Yes, your posts. Because you’re incapable of understanding logic. You’re so limited in your entitled carebear view that you dismiss logical arguments for the sole reason that they don’t fit your moron narrative and then you make up ■■■■■■■■ to cover your idiocy with.
Others call you intellectually dishonest. I say you simply lack the intellectualism required.
Nullsec is not your personal carebear heaven, it is NULL SECURITY space.
That’s all it needs. If we had had that earlier, we would likely had gotten a lot of people to simply stop going through the same circles again and again.
I’d like to promote you. Somehow. I don’t know how, though.
Tangentially related:
Is it okay to call someone an attention whore? I think it’s a common thing on the internet, but I’m not sure if it’s being tolerated. It’s not censored, though, so I guess it’s okay? Maybe if we all just stopped GIVING THEM ATTENTION, while at the same time made sure that those who don’t know yet learn to know better … wow, we could improve the situation and fight intellectual poverty!
Wait, what are we talking about? 
No it’s not the same in hisec. Ganks aren’t nearly as frequent as you think they are.
Players like nikk narrel were telling you that local was the problem long before ccp said so.
At least you now admit you’re just trolling and there was never a problem with the act of afk cloaking. The irony in your post that we are dishonest when players like yourself are just lying. The dishonest stupidity is all yours.
Nonsense. Stop repeating this idiocy, using a cloak to PvP suffers when you’re AFK because you can’t kill anything while AFK. By going AFK you reduce your PvP capability from “I am scary, and I can engage and kill stuff” to “I can look scary in local”. You give up all of your combat power, and keep only the psychological threat that only works on weak targets. So yeah, I’d say that’s a pretty big price to pay to go AFK.
You can give Chloe a like and get me one step closer to my badges.
You’re underestimating the determination (and cluelessness) of Mike and Dracvlad.
No it’s not the same in hisec. Ganks aren’t nearly as frequent as you think they are.
It may happen more frequently in Null, but the fact that you suffer a higher danger from going AFK does not change, which was the point. If you AFK, even in Highsec, you suffer a higher risk.
Players like nikk narrel were telling you that local was the problem long before ccp said so.
Local is it’s own problem. It’s largely a balanced one, as it works for everyone exactly the same, (for Teckos’s benefit: Except for the loading delay) for everyone, everywhere but wormholes. I’m perfectly fine discussing ways of adjusting local, like sticking it to an attackable structure. It won’t change the dynamics of hunting soft targets though— all that will happen is that those targets will stay docked until local is back up. When you are using evasion as your primary defense, you don’t go out when you won’t get the chance to evade…much as a ship relying on shields would not go out without having their shield modules online.
Trying to marry Local and Cloaks isn’t a logical position… it’s just reaching for an argument, any argument, to support an untenable position. That you happen to agree with it does not make it more logical.
At least you now admit you’re just trolling and there was never a problem with the act of afk cloaking
I’m not trolling, never have been. I said eons ago that AFK was never the problem, cloaking mechanics, specifically the combination of unlimited time and perfect safety, were the problem. Anything at all having to do with cloaks gets trolled into this discussion, so here is where cloaks get discussed, if you can call it a discussion.
Very easy. The cloaker isn’t hurting anyone and isn’t earning ISK. The PvE-er IS earning ISK. Why do you want a consequence for something in game that can’t hurt anyone?
Mike, you seem to refuse to answer. You don’t PvP and aren’t in nullsec. Why do you care about AFK cloaking? How have you even experienced it given your playstyle?
That’s so far from the truth.
Fozzie saying is only a recent thing. There are several, must longer standing arguments in favour of afk cloaking.
I said Valid… There are plenty of easily debunked arguments attempting to support it, but Dev Fiat is the only one that can be supported with Logic.
If they are so easily debunked, why haven’t you done it yet in the years you’ve been trying to nerf cloaks?
(In spite of the fact you never PvP and don’t go to null…why are you in this thread agian?)
Mike, you did hit the nail on the head though. You said evasion is the main point of defense for nullsec PvE-ers. If that’s the case, they shouldn’t be in null in the first place. Be prepared to fight back the entire time you’re logged in, and this all becomes a non-issue.
Why are people in null in the first place if they immediately dock up and hide instead of getting ready to fight back at the slightest sign of trouble?
I have, many times. They just keep popping up like weeds, with the pro-afk crowd using the tried and true nuh-uh! argument and then just restating that it’s necessary to curb ISK faucets (no, devs could just directly lower rewards, shift rewards towards goods rather than ISK, etc…), or that PvE needs that particular nonsense to experience risk (while ignoring they themselves experience none) or whatever similarly answered tripe is on the menu that day.
You said evasion is the main point of defense for nullsec PvE-ers. If that’s the case, they shouldn’t be in null in the first place. Be prepared to fight back the entire time you’re logged in, and this all becomes a non-issue.
Right… so only your playstyle deserves the sand in the sandbox. Others can just go elsewhere. Gotcha. Real EVE of you. Anything goes so long as it’s the way that you like…
Why are people in null in the first place if they immediately dock up and hide instead of getting ready to fight back at the slightest sign of trouble?
A variety of reasons. Maybe because they just want to be? Maybe because Null is where you go to build empires, and one of the key features of empires is safety and stability? I mean, it’s a sandbox right?
You see, It’s not like those that want to be able to hunt cloaks aren’t willing to fight like anyone else… they just want to chance to do so.
What they want is to remove the last chance of uncertainty so they can rat in peace. It’s not about fighting, it’s about 100% safety.
Ah, ok.
So, anything you don’t like as an argument as not valid. Got it.
Totally subjective and very individual, which makes your opinion on what’s valid, no better than anyone else’s and your argument boils down to nothing more than your own tears.
If they want to fight, then surely the presence of a cloaky camper should be a good thing. They should be able to ship into pvp ships and wait for a hot drop. The presence of a cloaky camper would be praised in that case, because it would mean a fight is available.
That of course is complete fiction. What they want to do is kill a single ship when the player is AFK, so there is no possibility of a fight at all.
The whole argument about cloaky camping boils down every time to actually the opposite of wanting to fight.
You mean just like the cloaky could just shut off his cloak and wait for someone to come investigate?
My definition for ‘valid’ is pretty simple: Be logically sound. That’s all. If you go back through that thread on the older forum, you will see where I conceded points and adjusted my stance when presented with good arguments. It would not be that hard, if there were an actual logical justification within EVE for a pilot who is active in space to be 100% safe.
You see, my issue isn’t with afk cloakers. It’s with the logical inconsistency of cloaks granting 100% safety completely under the control of the pilot. No outside force can endanger a cloaked ship unless the pilot chooses to put himself in a more risky position. No matter what you are doing, regardless of being creepy in local, hiding a capitol from hunters, doing recon on an enemy, or anything else… if someone wants to try and stop you they should be able to make the attempt. Non-consent cuts both ways, and cloaks break that. Dev Fiat says that’s OK, but logically it’s not, and as much as the pro-afk crowd wants to try and twist things, there have been no logically supported arguments brought forward to justify it other than ‘hur hur, I shoots PvE guy’… which would be fine if it worked both ways.
A marginally competent hunter will have a bit of patience and wait for a ship to warp back in. It may take time, but it will happen.
I can’t disagree with you here when it comes to carriers, and have actually made suggestions in other threads to make carriers more vulnerable in a few ways, one of which is keeping them on grid for longer. That being said, it doesn’t apply to efficient mining fleets or battleships/cruisers running sites.
Yes, marauders are rare in null because of their vulnerability. When it comes to Rorqs, sure they can use a panic module and cyno in a defense fleet, but the attacker can can cyno in a dread bomb too. The point is: they’re not at all impossible to hunt.
The same as 2, except combat probing to find targets is probably not a good use of time. Blasting out of a wormhole in a 12 AU/sec instawarp ceptor would be a challenge for almost anything that isn’t aligned and paying close attention to local, and if that’s still not fast enough for you, you can push it even further with a Dramiel.
Mike’s position has lately been: if you are in space you should be at risk, thus cloaks are broken because this is not true when you are at a safe, and cloaked and AFK (or even ATK).
As has been pointed out numerous times, that if a player is at a safe, is cloaked, and is either AFK or ATK they can only maintain that degree of safety that Mike finds so objectionable by staying at that safe and cloaked–i.e. by rendering themselves totally impotent.
Undeterred Mike then complained: well that means that the cloaked player has the initiative. The response was, “Yes, working as intended.” Cloaks are designed to let players penetrate deep into enemy territory and do “Bad Things”. But of course, local pretty much prevents sneaking around. When this objection is raised, Mike is simply un-phased and hand-waves it aside with a pronouncement, “This is about cloaks not local,” as if he only his pronouncements carry weight. The reality is that Mike realizes that (AFK) cloaking and local are inextricably linked. Nobody is going to AFK cloak for any other purpose than a quick bio and/or run to the fridge.
Further, many of us have basically said more or less the following, “Remove local, put in something like the Observatory Array that allows players to regain some of local’s functionality and yes, we can also look at changing cloaks.” Such as making it possible to scan a cloaked this down.
People also point out that if a player who is ratting or mining “does it right”–i.e. watches local and is aligned, and has local open and even an intel channel–then they to have the near perfect safety that Mike is complaining about. That only those who are “doing it wrong” are the ones who get caught and killed. I personally have even said, “Fine, a player doing it right,” should not be punished. So he gets away. But that kind of safety, like AFK cloaking, makes the game boring. Again suggesting a change to both local and cloaks.
Mike thinks he as “refuted” this position. He hasn’t. He simply hand waves it way and engages in nonsensical distractions such as this,
So much for being at risk in space right? No, lets change cloaks that will absolutely and unequivocally buff local and the survivability for people ratting and mining. More safety for Mike, less for those trying to shoot him.
And too deflect the obvious reply from Mike…
No, I am not advocating more safety for me and less for Mike or anyone else ratting. I prefer the status quo until the OA can be introduced. As such, there would be precisely zero change for ratters or cloakers.
Sure, they are impotent, but so are many other ships in space, all capable of being located and dieing. Except cloaks, regardless of how much effort is put into hunting them.
Ahh yes, this argument. Except that the ship that is sitting at a safe and cloaked is not really doing anything now is it? Is the ship/player gathering resources? Is the ship/player acquiring ISK? No and no are the answers. In fact, I have argued there is an opportunity cost to using an alt to AFK camp a system.
So, yet another point that Mike has refuted only in his mind.
No, I don’t mean that at all. It was your incorrect claim that the PVEers want a fight. Not mine.
However, if now you are implying that cloaky campers are somehow the same and don’t want a fight, then what’s the problem? There should be no issue at all. Let them peacefully sit there and go about your normal activity. Again, that’s just ridiculous to even push as a notion.
It’s plainly evident in almost every significant thread about cloaky campers that the issue with a camper is that it represents the possibility of pvp and the PVEers don’t want that. They don’t want that possibility at all.
This is no different to before. “Logical” in whose eyes?
It’s still nothing more than a subjective decision on what is allowed as an argument and what is not, so that you only recognise one single argument so far as logical. Everything else is invalid by your judgement.
As before, it just boils down to tears because you won’t acknowledge any argument you don’t personally like.
The single biggest part of building an empire is the willingness to defend it beyond any other activity.
You have zero kills in literally the entire time you have played the game. You don’t want to hunt cloaked ships, you don’t want to fight. You just want to do PvE and industry risk free in null.
The simple and obvious answer? The people you’re describing shouldn’t be in null. Now stop trolling already.