|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 20:28:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Princess Jodi To the OP: I've argued the same point as you for years. Those who deny there is a problem with afk cloaker really don't get it. Apparently, they are all PVP/Pirate types who don't consider a cloaked recon a threat.
All I can say is that CCP is apparently not going to make a counter to cloaked ships. Nor are they gonna nerf Cloaked battleships and capitals.
I do sympathize, and saw a single afk scout who was in system 23/7 for weeks completely shut down any industrial activity in a system. But between the blind ignorance of those who won't see the problem, and CCP's lack of tools to do anything about it, I think we're screwed.
the answer you're looking for i beieve is: GO TO EMPIRE
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 21:00:00 -
[2]
your question has been answered.
the point of a cloak is to not be found. it's no different than not having one if you can probe it out. ie. i get in a safespot unclocked i CAN be probed and if i get in a safespot and cloak i CAN be probed. before you say "can't think outside of a wet paper bag" you should learn to ask outside of a wet paper bag.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 21:30:00 -
[3]
the paper bag thing again dude, if it can be probed or otherwise found, what's the point of the module. it's not a balancing issue "sweetheart". it's a wtf is the use of a cloak issue. afk or not. your looking to kill the entire nature of said cloak if any of them can be probed. and again, it has been said in the thread. you are penalized just for having it attached to your ship. it is balanced "sweetheart".
you either just want an easy kill, or can't come up with anthing better to be ****ed about in this game. if you'd like i'm sure several people in this thread would be more than willing to point you in the direction of a real argument, cause it just sounds to me like you're whining.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 14:16:00 -
[4]
cloaking is not a problem, at most it is a nuisance.
the same people that complain about afk cloakers are the same that won't undock with a hostile in system, that don't pvp without a blob blah blah blah. YOU ARE WEAK IF YOU CAN'T DEAL WITH IT.
quit whining and set a trap, smack the guy, if nothing happens, your carebear self can undock and go about your day.
cloaking is not broken, it works just as it should and was intended to, and has no real reason to change except that the whiners just can't deal with it.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 14:18:00 -
[5]
Edited by: sharkyballs on 29/08/2007 14:19:10
Originally by: Scouteye hes an argument for you!
whats the counter to probes............
a CLOAK!
there you go, BALANCE!
jeee wizzz, its not that hard to figure out really!
and a NERF to fitting requirments or effects on your ship IS a counter, hence the changes to NOS, or stopping tanking with cyno ships
train a cloak and fly one for a while, you'll soon see it dont need nerfed.
PROBING CLOAKS IS NOT A COUNTER TO CLOAKS, IT IS AN I WIN BUTTON AGAINST THEM.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 15:24:00 -
[6]
Edited by: sharkyballs on 29/08/2007 15:25:37
Originally by: VinnyTheBull
Originally by: Sir Scorpion Omg did I log into hello kitty online?!! The amount of carebares in this thread is astonishing, never mind that every one of them is posting with every alt he has.
If this turns into F1-Cloak safe online, or hell used for greffing, the amount of people that will leave will be tremendous not to mention that bad reputation.
The problem now is used and exploited by a few people, but now its becoming the new WCS!! I say nerf it to hell and back it didnĘt make sense before and now its ruining evry pvpers game experience.
I used to hunt people in their home systems in 0.0, I didnĘt care if thy blobbed I gave them respect for that thy put in the effort. Thy warp to POSes its ok they put in the effort.
Now I go a well known alliance or corp deep in 0.0 and best thy do is F1 and smack in local ?! wtf!? Crappie wow mentality, and it will change carebares it will, CCP dose not want a safe game and u aint gona get it.
Seriously every person who is defending cloaks is a coward and only wants to engage on their own terms without any risk of dieing at all. That is not what EVE is. I am sorry to break it to you cloaking carebears. Anti-cloak probes would not be an instant win I found you your dead button. They would add balance to them. If you want to saddle up and play PVP then you have to actually take some risks. That is how it should be. You should not be able to go into enemy space and fight when you "feel like it". If your going to come into hostile space and the owners of that space are willing to gang up and defend it they have a right to be able to find you. You should not be able to just afk cloak until they leave then continue to harass the occupiers without any risk of being retaliated on.
so for the sake of devils advocate, what happens when recon cruisers are used to launch a probe to find a cloaked player? they can be cloaked and find the cloaker without said person even knowing what was going on. that is is also broken. probing cloaks is an i win button. you talk about balance? probing cloaks makes the module just about useless. now that's unbalancing if i've ever heard it.
every person wanting to be able to probe cloakers wants an easy kill. we can go around in circles with this all day long. one makes since, the other is unbalanced. it's called reason.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 15:35:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Loyal Servant
Originally by: Tortun Nahme zomg i just realised warp stabilizers let an afk hauler escape gate camps
NERF WARP STABS
This coming from a guy that has "Why there should be a breathalyzer to login to Eve-Forums:" in his signature.
WCS were already nerfed, and it was about fracking time. Stay on topic.
Non-covert ops cloaks _DO_ need to be hit with the nerf bat, and hard.
why should he stay on topic if you're going to post something completely useless?
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 15:42:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Elmicker Edited by: Elmicker on 29/08/2007 15:36:27
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby You are so concerned about your minor issue, why don't you look at the big picture? You not feeling safe in 0.0 is threatening to nerf entire play-styles that have NOTHING do to with your supposed problem.
I think you're just ignoring the fact that your profession (solo exploration) is unaffected, just to argue with the big, bad, ebil 0.0 pvpers.
Active covert-ops equipped ships would be nigh on impossible to probe out and decloak. You can still run around in other peoples' territories unhindered, but it allows us (as in those who hold the 0.0 territory) to remove those who linger too long.
Originally by: Presidente Gallente Even if a cloak could be probed out you can drive the pilots mad by running to 10 SS in a loop.
Exactly the idea i have in mind
regular cloaks should be the "nigh on impossible to probe out and decloak" because they already have downsides to fitting them which makes the ship easier to kill to start with. if you don't want them in your space, bubble the damn gate so you can catch them before they cloak. again, you want it easy.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 15:49:00 -
[9]
Edited by: sharkyballs on 29/08/2007 15:50:44 someone should tell vinnythebull that if you come within 2000m of a cloaker, he will decloak. it should be real easy to find a bunch of cloakers off a stargate if you use your head instead of your whine.
EDIT: actually i think you are trully confused. you said "systems you own". it doesn't sound like you own it at all. sounds like you're getting owned.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 15:57:00 -
[10]
Edited by: sharkyballs on 29/08/2007 15:58:59
Originally by: VinnyTheBull
Originally by: sharkyballs someone should tell vinnythebull that if you come within 2000m of a cloaker, he will decloak. it should be real easy to find a bunch of cloakers off a stargate if you use your head instead of your whine.
Wow you must be an empire carebear who never set foot in 0.0. Why would a cloaking sniping gang be close enough to the gate to where you could bump them? They will all be spread out 150km+ from the gate and 100+km from eachother. Your not going to bump them sorry silly carebear. They will warp off if anything.
it's called an interceptor. use it. you can watch them cloak if you know they are there. it's not hard. cloaked ships move very very slow.
what's trully sad is that you have to insult me with a empire carebear statement to make your point look valid. look at my ticker, i havn't docked in a station in 3 weeks. i don't see anything from you but someone hiding behind an alt.
|
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 16:08:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: sharkyballs
And someone in your alliance should teach you the meaning of the term "Safe Spot"
first of all, i don't know what the meaning of "safe spot" has to do with what i said.
but if i take it as you want the argument to move in the direction of talking about safespots we get back to where we where a few pages ago. ....and since you can already probe a ship down that is in one, it makes cloaks useless if you can still probe them.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 16:10:00 -
[12]
Originally by: VinnyTheBull
Originally by: sharkyballs
Originally by: VinnyTheBull
Originally by: sharkyballs someone should tell vinnythebull that if you come within 2000m of a cloaker, he will decloak. it should be real easy to find a bunch of cloakers off a stargate if you use your head instead of your whine.
Wow you must be an empire carebear who never set foot in 0.0. Why would a cloaking sniping gang be close enough to the gate to where you could bump them? They will all be spread out 150km+ from the gate and 100+km from eachother. Your not going to bump them sorry silly carebear. They will warp off if anything.
it's called an interceptor. use it. you can watch them cloak if you know they are there. it's not hard. cloaked ships move very very slow.
what's trully said is that you have to insult me with a empire carebear statement to make your point look valid. look at my ticker, i havn't docked in a station in 3 weeks. i don't see anything from you but someone hiding behind an alt.
lol this isn't an alt it is my main. Okay, I'll applogize for the carebear statement but still your point doesn't work. If they know you have an inty standing by they simply won't risk decloaking anyway. Trust me I have been through months of being harassed by gate cloakers, they have some basic brain intelligence besides telling their pointer finger to press F1. They know not to uncloak if there is an interceptor. They usually warp to safe spots the instant their alt cloaked on the other side of the gate spying sees an interceptor warp into the system they are gate camping in.
so are you changing your story now? to being mad that you've been outsmarted? still sound's like a whine to me.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 18:45:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Sir Scorpion and Idiot is telling me to use an inty to find a cloaked GANG in a minimum grid of 1000X1000X1000KMą..wow good racking luck I would love to see you do that.
Actually, the worst bit about that one is that the one who suggested that is part of a "major" 0.0 alliance
it's sad to see you simply insult me, especially after you didn't follow the conversation. you call me an idiot, but what you just did actually shows your own lack wisdom.
the inty part was because he saw a gang of snipers at the gate, 150km off, even if it's only a few ships an inty has a very good chance of bumping them since it can reach them in a matter of seconds, uncloaking them, and likewise finding the cloaked sniper. you don't need the whole grid, just half a brain and little work ethic.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 19:01:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Illyria Ambri Funny.. this is exactly what most ppl tell the anti-cloak whiners to do.
No. What they shout is "ADAPT OR DIE, U FKIN CAREBEAR NUBZ". I don't think you understand how big the blobs would be if we had no intel at all, or how rapid the collapse of all 0.0 infrastructure would be. You would have to track every movement in and out of every single gate in every single system you might ever operate in, or you risk being logonski'd or jumped by a large gang of recons. The risk would be astronomical. Aside from that, finding anyone to shoot at would just be a *****. Everyone would just gatecamp the pipes. It'd be the end of the roaming gang.
It's the same effect as the afk cloaker, magnified to infinity and applied to every system in the game. Fun, fun, fun.
i do have to say that was a very nice rant but it didn't make much since. what it sounded like you just said was that afk cloakers are going to collapse all 0.0 infrastructure. or you compaired it to something like no local chat that would callapse it all? didn't at the top of the page you say something about me being in a major alliance and quoting someone calling ME and idiot?
hey pot, you know what to call the kettle don't you?
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 19:44:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Christari Zuborov
No, it isn't. Since you didn't read the OP and insist on hiding within your own reality, I'll spell it out for you:
The OP is about how cloaks have no counters once they are activated. How an individual can expend zero effort to avoid contact while legions of others can expend limitless effort, and still avoid the situation. This is very un-eve-like in it's concept and implementation. This needs visitation and correction because it is in imbalance.
i really think that it's the way you're thinking about it. in your system probing would be great cause you could find the bad guys, but on the other hand, it could be a lone ratters only defense especially in a system with no station and an npc settup. if you could probe a cloaker, the cloaker needs it's lock time and speed back, because you could win the fight just becuase he has the cloak fitted at that point. no matter if he was cloaked or not.
Quote: However unpopular the most recent changes have been, at least THIS particular change will make me and scores of others pretty happy. Also, here's something for your reading pleasure.
and also make scores of others unhappy because you are breaking a module. you know, i could probably go for a probe if you had to have sov to use it. but to be able to probe a cloak anywhere is rediculous and breaks the module.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 20:48:00 -
[16]
Edited by: sharkyballs on 29/08/2007 20:53:32 @elmiker is your entire argument made from assumptions that someone is afk? i would hope that no nerfs would ever happen from assumptions. did the cloaker tell you he was afk, how do you know that? you don't know it. which makes me believe your just paranoid.
if it happens, you're still going to have cloakers you can't find in your system. all you're doing by nerfing the lower cloaks is hurting people that use them for what they're intended. that's about as rediculous as: can we nerf guns next because the carebear "thinks" you might shoot at him?
i'm listening to you and the more i do, the more it sounds like you just want an easy kill or you're too paranoid to do anything with a hostile in system.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 21:13:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Sir Scorpion
Originally by: sharkyballs Edited by: sharkyballs on 29/08/2007 20:53:32 @elmiker is your entire argument made from assumptions that someone is afk? i would hope that no nerfs would ever happen from assumptions. did the cloaker tell you he was afk, how do you know that? you don't know it. which makes me believe your just paranoid.
if it happens, you're still going to have cloakers you can't find in your system. all you're doing by nerfing the lower cloaks is hurting people that use them for what they're intended. that's about as rediculous as: can we nerf guns next because the carebear "thinks" you might shoot at him?
i'm listening to you and the more i do, the more it sounds like you just want an easy kill or you're too paranoid to do anything with a hostile in system.
i am listing to you and the more i do, the more i want to play Russian rollit with my self.
let me make it simple.
Guns counter measure is Tank
see what i mean Guns <=> tank
Cloaks = ......?
u see?
let me make it more simple and also repeat myself.
cloak's counter is that you can't be locked quickly, cloaker can't move quickly, can't fire, can't warp <= can't kill you. afk or not.
way more negatives <=> rediculous
u see?
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 21:23:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: sharkyballs is your entire argument made from assumptions that someone is afk?
Someone who is in a system 23/7 is bound to be AFK for most of the time. Also, a few of the cloakers i've had encounters with i've known personally and have confirmed they're AFK. I'm also a user of the tactic myself.
Quote: if it happens, you're still going to have cloakers you can't find in your system/
Yes, but at least I have a chance of finding them. And as long as they're at their keyboard, i don't give a flying monkey's. At least there's a human there putting the effort in to disrupt our regular operations.
so in order to satisfy you that there is someone at the keyboard, you're willing to kill all the other great uses of a cloak? that doesn't make sense to me.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 14:42:00 -
[19]
ccp, please nerf anyone who starts a nerf something thread.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 16:55:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby Paying attention to local and leaving the system.
Why should someone leave the system they've invested tens of billions of ISK into, because someone is sitting in local with a 2mil ISK cloak?
because then you could go about your day and not be paranoid about the hostile in system. it's just as stupid as your suggested "counter" and semi-proves nothing needs changing. because checking scanner is about like saying checking local, it's not a counter because your scanner doesn't pinpoint like a probe does. hence, it's flawed.
|
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 17:01:00 -
[21]
who mentioned it?
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Bendit 1: What is the counter to probes?
Paying attention to your scanner and warping away
uh, you did?
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 18:17:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: sharkyballs uh, you did?
In a completely different context to the one you mentioned?
you said using the scanner was the counter to the cloak and my relpy to that was:
[Quote] because checking scanner is about like saying checking local, it's not a counter because your scanner doesn't pinpoint like a probe does. hence, it's flawed.
then you typed something off the wall about scanners picking up cloaks that was never mentioned
Quote: Who mentioned scanners? The fix specifically states that scanners will not pick up cloakers, but probes will (with an added amount of difficulty and innaccuracy). The lack of scanner means that you have to use every single probe, which means you need a near-max skilled probe pilot. This means teamwork, and effort.
then you stated that i took something out of context? try again.
all you're doing is treading water with your head barly above the surface by trying your best to bull**** your way to making a point.
anyone with any kind of cognitive thought can see your making blind alligations about a module that isn't broken.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 18:21:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: cuteboylookingatyou Why would that remove your responsibility to arm yourself to a potential threat?
Defending yourself against a threat in eve can only be done effectively in two ways. You run away (not an option), or you remove the threat (impossible).
agian, it's just paranoia. if you don't know where he is, how do you call it a threat? last i checked paranoia was a valid tactic and seems to be working especially good on you. it's sad really. THERE IS A BOOGIE MAN!!!
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 18:23:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Gorefacer
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds Edited by: Tommy TenKreds on 30/08/2007 18:08:46
Originally by: Gorefacer The same difference AFK macro mining has to legitimate at keyboard mining. If your not there "in" the game, you shouldn't be able to accomplish a goal that would normally only come about by direct action on the players part. That is my opinion anyways.
Meh.. I think it's unnecessary and lame tbh. It makes no difference to gameplay whether the player is afk or not, the attitude of others to a cloaked pilot would be the same either way and they would still be calling for more nerfs.
This would just irritate anyone who wants to cloak up while they go for a dump.
Do you feel the same about Macro AFK mining? You could argue that if the person had time the macros are doing exactly what he would have done anyway, and so "makes no difference in gameplay". As far as I am concerned it is about a sense of fairplay and gaming on an even playing ground.
The primary consequence of having your ship blown up is loss of ISK. The primary consequence of having a cloaker(s) in system is annoyance/loss of ISK to ratters/miners/logistics. If someone found a way to blow other peoples' ships up (ISK loss) while completely AFK (at work, at the bar, etc.) I would have a problem with that also. They are loosely comparable as far as I can tell.
Plus I said the timer could be 30minutes, I would say most people can **** in that time.
cloaking is much different from macroing. you can't compare them because macros are outside programs being used. cloaking is in game and was a tool ccp created.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 19:08:00 -
[25]
gorefacer, i don't actually have a problem with the cloak turning itself off after a while. that was the first thing i thought of as well to help the afk situation. but that's not being argued here. it's the ones arguing that you need a probe to do it. i think you would agree somewhat that the cloak would be broken if you could be found that easily.
then they say, oh but it would be hard, it would take a gang or something. which is crap because with full skills and a little practice probing can be very fast. i do it all the time. exploration and ships. also the ones arguing for the cloak arn't going to write the code, so how do they know?
then they say, warp around safespots if you see a probe on scanner. which i would reply, why the fark would i have a cloak on my ship if i wanted to decloak to warp around? i can do that without a cloak.
it's a whine from paranioa, lazyness, and a total lack of logic from carebares that apparently want to "feel" safe in a system they claim in 0.0 (the dangerous space). built right into the module are negatives that make it impractical for normal combat and create the balance.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 19:27:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Exlegion It seems to me you want to be able to lock a system down without any chance impenetrability. Is that fair?
Yes. Because obviously, i can drop a probe, scan you down, decloak you and kill you. between you cloaking and you evading the gang.
get out of 0.0 and this conversation please. by answering that question the way you did you have made yourself, from your own words, a carebear. you just lost any respect. "lock a system down without any chance impenetrability." = safe in 0.0? lol go to jita please.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 19:46:00 -
[27]
elmicker, maybe you should not be sarcastic to me after you insulted me and called me an idiot a few pages back. what you're saying would not be confused and then the sarcasm would show. you're confusing enough as it is.
i thought you were being serious because every other post you've made has in a way sounded like that.
did you expect me to laugh with you? this is ink and paper, i can't see your face.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 20:01:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby
Originally by: Dungar Loghoth Boy, a lot of people in this thread are going to be butt-hurt when they read about CCP making recon T2 battleships. Thanks for the buff CCP, fix amarr next please!
Damn you, I was waiting for another "CCP already said" post before I mentioned that
i thought the same thing
p.s. whether english is my fisrt or fourth language isn't the issue and the question sounds like you're setting me up. i've made my point. i'm done arguing with you.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 22:00:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Cassius Longinus To be fair, that character is not making any income while you are not making any income.
In 99% of cases, the character is an alt who'd likely be doing nothing anyway. They lose nothing with no effort, we lose stacks of isk, and only don't lose everything because we're willing to put effort in to defend ourselves.
in a debate it would be prudent to use facts rather than assumptions. 99% is an assumption. just like afk is. you would be better understood and your points would be much more valid if most of your rebuttals where not that.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 16:00:00 -
[30]
Edited by: sharkyballs on 31/08/2007 16:01:03
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Shanur... You utterly *****your income into the ground against someone who is probably exerting no actual effort.[/quote
there you go using that assumption again, "prabably". your entire argument has been that. you're assuming somthing about a theoretical threat and whining about it. you don't even know it's there.
also, you should ALWAYS have escorts for your miners or industry for protection in 0.0. if you don't you're asking them to be killed. removing cloaks doesn't do away with that need. your just scared cause you can't see the hostile, therefore disrupting your day.
agian, you still havn't proved anything except that you want an easy button to kill a module that does exactly what it's suppose to do.
|
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 17:59:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Iyanah whilst this is true. the thing is, you CAN'T know someone is inactive. say for example you have a gang of miners in one system, you go in in your manticore, cloak, go AFK. you wait a while, they think "meh, he's afk" and commence mining, you warp in, fire off some cruise missiles, pop goes a hauler or a barge, you warp out and cloak, all in a few seconds, you have absolute impunity. i agree that cloaked ships should be detectable on scanners. BUT WAIT!! yeah, i use cloaks, on ships designed for the role, and thus i can see both sides of the coin.
sorry, that doesn't fly with me. ie it's not a reason. what you just explained is a bunch of dumb miners that dropped their defense. if you tie your hands behind you in a fist fight, sure the guys gonna kill you. that's what you just described. drop your defense, you get leveled. what you just described also happens everyday from people not checking local and getting hit because they zoned out. a bunch of miners being lazy is not a good enough reason to take away the use of a module.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 18:44:00 -
[32]
Edited by: sharkyballs on 31/08/2007 18:45:17
Originally by: Christari Zuborov
Originally by: sharkyballs
Originally by: Iyanah whilst this is true. the thing is, you CAN'T know someone is inactive. say for example you have a gang of miners in one system, you go in in your manticore, cloak, go AFK. you wait a while, they think "meh, he's afk" and commence mining, you warp in, fire off some cruise missiles, pop goes a hauler or a barge, you warp out and cloak, all in a few seconds, you have absolute impunity. i agree that cloaked ships should be detectable on scanners. BUT WAIT!! yeah, i use cloaks, on ships designed for the role, and thus i can see both sides of the coin.
sorry, that doesn't fly with me. ie it's not a reason. what you just explained is a bunch of dumb miners that dropped their defense. if you tie your hands behind you in a fist fight, sure the guys gonna kill you. that's what you just described. drop your defense, you get leveled. what you just described also happens everyday from people not checking local and getting hit because they zoned out. a bunch of miners being lazy is not a good enough reason to take away the use of a module.
No one has said anything about removing any module. This has always been about making it possible for scan probes to probe out cloaked individuals. Also, the same things you have said can be directly applied to individuals who use cloaks and don't make any attempt to 'watch their 6', or don't have someone with them.
No one should be able to act with impunity in game. You come into someone else's territory, you should be VERY watchful, VERY cautious. Just as if you were a commando in camouflage hiding in the bush, you can't sit there and ignore your surroundings, ignore that patrol you see a mile off heading directly toward you - you have to adjust, to avoid, to evade while remaining hidden.
The current implementation makes you invulnerable. It's like you're playing poker, don't have to bet, but you still get dealt a hand - when 4 aces come up you decide it's time to play.
my point as it's already been made was that cloaking does not equal impunity. but when you make the ability probe a cloak, you make the cloak module useless. you have a cloak so you CAN'T be probed, not so that the prober simply has to use a different probe. hence, leaving the module useless.
if anything, the cloak is the counter to the probe. that is balance.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 20:38:00 -
[33]
Edited by: sharkyballs on 31/08/2007 20:41:23
Originally by: Elmicker How so? It allows anyone not currently targeted to remove themselves completely from risk, without removing themselves from the actual game. It allows someone to remove themselves without any considerable loss. That's exactly what impunity means.
if they do come to attack you, you can kill them and they can't recloak. if you can't target them they are not a threat. we seem to be repeating ourselves. with the exception that my argument is logical, your's is simply paranoid.
Quote: No. You make a cloak ever so slightly less useful, but far from useless. Without a cloak, you could be probed in approximately 26 seconds. With a cloak, it could take anywhere up to 25 minutes, and that's only if you sit still while they probe for you. Cloaks would still be incredibly useful.
useful how, now i've got several negative effects on my ship just because i've got it fitted only now it doesn't do the job it was intended to do? your're delusional (a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact) me thinks.
Quote: if anything, the cloak is the counter to the probe. that is balance.
Quote: Sensor damps counter sensor boosters, and sensor boosters counter sensor damps. You make no valid point.
i think you need to think that one through again. did anybody else understand how this has anything to do with the conversation or how it invalidates my point? because it doesn't make sense to me.
oh i get it, then we should have a probe damp module to fit along with the cloak so now it takes up 2 slots. i don't think i need to say anything further than that.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 22:13:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: sharkyballs if they do come to attack you, you can kill them and they can't recloak. if you can't target them they are not a threat.
It has been thoroughly explained that ANY neutral or hostile presence in local channel is a threat. A cloaked threat is still a threat.
Quote: useful how, now i've got several negative effects on my ship just because i've got it fitted only now it doesn't do the job it was intended to do?
You've increased the time it takes to probe you by a factor of 60. It still does the job it was intended to do (hide you from scanner, hinder probing), it just doesn't do it with absolute certainty. Instead, like every other defensive module and mechanic it becomes dependant on the skill of your opposition; exactly as it should be.
Quote: i think you need to think that one through again. did anybody else understand how this has anything to do with the conversation or how it invalidates my point? because it doesn't make sense to me.
You said probes shouldn't be the counter to cloaks because cloaks are already the counter to probes. I gave you an example to show that this situation is the norm in eve, and that the cloak is in fact the exception.
Quote: oh i get it, then we should have a probe damp module to fit along with the cloak so now it takes up 2 slots. i don't think i need to say anything further than that.
Before i go on a tirade at your lack of comprehension (for the third time)... Is English your first language?
lol, my lack of comprehension. yeah. i think the problem you're having is that i actually state logical facts. example: 1+1=2. you've been stating at best wierd theories with little or no logic. example: "elmiker has decided today that gravity doesn't exsist, so everybody has to (instead of float off the earth) fly toward the sun at high velocity and turn into an apple". go back and reread. i think two of you are the only people that have posted that have you're point of view. why? cause it's flawed. you back up you're theories with opinions.
for example on opinion:
Quote:
It has been thoroughly explained that ANY neutral or hostile presence in local channel is a threat. A cloaked threat is still a threat.
if this was a fact, just about every system in eve would be on lockdown
an example of a "weird theory"
Quote:
You said probes shouldn't be the counter to cloaks because cloaks are already the counter to probes. I gave you an example to show that this situation is the norm in eve, and that the cloak is in fact the exception.
with the "weird theory" there i think you actually proved my point. yes cloaks are the exception because probes can already find a ship without a cloak. you're flawed theory says thier use should be negated, which you further commented on with "but it could take a long time...blah blah", which since isn't proven is at best a theory but sounds more like an opinion. then said something that didn't make any sense. it should have a similar name if it was ment to be a counter? your example, sensor boosters and sensor damps. that's what it sounds like you're saying anyway. which is illogical and frankly a very childish mentality.
please make your points in a clear, concise way and you might be heard better. i can't continue this with you until you learn the basic rules of conversation.
|
|
|
|