrorists to AFK cloaked individuals, doesn't want to be bothered to pay attention, believes the few cloak specialized ships that can warp while cloaked shouldn't, wants to nerf the cloak, but at least he realizes that a person's alt shouldn't come into question after seeing his suggestion fail.

Do I honestly have to reiterate what the initialism "AFK" means? A person AFK isn't a threat because they are away from keyboard, seriously now someone AFK isn't the same as a terrorist, to be honest Larinioides cornutus that's pretty offensive and immensely ignorant on your part boy. Covert cynos and cloak specialized ships are fine and have enough restrictions, and to add only a few cloak specialized ships can cloak and warp, the SB is as sturdy as paper and you want to nerf it from its only defense? If you cant pay attention while playing a game where it is not only accepted but encouraged to pvp, even if its unwanted you're playing a pvp game HTFU. Whining and passive-aggressive tripes get you nowhere but understanding the game you play gets you further. The cloaks and cloak specialized ships are hardly game breaking, countering them is as easy as paying attention.

Now let this fad of whining about cloaks die, it's not an issue, also HTFU.

Voith
Posted - 2010.07.10 06:07:00 - [182]
 

Originally by: Lia'Vael
Originally by: Larinioides cornutus
Everything Larinioides cornutus said.


Originally by: Voith
Everything Voith said.


Of course the passive-aggressive (Larinioides cornutus) and the professional whiner (Voith). Let me start with I honestly pity both of you, truly and full heartily.

Voith seems to want gates to be perfectly safe, cloaky ships and covert cynos to be killed, non-mutual war decs to cost more than a gold plated pigmy (sounds fishy for a person that wants 'risk', been decced too hard in the past? boohoo cry more for me), low security status folks to have heavier penalties (going so far as to suggest a persons alt(s) should be involved), only one of his statements I can agree with is adding more entrances to low sec.

On the other hand we have Larinioides cornutus who seems to equate terrorists to AFK cloaked individuals, doesn't want to be bothered to pay attention, believes the few cloak specialized ships that can warp while cloaked shouldn't, wants to nerf the cloak, but at least he realizes that a person's alt shouldn't come into question after seeing his suggestion fail.

Do I honestly have to reiterate what the initialism "AFK" means? A person AFK isn't a threat because they are away from keyboard, seriously now someone AFK isn't the same as a terrorist, to be honest Larinioides cornutus that's pretty offensive and immensely ignorant on your part boy. Covert cynos and cloak specialized ships are fine and have enough restrictions, and to add only a few cloak specialized ships can cloak and warp, the SB is as sturdy as paper and you want to nerf it from its only defense? If you cant pay attention while playing a game where it is not only accepted but encouraged to pvp, even if its unwanted you're playing a pvp game HTFU. Whining and passive-aggressive tripes get you nowhere but understanding the game you play gets you further. The cloaks and cloak specialized ships are hardly game breaking, countering them is as easy as paying attention.

Now let this fad of whining about cloaks die, it's not an issue, also HTFU.


Oh look, WoW-Tard #1 finally speaks.

"Risk" is vital to Eve because games of "heads I win, tails you lose" quickly find themselves with no players. See Low-Sec.

As I have posted in other threads, I haven't flow in Empire for *years*. War Deccs are utterly irrelevant to me, other than the principal of the situation.

Any 0.0 corp worth a damn, so clearly not yours, gets War Decc'ed so often it would boggle your mind. It is not uncommon to have 5-10 active War Deccs at one time. It is so cheap to War Decc that people don't bother to choose targets, they choose everyone. That is a bad mechanic that needs to be changed.


As for cloaking, it stands as the one uncounterable thing in the game. An hour of training and 500k for something that is impossible to counter. It is another "Heads I win, tails you lose" game. If you react to the presence of a possibly AFK cloaker with caution they win. If you don't, they can get an easy kill.



The complete idiocy and blatant cognitive dissonance in your post is mind boggling.

[qupte]Voith seems to want gates to be perfectly safe, cloaky ships and covert cynos to be killed

Think about that and Reconcile it. I think no one should be perfectly safe, but I want people to be perfectly safe. you contradict yourself in the same sentence. I want to remove the safety blanket, not add it. No one should every be perfectly safe. All actions must carry risk, otherwise Eve quickly falls apart.

Danny Lonnegan
Caldari
United Amarr Templar Legion
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2010.07.10 06:56:00 - [183]
 

Wait a minute here. Any competent null alliance should have a huge advantage over roaming reds: intel channels. They can track the movement of reds and report them to ratters while the reds are three, four, maybe more jumps out. On top of that, in its main ratting systems, they'll have cyno jammers, safe poses, possibly a station, usually enough guys to form a standing defense fleet, and often PVPers and PVP ships on standby. On top of that, in NBSI space (and it's all NBSI space now), you know exactly who in local is friendly and who isn't, and even the most crowded systems can be easily scanned for hostiles in local.

Unless there are roaming gangs in the area, you can rat with total impunity in null. You don't even have to worry about loot thieves or ninja salvagers. Even if there is a red gang nearby, you just have to stay aligned to a safe/station, keep an eye on intel, and warp to safety the minute local starts spiking red. The only balance against this is...the AFK cloak. And, you know, they're not actually that scary as long as you take proper precautions. The worst they can do is call in a covert ops hotdrop, and how many corps actually do that?

To summarize: people have asked what the downside to nerfing AFK cloaking is. The answer is, it would break one of the few mechanics that places null carebears at risk in their home systems.

Lia'Vael
Caldari
Migrant Fleet
Posted - 2010.07.10 08:33:00 - [184]
 

Edited by: Lia''Vael on 10/07/2010 08:38:54
EDIT: Added my posts cause I'm feeling nice today.
Originally by: Voith
Oh look, WoW-Tard #1 finally speaks.

This might be tasty, I've posted 6 times in this thread, I know it's a big number for you grasp laddy.

Originally by: Voith
"Risk" is vital to Eve because games of "heads I win, tails you lose" quickly find themselves with no players. See Low-Sec.

The risk in low sec is overstated, some systems are more dangerous than others but for the most part they're exactly like high sec.

Originally by: Voith
As I have posted in other threads, I haven't flow in Empire for *years*. War Deccs are utterly irrelevant to me, other than the principal of the situation.

Any 0.0 corp worth a damn, so clearly not yours, gets War Decc'ed so often it would boggle your mind. It is not uncommon to have 5-10 active War Deccs at one time. It is so cheap to War Decc that people don't bother to choose targets, they choose everyone. That is a bad mechanic that needs to be changed.

The principle is no war, free love, everyone join the hippy carebear love pile? Make it seem like a big ole money pit? Alliances fight alliances, war is commonplace in EVE and to be honest that's something that attracted me to EVE, along with the "You're safe nowhere period, pay attention or die".


Originally by: Voith
As for cloaking, it stands as the one uncounterable thing in the game. An hour of training and 500k for something that is impossible to counter. It is another "Heads I win, tails you lose" game. If you react to the presence of a possibly AFK cloaker with caution they win. If you don't, they can get an easy kill.

Uncounterable? So you don't use common sense to an already pretty fragile enemy. Did you know Deer like to eat bananas and venison is delicious, this is an important fact. How is reacting to a cloaker a lose situation? That statement is missing logic. Think for a moment it'll come to you son, I'm not gonna hold your hand. Funny how "WoW-tard number 1" doesn't complain like a 13 year old school girl like you do.


Originally by: Voith
The complete idiocy and blatant cognitive dissonance in your post is mind boggling.

Originally by: Lia'vael
Voith seems to want gates to be perfectly safe, cloaky ships and covert cynos to be killed

Think about that and Reconcile it. I think no one should be perfectly safe, but I want people to be perfectly safe. you contradict yourself in the same sentence. I want to remove the safety blanket, not add it. No one should every be perfectly safe. All actions must carry risk, otherwise Eve quickly falls apart.

You dont like that the mechanics for the covert cyno and cloak specialized ships are working as intended, you want to be safe, you have promoted safety, you say you want more risk but what you want implemented is safety, EVE is safe for no-one period. Cloak specialized ships aren't the invincible gods you allude, they are easy to avoid and easier to counter, all you have to do is pay attention and use that brain you were born with. Otherwise your unthinking ilk would sooner kill EVE by making it safe, local gives too much info as is and you want to destroy the only defense cloak specialized ships have, cloaks already have their drawbacks son.

On the scale of whiners you come around locks and shaman but way behind pallies also you messed up the quote of me, fix'd for you.

Voith
Posted - 2010.07.10 14:22:00 - [185]
 

Originally by: Lia'Vael
Edited by: Lia''Vael on 10/07/2010 08:38:54
You failed even harder


How can I want perfect safety when I want to remove the one thing that gives perfect safety? YOU want perfect safety.

Where have I said I didn't like Covert Cynos? I ****ing *love* them, they cut the travel time for PvP in half. I like more pew pew and less "Gate is Red".

Abbot Laarkin
Order Of Mystical Mountain Monks
Posted - 2010.07.10 14:59:00 - [186]
 

Originally by: Induc

No, he actually has a point. The problem is not that you can't find someone cloaked at a safespot, the problem is that you know he's in the same system even if he's cloaked.

The afk cloakers exploit the fact that you know they're there, but you can't do anything about it.


They are exploiting the fact that you know they are there because it is the only realistic counter to the fact that you know they are there.

Adding fuel requirements to cloaks simply makes the defence against AFK cloakers a purely passive one. Namely wait (however long) then cloaker runs out of fuel and leaves. Defender doesn't need to do anything other than pos-up and go AFK/ play on an alt themselves. Hmm sounds like a hard-core PvP solution to me.

Besides, in the case of bombers at least there is already a fuel requirement, namely ammo. Bombs are large, torps are not that tiny themselves. Assuming the use of the bombs to soften the target before closing for the kill, the number of possible attacks is very strictly limited. Once the bombs are gone you are 100% reliant on torps, this does place a few more restrictions on valid targets.

Oh and before people respond with "yeah, but you'll just cyno in a transport with more bombs", if the cloaker has that kind of logistical back-up then any fuel costs that are imposed become meaningless.

AFK cloaking is not a problem, it is a symptom.
It is the only logical and reasonable tactic to circumvent the instant, and otherwise infallible intelligence provided by local chat.
If those calling for the nerfing of cloaks would like to bend their towering intellects to solving the issue of an intel mechanic that requires no skill/ training/ practice or effort of any kind in order to be 100% accurate and unavoidable, then maybe we could come up with a solution that would improve 0.0 no end.

I'm a great believer in working for what you want. If you want a 0.0 system of your own, work for it.
If you want to be "safe" while pursuing you interests while in that system, work for it.
If you want Intel, work for it.

Likewise, if a cloaky wants a kill, s/he should have to work for it.

A change to local, in conjunction with possible changes to the scanning/ probing mechanics could lead to a situation where both sides of coin would need to "work" to gain information about potential targets/ hostiles. Obviously the advantage here would now fall to the sov owners/ residents, as they are likely to have the numerical advantage which would simplify intelligence gathering.

I don't AFK cloak, if I'm cloaked in your system it's for a reason, and being AFK isn't it.
You want me to have to work for the intel I'm gathering, fine. Just so long as you have to work for yours.


Peace.

Voith
Posted - 2010.07.10 16:13:00 - [187]
 

Everyone complaining about Local needs to get a clue. CCP gave you what you wanted in W-Space.

Man up and go into one already.

Danny Lonnegan
Caldari
United Amarr Templar Legion
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2010.07.10 20:11:00 - [188]
 

Originally by: Voith
Originally by: Lia'Vael
Edited by: Lia''Vael on 10/07/2010 08:38:54
You failed even harder


How can I want perfect safety when I want to remove the one thing that gives perfect safety? YOU want perfect safety.
Which perfect safety is more objectionable? Perfect safety while sitting and doing nothing, or perfect safety while ratting and making money? Because the way null mechanics work, a competent sov holder can ensure its ratters are perfectly safe (so long as they're not morons, and if we're going to start nerfing things because morons can't handle it, we might as well all go play Hello Kitty Online) against any thread except the AFK cloaker. And even then, unless that cloaker is carrying a covops cyno, he's going to have a hard time scoring any kills against a prepared enemy; there's no way a stealth bomber, for example, is going to take down a properly-tanked ratting battleship before the battleship's friends show up (provided he's at the keyboard and in a defense fleet, and if he's not, refer back to my comment about morons).

Quote:
Everyone complaining about Local needs to get a clue. CCP gave you what you wanted in W-Space.

Man up and go into one already.
Are you just being a troll here? WH space has severe logistical restrictions, murderous rats, no moon minerals, no stations, and it's possible to become trapped in one system forever. It's not analogous to nullsec and it's no surprise that many 0.0 players don't want to go there. If you don't think turning off local in null would improve gameplay, fine, go ahead and argue that, but "Wormholes!" isn't a reply to "No local in null would make null better."

Maredtext
Posted - 2010.07.10 23:02:00 - [189]
 

Why is it that you guys seem to think its ok for people who are ratting to be threatened by someone who is afk cloaking (not knowing if hes actually afk or actually burning toward them getting ready to hotdrop) but the same doesn't apply to the afk cloaker? Some of you have even said that people who want to be safe ratting are stupid and that eve shouldn't allow you to be safe..... well what about the guy sitting in a safe spot cloaked up and afk for 2 hours, he never is threatened in the slightest.... it seems like the road doesn't run both ways.

Queen Jane
Amarr
Royal Amarr Institute
Posted - 2010.07.10 23:25:00 - [190]
 

Originally by: Maredtext
Why is it that you guys seem to think its ok for people who are ratting to be threatened by someone who is afk cloaking (not knowing if hes actually afk or actually burning toward them getting ready to hotdrop) but the same doesn't apply to the afk cloaker? Some of you have even said that people who want to be safe ratting are stupid and that eve shouldn't allow you to be safe..... well what about the guy sitting in a safe spot cloaked up and afk for 2 hours, he never is threatened in the slightest.... it seems like the road doesn't run both ways.


Probaby because he's afk and not making any killmails or isk like that ratter. If you want to idle out yourself just fit a cloak and do the same. Nobody is stopping you.

Voith
Posted - 2010.07.10 23:42:00 - [191]
 

Originally by: Danny Lonnegan
Originally by: Voith
Originally by: Lia'Vael
Edited by: Lia''Vael on 10/07/2010 08:38:54
You failed even harder


How can I want perfect safety when I want to remove the one thing that gives perfect safety? YOU want perfect safety.
Which perfect safety is more objectionable? Perfect safety while sitting and doing nothing, or perfect safety while ratting and making money? Because the way null mechanics work, a competent sov holder can ensure its ratters are perfectly safe (so long as they're not morons, and if we're going to start nerfing things because morons can't handle it, we might as well all go play Hello Kitty Online) against any thread except the AFK cloaker. And even then, unless that cloaker is carrying a covops cyno, he's going to have a hard time scoring any kills against a prepared enemy; there's no way a stealth bomber, for example, is going to take down a properly-tanked ratting battleship before the battleship's friends show up (provided he's at the keyboard and in a defense fleet, and if he's not, refer back to my comment about morons).

Quote:
Everyone complaining about Local needs to get a clue. CCP gave you what you wanted in W-Space.

Man up and go into one already.
Are you just being a troll here? WH space has severe logistical restrictions, murderous rats, no moon minerals, no stations, and it's possible to become trapped in one system forever. It's not analogous to nullsec and it's no surprise that many 0.0 players don't want to go there. If you don't think turning off local in null would improve gameplay, fine, go ahead and argue that, but "Wormholes!" isn't a reply to "No local in null would make null better."


You didn't play before Cov Ops cloaks and SB buffs, so I'll cut you some slack. People died in 0.0 before Cov Ops cloaks. If cloaking was removed tomorrow people would still die. If you need a cloak to gank in 0.0 it is because you are a bad player. Look at any Alliance's killboard, there are plenty of ganks with out a cloak.


If local was really that big of a problem then people would gank more in WHs, as it stands almost no one does, in no small part because there is no local. You never know if someone is actually home, so you can't gank people. Local whiners want a magic system where their targets show up in local for them, but they don't show up in local. Having to fit a probe launcher in the top slot isn't exactly a difficult logistical challenge.

Hell, wormhole logistics are *easier* than 0.0, if you aren't dumb...

Tyriana McLoren
Caldari
The Republic of Free Trade
Posted - 2010.07.11 00:16:00 - [192]
 

Originally by: Zmorana
To sumarize the useful signal and ignore the noise...

Amanda Mor and Italian Wedding sum up the issue succinctly: the AFK player should not have a monopoly on fear. There should be no reward for inactivity.

Ok, stop right there. I'll tell you exactly what I'm sure most already have and all the other nonsense posts exactly like this have stated:
You are complaining about the BOLDED statement above... yet you turn around and start to rant on the ability of the cloaking device. If you are deathly afraid of someone who is AFK there really is only 2 solutions (neither of which you stated in your 'solution' rant)
1) Stop playing the game and thus YOUR problem is solved
2) Fix the AFK 'problem' you originally started to ***** about. Which means CCP implementing something to boot players from their connection after X time of inactivity.

Seriously people, stop complaining about people being AFK and start a load of *******s about how the cloak is to blame. Get your complaints straight before you start to try to sight 'reason' and 'changes' to something that isn't even remotely related to your 'problem'.

You don't like AFK so you complain about Cloaks... so, when all the other thousands of people who are AFK in a station... does that now entitle you to want all those stations removed from the game or penalized in some way as well?
This AFK whining really is getting old... hold on... I'll be right back.......

Jeneroux
Gallente
Posted - 2010.07.11 04:03:00 - [193]
 

The person who logs on and off to spy and the person who is afk cloaked have essentially non difference to the observer. You could eliminate the cloaking entirely and this behavior which annoys people will continue. Changing the cloaking mechanic would have impact = zero.

It is the behavior and the tactic which is the issue, not the mechanic. If you begin changing game and ship mechanics to restrict behaviors and tactics which you object to, then eventually we will be reduced to spacesuits and cans of compressed air.

Abbot Laarkin
Order Of Mystical Mountain Monks
Posted - 2010.07.11 06:28:00 - [194]
 

Originally by: Voith

You didn't play before Cov Ops cloaks and SB buffs, so I'll cut you some slack. People died in 0.0 before Cov Ops cloaks. If cloaking was removed tomorrow people would still die. If you need a cloak to gank in 0.0 it is because you are a bad player. Look at any Alliance's killboard, there are plenty of ganks with out a cloak.


I did however, and yes people did die in 0.0 before cov ops. So what? People died before Titans, people died before T3, before Dramiels etc. Facetious arguments are amusing, but will not get you far.

If someone uses a cloak to hunt around in 0.0, or anywhere else for that matter, it just means they like PvP'ing in a different ship using different tactics. Stating that anyone that uses a cloak is automatically a bad player is just a little naive. (and that's me being politeWink)



Originally by: Voith
If local was really that big of a problem then people would gank more in WHs, as it stands almost no one does, in no small part because there is no local. You never know if someone is actually home, so you can't gank people.


There are plenty of people, myself included, that gank in W-space. No-local is a factor for both sides, it is an advantage for whomever is best placed to use that advantage at any given time. Smart and experienced wormhole dwellers are hard to gank because they are both aware of, and prepared for, the dangers inherent in their "home" . Stupid and/ or careless ones are easy meat. Same holds true for 0.0, if you are the "easy meat" you are possibly doing something wrong. Blaming cloaks for you own inadequacies is, in the long run, counter-productive.

The biggest factor in WH ganks (or the lack of them) is not no-local, rather the minimal time needed to find an occupied WH. It has unfortunately been my experience that "standard" roaming blobs gangs have neither the patience nor inclination to "waste" time looking. (are these the "elite" non-cloak using people you seem to feel we should aspire to be?)

Originally by: Voith
Local whiners want a magic system where their targets show up in local for them, but they don't show up in local. Having to fit a probe launcher in the top slot isn't exactly a difficult logistical challenge.


I hate instant local because it requires no effort/ skill/ practice/ patience/ dedication/ discipline to use, which is just very "un-Eve" imho. I don't want some "magic" system, simply one where both sides have the same options and abilities with the advantage going to s/he who is better skilled/ practised at using it. Intel then becomes a matter of both player and character skill, ideally with an emphasis towards player skill.

If after this type of intel system has been put in place it became necessary to change the cloaking mechanics to redress any balancing issues, then I for one would be fine with that.

Of course those on both sides of the coin who enjoy playing their computer games on "easy mode" will probably hate this idea.


Peace.


Danny Lonnegan
Caldari
United Amarr Templar Legion
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2010.07.11 07:16:00 - [195]
 

Originally by: Voith
You didn't play before Cov Ops cloaks and SB buffs, so I'll cut you some slack. People died in 0.0 before Cov Ops cloaks. If cloaking was removed tomorrow people would still die. If you need a cloak to gank in 0.0 it is because you are a bad player. Look at any Alliance's killboard, there are plenty of ganks with out a cloak.
Of course there are, but 1) most are travelers caught in gatecamps, as opposed to ratters caught while ratting, and 2) in my experience, 80-90% of ratters who are ganked while ratting are inexperienced, careless, or stupid. I'm not any kind of elite EVE player, and I haven't been caught ratting since February or so, when I was a 0.0 nub. And it's not like I've been ratting in some dead end constellation 20 jumps from the nearest red system; I've lived in frontier and pipeline systems my entire time in null.

The fact remains, competent players in a competent alliance can rat in perfect safety in null. Even if there's an intelligence breakdown and a red roaming gang reaches your system without warning, unless you're unlucky enough to be scrammed by rat frigates, you nearly always have time to safe up before they scan down your anom/the scout reaches your belt. The only way to overcome the perfect intelligence provided by local is to make the locals complacent, and the best way to do that is by AFK cloaking.

SirRalph
Minmatar
U.K.R.A.I.N.E
SOLAR FLEET
Posted - 2010.07.11 07:26:00 - [196]
 

Originally by: Zmorana
WHINE WHINE WHINE WHINE

Pilot who has activated a cloak, can't shoot.

Leave the cloak alone, but also do remove the local from 0.0 and lowsec Twisted Evil

Voith
Posted - 2010.07.11 15:43:00 - [197]
 

Originally by: Danny Lonnegan
Originally by: Voith
You didn't play before Cov Ops cloaks and SB buffs, so I'll cut you some slack. People died in 0.0 before Cov Ops cloaks. If cloaking was removed tomorrow people would still die. If you need a cloak to gank in 0.0 it is because you are a bad player. Look at any Alliance's killboard, there are plenty of ganks with out a cloak.
Of course there are, but 1) most are travelers caught in gatecamps, as opposed to ratters caught while ratting, and 2) in my experience, 80-90% of ratters who are ganked while ratting are inexperienced, careless, or stupid. I'm not any kind of elite EVE player, and I haven't been caught ratting since February or so, when I was a 0.0 nub. And it's not like I've been ratting in some dead end constellation 20 jumps from the nearest red system; I've lived in frontier and pipeline systems my entire time in null.

The fact remains, competent players in a competent alliance can rat in perfect safety in null. Even if there's an intelligence breakdown and a red roaming gang reaches your system without warning, unless you're unlucky enough to be scrammed by rat frigates, you nearly always have time to safe up before they scan down your anom/the scout reaches your belt. The only way to overcome the perfect intelligence provided by local is to make the locals complacent, and the best way to do that is by AFK cloaking.


You are totally and completely ignoring the point. The problem isn't the safety of the ratter, the problem is the safety of the guy cloaking.

No one should be 100% safe in 0.0. Cloaking is 100% Safe. Therefore cloaking should be changed.

Flesh Slurper
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.07.12 02:44:00 - [198]
 

Originally by: Voith

You are totally and completely ignoring the point. The problem isn't the safety of the ratter, the problem is the safety of the guy cloaking.

No one should be 100% safe in 0.0. Cloaking is 100% Safe. Therefore cloaking should be changed.



Actually the problem is the safety of the ratter. Obviously they want to feel 100% safe and think that afk cloakers bully them.

Your right, no-one should feel 100% safe in 0.0 thus cloaks are fine as they are. If the cloaker uncloaks, he risks being killed in his fragile ship, and if the ratter doesn't pay attention then he will be killed.

While the cloaker is cloaked, both the ratter and the cloaker are 100% safe since neither can engage eachother.

foksieloy
Minmatar
Rockets ponies and rainbows
Posted - 2010.07.12 06:29:00 - [199]
 

Safety of the cloaker is more important than the safety of the ratter.

Ratter has a lot to gain from ratting.
Cloaker has nothing to gain from cloaking.

Cloaker is the underdog here.

Fumitsugu
Posted - 2010.07.12 06:48:00 - [200]
 

Originally by: Voith
Originally by: Fumitsugu
Originally by: Voith
Low Sec is going to suck until CCP adjusts it for 5+ years of mudflation.

Low security status needs a major penalty that can't be avoided with alts or second accounts. Gate guns need to be about quadrupled in damage wise. There needs to be more entrances to low-sec as well.


I read your response to Mynxee's thread on lowsec....I really think you should stick to Empire, bro.


I haven't been in Empire in 2.. almost 3 years. How can I stay there?

I realize that you have no actual ability to refute any point people are making, so you're trying to play some sort of Internet blowhard/Toughguy thing, but everyone sees through it kiddo. Now be a good boy and help your mom with dinner.


I'm really not trying to be an internet hardman, honestly. But my mother did need help preparing dinner...we had pancakes.

Back on topic, there is no practical difference between log-on/log-off spying and afk cloaking. Let's be honest, your problem isn't AFK cloakers, it's "AFK" cloakers, who watching and waiting for you to **** up, meaning that they aren't AFK, which would mean that they are perfectly capable of clicking some button every ten minutes or whatever pointless task you would have them do. The solutions I propose are twofold:

  • For you to stop whining.

  • For you to create an Intel channel with your friends/lay bait/make an attempt to kill the cloaker. 'Cos at the moment you're just whining about the effects of cloaks on your ISK/hr.






Voith
Posted - 2010.07.12 13:09:00 - [201]
 

Edited by: Voith on 12/07/2010 13:10:21
Originally by: Fumitsugu
Originally by: Voith
Originally by: Fumitsugu
Originally by: Voith
Low Sec is going to suck until CCP adjusts it for 5+ years of mudflation.

Low security status needs a major penalty that can't be avoided with alts or second accounts. Gate guns need to be about quadrupled in damage wise. There needs to be more entrances to low-sec as well.


I read your response to Mynxee's thread on lowsec....I really think you should stick to Empire, bro.


I haven't been in Empire in 2.. almost 3 years. How can I stay there?

I realize that you have no actual ability to refute any point people are making, so you're trying to play some sort of Internet blowhard/Toughguy thing, but everyone sees through it kiddo. Now be a good boy and help your mom with dinner.


I'm really not trying to be an internet hardman, honestly. But my mother did need help preparing dinner...we had pancakes.

Back on topic, there is no practical difference between log-on/log-off spying and afk cloaking. Let's be honest, your problem isn't AFK cloakers, it's "AFK" cloakers, who watching and waiting for you to **** up, meaning that they aren't AFK, which would mean that they are perfectly capable of clicking some button every ten minutes or whatever pointless task you would have them do. The solutions I propose are twofold:

  • For you to stop whining.

  • For you to create an Intel channel with your friends/lay bait/make an attempt to kill the cloaker. 'Cos at the moment you're just whining about the effects of cloaks on your ISK/hr.








When I rat I rat in a system so in the middle of no where I don't even see blues there. So I'm not really effected by "AFK Cloaking".

Again, the issue isn't the effect a cloaker has or does not have. The issue is that someone is perfectly safe with a cloak. Now if any of the pro-cloaker had two neurons to rub together they would have realized that if you made it so cloakers could be probed out it would make it someone easier to kill ratters to, since many of them fit cloaks.

But you guys are too caught up being internet tough guys to actually think.

There should never be a module that gives someone total safety. If you guys would stop and think for a moment you would agree.

Jeneroux
Gallente
Posted - 2010.07.12 23:30:00 - [202]
 

Repeating something does not make it true.

Abbot Laarkin
Order Of Mystical Mountain Monks
Posted - 2010.07.13 07:02:00 - [203]
 

Originally by: Jeneroux
Repeating something does not make it true.


This entire thread is practically a carbon-copy of any number of threads in the F&I forum.

Starting a thread in the wrong forum does not necessarily make it trueRazzWink


Peace.

daemonna
Posted - 2010.07.13 07:28:00 - [204]
 

in NC we got fights so often (every few hours), that some afk neut is last thing i should be scared of...

go cry to empire man....

ps: CCP, can you ban useless crying of highsec children about 0.0???

foksieloy
Minmatar
Rockets ponies and rainbows
Posted - 2010.07.13 09:09:00 - [205]
 

Originally by: daemonna
go cry to empire man....

ps: CCP, can you ban useless crying of highsec children about 0.0???


this. and RAWR.

Merrick Tolkien
Shadow Company
Posted - 2010.07.13 09:29:00 - [206]
 

AFK Cloakers can do you no harm, they cant attack you, they cant kill you.

Have scouts out and intel channels to watch for hostiles coming.

As soon as someone in a cloak decloaks, you can shoot them just as easy as they can shoot you. its all about being prepaired.

EVE is not, and should not, be easy.

More info and views over on BattleClinic here

Dotard
Minmatar
Kernel of War
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.07.13 09:58:00 - [207]
 

Afraid of risks? Go highsec. Get a decent corp. Maybe both. Scare games are legit enough tactics, though I DO agree with you on the afk part. Permacloaking in general is okay with me, as is almost any action in EvE as long as it requires and active player.

Rachel McTingle
Posted - 2010.07.13 18:04:00 - [208]
 

Originally by: AFK Cloaker


Everything that needed to be said about this was in this post.
/thread.

Joe Starbreaker
M. Corp
Posted - 2010.07.13 18:30:00 - [209]
 

Edited by: Joe Starbreaker on 13/07/2010 18:30:35
Thought experiment for the crybabies with the tough-looking Brutor avatars:

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?

Dasola
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.07.13 19:30:00 - [210]
 

How about we nerf outpost too? If cloak gets fuel usage, we add option to do sabotage strike? Allow chance based atempt make sabotage to outpost and people inside. After all your not suposed to be 100% safe.
Sabotage if succesfull could have various effects from disabled docking pending repairs to damage to peoples ships tn a pod killing few station sitters.


Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 ... : 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