This is the second time you ask for this and I say I’m fine with it. What else do you expect me to say?
1 Like
I’ve said it a hundred times. But the last time i said it your reply was ‘sure whatever’.
I figure i interpreted that differently to how you meant it then.
Please rename this thread the remove local thread, because that is what it has turned into, which is not much of a surprise…, and if you can’t deal with local I would suggest that Eve is either too hard for you, or you should go and operate solely in wormhole space.
And for anyone saying that eve would be too hard for me without local in null sec I can only agree, a game of continuous hot drop o-clock would be impossible for me to play as I don’t want to be a patsy for easy kill players, so suck that one up losers.
4 Likes
If you can’t play without local, then I would point out that EVE is too hard for you.
3 Likes
The entire time he’s 100% safe from you, you’re 100% safe from him. So what the ■■■■ are you even whining about?
4 Likes
Once you can talk without trying to offend other players, then I will tell you why you are wrong; otherwise you can go throw your shitty sperg somewhere else or shut the ■■■■ up, whichever is fine with me.
1 Like
Except logic dictates that I’m right. While the person is cloaked, he literally can not harm you. He has to decloak and is then subject to the same rules of engagement as everyone else, in a ship that is weaker than any non-cloaky ship.
You being unable to understand logic doesn’t change the facts.
6 Likes
There is more to logical thinking than what you are aware of. You’re talking about classic logic, which is pretty easy to understand but not at all how the factual world operates, including EVE, so again, you’re wrong.
Now, do illustrate me how logic dictates that the cloaked player has only two options in front, to either stay in his current state or decloak. I guess in your EVE there are no such things as intel gathering or information relaying, and every situation has always only two possible outcomes.
What is more, this is just to follow your faulty argument, which actually doesn’t even address my objection of cloaking being 100% safe as inconsistent game design, considering the rest of EVE. It is also the reason why citadels are broken and most pve needs a revamp in the risk-reward front: no active player at any point, besides being docked at a station, should be allowed to be 100% safe. I’m not the risk-averse person in this conversation, kid.
I’ll forgive your bad logic, just please, don’t annoy me anymore.
2 Likes
How is he harming you with relaying intel when you know he’s there? He can only harm you with that when you choose to ignore his presence completely and that’s not his fault, that is yours.
To harm you without a fault of your own he has to decloak and engage you and is then subject to the same rules of engagement as everyone else. That you choose to ignore that most obvious fact because it doesn’t fit into your agenda and instead try to twist logic around to make it fit your arbitrary non-sense doesn’t change anything.
Cloaking isn’t 100% safe. It never was and it is highly unlikely to ever be. Cloakers are only 100% safe when they’re dancing around people like you, that fail to use any of the options available to them to impose risk on the cloaker.
That’s not a mechanical problem.
And yes little one, you are the risk-adverse coward in this situation. You have the tools to do something about the cloaker but instead of doing something meaningful, you chose to whine about it.
Your problem isn’t with cloakers being free of risk (which they aren’t), your problem is that you can’t rat in 100% perfect safety. Something which is, by the way, perfectly possible already, despite afk cloakers.
Any half-decent player knows how to deal with them. It’s only people like you that are too lazy or too dumb to utilize the tools available and want CCP to fix it for them.
3 Likes
Doesn’t this require him to be At-Keyboard-Cloaked, rather than AFK-Cloaked?
2 Likes
What? Have you even read what I’ve said in this thread? You’re the one trying to twist facts and logic to suit your discourse.
- No, he is not affecting me directly by relaying intel because there are more ways to affect players beyond shooting them in this game.
- I ignore cloaked ships most of the time, you are right on that; they are incredibly boring to hunt down, just like interceptor fleets, and I can just log out if there’s nothing more to do.
- Cloaking IS 100% safe in a variety of situations. Cloak in the middle of deep space and tell me how long it takes an alliance to find you. Cloak 100Km from a structure and let me know how long it takes a forming up fleet to take you out. The only time cloaking is not 100% safe is when you’re traveling between systems or actively placing yourself in a position you could be decloaked, but even then it’s unlikely you’ll be caught. It takes plenty of time for even a whole fleet to set up a decloaking crate field around a gate and that kind of response only comes AFTER they’ve gotten intel on the cloaker, not before, which means it has plenty of time to achieve its objective. To be clear so you have an easier time understanding: cloaking is 100% safe if you don’t place yourself in situations where it could not be, which you have already implied, but which also does not apply to any other aspect of the game besides docking at a station.
- Finally, here’s some logic for you:
Cloaking, by nature, is defensive; the problem is it’s 100% safe (or has instances when it is, to be accurate). Nothing in EVE bar sitting in a station should be 100% safe, ever; thus, cloaking should not be 100% safe, ever. This means tools should be made available to hunt down cloaked players, but not made so effective cloaked players actively avoiding being hunted down are not given an acceptable degree of safety(1). Standing for more risk and against this argument is effectively standing for less risk. You are defending the current state of cloaking mechanics, this makes you the person asking to be allowed a greater degree of safety at least in some instances while playing the game. You most likely ask for more safety if you’re afraid something could happen to you, or to put it in different words, you ask for more safety when you want less risk. I’m asking for less safety in the game overall, which means I’m asking for more real risk, which means I’m less afraid of having said risk in the game. Drive your own conclusions.
Anyways, this is likely to be my last reply to you, I have already dismantled your whole argument and any argument you could give for the current cloaking mechanics. You’re not really good at having well thought out discussions, but I’ll give you one thing: you’re incredibly annoying. Provided you continue giving the same reasons I’ve previously proved wrong, I’ll ignore you from now on.
(1) By “acceptable degree of safety” I mean staying out of harm’s way for a prolongued period of time, although not indefinitely. Being forced to actively give commands to your ship to remain safe sounds acceptable.
5 Likes
You finally managed to change your argument from perfect safety at all times to perfect safety in specific situations. Took you long enough.
The main point still stands. While he is absolutely safe from you, you are absolutely safe from him and hence there’s no reason to whine about him being there. If relaying intel really is a problem to you, then what about spies? Do you want the game to flag them for you?
You’re not asking for less safety, you’re asking for more safety. But you disguise it in your reverse argument. You want afk cloakers removed so you can rat in perfect safety without having to pay any attention and that’s really all there is to it. To remove the last thing that imposes the slightest amount of risk on nullsec ratting.
I don’t have a problem at all with nerfing cloaks as long as the reason why afk cloaking exists in the first place gets also nerfed. Get rid of local intel and you can have your ability to hunt cloakies. If you just want to hunt cloakies without losing your infallible intel tool, then you’re really just a carebear that wants perfect safety without having to put any effort into it.
3 Likes
- Do show where I said “100% safe at all times” in this whole thread.
- My argument is no-one ever, at any point in the game, should be 100% safe. This includes both the cloaked ship and anybody else in-system, it includes every single undocked player in the game. I have stated that that is my point from the very beginning. As hard as you try to change that, you can’t, because the thread history de facto proves me right.
- Spies are meta-game, there’s no way around that and I’m fine with it, as lame as I find people getting in coms to have the upper hand when hunting with cloaky T3s.
- I am asking for more risk, stop being dumb and imagining things; also, so you don’t have to make stuff up anymore, check my ZKillboard and let me know how many ratting ships I’ve lost since I joined Horde.
- Really? Then why all the fuss and shitfit for? Before I even replied to your stupid argument I had already stated I’m totally fine with nerfing local. Learn to read so you make a fool of yourself less often.
3 Likes
Removing AFK cloaking as a tactic reduces the total risk in the game by making nullsec ratting near perfectly safe. This is the very reason CCP has given as to why they haven’t addressed the decade or more old complaint.
AFK cloaking will remain a viable tactic until the perfect intel of local is addressed, which according to CCP Rise’s recent comments could be as soon as next winter when I happy to see the Observatory Arrays are planned to be released. There is no point moaning about how the people trying to seeking out PVP with you have it too safe until we learn what CCP has planned then.
6 Likes
This includes docked players, tethered players and players in forcefields. That you exclude docked players later on doesn’t change the meaning of that sentence.
Did I rip it out of context? Sure I did, purposefully. But you do the same thing over and over again, so why not. And the loophole with tethers and forcefields is still there. 100% safety while not being docked.
And this is also the first time you exclude docked players in that statement you’ve made numerous times over the thread. 100% safety not ever, then where’s my button to forcefully undock people?
I grant you that I missed that because you didn’t mention it directly, but indirectly in a response post. Would have been easier to spot had you quoted the relevant part, but that’s a fault of the forum software.
- Strawman. You continue to give invalid arguments.
- No, that is your fault. The thread is only 55 replies long and very few are mine, not hard to read. You’re the only one to blame for your laziness.
- I’ll fulfill my promise of not replying to you anymore until you give proper arguments, so long.
2 Likes
Really?
Your replies number a bakers dozen*; circa 25% of the posts in this thread are you telling people that they’re wrong because they disagree with you.
You’re correct in that afk cloakers do have an affect on other players, but that effect is more psychological than mechanical; as such I would place it in the metagame, along with propaganda and spying.
I would ask you this: how many people would actively hunt afk/not afk cloakers if such a thing were possible; how many would still stay docked up simply because there’s a slim chance of being hotdropped or otherwise screwed? Is it worth investing dev time in fixing a problem that only exists in people’s heads?
IMHO it’s not a matter of “CCP should do something about atk/afk cloakers”, but of “should CCP do anything about afk/atk cloaking at all?”
*finally something I like about the new forums, search actually works properly.
3 Likes
1 Like
You’re right, they are not few now since I started replying to people talking to me, but they’re not wrong because they disagree with me. Daichi Yamato, for instance, disagreed that cloaking should be changed and if so, it only could happen if local was nerfed. He took a position and gave an argument, that is, local and cloaking/afk cloaking are two sides of the same coin. Nothing can be done to one without affecting the other. It is a good, consistent argument, so I don’t mind if local is changed. It probably needs to be.
As I’ve said in our previous conversation, the effect doesn’t matter at all, what matters is the fact cloaking can produce that effect from a position of absolute safety. That last part is what is wrong with the design, place cloakers at risk of being pinpointed and killed while hiding, and as small as that risk would be, it would make for a better design.
It doesn’t matter how many players would hunt cloakers down and how many would stay docked just as much as players’ personal feelings regarding any CCP changes to make the economy healthier don’t matter. If the game is going to be any more fun, bad and boring design must be changed to increase player engagement.
That is your opinion and I’m fine with that, but I disagree. CCP should do something about all aspects of the game that grant players 100% safety, except (because apparently it’s not obvious) being docked in an NPC station. Mooring should not make players invulnerable, instant local intel should be dealt with, citadels themselves should be made more vulnerable and probably a few other things that escape me.
1 Like
If you can’t handle cloaky campers go back to hi-sec where you belong.
8 Likes