EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2010-02-01 18:43
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-04-07 14:58
  • Number of Posts: 2,646
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Prince Kobol

Security Status 3.1

Last 20 Posts

  • The Mutuality of Freighter Ganking in EVE Communication Center

    I don't who whines the most, those who gank or those who are ganked.

    Personally I couldn't give a crap about either side.

    I wish they would just play the game without having to constantly bring their tedious whinging to the forums.

  • Drilling Platforms major pushed back why CCP??? in EVE Communication Center

    Better to delay and make sure new players get a better experience then release something that isn't working right

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Xcom wrote:
    [
    This game gives way to much info out. The map even shows ship counts to accurate numbers throughout eve. Local broadcasts numbers of pilots that was promised to be replaced with a more overview alike mechanic. Killboards, other player made maps, websites and other external tools that turns this game into a spreadsheet rather then a game. I do agree that some tools help make life easier but at some point you start losing the immersion. Most battles are lopsided and way to planned out. Nothing in eve is encounter based rather then strategically planned and most times when you die your made fun of. If we had more unpredictable tools in eve players might have actually start to play the game rather then camp enemy systems to whore for killmails.


    Completely agree. The API kills so many aspects of this game.

    If we do have to have it at the very least put in a delay of say 24 - 48 hours.

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Teckos Pech wrote:
    BTW I went to zkillboard and looked up the deaths for covert ops ships for Dec. 8. About 140-150 died in one day.

    So much for Xcom's notion of risk free PvE. You'd think a person making such an argument would go look at some of the actual data, but nope. When you are intellectually dishonest and shift your arguments constantly to try and score points....looking at the data is just time consuming and could do violence to your preconceived notions.


    Small problemon with your numbers.

    140 - 150 of how many?

    I always have a issue with anybody producing numbers without any context.

    Are these 140 deaths in 140 single engaments or or some in a fleet fight?

    In what space were these deaths in?

    How many people were flying covert op ships during that day?

    Numbers without context are useless.

  • why are people against "walking in stations"? in EVE Communication Center

    March rabbit wrote:
    Prince Kobol wrote:
    March rabbit wrote:
    Prince Kobol wrote:
    [quote=March rabbit]
    I believe they are talented simply by playing Eve, a game in which nothing like it has existed before or been copied since and part of that is because it is bloody difficult to do.

    You can not create / maintain / expand a very complex game as Eve, which has lasted what, 13 years, which has a single shard and one of the most vocal communities without having talented and dedicated developers.

    Well... if you see it this way then OK.

    I just thought that you have something real in mind when you were talking about "the most talented" and not 'just because'.


    Sorry your right, the game Eve Online and the past 13 years worth of development along with all the hardware infrastructure that we all here play is not real at all and is just a figment of our imagination.

    Hm...... Google is older (Wiki says that the project started in 1996). According to your logic Google developers are 'the most talented'! What?
    - they have 20? years of development
    - their hardware is as least comparable to CCPs if not bigger
    - we all use google
    - Google is not 'figment of our imagination'

    What of your criteria i have missed here? Lol


    Most people would say that Google, along with the likes of Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, Adobe and all the oither powerhouse software companies do have some of the most talented in Developers / Engineers in the world.

    Are you real trying to say Google as a company do not have any talented Developers /Engineers at their company?

    Here, take a look at this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Google_employees

    Most people would class these guys as talented, well except you that is.

    I guess it depends on what you define as talented. if they are not very good why don't you apply for a job at CCP and show them how it is done, after all if they are as bad as you are making out it shouldn't be difficult to show them a thing or two

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Jerghul wrote:
    The core problem with afk cloaky camping is that it lowers activity. So it has to go. Preferrably by precision targetting the afk contribution to the equation. But some cloaky and camping collateral damage is acceptable.

    Kobol
    What is your activity impact expectation of a changed local in null-sec?



    My hope is that it would increase small gang activity, increase player interaction, increase random fights. These would be my hopes.

    Real Time Intel I believe lessens these things, especially random fights. How can you have a random fight or random interactions when you know a fleet is coming when it's 10 jumps out.

    Yes it could also have an effect on non pvp related activities however I have always been of the opinion that doing these activities, such as mining or Incursions (if these are still a thing) is a group activity and measures can be put place such as scouts to give advanced warnings.

    My other hope is that it changes the dynamic between neighbouring alliances. They will become more relient on each other to protect each others boarders and failure to do so could lead to some interesting developments.

    My last hope is that we see alliances consolidate their space as without that instant intel, it's harder to defend and it's better having people live there then having empty systems.

    However when all is said and done these are only my hopes. Without having a whole boat load of metrics at my disposal I cant and won't pretend that it will do any of those things.

    I could easily be wrong and it completely messes null sec. The thing is I believe it is worth the risk. I would much prefer all hell breaks loose and null is shook upside down and inside out then it continues the way it is.

    As I said, it's is only my hope that this changesite things for the better

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Sonya Corvinus wrote:
    Prince Kobol wrote:
    Here is the problem with this discussion. It is solely focused on null sec, people forget that there are other aspects to the game.

    Whilst me and Dracvlad disagreed on various points, at the least neither of us wanted to remove cloaking, just implementing a mechanics that allowed people the chance to be able to detect them

    ( I apologise Dracvlad if I go that wrong)


    This is why you can't earn ISK or shoot anyone with an active cloak. It's a non-issue.

    Why should you be able to hunt someone who isn't a threat?



    I have used that argument myself a thousand times over the years for afk cloaking and I stand by it. If you look back you will see that I made the argument myself.

    However, the major issue I have with it and please remember that this is coming from somebody who has camped system for weeks on end in a ship that it was impossible for me to hurt anybody, just for lols, is that there is no player interaction.

    The only way for me to get caught was if I did something stupid. There is nothing you can do as a player to get somebody to decloak unless you hit the jackpot and happen to fly right on top of them.

    Something I would have no issue with is if there was a mechanic put in place where another player using a tool at their disposal was able to track you down.

    Now so long as you the cloaked player can counter act that just by doing as simple as moving then I do not see a problem.

    You now have player interaction and a player will have an ability to force you into a mistake.

    People have come up with various ways to implement this, some I like, others I dislike (looking at you structures grrrr) and each idea has their own merits as well as their downside, it just depends on your point of view.

    Neither is right or wrong.

    Cloaking when used correctly by active players is a powerful tool in all areas of space, not just null, however as you can see I used the word active.

    I dislike any mechanic that allows a player to have an in game effect, regardless of what it is or how big or small it is it is by not even having to be at their keyboard.

    I am all for player interaction and players being able to effect each other whilst in space. AFK Cloaking does not allow this.

    So yeah, I am in favour of something that creates player interaction whilst at the same time removes a players ability to have an effect whilst in space afk.

    I am also in favour of changing NS local. I would completely remove it from NPC Null Sec and after that I am honestly not sure, but something does have to change to stop the undisruptable (pretty sure that is a word lol) real time intel that local currently gives.

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Sonya Corvinus wrote:
    Xcom wrote:
    So we have about 10 players in eve that this AFK cloaking mechanic would hit hardest, if it was removed. I would say that its alright to change the mechanics to weed them out. The other 300 would just have to setup 2 bookmarks and warp between the 2 over and over as long as people start looking for them.

    Sounds like an easy solution to a very simple problem and a very small alteration to game mechanics.


    It would hit every super pilot, every WH resident, every nomad (I have a character that only does PvE and hasn't docked in two months) extremely hard.

    Do you even play this game?

    AFK cloaking in null is by far the smallest part of the game that would be impacted by a nerf to cloaks.


    Here is the problem with this discussion. It is solely focused on null sec, people forget that there are other aspects to the game.

    Whilst me and Dracvlad disagreed on various points, at the least neither of us wanted to remove cloaking, just implementing a mechanics that allowed people the chance to be able to detect them

    ( I apologise Dracvlad if I go that wrong)


  • why are people against "walking in stations"? in EVE Communication Center

    March rabbit wrote:
    Prince Kobol wrote:
    [quote=March rabbit]
    I believe they are talented simply by playing Eve, a game in which nothing like it has existed before or been copied since and part of that is because it is bloody difficult to do.

    You can not create / maintain / expand a very complex game as Eve, which has lasted what, 13 years, which has a single shard and one of the most vocal communities without having talented and dedicated developers.

    Well... if you see it this way then OK.

    I just thought that you have something real in mind when you were talking about "the most talented" and not 'just because'.


    Sorry your right, the game Eve Online and the past 13 years worth of development along with all the hardware infrastructure that we all here play is not real at all and is just a figment of our imagination.

  • why are people against "walking in stations"? in EVE Communication Center

    March rabbit wrote:
    Prince Kobol wrote:
    ...
    I think CCP have some of the most talented and dedicated game developers in the business and importantly they are passionate about Eve.
    ...

    First thing i wander about: where did you get that opinion? Lots of known developers already left CCP and how many unknown ones left is unknown. Common opinion is that CCP cannot provide developers with enough bonuses to keep them in Iceland.

    Usually this means that 'the most talented' are not there. Dedicated? Maybe.
    Even then - look at next quote.

    Prince Kobol wrote:
    ...
    CCP's record of not finishing what they started goes back even further.

    When they introduce Dominion they only implemented part of it. Many aspects were left unfinished.

    It is something which CCP has become infamous for and is something which hangs around their neck like a ball and chain. Some people might say that over the last 18 months it is something which they have improved upon, I am not in a position to really comment but it is something they do need to work on.

    What I would say is that Incarna knocked them for six and I can understand why they are very wary about trying new bold things.

    For me it would be really painful to make buggy and unfinished code. Bugs happen but when they are found and known then there is no real reason not to fix them. The same can be said about unfinished features.

    Really, i don't see myself being 'dedicated' and 'passionate' about my product if i can leave it buggy and unfinished for whatever reason. Even if it is ok for corporation i'm asking myself 'is it ok to me to have long history of unfinished things?'. It can lead to bad habits.....



    I believe they are talented simply by playing Eve, a game in which nothing like it has existed before or been copied since and part of that is because it is bloody difficult to do.

    You can not create / maintain / expand a very complex game as Eve, which has lasted what, 13 years, which has a single shard and one of the most vocal communities without having talented and dedicated developers.

    As for people leaving, guess what, people leave companies all time for a variety of different reasons. Some may leave because they want more money, others because they want a new challenge, others because they find it difficult to adapt to living in Iceland.

    Show me one company where nobody leaves.

    To even imply that their are not any talented and dedicated developers at CCP just because people have left over the 13 years is pretty damn weak to say the least.

    As for your last point, your mixing developers with management.

    You can have 'dedicated' and 'passionate' developers and still have a product which is buggy or unfinished if management make the decision to rollout.

    In most games, hell in most software companies the developers rarely have the final say on whether a product is rolled out. The decision to rollout / deploy is usually made by Management driven by cost.

    By your argument there must be about 10 'dedicated' and 'passionate' developers in the world as 99.9% of software is released with at least one bug, even the software that costs multi millions of pound to develop or is class as Safety Critical.

    If a expansion that is release has parts unfinished which has happened with Eve, are you trying to blame the developers for that?

    I would suggest you direct your angst towards the Management and not the people who have little to no power.

    Also I have yet to play a MMO, MMORPG, Online FPS or MOBA where there was not a bug released with a patch / update.

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    To Dracvlad

    Well I have pretty much said everything I wanted to say, not much point both of us endless repeating ourselves :)

    We shall have to agree to disagree which is fine in my book. The point is to have a discussion, not to get the other person to agree.

    I have to admit that it has been enjoyable and somewhat surprising. Usually by this point it would of been a flame war but that hasn't happened so I thank you.

    What makes me excited for the future is that we have a collection of people, all have lived in null sec yet because of our experiences we all hold differing point of views on the same subject.



  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Dracvlad wrote:


    Well reducing the impact of AFK cloaky camping is actually a huge benefit for the small guys any which way you slice and dice it.



    It isn't, not by the long shot. Sorry but I really have to take you up on this.

    The ability to remain hidden using a cloaked ship is used by many solo people when running data/relic sites, small groups living in C1 - C3 WH's, small groups living in low sec and null sec for that matter.

    Also it is not just the large groups like NC, PL, Goons etc who use sitting in system cloaked as a tactic. Many much smaller groups use it as well because that is one of the only few ways they have to give the big buys a bloody nose.

    Even if it is hop dropping some NC or Goon ratting in his bling ship, you will denying that small group a kill and believe me, I have seen it and you never want to be that guy who loses his bling ratting ship.

    If anything the people who want the ability to remain cloaked undetected removed are the likes of NC, Goons, Russian Groups, Renters etc.

    These are the people who hate it the most because they hate being denied to rat in 100% safety.

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    To Dracvlad

    To be fair to Baltec1, I make m y own opinion what people are saying on their posts, not on other peoples opinions on their posts if you get me.

    Doesn't mean I am right mind you as it can be easy to misinterpret people sometimes.

    The issue this game has, like many other games of this age, is what ever changes you make, it will inevitable favour the older and more established players in someway.

    I was one of those players. My last six months before I quit the only ever time I logged on was when a call came out on WhatsApp that a fleet was forming.

    So yeah, I was an older player with a wallet that enabled me to lose ships and go meh. No change will ever effect me or other players in that position.

    What changes that need to happen is to allow smaller groups an opportunity to fight on their terms without being detected 10 jumps away.

    Will removing or adding a delay help bigger groups, yes, but if it also helps smaller groups then its a change for the good.

    Ask yourself this, do you really think that the large null sec entitles really want the removal of local or a delay, of course they don't. They would much prefer it stay as it is.

    The benefit is much more in favour of smaller groups who operate out of NPC Null or low sec.

    You talk about risk adverse players, to be honest what ever changes you make, they will always be risk averse , that is their nature and they will always complain about any changes unless it makes space safer for them.

    I really don't care about risk averse players, its their problem and I believe they are by and large in the minority. I believe, righty or wrongly, that most Eve players enjoy conflict and what more opportunities to fight, not less.

    I say that removing local can be both an advantage and disadvantage its to us, the players to make the most of it,, and yeah, I hate how much information is made available by the API. I am one of the few people who would celebrate if CCP removed some information made available by the API or at the least put some kind of delay, like 48 hours.

    Christ I would travel to Iceland and give each and everyone of them a hug if they made changes to the API so it didn't give some much information.

    The QA, that is something we will always disagree on I am afraid. Having taken part of disgusting number of structure bashing, I detest it with a passion.

    Eve has enough structures and soon we wont be able to move for them. Urgh..



  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Dracvlad wrote:
    baltec1 wrote:
    Dracvlad wrote:


    Why?


    Most of the capital content is them being dropped on another capital. Dropping on stuff is the entire point of black ops even existing.

    You just killed a lot of pvp, again.


    Is that the best defence you have against wanting a more strategic game rather than theme park battles


    To fair he has a point.

    Whilst I will not say the point of this game is to blow up ships because its different things to different people, however conflict is a major part of Eve.

    I do not think that either the defenders or the attackers should have more chance of success, the tools at our disposal should favour neither side but should by the same token allow for creative thinking in there usage.

    In other words they should be neutral by their design and then it is down to the players how to utilise them.

    CCP does a pretty good job in this regards and the players do an amazing job when it comes to thinking outside the box.

    Does a Covert Cyno / Cyno allow you to drop black ops hips, sure, but by the same token there is nothing stopping you having at least one ship in your fleet with a Covert Cyno / Cyno to allow you to counter drop.

    There is nothing stopping you from baiting the enemy to hot drop you and then utterly destroying them.

    Its not like groups haven't been baited into hot dropping before and I am 100% it will happen again.

    It just depends on your view and how prepared you are.

    After reviewing cyno's I now actually think they are in a good place.

    I still think local should be change, I am personally not a fan of structures because I think the last thing Eve needs is yet another structure to grind, there is too much of that as it is .

    Having a ship / module that can disrupt local whilst sounding cool has many drawbacks, such as the one Baltec1 pointed out.

    I also think there needs to be a mechanic introduced that allows cloaked ships to be detected however it should be player driven so you have player interaction.

    The use of timers or fuel is really bad and frankly lazy thinking.

    Also I am a little amazed that so far nobody has pointed out the removing local can also work against the attacking fleet.

    They use local as an intel tool just as much as those are defending their space / ratting / mining etc..

    With local they are able to easily account for any defensive fleets or threats in the area.

    Removing local works for and against, both sides lose vital real time intel and this can be used to either sides advantage. I will go back to the whole its how players use the tools at their disposal.

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    In regards to Black Ops, do we have any stats on there usage.

    Would be interesting to see how kills v losses they take.

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    baltec1 wrote:
    Prince Kobol wrote:


    I am not sure what you mean by QA local.

    Fitting a module to your ship I wouldn't be overly happy with.

    Perhaps introducing a new class of ship that is designed to gather intel / disrupt that can fly as part of a fleet, that could be something that I could jump on board with.


    He wants local to be provided via a structure, it would still be instant intel like we have today.



    Okay, I mean it is something I have suggested in the past but I am aware of the downsides, it is far from a perfect idea.

    I mean another structure to bash.. urgh.

    Then as you say, if that structure basically replicated local as it is now then there is not much point.

    There has to be a better alternative then adding another structure.

    The more I think about using a structure the more I think it isn't a great idea, the main reason being it is most likely only going to effect that system which in the grand scheme of things is pretty useless.

    I like the idea having no local in NPC Null. I like the idea of Sov holding space having local but it be delayed by default by x minutes.

    I am not sure what method you would put in place in order to decrease that delay, I feel that would be important, just don't like the idea of tying it to a structure thou.

    tricky one.

    The whole having a new class of ship that can disrupt local could be interesting to play with. Shouldn't be too hard to implement, be interesting to see what people would do with such a ship.

    I suppose the next issue would be D-Scan :)

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Dracvlad wrote:
    Prince Kobol wrote:
    Dracvlad wrote:
    Prince Kobol wrote:
    baltec1 wrote:
    Deployable cyno jammer 100km range 2 min to activate and lasts an hour before self destructing.


    I which case I see no problem with Cyno's then. I retract my earlier statement about Cyno's needed to be looked at.


    But I don't retract it, because the sudden application of overwhelming force is just too easy and AFK cloaky camping is part of that attitude.



    Well it isn't. With the correct use of the mobile cyno inhib you can effectively create a bubble to stop all but covert op ships from coming in.

    There are ways to counter which I am fine with. It is down to the individual/group to come up with ways using the tools which have been provided with to come up with an effective counter, or a counter where, sure we will lose ship but will we take yours with us.

    If I had a choice between losing a something like a redeemer or hulk, I would chose a hulk all day long :)

    As I have said previously, something which Baltec1 didn't appear to have a problem with, introduce a mechanic such some sort of probe which allow the location of a cloaked ship to be narrowed down and then maybe some kind of new bomb with a radius of 100km which will temporary disable a cloak but do nothing else.

    This will ensure that the cloaked pilot has to be active. I am sure that a active cloaked pilot will able to evade such tools, but it means he has to be always on the move and thus opens the possibility of a mistake being made.

    Here we have a 2 way interaction and people can chose to be either reactive or proactive.

    However this would have to be done in conjunction to changes being made to local.



    I suggested that the OA local is best and in that case those players have to fit a module to impact local reporting, how does that work for you?


    I am not sure what you mean by QA local.

    Fitting a module to your ship I wouldn't be overly happy with.

    Perhaps introducing a new class of ship that is designed to gather intel / disrupt that can fly as part of a fleet, that could be something that I could jump on board with.

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Dracvlad wrote:
    Prince Kobol wrote:
    baltec1 wrote:
    Deployable cyno jammer 100km range 2 min to activate and lasts an hour before self destructing.


    I which case I see no problem with Cyno's then. I retract my earlier statement about Cyno's needed to be looked at.


    But I don't retract it, because the sudden application of overwhelming force is just too easy and AFK cloaky camping is part of that attitude.



    Well it isn't. With the correct use of the mobile cyno inhib you can effectively create a bubble to stop all but covert op ships from coming in.

    There are ways to counter which I am fine with. It is down to the individual/group to come up with ways using the tools which have been provided with to come up with an effective counter, or a counter where, sure we will lose ship but will we take yours with us.

    If I had a choice between losing a something like a redeemer or hulk, I would chose a hulk all day long :)

    There are so many different ways / ships that can counter a covert ops fleet its untrue. The problem is people seem to have this notion that they should have a right to be able to field huge mining fleet with ships worth billions or rat, run anons in all but near safety without having to take any precautions.

    People have become used to it, it is the norm.

    Null should be a dangerous place to live, it should require teamwork, it should mean having to think and defend things such as mining fleets.

    As I have said, I have lived in null in a small alliance where we had to depend on others for protection against larger forces. We accepted there were thing we could not do, we didn't demand change, we sough out ways to live, earn isk and fight in our way and it worked for a while.

    I have also been part of one of the large null blocks and truth be told, I found very boring, so much so it was one the main reason why I quit Eve.

    I didn't enjoy being told when to fight, what to fight with, who to fight and I especially didn't enjoy the near perfect safety that I could rat, run anons because I had the vast real time intel system, defence fleets and cyno jammed systems at my disposal.

    It was boring.

    As I have said previously, something which Baltec1 didn't appear to have a problem with, introduce a mechanic such as some sort of probe which allows the location of a cloaked ship to be narrowed down and then maybe some kind of new bomb with a radius of 100km which will temporary disable a cloak but do nothing else.

    This will ensure that the cloaked pilot has to be active. I am sure that a active cloaked pilot will able to evade such tools, but it means he has to be always on the move and thus opens the possibility of a mistake being made.

    Here we have a 2 way interaction and people can chose to be either reactive or proactive.

    There have been some great ideas which results in players interacting with each other, allows players to be proactive.

    However this would have to be done in conjunction to changes being made to local. It is just too damn powerful of an intel tool.

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    baltec1 wrote:
    Deployable cyno jammer 100km range 2 min to activate and lasts an hour before self destructing.


    I which case I see no problem with Cyno's then. I retract my earlier statement about Cyno's needed to be looked at.

  • AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals in EVE Technology and Research Center

    baltec1 wrote:
    Prince Kobol wrote:
    baltec1 wrote:
    Quote:


    Remove cyno's I am game.


    Both sides can use them and removing them will help attackers more than defenders.


    I would possibly look at if a cyno's is active another one could not be activated within a certain radius.. maybe 100km or something. Just a quick thought


    That means you can't counter drop with your own forces.



    Yeah reaslised that small but fatel flaw once I postsed lol. Is there a mobile deployable which prevents cyno's within a certain radius currently in game at the moment?