Main AFK cloaky thread

Then what would be the freaking point of a Cloaking Device?

You’re equipping a device to your ship to make you invisible and undetectable. And you’re arguing that the trade off for using such a device, is that you should still be visible and/or detectable?

Seriously, stop posting unless you’re going to get some adult supervision.

3 Likes

Oh yes, and it’s just pure coincidence that your ideas always do nothing for PvP and have a primary consequence of making RMT botting more effective…

So tell me then, how do you impose risk on a cloaker that he does not choose for himself?

Fit for PvP, bring a cyno, have a fleet on standby. The cloaker does not choose to engage a 50-man hotdrop, you force it on them.

There he sits, on grid with you, 50km away. Tell me how to make him move or force him how to do anything at all.

Why does it matter if you force them to move? They’re cloaked, so you won’t know that you succeeded. It’s trivially easy to move away and stay cloaked, so you won’t decloak them and kill them. Why are you so obsessed with a result you will never get to see? Which is, from your point of view, exactly the same as the current situation?

Of course we know the real reason. It’s not about getting to engage a cloaked ship in PvP. You’ve admitted that you hate PvP and will not participate in it. It’s about making it no longer possible to keep your name in local when you log off (since even the most incompetent farmers can kill an AFK player if they get decloaked), making farming safer for botters and renter trash.

1 Like

The point is stealth.

However, stealth can be a spectrum, it does not have to be a binary state.

And your proposals are not stealth. They replace the current overpowered but counterable intel mechanic (local) with an arguably even more powerful intel mechanic to warn you that a cloaked ship is nearby.

But this is exactly what we expect from you. You have admitted that you hate PvP and want no part of it, so your proposals are exclusively focused on making it easier for RMTers and renter trash to warp out and dock before any threat can get to them.

1 Like

Except it pretty much does have to be in this game, because it operates by simple rules.

I’ll point out again that cloaks are not the problem. Local tells you someone is there, 100% accurately, the moment they jump in to system. The cloak on ther hand hides you, but stops you physically interacting in any other way. It is self-countering in that sense.

The only thing I see may be a problem is the ability to mount a cyno alongside a cloak, but that’s an argument for others as I don’t use cynos. Here it isn’t the cloak that’s the problem, but the cyno with unlimited reinforcements. Perhaps cynos need a mass limit like WH’s?

The game allows only 2 ways to be safe: docked or cloaked on a safe. That is know since introduction of cloaks, and it’s by design.

Here you go, straight from an ISD:

2 Likes

Unlimited reinforcements is incorrect. You must be in a fleet to use a cyno, and as such there is a hard upper limit on the number of people who can come through any cyno. And to have more than one fleet I think you may need to light the cyno twice. Further, there is a fuel requirement. And there is an effect on the pilots going through a cyno–fatigue. This also puts a limit on using cynos. If you aren’t careful your fatigue could be quite substantial.

This idea is really quite incorrect and is used by the anti-cloak side to justify nerfs…

Oooh, didn’t know any of that, hence my caveat. I completely withdraw that part of my comment then. If you live in null you should expect and prepare for null things. Cynos are part of that.

1 Like

It’s Ok.

For the scale of what you are talking about the limits of fleet size and fuel cost would rarely be an issue. Jump Fatigue is certainly an issue, though most of those pilots jumped through intending to take the pod express back home, or planned to travel back through gates.

So speaks the ignoramus.

BLOPs fleets rarely if ever max out the fleet size because doing so is damn hard. It is damn hard in terms of the costs, the SP necessary, and getting people into hostile space in the necessary ships.

This is why the “They’ll bring through infinite ships!!!” cry is just that crying…by incompetents and know-nothings.

Yes, the idea of a cyno is to bring in a larger force than may have been expected. But that is the entire goddamn intent of the module. CCP put these modules in knowing that is exactly how players would use these modules. It is like crying about a person using a truck to move large objects around. Hello that is their goddamn purpose. And it works both ways. They cyno in and think they’ll get an easy kill then the dictor decloaks, drops a bubble and puts up a counter cyno.

Mike Voidstar the Champion of the Lazy and Incompetent.

2 Likes

I think you need to read what I said.

Which was that the limit on fleet size would rarely apply. I’m fully aware that what comes through a cyno is almost never the full 200 something ships that could come through.

Go kick another dog, Teckos. You are just angry posting here.

But you are one of those who argue: “They’ll opens a cyno and defeat us!” This is why I have pointed out you always defeat yourself. You simply assume you’ll lose without even trying.

1 Like

It’s certainly a consideration, and you don’t have to come anywhere near the cap on fleet size to overwhelm a miner. Or a Mining Fleet.

It does obliviate the argument that a cloak ship is weak in combat, if its not the ship that’s going to be doing most of the combatting, especially since the cyno it lights does not have to be of the covert variety.

Regardless of all that, it should be facing challenges to staying in open space and getting into position to light that cyno with defense forces looking to protect against that very thing. Right now there is no counter until the event actually occurs, when it’s too late.

Why are we assuming that the miners are bad at EVE and don’t have a superior PvP fleet ready to assist? It seems rather questionable to assume that “mining fleet” means “nothing but mining ships, even in dangerous space”.

It does obliviate the argument that a cloak ship is weak in combat, if its not the ship that’s going to be doing most of the combatting, especially since the cyno it lights does not have to be of the covert variety.

It does no such thing. The cloaked ship is still weaker, even if it has a fleet helping it. The identical fleet with a HAC replacing the recon would have greater direct combat ability. All you’re really proving here is that if you fight a 10v1 the side with the numbers advantage tends to win, which is everything working as intended.

Regardless of all that, it should be facing challenges to staying in open space and getting into position to light that cyno with defense forces looking to protect against that very thing.

And conveniently when you say “challenges” what you really mean is “RMT bots get plenty of advance warning so they can warp out before the cyno ship can get into position”.

Right now there is no counter until the event actually occurs, when it’s too late.

Why is this a problem? If you have countered the attack properly you want the event to occur, because it means easy killmails delivered right to you. You aren’t entitled to an opportunity to dock your RMT bot every time a threat exists. Stop limiting yourself to running away as your only option and come up with PvP solutions.

(Of course we know you won’t. You admit you hate PvP and refuse to participate in it, so the only option you will accept is one that improves your ability to run away.)

1 Like

The hulls are weak. Which is why you’d change your fit or you have your own fleet on standby. The cloaked ship that scrams you and opens a cyno has a fleet standing by…why can’t you? Why can’t you fit a cyno? Open up that cyno and have a force of HACs or battlecruisers come through?

You will always lose every time Mike because you never take a risk and you assume you can’t win. With that kind of attitude you had better just stay in HS and as a result can safely ignore cloaked ships.

Really your overall arguments on the forum are:

I don’t like this. Therefore it is unbalanced, because I don’t like it. And I’ll just ignore everything that can solve the problem because I can’t be bothered with adapting my behavior.

Every Mike Voidstar post ever.

2 Likes

A better TL;DR:

“I am Mike. My greatest ambition in EVE is to be a RMT bot. Anything that interferes with this plan must be banned.”

2 Likes

I never said to ban anything.

I just want level playing fields. Mechanics that grossly favor one playstyle or player over another should not exist.

Current operation of cloaks are inconsistent with EVE design principals. It leaves one ship in space operating in complete safety while it’s target must remain exposed with no counterplay options.

Nope. When the playstyle in question is “be a RMT bot” it’s fine, and even desirable, for other playstyles to be favored and for wannabe-bots like you to fail and die.

It leaves one ship in space operating in complete safety while it’s target must remain exposed with no counterplay options.

Only because you lie (a cloaked ship is only 100% safe as long as it does nothing but sit idle in space, accomplishing any goal requires taking risks) and define “counterplay” as “RMT bots have plenty of warning and can easily warp back to station before any threat can reach them”.

Of course from your point of view that’s “complete safety” because you hate PvP and refuse to participate in it, so any non-blue name in local sends you running back to station. Because you are so bad at EVE disrupting your activities does involve zero risk. But people who are bad at EVE should not be the standard by which the game is balanced.

1 Like

So you still only have Ad Hominem as a counter argument. You should try something new.

Suppose someone who’s job it is to defend space logs in, sees a few potential hostiles in space and attempts to challenge them. Whats his option?

Can he drive them from the system? Can he shoot them? Can he do anything at all to affect the ships hiding under a cloak? I didn’t think so.

Meanwhile, if any of his friends want to use the space they can fly stupid or fly compromised. No amount of effort or extra bodies changes that.

So Camper wins by camping under 100% effective nanny button.

No, I have your own admission that you hate PvP, refuse to participate in it, and desire a gameplay style that appears to be identical to the behavior of a RMT bot. You mindlessly farm until a non-blue name appears in local, and the only response you can conceive of is to immediately dock.

Suppose someone who’s job it is to defend space logs in, sees a few potential hostiles in space and attempts to challenge them. Whats his option?

Join the standing fleet, continue to ensure that a strong PvP presence is maintained at all times and the hostiles can do nothing but sit there and watch because any attempt to attack is immediate suicide. The challenge is successful, the goal of protecting assets in that system is achieved. The presence of names in local is irrelevant because those names are unable to do anything.

Meanwhile, if any of his friends want to use the space they can fly stupid or fly compromised. No amount of effort or extra bodies changes that.

This reveals a lot about your bot-like mindset. You consider a PvP fit to be “compromised”, a horrible burden to bear that slows the PvE farming rewards you feel entitled to receive. A smart player, on the other hand, understands that PvP fits in dangerous space are the default you should be using at all times even if no non-blue names are present in local. The smart player understands that the same fits that counter cloaking ships also provide defense against, say, an interceptor group jumping in and rushing the PvE sites to pin down targets for an incoming fleet.

So Camper wins by camping under 100% effective nanny button.

Only because the opposition is a RMT bot and/or renter trash. Against competent players and alliances the camper accomplishes nothing.