EVE Online General /eog/

look guys, i appreciate the discussion here, despite how one sided it might seem

but to avoid getting off track, the point i'm bringing up is this:
>there should be a method, through which a pilot is able to detect a cloaked ship out in space

the reasoning being:
>this would offer a tool for pilots to remove unwanted pilots from their systems
>counteract the current style of gameplay, which the campers themselves have admitted, provides no tangible in-game benefit

beyond kneejerk comments about how i should stop whining, and illogical comments like "it's hard for wormholes, therefore nullsec should not be easier", i don't know if you guys have the capability to provide me a valid counter argument for my proposal

Why didn't you remove that faggoty referral link from the OP

>i don't have an appropriate response to the proposal, but i don't like change, and this prevents me from being afk and easily inflicting psychological warfare upon my victims
tl:dr
reeeee, change is scary, i don't like it

>psychological warfare

downvoted

>>173740374
fuck off nullfag

reeeeee
i'm used to an easy and lazy afk gameplay

>>173741164
cute, but still not a valid argument :^)

>argument 1
>durrr xdd

>argument 2
>hurrr xdd

And this is why ccp won't change anything

>still no ess fix
>still no way no sabotage progress in sites
>still no way to fuck with structures or deployables

Afk cloaking can go when there are reasons for you not to just dock up when there's people in your space

>>173741369
Whats wrong with ESS?
>no sabotage sites in progress
you can trigger spawns in sites
>no way to fuck with structures
entosis you dumb fuck

>>173741369
not relevant to the discussion topic at hand

bittervets that are so used to just telling dissenting opinions to stfu, that when someone actually brings up a discussion, you guys don't know how to actually formulate a counterargument, and instead either resort to personal attacks and knee jerk reactions, or bring up irrelevant side points of "i feel this other aspect is unfair, so i will not address your main point, until this other thing i just brought up that has nothign to do with the discussion has been addressed first"

like, come on at provide more challenge than the kids on the official forums

>>173741445
You can put it in a triggered anom and empty it with a pod

Triggering spawns in your site doesn't stop you running it or being rewarded. Rats do no damage to you carrier or overprop cruiser

Entosis does nothing, you can just ignore it

>>173741648
>entosis does nothing you can ignore it
except reinforces it.

>they do no damage to carriers or overprop cruiser
who gives a fuck, triggering sites wouldn't do shit to add any content

I'd rather blops onto the fucking carrier than fuck with the carrier's shit

>>173741631
It is relevant. Afk cloaking has no way to deal with it, but at the same time, trespassers in normal ships are far too easy to deal with

>>173741801
so what. You aren't entitled to regulating who can and can't hunt you or be in your systems

>>173741759
Reinforcing does nothing if you can't show up when it comes out

And your blops cancer pvp is not the only pvp

>>173741976
>Reinforcing does nothing if you can't show up when it comes out
ok if you're not gonna show up I'll just entosis it again and kill it

>blops cancer
stay mad null fag.
>not the only fleet
yea and if I went on a roam in your shit you'd just dock up and jerk off

>>173741801
i fail to see how 'fixing the ess' is relevant
please explain
>sabotage progress in sites
sites like combat anomalies? or ded sites?
>no way to fuck with structures
entosising is a valid game mechanic that's offered in the game, a lot of people simply choose not to utilize it

>>173741893
yes, agreed, and by this logic, neither should the camper be entitled to initiate all engagements at his discretion. he should be as vulnerable (granted, not as vulnerable as an uncloaked ship) to be engaged upon
you are not entitled to be perfect safe unless docked up

>>173742119
>neither should the camper be entitled to initiate all engagements at his discretion.
If I catch you, that means its my advantage to prey on you. stop making this up like its a game of chess and you have to take turns or some stupid shit. I'm hunting you and if I catch you I win. I engage the PVP I will hunt you and kill you at my discretion. If you don't defend yourself by taking basic precaution and safety measures you deserve to die

>basic precaution and safety measures

>>173742052
>Again

Doesn't work if you arrive by wormhole and don't have autism

You'd just dock up

I've just been posting about making reasons not to dock up so that pvp can happen and risk averse shitters can be punished

>>173742256
>If I catch you, that means its my advantage to prey on you
agreed
and if i, as the defender of the system, manage to catch you, as the cloaky camper, it is my advantage to choose to engage upon your ship

>If you don't defend yourself by taking basic precaution and safety measures you deserve to die
and if you are, inexplicably, away from your keyboard during this engagement, then you have committed a mistake that many novice pilots make. you are not entitled to perfect safety, and this should extend to being cloaked in deep safes.


again, my proposal would not prevent you from engaging in any of these activities. you are still just as capable as initiating an engagement as any other time as before. the only difference this proposed method would do, is give the defender a tool to use. if you are away from your keyboard, then you've made a mistake and should be at risk of losing your ship due to that mistake

>>173742545
>Doesn't work if you arrive by wormhole and don't have autism
ok well I'm not arriving by wormhole or any of that.

>you'd just dock up
why would I dock up? I'm wrecking your shit

>>173741631
>not relevant to the discussion topic at hand
Are you implying there can be only one topic at a time?

>>173742679
>Are you implying there can be only one topic at a time?
the point brought up was that there should be a method through which a defender to choose to engage upon an unwanted pilot that is cloaked up in a given system

that poster did not draw any connections between the main point and his comments. if he were to return and clarify those connections, i'd be more than happy to engage in discussion in regards to those topics.

>>173742571
>and if i, as the defender of the system, manage to catch you, as the cloaky camper, it is my advantage to choose to engage upon your ship
yea ok thats how it works. Its called baiting, you don't have to go through all this description shit.

>away from keyboard during that engagement
what fucking engagement ? You fucking warp off, change system, literally anything

>>173742645
How do you not understand this. If you lose something by choosing to run from everyone all the time, then things are better than if all the time it's just everyone trying to dock up

They attempted this with ESS and failed, and entosis sort of did it before they changed it

>>173742982
>If you lose something by choosing to run from everyone all the time
what are you losing if you're running?

>>173743056
If the game was sensibly designed, you'd lose your ESS shekels, and maybe those other two suggestions about fucking up your anoms and sov upgrades

>>173742894
>yea ok thats how it works. Its called baiting, you don't have to go through all this description shit.
ah, so with this, we go back to a previous point
that cloaky camping is the only activity in the game that requires a disproportionate response in order to defend against the mere possibility of the attack

you require the attention, ships, and focus of mutiple members, not just a sole individual, in order to act as a defense against the simple presence of an individual in the system an individual who may or may not be away from the keyboard, this disproportionate response required is not healthy for the game. do you agree or disagree?

>>173742894
>what fucking engagement ? You fucking warp off, change system, literally anything
>just leave the system
you are advocating that the defender not have an appropriate tool in response, and that they should simply leave the grid and or system. i would contend that this is incredibly poor design, if there were a game mechanic, or a potential use of a game mechanic, whereby a player's only viable response is to "just leave", do you agree or disagree?

>>173743229
Then cry about it, thats what you get when you don't defend your shit!

>>173743241
>that cloaky camping is the only activity in the game that requires a disproportionate response in order to defend against the mere possibility of the attack
Who cares. You're being hunted thats how it works. None of your make believe scenarios or other hypothetical shit will stop you from being bad and me blopsing my shit on you whether I do it solo or I do it with 40 fucking bombers.

>you're advocating the defender
you're not defending if you're ratting. You're defending if you're trying to bait out the blops

>>173743456
>Who cares
Not an argument

The problem with cloaky campers is that they project power far greater than the commitment required to field them.

I suppose really the only other counter is having a spy to tell you when its safe. Otherwise you just have to assume there is always a fleet that can rape whatever you can field at any point.

>>173743241
Doesn't that make it unique and worth being preserved?

>>173743456
cute, but yet again
not a valid argument

>you're not defending if you're ratting.
i've never brought this up in regards to ratters, you're merely assuming it
i'm making this proposal as a tool provided to pilots, of all types, to be able to detect and find a cloaked pilot, and then give them the choice to decide to engage upon the cloaked pilot or not

>>173743332
I think you've failed to understand. I'm saying the game should work like that. Currently you just dock and all you lose is your isk per hour

>>173743741
simply the fact that it's unique does not immediately merit worth in preserving it

while i fully concede that this will have the potential to negatively impact a very niche style of gameplay, i am fully convinced that this will be for the better, as even those individuals who engage in this niche style of gameplay have admitted that they receive no tangible benefit for having done so.

>>173743763
>cloaked pilots can be probed down
>cloak reduces the signature radious, making it harder to find them
Is this what you want?

>>173743646
>wah the cloaky campers!
>I don't wanna do anything to potentially counter or stop them so I'm gonna sit here and cry

Things you can do to stop cloaky camping
-scout neighboring systems for blops fleets
-bash structures and assets belonging to the blopsers
-put a fucking spy in their corp, find out when their shit is running, find out who their spies are
-take their sov, stop them from living in range of you
-change fucking system. You have tons of places to go in null
-be a pussy and blue them
-go fight them

there is TONS of stuff you can do to stimulate content. Stop crying about literal non-issues you won't do anything about.

>>173743707
>project power far greater than the commitment required to field them.
No they don't they apply appropriate power. They form a big fleet to blops with its no different than any other blob. You wanna kill bombers, do an interceptor trap with a bait tanked ship. Punch them in the nose

>>173743763
>you should be able to detect them
no you shouldn't you're not entitled to safety at all in any way shape or form

>>173744001
>now you need MG virtues, full scanning mid locus t3c with perfect scan skills to scan down a cloaky

>>173743890
If they're enjoying themselves I'm sure there's something to be said for it.

>>173744019
>scout neighboring systems for blops fleets
Cloaked
>bash structures and assets belonging to the blopsers
They don't have any
>put a fucking spy in their corp, find out when their shit is running, find out who their spies are
Have fun putting spies into PLbluedonut or the personal alt corps
>take their sov, stop them from living in range of you
They don't have any
>change fucking system. You have tons of places to go in null
That doesn't remove the problem
>go fight them
PL

>>173744180
That is ez affordable tho

>>173744001
>Is this what you want?
in regards to the specifics, i'm not sure
i would like there to be a tool that pilots can use, whether that shows up in the form of probes that can find cloaks will be up to CCP to design and implement
i am merely advocating the concept of a tool that allows pilots to do this

>>173744019
>-scout neighboring systems for blops fleets
this does not solve the issue at hand, simply allows you be aware of it to a greater extent

>-bash structures and assets belonging to the blopsers
again, tangential, does not address the specific act of cloaky camping

>-put a fucking spy in their corp, find out when their shit is running, find out who their spies are
infeasible, and for some corps, nigh impossible. there should never be a requirement to utilize an out-of-game interaction to expressly interact with an in-game mechanic

>-take their sov, stop them from living in range of you
does not work if the corp in question does not own sov (wormhole corps, PL, NPC null inhabitants)

>-change fucking system. You have tons of places to go in null
again, doesn't address the problem

>-be a pussy and blue them
and thereby have both parties engage in activties that provide no tangible benefit?

>-go fight them
this is exactly what i wish to provide to pilots, the capabilty to find and choose to fight them if they so desire.

>>173744123
>no you shouldn't you're not entitled to safety at all in any way shape or form
agreed, and this should extend to being cloaked in a deep safe :^)

>>173744207
that is valid, but still does not address the core aspect of the discussion

>>173744263
>Cloaked
No they wouldn't be, they'd be at a pos, off a citadel or station. They don't sit around cloaked waiting for shit, they're lazily waiting inside a forcefield. Go push their shit in.

>they don't have any
yea they fucking do, oh wait are you the loser being camped by PL from yesterday?
>putting spies into PL
I fucking knew it. You might as well leave because PL will never stop and no amount of retarded suggestions will stop them from hunting you.
>they don't have any
yup because thats how PL works, kicking your ass and making you cry
>PL
yup, your pissy little renter corp doesn't mean shit PL's gonna win, you might as well move back to highsec

>>173744468
>his blops/bombers don't sit cloaked
Your corp must be the laziest niggers alive, everybody I know sits cloaked so anybody ceptoring through system won't see them blops'd up

>>173744019
>they apply appropriate power. They form a big fleet to blops with its no different than any other blob.

Except that the size, make-up, and position of the fleet is hidden until the cyno is lit and the fleet bridges in. You can then jump to multiple locations, so you can just sit cloaky campers in multiple systems and that one fleet is effectively camping all of those different locations simultaneously.

The problem is that there is nothing the residents can do to avoid engaging the fleet other than not log in. They can't wait for a time when people aren't on to get indexes up. They can't try and kill the cloaky camper to stop you from bridging in.

Its not like the campers have to sit there and be formed up 24/7 either. They just need someone watching a couple cloaky alts and log in whenever something is going on. Its low-effort and high reward.

>>173744423
>this does not solve the issue at hand,
It tells you if they're active or not, if they're actively hunting or the guy is just afk.
>doesn't address the specific act of cloaky camping
yes it does. Removing the entity hunting you makes a guarantee that the cloaky camper can't do shit to hunt you because none of his blops are in range.
>infeasible
why? because you're a bad spy? you don't wanna put in any effort?
>there should never be a requirement to utilize out of game interaction
oh so you're autistic, congrats you're hopeless
>doesn't work if wormholers
wormholes disappear
>PL
you're fucked not because of cloaky camping but because its PL
>doesn't address the problem
yea it does, you go to another system with no cloaky camper if you wanna rat
>parties involved no tangible benefit
take it up with your diplomats
>this is what I wanna provide pilots but I can't wah
GO FUCKING FIGHT THEM, RF SOMETHING, GO ROAM, SOMETHING

>>173744468
>No they wouldn't be, they'd be at a pos, off a citadel or station. They don't sit around cloaked waiting for shit
Yes they do. If you don't jump from bluespace you all sit cloaked on a bridging blops.

>>173744651
>you're lazy because you put up a POS that you can sit inside while you wait for a target via hunters
cry about it. You're being hunted and you refuse to do any effort.

>>173744783
>Except that the size, make-up, and position of the fleet is hidden until the cyno
So what? You're bad at gathering intel and they're good at keeping intel safe.

>The problem is that there is nothing the residents can do to avoid engaging the fleet other than not log in.
oh I see, you guys are such carebears you don't wanna put any effort into solving your problem. But now I learned you're being hunted by PL so I know that none of your retarded suggestions to stop cloaky camping will stop PL from pushing your shit in so hard you'll be constipated.

>>173744868
>GO FUCKING FIGHT THEM, RF SOMETHING, GO ROAM, SOMETHING
They don't fight, there is noting to rf, if you go roam they just blob you. Public null groups can't form the same quality of fleets as lowsec pvp-only meme alliances. And the core strat fleet has other shit do already

>>173744957
>PL
>bluespace
PL has no blue space, they're obviously in range of you because they're pushing your shit in with other ways not cloaky camping.

>>173745202
Go fucking cry about it, PL isn't dumb and PL will win against your dinky pointless useless corp. Go fucking cry about it

>>173744180
Balancing probing around "just make an autism probe alt" was awful. nothing should be unprobeable for anyone, it should just take longer

>wow let me magically get the enemy fleet comp while they are all cloaked

>>173745281
You sound angry

>>173745174
I'm not part of the rest of the conversation, I'm just pointing out that most blopsers DO sit cloaked.

>>173737039
No, it's not the size of the corp, it's wasting the time of a dozen people just for the chance that some retard decides to cloaky camp in a non nullified cloak ship.
The face that I have to spell it out for you just proves you actually understand Jack on the subject.

>>173744868
>It tells you if they're active or not, if they're actively hunting or the guy is just afk.
this does not merely refer to covert cynos but also cloaked gankers
this does not address the core of the problem that defenders still have no mean to initiate an egagement upon a cloaked target

>Removing the entity hunting you makes a guarantee that the cloaky camper can't do shit to hunt you because none of his blops are in range.
given the ability for blops to cloak up and remain undetectable, this does not alter the initial problem. you may be fully away that there are blops, but if they are cloaked up in a deep safe, you, again, have no means to apply any pressure or initiate an engagement

>you don't wanna put in any effort?
refer back to my point about games not requiring out-of-game interaction to expressly interact with an in-game mechanic

>oh so you're autistic, congrats you're hopeless
cute, irrelevant to the discussion

>wormholes disappear
my proposed plan would not impact or alter the way wormholes are generated, the mechanics and algorithms used would not be directly affected by my proposal

>yea it does, you go to another system with no cloaky camper if you wanna rat
again, this does not solve the problem, in a hypothetical situation where the attacking party has every single system in game camped by a cloaky camper, your argument would not be valid, and there would still be the problem of the lack of tools for a pilot to use to detect said cloaky campers

>GO FUCKING FIGHT THEM, RF SOMETHING, GO ROAM, SOMETHING
i would like to fight them, but as it stands currently with in game mechanics, i cannot engage them as they are cloaked and undetectable
roaming does not have a direct connection to this

i understand that change is scary, but if you cannot provide a valid counter argument, i suggest you refrain from embarassing yourself further

>>173745394
>wow do I really need to know their fleet comp to know they're online, active and readily hunting me with a bunch of PL within jumping range of my ratting system?
>wow I don't but I'm gonna cry anyway

File: 440085.gif (819KB, 290x204px) Image search: [Google]

819KB, 290x204px

>PL has no blue space

>>173745465
>i know the composition of the enemy
>i still am unable to actively initiate an engagement and must for the camper to make a move

>>173745423
>pointing out that most
no they don't, this unsubstantiated

>>173745434
>this does not merely refer to covert cynos but also cloaked gankers
Cloaky campers are the least of your problem if PL is in your neighboring systems.

>given the ability for blops to cloak up and remain undetectable, this does not alter the initial problem. you may be fully away that there are blops, but if they are cloaked up in a deep safe, you, again, have no means to apply any pressure or initiate an engagement

You don't need to see a blops fleet on dscan to know a blops fleet is hunting you dumb fuck.

>cute, irrelevant to the discussion
Clearly it is relevant because you refuse to be a good, useful spy. But you're apparently being hunted by PL so all this is at the bottom of the list of your problem.
>my proposed plan would not impact or alter the way wormholes are generated, the mechanics and algorithms used would not be directly affected by my proposal
Your proposed plan would do nothing to stop PL from killing you, taking your shit, kicking you out.
>again, this does not solve the problem, in a hypothetical situation where the attacking party has every single system in game camped by a cloaky camper, your argument would not be valid, and there would still be the problem of the lack of tools for a pilot to use to detect said cloaky campers
Your problem is you have PL on your ass not that cloaky camping is afoot.
>i would like to fight them, but as it stands currently with in game mechanics, i cannot engage them as they are cloaked and undetectable
roaming does not have a direct connection to this
go fucking cry about it, PL does more than just blopsing fleets, its not fucking bombers bar. Your lazy ass won't do shit to stop your "problem" because you're excuses all end with "but its PL none of your suggestions work" which means your bigger problem is PL not cloaky campers at all

If it's PL what does it matter what they have, your 6 man fleet is dead either way.

>>173745602
Go fucking unsub if you're whining that all your problems stem from PL because all the suggestions work against everyone else but you use PL as your scape goat because you're a fucking pussy that doesn't wanna admit hes wrong

>be in horde
>have 2 cloaky alts running all times because I have a decent computer
>blops fleet can be flash formed any time because tons of people in corp
>everyone knows but theres nothing they can do

Heheheh

>>173746081
This

Cloaky camping isn't your problem. Its that PL is your neighbor

or that all these fags whining are just using PL as a scape goat to try and denounce all the suggestions that actively solve cloaky camper problems

>>173746102
>damn, I can't counter his argument
>hurr just unsub lol

>>173745996
>Cloaky campers are the least of your problem if PL is in your neighboring systems.
agreed, but again, this isn't specifically in regards to PL, this is in regards to any cloaky camper who stays within a system for an extended duration of time
everyone here is saying that no one is entitled to perfect safety, yet they are more than happy to grant it to a cloaked ship in a deep safe, this contradiction confuses me, and my proposed idea would help rectify this contradiction by placing cloaked ships in as just as much risk as any other

>Clearly it is relevant because you refuse to be a good, useful spy.
i would never advocate, nor support, the utilization of an out-of-game interaction with other pilots to expressly interact with in-game mechanics. this opens the door to doxxing, or real life threats as way to influence in-game decision making

>Your proposed plan would do nothing to stop PL from killing you, taking your shit, kicking you out.
this is irrelevant
again, if you haven't read my initial proposal, it is to provide pilots with a tool to counter cloaky campers by providing them a means by which they can detect cloaked ships. i do not care involve any particular corp or alliance, other than to serve as examples of failed or successful utilization of current game mechanics

>which means your bigger problem is PL not cloaky campers at all
again, you're still focused on an example alliance, and not the actual point of the discussion itself. regardless of PL or any other corp, I feel providing this tool to all pilots would provide a benefit

>>173746102
>Go fucking unsub if you're whining that all your problems stem from PL
yet again, you people seem to believe that because i brought up an example, that said example was my initial point of contention. this is an incorrect examination of my proposal and your comment is once again not relevant to the original discussion of providing a tool for pilots to use

>>173746409
>I can't counter all his suggestions
>I know! I'll claim all the suggestions are IMPOSSIBLE because PL is my neighbor and I can't do anything about it!
>therefore I can claim that cloaky camping is a problem and not that PL is my fucking neighbor and ripping my ass a new one

>i don't have an actual counter argument
>oh he used PL as an example
>i'll try to derail the conversation from the initial point and try to get him to rage about PL so that i can discredit his arguments

>>173746518
>agreed
Then this whole talk about whining about cloaky campers you can't fix after all my suggestions is because you're incompetent clear as day.

None of your suggestions will EVER stop PL from ruining your shit. If its not cloaky camping its worse, they'll hellcamp your station until you leave and they take the system, blow up all your assets and ruin your shit..

>this is irrelevant
No you dumb fuck you can't claim its irrelevant and post NOTHING of substance. I suggested 7 fucking things to solve your cloaky camping problem and you dismissed them all as impossible because PL was on your doorstep. You had no counterargument but blaming PL and their highly elite group of fuckers from shitting down your neck. You've done nothing. So now that I've established that you're clearly using PL as an excuse and not an actual threat upon your sov you can do literally everything I said to stop it instead of whining that you can't do anything.

>i would never advocate, nor support, the utilization of an out-of-game interaction with other pilots to expressly interact with in-game mechanics. this opens the door to doxxing, or real life threats as way to influence in-game decision making
No you're just avoiding it because you're a shitty spy or that you refuse to put any effort into solving your problem because you'd rather cry about a non issue you will do NOTHING about.

>again, you're still focused on an example alliance
You used PL to blame all your problems on and the fact that you can't take any of my suggestions because PL is stopping you.

>yet again, you people seem to believe that because i brought up an example,
Its not an example, you used PL as implicit evidence of why you can't do ANYTHING about your problems

>>173746853
>heres a list of shit you can do
>I can't do any of those because PL
>you're blaming all your problems on PL
>no it was just an example

oh so its not real, it was merely an act you were hypothetically supposing. PL isn't actually shitting down your throat, you're just lazy and would rather whine because you wanna pretend you're right instead of actually doing what works to remove problems from the field

>giving PL attention

>tfw 15mil SP and still in pandemic horde
>join another corp because i thought that's what you're supposed to do
>nobody logs on unless fleet, everyone is bitter and don't like helping new people
>go back to pandemic horde because it's fun and there's always something going on

Why do people even bother leaving """newbie""" corps? Is there anything better out there?

>>173746282
>denounce all the suggestions that actively solve cloaky camper problems
which suggestion has not been shown to be irrelevant to the discussion at hand?

if you mean suggestions like "go reinforce their structures" or "go kill their pos towers" i point you back to the previous point of "cloaky camping is the only activity in the game require necessitates a disproportionate response and is not healthy for the game"

>>173747435
>one of your suggestions will EVER stop PL from ruining your shit.
this isn't about PL, this is about cloaky camping. since you're so keen on falling back on PL, let me remind you that PL was brought up as an example of an alliance that cannot by attacked by reinforcing their structures (as per the suggestion you have brought up). they were used as an example to show that your suggestion is not always feasible, nor a viable solution. please stop trying to derail the conversation due to the presence of a single example, no matter how much it may trigger you.

my proposal would apply equally against any cloaky camper. as it's a tool for any pilot to use so that he has the ability to choose an engagement against any other cloaked ship.

>>173747556
yet more continued misunderstanding
the original poster brought up suggestions, which i've already shown to not be viable through an example.

the proposed idea i have brought up would be viable, regardless of party affiliation.

>>173747808
>Its not viable because of an example I mentioned
So again its not real, PL isn't stopping you because PL isn't near you

stop making shit up this is fucking bait. I simply refuse to believe you're this autistic that you can't get a spy into another corp because you think that corp is LIKE PL

You are so fucking retarded, just fucking kill yourself you autistic fuck

>>173747808
>Its not about PL because PL is hypothetically shitting on me which is why I can't do anything about all my problems
>woe is me
you are fucking autistic 100% confirmed

>>173747946
>So again its not real
no, it's not explicitly PL
this is in reference to any unwanted cloaky pilot in a system

> I simply refuse to believe you're this autistic that you can't get a spy into another corp
i fail to see why you believe it is a good thing to require an out of game interaction to influence an in-game mechanic.
even if i were to fancy this idea, and get a spy into the other corp, that action by itself does not solve the problem that there is a cloaky camper that i am still unable to engage upon

>You are so fucking retarded, just fucking kill yourself you autistic fuck
why do you seem so mad about this?
are you just not capable of having a discussion where you can rely upon your bittervet status and tell other people to stfu?

>>173748061
read the above ^
you children are so used to just "being right through entitlement of seniority" that if someone comes up with just a mere proposal, you guys lose your shit and just resort to name calling and attempted derailings

Can you bookmark a location mid-warp?

>>173747946
Having to put a spy into a corp to counter a strategy means it's unbalanced

>>173748751
Yes

>>173748307
>no, it's not explicitly PL
No you just used PL as an example of why you can't do any of the 7 suggestions I listed. But you aren't dealing with PL because we aren't actually talking about PL. You just made that up to suit your argument, you can't have it both ways.

I just listed you 7 things you can do to stop your cloaky camping issue. By disabling your enemy they have no reason to cloaky camp your systems and they move the alt elsewhere. Thats the entire idea. You fix cut down your problem at the tree trunk, not at the leaves above. Not only does your suggestion not fix the problem that your neighbors are apparently shitting on you that you've made up and used as an example but can't do even though your example is 100% hypothetical. Even then with how CCP has viewed cloaking suggestions in the past this sounds awfully similar to one that was brought up at a round table I was at and Fozzie and Larriken immediately shot down because of both complexity and lack of flow to the game. CCP is vehemently against making exceptions to exceptions nor ruining the already well established cloaking mechanic they know they're happy with. Furthermore they're more keen on removing local from null before considering a suggestion like this.

>why are you so mad
I'm not mad, you're just autistic because you engineer excuses to valid suggestions that my corporation has practiced and done because we aren't full of bads like you wanna make yourself out to be. Its clear that because you refuse to even put a spy in an enemy corp you aren't interested in anything that requires effort. You're your own worse enemy.

>>173748903
No its not, its a valid strategy. I have 3 alts I can throw into virtually any corp effortlessly and you wouldn't know what a good spy was

>>173749074
why are you still replying to that guy. he's been writing essays and calling things "cute" for literally four hours now.

FOUR HOURS.

>>173749074
>You just made that up to suit your argument,
lol, no, you're just choosing to avoid the previous comment
>if you mean suggestions like "go reinforce their structures" or "go kill their pos towers" i point you back to the previous point of "cloaky camping is the only activity in the game require necessitates a disproportionate response and is not healthy for the game"

the suggestions you have brought up only serve to support my claim that cloaky camping is the only activity the requires an extraordinarily disproportionate response

if the response against a single pilot in local who may or may not be afk is to go reinforce their structures, i would argue that is indeed a disproportionate response, and therefore not healthy for the game

you still have yet to address this subpoint that i've brought up.

>>173749147
I don't know. I like reminding people that they're bad, autistic, retarded like all those bad suggestions I heard at fanfest

Fozzie and Larriken put up with a lot of shit because of these idiots and the people who gripe that CCP doesn't listen don't understand that the game designers have to put up with so much bullshit before getting good shit.

Redpill me on mining

I'd like a laid-back way of making passive income.

How much would you guys estimate a decently-trained Procurer pilot make off spodumain or gneiss per minute

>>173749330
don't mine until you can sit in a well-fit rorqual with good skills. then kill yourself because you trained for a rorqual

>Redpill me on

Downvoted

>>173749252
>its disproportionate because I said so
>its unhealthy because I said so
>my awful suggestion that has been shotdown before is a good idea even though it and all my claims are 100% unsubstantiated

>>173749389
Why though?
Is there an equally laid-back passive way to make ISK without as much training or something?

I'm pretty new, and have 1.3 billion ISK right now. Took me 3 months to get there. I'd like to mine rocks semi-afk to help pay for losing ships while learning PVP, but it seems that all ISK-making techniques in eve are boring as fuck and i'd prefer such an activity to happen in the background.

> don't understand that the game designers have to put up with so much bullshit before getting good shit.

>good shit examples being
>lol just go reinforce all their structures (in response to a single cloaky camper)
>lol just go knock down their pos tower (in reponse to a single cloaky camper)
>lol just leave (in response to a single cloaky camper)
>lol unsub you faggot (in response to a single cloaky camper)
>lol just go on a roam (in response to a single cloaky camper)

i fail to see why you don't realize that your suggestions only serve to support my point about requiring disproportionate effort

>>173749525
why are you even trying at this point?

>>173749074
Just because it's a valid strategy doesn't mean it's one that's healthy for gameplay. Something should be counterable with in-game mechanics, not requiring you to use spies.

>>173749616
>>173749635
bait

>>173749330
Probably around 15m/h without boosts, up to 50% more with.

>>173749730
I see, thanks

That doesn't sound too bad for hardly any work

>>173749665
not bait, actual arguments being brought up
to this point so far, you and your friends counter arguments have only worked to support my case

just because the faggots on the eve online forums aren't able to properly defend their arguments you guys have become overly confident in being able to just say "stfu, faggot"

>>173749604
mining without doing anything with that ore yourself is probably the single worst way to make isk in eve. true, it's absolutely braindead and requires zero effort except to hit your shit once in a blue moon, but unless you're doing indy on your own or can mine with a rorq, i really struggle to see it being worth anyone's time -- even semi-afk.

>>173749809
Keep in mind the Proc's ore bay is relatively small. You'll have to unload every 15 minutes or so without boosts, and every 7 with.

>>173749962
I see, thanks for letting me know

>>173749880
What would you recommend for making ISK? Is there a fun way to make decent ISK/hr?

File: 1405269550876.gif (3MB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 200x150px

I'm so burnt out of this current meta shit with assfrigs being completely useless and CCP devs just making shitty memes at the worst fanfest to date and introducing absolutely no balance to anything remotely retarded so everyone can continue flying their T3D's while ratting in their VNI's nonstop so every single nullblob can load up on Machs and hurr durr with newbies while lowsec gets shit on and nothing but Tristans remain in faction warfare where the only thing holding highsec on from being a desolate shithole is the fact there people have too many assets in Jita/Amarr/Dodixie

Fuck you CCP replace your skin team with a balance team

>>173749835
>actual arguments being brought up
No there aren't

its not an actual argument to blame PL for all your shit then make up some suggestion that CCP already doesn't want. Regardless of your autism where apparently you don't wanna use out of game services to use a fucking spy to get intel means you're lazy, autistic and a huge baiting faggot

>you HAVE to use autistic roleplay james bond faggotry to counter cloakies
>this is perfectly ok and balanced

>>173750332
>its not an actual argument to blame PL
again, you're missing the point, and at this time, i believe you're intentionally attempting to continue to harp on a non-issue in an attempt to avoid discussion on a topic that you are unable to contest

i'd say gf, but you never really brought up anything meaningful to counter, so wtvr

File: 1490043710142.jpg (17KB, 499x369px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 499x369px

>autistic cloaky camper argument permeating the thread
i wish you retards could handle wormholes so i could drop hot loads on you daily

fuck off shard. i hope your plane crashes

>>173750134
Incursions and/or ninja looting

>>173750949
>ninja looting

How is that even viable currently

>>173750221
Agreed except who fucking cares about assault frigates, they will always be terrible

>>173750949
I still have a long way to go before incursions, but I'll keep at it.

Ninja looting sounds interesting, I'll read up on it.

Thanks for the suggestions

File: image.jpg (166KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 640x1136px

https://zkillboard.com/kill/60241003/

He was bad back in MLJ, but this is unreal.
Why hasn't this been dogposted already? especially as he posts here.

>>173739564
Make interdiction spheres decloak ships.

I don't know what you are asking for, in order to use the detector, you have to be on grid and suspect a cloaky is as well, in which case you could drop a bubble right now, as very few niggers are gonna try cyno a fleet into something which looks like retardedly obvious bait.

r8 my battle venture guize

>[Venture, Venture]
>Damage Control II

>5MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive
>X5 Enduring Stasis Webifier
>Warp Scrambler I

>Light Ion Blaster I
>Light Ion Blaster I

>Small Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
>Small Core Defense Field Extender I
>Small Core Defense Field Extender I

>Acolyte II x2

>>173751291
>extender rigs
>no extender

Downvoted

>>173751372
i'm out of mid slots though

>>173751291
>warp scram
>1 tank module

Enjoy getting instablapped.

>>173751468
Drop the web

>>173751221
>he didn't get enough validation last thread so he reposted it again
Fuck off no one cares

>>173750472
I'm starting to change my mind. Honestly this is a valid response. There's always diplomacy and bending the knee too.

>he thinks opening the door to ccp endorsed doxxing of players to affect cloakys campers is a good idea

>diplomacy
>somehow affecting people wanting ez killmails
???

>>173751647
Queermo?

Is industry and crafting hard to get into?

>>173751762
it's pretty understandable why they'd think it's a good idea, given how autistic they are and how seriously some of these faggots take the game

people have even ruined real marriages due to alliance rivalries

>Apocalypse
>A normal 10% range bonus would be overpowered, let's make it 7.5%

>wake up in the morning
>log in to eve
>log into my Sb alt on a heavy worked enemy system.
>dozens warp to safety as I log in.
>leave the keyboard and depart for work nine to five.
>come back from work to read the absurd amount of tears in local.
>call gf
>go outside have a good time together for hours.
>come back to eve to see another mountain of rage in local.
>grow tired, go to sleep happily knowing I've made dozens of losers cry in frustration about my presence in system :^)

If you took a prospect, would they all hide in station while you mine

>work
>outside

Friend just started so I decided to resub for the first time since 2010, and things seem very different. I have a few questions.

Are the learning skills gone? Was trying to tell him it was one of the best things to get early but I can't seem to find them.

How intrusive is the cash shop and plex market?

Can I train two characters on one account now?

oneiros

>>173755850
>Are the learning skills gone?
Yes

>How intrusive is the cash shop and plex market?
Not very. Mostly cosmetic shit.

>Can I train two characters on one account now?
Yes, but it requires burning a PLEX just like subbing a second account. Better to train them on two different accounts.

>>173755850

> Are the learning skills gone? Was trying to tell him it was one of the best things to get early but I can't seem to find them.
Gone.

> Can I train two characters on one account now?
By using Multiple Character Training Certificate.
It is worth about one plex.

>>173758058
Why is it better to do it on two? Is there a cost difference?

>>173758242
No, but having them on two different accounts allows them to be logged in at the same time.

>>173758242
Only train a second char on your proper account if it's something you can use without your main logged in. Like getting your hauler alt into a T2 hauler with 1-2 months of multiple training. If you're going to train a lot, they might as well be on a separate account

>>173758361
>>173758465
Okay thanks guys. Any other big changes like learning skills disappearing that I should be aware of?

>>173758764
Biggest thing would probably be reading up on citadels. Lots of differences from PoSes.

>>173758764
Rifter got +50 hull a few years back

>he doesn't know about T3Ds yet

Oh, to be innocent again...

t3ds are not a big deal fag

>>173763558
T3Cs, on the other hand

>>173763628
>they're totally balanced, just bring your own t3cs

ded

Could a proteus do PvE as well as a Tengu can?

>>173767148
No

Can't start playing the game atm, rate my starting plan for it tho

>Get referral code
>Buy starter pack
>Referral code deal gives me 75% of ISK from the sale of the PLEX

>Complete tutorial
>Complete Sisters of EVE epic ark
>Train basic skills and mission skill while I do this

>Do Exploration & and train relevant skill
>Get used to flying in low sec
>Do some light PVP is I don't hit the panic button anytime someone get close to me
>Make some ISK from doing something active

>Train Industry skills
>Make spreadsheets
>Workout what is most profitable
>Use my exploration skills to fund my industry
>Use my industry skills to fund PVP

>Find a corp to join
>Take part in small fleet PVP
>Train skills to fly EWAR ships (seems like fun to me)

Good plan? Bad plan? Okay plan?

>>173767653
I think the starter pack may not give referral perks I think only directly subbing does, this may be outdated though. other than that it sounds good though I would recommend joining a newbie corp once you do some of the epic arc

>>173767952
I checked, as you pay for the starter pack (which comes with Omega game time), the referrer gets the PLEX

Also, What are good noob corps? Is EVE uni a thing or a meme?

>>173768025
eve uni is the most structured, but also the most restrictive on what they allow you to do
honestly most of the big newbie corps are pretty similar, and you shouldnt be staying in that group for more than a couple months, just do a bit of research and join what you think is best and dont be afraid to leave

>>173768025
>Is EVE uni a thing or a meme?
A meme filled with autism.

The major noob corps are Pandemic Horde, Karmafleet, TEST and Brave Newbies (wouldnt recommend this one, their area is too active)
Joining any of these means dealing with wardecs, meaning players trying to blap you in high sec.

>>173768359
I should say most are the same except eve uni, which is structured more like a literal eve school with classes and campuses and shit

>>173768359
Thanks for the advice, I quite liked the idea of running my own corp in the future anyway, so I might fly with a noob corp for as long as I have to before GTFO'ing

You think people would be up for joining a small corp that focuses on running really high risk operations semi-regluarly with the goal being having an tense and exciting experience as opposed a constantly profitable one?

>>173768381
Will take a look, thanks

>>173768540
Most of the people with that idea ends up living in a wormhole because they need the income to sustain themselves, doesnt require hundreds of members and the wormholes give access to nullsec to spook people.

>tfw tired of drone regions
>so sad to see every rat i kill to have empty wreck
>other regions have shitty corp
>mine is shit too but at least it's full of paranoid assholes who bully everyone who dares to enter so it's kinda quiet and can afk a lot.
>tfw 20days to train heavy drones to 5
>tfw 26+7 days to train carriers.

>>173770998
>living in null

>>173771228
I don't know where else to live, WH's are gay and i don't know how to make money there anyways.

What if cloaks needed fuel?
Optional: can't be cloaked while loadingthe module, with a fully loaded module lasting half an hour with max skills

>>173771356
Im pretty sure even in factional warfare or in highsec you can make more ISKs.

>>173771627
well i do 20m ticks now but they are 95% afk...with carrier i heard i can do 60m ticks+escalations, is this bad? Incursions might be better but they are gayer than ratting.
And FW...it so happened that every fucking char i have is amarr\caldari allied, and i really like gallente so i have no idea how that happened (maybe because niggers turn me off too much), and amarr LP shop feels the most useless one and caldari is the most oversaturated, while gallente is the best overall and mintamar is literally what.

>>173771847
>gayer than ratting
k
Well do what you want. I would actually prefere to do something worth doing even if its gay instead of being poor.

>>173772065
I only have an hour or two to play every day...i can't fly logi so by the time i get into incursion i have to sleep tight.
What money do they give anyways, people say "lol easy 200m\h" but this doesn't seem that much better than ratting and i feel the amount is inflated by people who want to feel better than everyone who doesn't do the same thing as what they do (and if they do then they are still better because they've been doing it before it was cool).

>>173772336
Then run L4 missions in FW. You can do one mission run a day and thats all.

>>173772531
Im afraid of FW (and, again, i can only do it for caldari and amarr and aren't they both shit?) and all i know about lvl4 is that people used to cheese them with bombers but now i don't even know how they do them or if they do them at all.

>>173773264
They do in bombers/hacs. And you can join any militia if you are joining player corporation

>>173771405
what if your corp recruited 10 players who can do pvp BEFORE claiming space in the pvp area?

So what do I click to do SOE?
I heard there was two options I could spam for ez isk while I shipspin?

>>173774373
cystoplasm and nucleus but there is always 3 or 4 options so while "click only 2" is a meme you have to also guess what majority of people thought 3rd option was, or was it at all.

>>173775160
You telling me people actually spend time and effort hitting those accuracy numbers?

Fuck that then.

>>173771405
Ccp already denied this change

>>173774373
Spam cytoplasm

>>173771405
Ccp said this idea was trash. They hate doing gimmicky bullshit changes for things where there's no actual issue. Just a bunch of whiny losers crying they should be entitled to safety

>>173771405
What if cloaked goys could be scanned down and there was a module something like "activation time 30sec, stops ship, disables your drones and targeting for 60 seconds, decloaks everything in 50km radius and they can't recloak for 10 minutes" - deals with your afk fags and still allows for autists to just warp off.

>>173778802
No this is a retarded suggestion. You're like all those care bears at fanfest mudding the fucking line up. Seriously gitgud

There's nothing wrong with cloak camping. If you're not going to put effort into solving your problems then you're autistic

>>173778909
And how exactly do you "solve" afk cloaked people who just sit and wait untill people forget about you.

>>173779009
There's nothing to solve because cloak camping isn't a problem

Why don't you gitgud and put a spy in their Corp or do some fucking scouting. Youre not entitled to safety

>>173779117
you are very retarded

>>173779009
>until they forget about him
That's your fault for not staying on your toes and becoming complacent

>>173779231
Oh I'm retarded for suggesting you shouldn't get comfy with a cloak camper in your system?

I'm retarded for saying you should go scout or gather Intel?

Whose the bigger retard? The guy who tries to fix what bothers him or some faggot like you that doesn't want to do anything about his problems and would rather cry and whine about them

You can see the guy in local, what's there to complain about? I bet wormholes give you an aneurysm.

>>173779339
you're retarded for thinking afk cloaking:

1) is in a fair state right now

2)pointing the most retarded solutions to the problem

>>173779339
Scout? Gather intel? Spies? What fucking ethyl vodka you've been drinking?

>get 5 people
>jump in system
>cloak
>go play overwatch or something
>kill some guy after 30-40 minutes
>go play overwatch more
>kill some other guy
>should have gathered more Intel ;) Or AMD, i heard they are cooler right now.

>>173779479
You're an autist who would rather bitch than do anything

Getting Intel about your surroundings would inform you of whether people are active or not. Putting a spy in Corp that could tell you if there was a blips fleet active would tell you if that cloak camper is active or not.

Git fucking gud you whiny autistic faggot. There's nothing wrong with cloak camping when you do literally nothing about it

>>173779601
>hey guys don't get caught ratting they're actively hunting in system ~friendly spy in enemy corp

>>173779602
you're giving me an aneurysm with all your stupidity

God, you're so dumb

>>173779727
>you're stupid because I don't wanna put a spy in Corp to find out if I'm being hunted or not

Maybe nullsec isn't for you and you should go back to high sec or world of War craft

>>173779659
Who would even say that.
I like to imagine that you put a "spy" in enemy corp (because obviously only the same corp comes to your system) and every time they want to kill someone they proudly announce it in corp chat and then they all pissed thinking "how did he know? my strategy was unbeatable! Damn you Yugi!"

>>173779768
"putting a spy in the enemy's corp" shouldn't be enforced as a way to deal with a cloaky camper because that's not even a game mechanic, retard.

it's incredibly easy for them to realize you're a spy because you're new and keep asking delicate questions all the time, and the enemy acts like they've known that information the second you tell the newguy what he's asking

besides the fact that setting a spy up is much more complicated than setting a cloaky camper, and much less reliable.

>>173779867
More like they make a ping for a blops fleet or you log in, open your fleet finder window and see there's a blops fleet or you get on comms and learn there's a blops fleet or you ask in Corp chat if there's a blops fleet. And you take all that Intel and you relay it to your friendlies and warn them if they're actively hunting

But apparently you're far too autistic to do that so you'd rather bitch, cry and whine about it.

>>173779896
>"putting a spy in the enemy's corp" shouldn't be enforced as a way to deal with a cloaky camper because that's not even a game mechanic, retard.
Oh so you admit you're lazy and don't wanna exploit the fact that eve revolves around these types of interactions because the game isn't some theme park mmo where you get to press a button to win?

Gitgud you're a fucking scrub who won't put any effort in

>it's enforced
Git fucking gud. I probably put a spy at into your Corp and found out you're all a bunch of social rejects that sit and bitch while your Corp disbands due to drama

>>173778720
>entitled to safety

I mean if that's what you want to call it. There's no point in arguing, in the current state you're right, most people can't hold null space if challenged and that's just the way it is. Don't complain about everyone staying in highsec when they get dropped by blops fleets and supercarriers as soon as they try to break into nullsec though. Its not feasable for a new alliance or new corp to be able to hold sov against even an alt corp of a segment of a major powerblock even if they are trying to hold a single system. They aren't going to fight off that shit with caracals and basilisks with shit new FC's and untrained pilots. They're just going to get raped and go back to highsec.

>>173779896
>it's incredibly easy for them to realize you're a spy because you're new and keep asking delicate questions all the time,
If you know this why don't you know not to do that? Why don't you know how to socially interact and fit in? Why are you so bent on being a bad spy when it's clear you know what would make a bad spy bad?

Is it because you're autistic?

>>173780182
>most people can't hold null space
This proves to me you're just an f1 sitter who puts no effort into the game. In fact you don't even play

You get kicked out of your space because the enemy is better than you and you cry about it blaming everyone else but yourself

>>173780016
What stops me from just getting couple of people i know (or just solo) and do >>173779601 ? Oh i know, i jsut join their fleet because im a super spy and then...oh wait, right, nothing. What goddamn blop active hunting bullshit do you even say? How does it relate to "sit in cloak for forever untill you decide that it's time to tab back into eve to kill someone who dared to undock after 2 hours of you sitting there"

You're the one who autistic who can't even read prorerly and thinks that having 20 accounts to "infiltrate enemy lines, find out where they live" is a perfectly normal way of playing.

>>173780260
I'm not even that anon. I was just a multibox miner that was part of the mining branch of an alliance. Our alliance couldn't protect us from dropping, moving us around didn't work, people just stopped logging in because you couldn't mine.

I made the decision that it wasn't worth it so I just unsubbed my mining alts and moved back to highsec because there was no reason to be in null if I couldn't multibox mine when I wanted to. Getting camped cuts into profits too much.

I didn't do shit to try and stop the campers because literally all I do is mine. Its probably not worth it to protect players like me or our corp, so they didn't. Besides that though I don't know how you would take space as a new corp it seems fucking impossible. All we ever fought was like 40+ man fleets of t3c and blops drops. There's like no fucking way we were fighting that.

>>173740192
>you can earn enough money ingame to get a subscription
lies

>>173780801
>I'm not even that anon. I was just a multibox miner that was part of the mining branch of an alliance. Our alliance couldn't protect us from dropping, moving us around didn't work, people just stopped logging in because you couldn't mine.
That sounds like you joined a shit Alliance that couldn't defend their sov

>>173780865
Alpha is no time limit...so OP is not wrong, it just takes time...maybe month maybe two but you get your month of sub.

>>173780328
>You're the one who autistic who can't even read prorerly and thinks that having 20 accounts to "infiltrate enemy lines, find out where they live" is a perfectly normal way of playing.
It is perfectly normal. Git fucking gud. Spying is a huge part of the game and if you're too autistic to figure that out then maybe you should just unsub

>>173780935
>implying alliances don't control so much of the territory that they just don't have enough people to defend everything
>implying people in alliances are ok with constantly being tossed around because their ratting renters been attacked again.

>>173780991
maybe i should just write some mining bots

>>173780865
get scanning frig, join an incursion fleet to hack for them, bam plex within a weekend from tips

>>173781060
So you admit you're over extended?

>>173781164
What?

>>173781521
Alliances take and control more sov than they can handle. That's what you said which is over extension

How did low-sec Voltron beat the goons?

>inb4 "wwb happened over a year ago, get over it fag"
Fuck off, wasn't interested in EVE then.

>>173783267
Evicting someone from low sec is impossible if they will really want to stay. Low sec groups are better at pvp and basically could btfo them by fighting when it was convenient for them. Also they had better fitted and more expensive doctrines.

WHAT RACE DO I PICK TO NOT LOOK LIKE AN OLD MAN

>>173784009
Enheduanni.

>>173784009
female

>>173784009

>all caps

Biomass yourself.

>>173786459
I'M SORRY YOU'RE TRIGGERED BY THE SMALLEST OF THINGS, FAGGOT

>>173786754
I think using caps is triggering him. Not your dick

If anyone here knows how to use Jeremy, how do I copy a ship? I know you can because I remember doing it once before

File: 211322185.jpg (23KB, 436x436px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 436x436px

>>173787989
or add one
In fact, I could do with an user manual

>you're not entitled to safety
>but cloaky campers are
Fucking sjw double standards m8

>>173788567
Just catch them on the gate, if you let them in then it's your fault.

>>173788567
don't forget

>not living in safe wh where you get billions of isk without anyone cloaking in your system.

>>173788656
>yeah, just catch a cloaky, nullified or cloaky nullified ship
Something tells me you don't actually live in null.

>>173788949
>What are interceptors

>>173788886

>>173788888

You had one job.

>>173789149
Something that can't catch a cloaky nullified tengu?
Christ you're dumb

>>173788656
>>173788656
>you are not entitled to safety
>except cloaky campers

>just get them on the gates, you only have one shot, and if you fail, they're entitled to safety


>if they come through a wormhole, then they are definitely entitled to safety

>>173789306
Sorry anon, but im a failure of a human being. I like watching anime and listening to game sountracks.

>trying to stop cloak campers in a ceptor
Get a load of this faggot

>>173789149
So...just have a ceptor alt on every gate logged in at all times? Sounds good, report back of success.

>>173789539
You cant catch them with ceptors anyway
Not even instalockers

>>173789782
Just have 3 smartbombing bs alts on every gate in addition to ceptor alts.

>>173789854
>it's a tengu with nullification and 100k ehp

>you are not entitled to safety
>but I am though, because I have a cloak
When will the retarded double standard die? It's as bad and illogical as sjws and liberals.

>>173788567
>>173789976
How many times are you going to post this?

>>173790154
Like five hundred times?
Until you guys realize that using the argument "you're not entitled to safety" is not a valid as it creates a double standard by which you as the cloaky camper enjoy the benefits of being entitled to safety, whole denying that benefit to everyone else, despite yourself saying that all ships out in space should not be safe. This contradiction in your mindset is what makes the argument invalid.

>>173789976
you're entitled to safety too if you stay in station or cloak

>>173790884
>you're entitled to safety too if you stay in station or cloak
this would only continue to encourage people to engage in that double standard, not address it

File: 1408942638874.jpg (248KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1920x1080px

>>173790884
>Entitled to safety if you cloak

can anyone actually link me to all the proposed ideas and why CCP shot them down?

>>173740374
>there should be a method, through which a pilot is able to detect a cloaked ship out in space
>>this would offer a tool for pilots to remove unwanted pilots from their systems

A bit late to the party, maybe, but who decides who owns a system? The whole idea of EVE is the interaction between players. This is what a sandbox does. If you decide you own a system because you have more capitol there, does it follow that if someone else brings more capital, they own it? 'You got there first' doesn't entitle you to the territory, but to to defend your claim to it.

Detection is the first notice of an outsider in the system. If you don't detect a peaceful presence, you can safely assume you're safe and alone, and for all intents and purposes be so (although I'm wondering whether I would accept this particular argument for the sake of intelligence agencies. I think the difference is that intelligence agencies aren't undetected). When you first lose your ship to a phantom, thats detection.

I suppose it seems like you're forced to fight the cloaker on his terms. Only he can choose when to engage; you're forced to play his game. So play it well. Use his techniques against him. Analyse his targets and methods. What do people usually do in this situation? How do they lose their stuff? Draw the predator into the situation he knows well, then when you can see he's invested in his game, change the terms.

Predators are a consequence of living in wild areas. In choosing to operate in such an area you're not only choosing the benefits but also the drawbacks. Living in lowsec, wormholes, null, or whatever, involves occasional (or more) breaks from the norm to deal with novel situations.

This is why I like EVE. It gives me a chance to spout half-baked philosophy.

>>173790606
How about you will stop being bad.

>>173791297
>A bit late to the party, maybe, but who decides who owns a system?
it does not matter who 'owns' a system, this method would offer a tool that can be used by any pilot, regardless of the sovereignty status of a nullsec space, and would work equally well in any other space. this is not a nullsec sov holding alliance tool, this is a general tool that anyone can use.

>Draw the predator into the situation he knows well, then when you can see he's invested in his game, change the terms.
yes, but again, we end up with the problem of a disproportionately large investment of time and energy in order to counteract the potential of a cloaky camper. this was a point that i've brought up many threads ago, and still has not been appropriately addressed

why is it that in order to fight a cloaky camper (who by current mechanics, can participate in this activity while wholly away from his keyboard) i need to expend the time, energy, and effort of multiple individuals and have them be at the ready and essentially wait. this requirement of such a great expenditure of player effort to prepare FOR THE MERE POTENTIAL of a cloaky camper's action, create a huge disproportionate investment of time and energy and that in itself is unhealthy for the game overall.

>>173789935
...are doomstays aoe? If yes then have cloked titan and sacrificial lamb at every gate to die for the greater good.

>>173791913

How wide is the pike doomsday?

>>173791297
> but who decides who owns a system
Whoever puts Territorial Claim Unit there

>>173740192
Quick question, i just created an account using the OP link. Any difference besides Trading cards and some processing power in not using Steam?
Do you log in once the game is launched or are you forever Steamlinked?

>>173792668

Don't use steam.

Serious question, what, in your opinion is the biggest problem with eve right now? Try to keep it as specific as possible.

>>173793180
>Serious question, what, in your opinion is the biggest problem with eve right now? Try to keep it as specific as possible.
the necessity to expend a disproportionately large amount of player effort in order to counteract the potential of engagement created by the presence of a cloaky camper who can participate in this activity while wholly afk

>>173793180

Projection. Space needs to be mostly empty, looking for someone should take a long time but not impossible. Removing cloaks would be a nice step in that direction.

>>173793354
Stay mad and autistic null fag I can hear your autistic screaming from here as you refuse to gitgud

>>173792668
Using Steam adds another point of failure between the you and the game.
The launcher is already prone to screwing you over and logging in is no longer possible without it.
It also makes API fuckery and such more of an annoyance. I don't even want to think about how CREST and siggy/vippy/tripwire interact with it.

>>173793180
The proliferation of machariels due to overpowered Upwell structures which stagnated the generation of content due to vulnerability timers and bullshit

>>173793458
like i said before, this is not specifically about nullsec and would apply equally to all aspects of the game

you still have not managed to provide a proper counter argument against the introduction of this porposed tool, merely resorted to insults

>>173793180
The clouds.
They've "allegedly" been fixed, but my FPS still tanks like a fucking brick when they are on grid and I have to make sure my shaders are set to minimum.

>>173791849
>this requirement of such a great expenditure of player effort to prepare FOR THE MERE POTENTIAL of a cloaky camper's action

But its not a requirement, its a choice. This is what I meant by the undetected peaceful presence (it doesn't even need to be peaceful). Its good that you're preparing to defend yourself, but you're the one choosing whether its worth 'wasting time' over. Here the effort is proportional to the perceived risk, not the actual risk.

Besides, I would argue that the opposition to "safety entitlement" is false, in that the cloaker is indeed granted 'safety', but while he is cloaked so too are you. Cloaking doesn't turn you from vulnerable to safe, rather it turns you into a non-actor, removed from the safety/vulnerability dynamic as far as combat is concerned (I'm not sure on the mechanics of stealth bombers). Its essentially a pause button.

I will admit there seems to be a case to when the AFK player returns; after all you don't know when the potential risk increases. But can't that be said of risk in general? It is only when we anticipate or detect a change in risk that we alter for the new potential. Accordingly couldn't it be said that we're all AFK (even when at the keyboard) until we initiate some action? All AFK really means is the inability to respond in time. More to the point, it goes back to detection. The 'AFK' player is re-detected when he makes his move, when he attacks. It might be worth re-defining detection as "the ongoing knowledge of an outsider in the system".

I think the point is to remember 'NOW', rather than 'LATER'. Its generally good to plan for the future, but as we're seeing its no fun when we forget to play if we're focusing too much on what might happen. Its all anxiety management, you know?

>>173793608
Your suggestion has already been denied by ccp for numerous reasons

Maybe you shouldn't live in null if you're not gonna put in any effort

>>173793180
Absolutely dogshit boring pve content.

>>173793741

This is a pvp game, anon. Pve is just a neccessary evil so people can pvp.

>>173793608
>you still have not managed to provide a proper counter argument against the introduction of this porposed tool, merely resorted to insults
It's not my responsibility to prove your suggestion that has already been denied by ccp wrong in any fashion

Ccp doesn't want :
>anything overtly complicated
>creates exceptions to exceptions to exceptions
>requires cloaks use any fuel whether or be capacitor or ozone or anything
>allows people to scan down cloak ships

The most you'll ever get is removing the no locking penalty on stealth bombers

Your suggestion will do nothing to stop pl or who ever you wanna make up that's hurting your fee fees. It also won't solve your reluctance to put any effort into stopping your enemies operations at all because you refuse to do really simple and easy things like scouting or putting spies in Corp

You are autostict

>>173793682
>But its not a requirement, its a choice.
I disagree. It is indeed a choice, but once I have committed myself to this choice of defending, I am still faced with the need to surmount a disproportionately larger defense against a player, who is able to participate in this activity wholly afk.

While you can go ahead and define 'afk' as the inability to respond in time, this still does not change the fact that a single individual can create an overwhelmingly disproportion threat (or even the perception of threat), while being fully unable to respond in time. As such, my claim still stands that this disparity is unhealthy for the game.

It is poor design to have, specifically, an in-game mechanic by which a single individual, regardless of whether or not he is at his keyboard, or whether or not he is able to respond to interactions in time, to pose such overwhelming risk, and even the perception of risk. Mind you, this it not even taking into consideration that the defending party is wholly unable to take any in-game action to counteract this problem.

Furthermore, should the defending party choose to defend this, they are yet again unable to take any in-game action until the cloaky camper makes a move. Yes, when the cloaky camper makes his move, he is vulnerable and can easily be engaged upon as any other pilot. Yet the problem still remains that until such time as the camper decides is appropriate, he is allowed perfect safety (while being cloaked in a deep safe), and rather than fully removing himself (for instance, logging off entirely), he is still able to be present and create risk/perception of risk.

And because he is able to continue to create this risk/perception of risk, he has not fully removed himself from the Safety/Vulnerable dynamic and should be as vulnerable as any other ship in space.

File: RetardDetected.jpg (23KB, 456x297px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 456x297px

>nullfags

You aren't supposed to live null anon. You can stick a cap alt into some random renter corp for free afk money, but if you actually involve yourself with null past that, you're doing it wrong.

In case this wasn't obvious enough, no, you do not get to live in cyno space and then complain about getting cyno'd on because only a mindless peasant lives in cyno space.

>>173795094
>It's not my responsibility to prove your suggestion that has already been denied by ccp wrong in any fashion
sure, but it is your responsibilty to provide proof and support in your claim that these suggestions have been denied by CCP

give links, faggot

>>173795104
>I have committed myself to this choice of defending,
Obviously not since you refuse to put any effort into hurting your enemy via all the shit I've been talking about and you think you shouldn't have to exploit the very nature that eve is founded on by using a spy to farm Intel from enemy comma, information or anything

>>173795272
let the grown ups handle this discussion, please

>>173795224
>but it is your responsibilty to provide proof and support in your claim that these suggestions have been denied by CCP
At the game balance round table Fozzie already told some faggot that he wasn't going to make it so you can scan down cloaks

Another fucker thought it was a good idea to make cloaks use fuel which was denounced by larriken

This is a well established position that ccp has taken where they don't want to install any of these retarded ideas even if they meet the person at fanfest. They aren't interested and they never actually have been despite whiny losers like you complaining about not being able to do anything when really you don't wanna do anything

>>173795450
In fact ccp rise is more interested in removing local from null before considering any kind of cloak mechanic change

>>173795450
>about not being able to do anything when really you don't wanna do anything


>he wants to do something
>you can't do that thing because it's stupid
>but cloaky campers can do this without expending any effort
>that's okay, they're entitled to it

>>173795582
>any effort
So the people who are on blops didn't put any effort into establishing their hold, their assets, risk their investments to set up their ability to come and harassment you?

Sound alike they put in a lot of effort

>forgetting that cloaky camping alts are free
>forgetting that cloaky camping alts actually make isk for you
>forgetting that you don't actually have to put anything at risk, just create the perception of risk in your targets

gee, a free account that does nothing but make isk for me AND engages my targets in psychological warfare while also being able to do this while at work and out shopping for groceries because i'm completely undetectable? sounds like a lot of risk there, senpai

>>173795960

You do know alphas can't use cloaks, right?

>>173793180
the game is too consensual, I think there's something seriously wrong when "people will not fight you" is a serious reason to avoid using certain ships

but it's always been like this and I've stayed anyway because the ships are beautiful

>>173795960
>>forgetting that cloaky camping alts are free
All my accounts are free

>that's not real risk, it's only risk when my shit is on the line

>>173796012
when did i say it was an alpha, faggot?

>>173796194

Omega uses plex or sub, hence it's not free.

>>173796313
Just ignore him. He is retarded

>>173796313
>he doesn't turn his cloaky camping alt into an SP farm with 50m worth of +4 implants in his head
just because you are a retarded faggot doesn't mean everyone else is

>>173796515
I agree, it's probably for the best.

>cloaky camping is okay because it makes you a non-actor
>except for the ability to present the perception of risk
>that's totally fine
>oh, and you're perfectly safe while in a deep safe
>yeah, btw, he's entitled to it, you're not
>why? because fuck you, that's why

>>173799449
Bait

>i still don't have a proper counterargument, better just call it bait and ignore the problem
>just leave the system
>just eat the loss

>>173799449
Harden the fuck up

>>173796535
Hm...so what you're saying is, i should make my own alliance with 2000 alts in it just because i can? Sounds good, report back on success.

>>173799871
how about harden the fuck up and allow yourself to be placed at risk while cloaked?

still with the double standards
>you shouldn't be perfectly safe
>cloaks are entitled to it

>harden the fuck up
>except cloaks, you can still be perfectly safe and not place yourself at risk, you're entitled to it

>>173793980
>huge part of the game
>doesn't need to change because it's "shitty thing you need to do so you can pvp"
Great logic.

>>173800047
Why don't you bait them or scout neighboring systems for dangers or put a spy in the Corp harassing you to get Intel on activity to better prevent yourselves from being farmed?

>>173795104
>I disagree. It is indeed a choice, but once I have committed myself to this choice.. faced with the need to surmount
Well, yeah, but you're choosing to commit yourself to this thing. You're valuing the action of defence against a perceived threat higher than your every day activity. The concept of value requires there to be a cost, a give and take if you like. The cost of your choice, your evaluation of the situation, is that its worth changing your usual activity to a different, even un-enjoyable, one.

>defense against a player, who is able to participate in this activity wholly afk
What exactly is the AFK player achieving in game while he's not at the keyboard?

>a single individual can create an overwhelmingly disproportionate threat
When you consider this economically, I'm not so sure its true. What damage can a loan cloaker actually do? He can blow up a few of your ships and disrupt your usual activity, but this is spread out thin over a considerable time and actual cost in damages. How does this compare to a fleet of capitals who arrive and destroy your shit in seconds (or some equivalent)? The only difference I can see is the level of anticipation. The disproportion is not in threat but in your response, which is wholly under your control.

>the defending party is wholly unable to take any in-game action to counteract this problem
You could find ways in which to practise 'ambush management' and learn to tame the panic of PVP, ready for when he finally comes out of cloak.

>he has not fully removed himself from the Safety/Vulnerability dynamic and should be as vulnerable as any other ship
While cloaked, the player is essentially a ghost; all he can do is watch. The difference between a perceived threat and a genuine threat is that the first happens only in the mind of the perceiver, while the latter in reality. My argument is that YOU can remove him from the Safety/Vulnerability dynamic by changing the way you think about him under cloak.

It's been two years. In that time, have any changes been made that might make me not want to return? I love the atmosphere and presentation of EVE but I'm pretty sure I spent the last month of my subscription sitting in a station.

>>173800338
>What exactly is the AFK player achieving in game while he's not at the keyboard?
Pissing losers like you off

>>173800210
>bait
still ignoring disproportionate response argument

>scout neighboring system
how does this help?
if they're a solo ganker, what would scouting neighboring systems do for me?

>put a spy
again, there should never be an in-game mechanic that requires an out-of-game interaction to overcome, this also opens the door to CCP endorsed player doxxing and privacy invasion
this also does not directly allow me to engage a cloaked pilot

>get intel on activity
again, how does this directly allow me to engage a cloaked target?

please, your suggestions have been shown to be irrelevant, infeasible, and in other ways unviable, try again son

File: nerds.png (25KB, 1158x58px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 1158x58px

just shut the fuck up already

>>173800490
>how does this help?
Tells you if they're blops in so you can avoid them

>I shouldn't have to put a spy in a corp because I don't wanna

It's a perfectly legitimate technique dude. Intel is valuable in this game. You making up excuses why you don't wanna proves you're just lazy

>>173800490
>this also opens the door to CCP endorsed player doxxing and privacy invasion
Holy fuck now this is bait. None of what you said is remotely true. Didn't know making an alternative and putting it into a corp means getting doxxed. Jesus fucking christ you are autistic

>I should be entitled to engage directly because I want to

Fuck off loser

>>173800338
>What exactly is the AFK player achieving in game while he's not at the keyboard?
Nothing, and this is exactly what I hope to fix.
It's a waste of his time to just sit there and do nothing.
It creates the perception of risk against his targets.

This tool would create a way by which the defenders have the option to attempt to find the cloaky camper. And the cloak camper is still able to create the perception of risk against his victims, but now he has an in-game benefit that he can achieve, keeping his ship alive and intact. It's a win win for both sides.

The whole "the AFK player receives no benefit" argument is moot, because you are still able to create a perception of threat by your mere presence. There is no other activity in the game that allows you to create this perception without having put in a serious amount of effort, for example, bringing out a massive fleet of capitals, or by expending in game resources to manipulate a market or anchor multiple citadels.

>What damage can a loan cloaker actually do?
This has actually be mathematically shown to have a significant and measurable impact in the game. It is actually so reliable that multiple alliances have used this technique to actively influence the ADM game mechanic. They don't even have to actively pose a threat, but merely create the perception, and it is enough to reduce activity in a system.

>You could find ways in which to practise 'ambush management'
This basically admits "yes, you require a disproportionate response, so you should just practice playing against this unhealthy game mechanic"

>While cloaked, the player is essentially a ghost; all he can do is watch.
Again, incorrect. As you have said yourself, there is the perception of risk, and that in itself is more than enough. And furthermore, my proposed suggestion would not, in any way, interfere with the ability to watch.

>>173801004
Bait, autism, fuck off loser, ccp already doesn't want your stupid suggestion

>>173800681
>if they're blops in so you can avoid them
and if they're not?

>It's a perfectly legitimate technique dude.
REQUIRING an out-of-game interaction is not good design

>>173800823
> Didn't know making an alternative and putting it into a corp means getting doxxed.
No, I'm simply stating that if CCP came out and officially endorsed the requirement of an out-of-game player interaction to influence an in-game mechanic, this would cause problems, one of which, may open the door to player doxxing under the guise of "i'm only doing this to affect the in-game mechanic of cloaky camping".

>>173801127
again, let the grown ups have the discussion, son, you've tried and proven yourself wholly incapable of debate. i can see why you keep suggesting "just leave the system", because it seems like this is how you deal with other problems as well, just call it rude insults and leave, hoping the problem disappears on its own.

>>173801439
>and if they're not?
Then you're safe because you know the cloak camper can't do anything

>I'm simply stating that if CCP came out and officially endorsed the requirement of an out-of-game player interaction to influence an in-game mechanic, this would cause problems, one of which, may open the door to player doxxing under the guise of "i'm only doing this to affect the in-game mechanic of cloaky camping".

Making a second account is something you've always been able to do. Putting an alternative into another corp is something you've always been able to do

I don't care if you don't think it'd legitimate or what ever your condition is against doing something really simple like spy alts but your autism doesn't stop you from doing it. Stop making shit up with your ethical nonsense. Ccp doesn't want your retarded suggestion

how about you autismos start a cloaky camper general and fuck off there so we can get back to dog posting

>>173801439
>may open the door to player doxxing under
I have hundreds of alternatives accounts. James315 is even more invested in spying so stop being autistic

You have no excuse not to start a second alt for collecting Intel and I really doubt you don't have a second account for shit like cynos

No one is stopping you from dog posting.

Post where your sov is I wanna cloak camp all your systems

Post your Corp too I'm gonna throw an Alt into it for shits and giggles

>>173801695
>Then you're safe because you know the cloak camper can't do anything
you are directly implying that the only way a cloaky camper can pose a threat is through covert cynos and blops.
in the instances where this is not the case, and the cloaky camper is a ganker with a ship capable of fighting on its own without relying upon a cyno, the problem still stands

> Putting an alternative into another corp is something you've always been able to do
Yes, I agree. But you are only addressing a secondary topic that is tangential to the main discussion point. How would introducing a spy alt into another corp allow me to directly interact with a cloaky camper?

>>173801869
>You have no excuse not to start a second alt for collecting Intel
same question to you, how does this allow me to directly interact with a cloaky camper?
i am unable to create a perception of risk against the cloaky camper
i am unable to choose an engagement with the cloaky camper
i am still left with the original problem of having no recourse other than to mount a disproportionate response against the potential of risk that is posed by a cloaky camper

>>173802085
>you are directly implying that the only way a cloaky camper can pose a threat is through covert cynos and blops.
Yea that really is all they can do
They're harmless otherwise

Man you're just like that autistic fuck dror

Post your Corp and where you live

File: 1475452023654.jpg (282KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 1024x768px

>The cloaky camping posting is still going on

>>173801990
Delve
Goonwaffe

File: tmp_26036-1490755551359-996533633.jpg (15KB, 298x298px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 298x298px

>making a second account for spying means you're subject to doxxing

>>173802241
>Yea that really is all they can do
>They're harmless otherwise
As the previous discussion has shown, this is incorrect.
A cloaky Stealth Bomber is more than capable of engaging a target.
A cloaky T3C is more than capable of engaging a target.
A cloaky Recon ship is more than capable of engaging a target.

The specifics would fall to the particular ship and fitting, but your conclusion that they are harmless outside of covert cynos and blops have been shown to be incorrect.

>>173802421
LOL faggot goons own hundreds of systems and you can't find one of the dozens of quiet pockets that aren't near aridia?

You're not in goons I already have a spy in goons and that shit is on lock down 24/7 you lying ass fuck

Any kind anon have a referral link for the skill points ?

>>173802535
I'm not actually the person you were talking to. I just replied on a whim.

>>173802427
>what is a strawman
>what is a slippery slope

>>173802535
>tells them someone to post their corp and region
>it's goon
>LOL FUCK YOU I'M TOO MUCH OF A PUSSY TO ACTUALLY BACK UP WHAT I WAS SHIT TALKING ABOUT

even if you weren't a pussy who immediately backed out at the word "goon", you're still only proving his point. you need to be a powerful nullbloc entity like goons to have "that shit on lockdown 24/7".
>something something disproportionate overwhelming response against a single cloaky camping
>something something every single goon supercapital does not necessitate a 'disproportionately overwhelming response'

the fucking double standard

>>173802437
Post your Corp and sov

>>173802752
Goonwaffe
Delve

>>173800367
You can now dock in wormhole space.
That's all.

hi question
what's the oldest model in eve?
I wanna fly in the ugliest lowest poly piece of shit i can

>>173802715
Post your Corp and sov

I will literally come down there and show you how to run your Corp for real and run intercept on who ever is harassing you twinks

>>173803138
Goonwaffe
Delve

>>173802825
You're a liar

>>173803138
it's goons and we're in delve
come on, faggot

>>173803215
Of course a goon screaching so high and loud so he can stop getting farmed because he's bad and doesn't wanna get up from his havens and lose his precious tickswhy don't you leave goons or go to another one of their hundreds of pockets for ratting?

>>173803121
I can't speak for the oldest model, but the ugliest has to be the Thrasher.

>>173803646
ad hominem, attempt to deflect and derail discussion

>>173803578
Goons aren't a corp

>>173803724

No this is a fact. You are autistic

>>173803772
>No this is a fact. You are autistic
regardless of my position on the autism spectrum, you are still attempting to deflect the conversation and derail the topic by calling into question my association with goons, rather than addressing the main point of contention

as stated above, ad hominem

>>173801004
>the perception of risk
> the cloak camper is still able to create the perception of risk
>perception of threat by your mere presence

You seem to have missed the point that 'perception of risk' occurs in the perceiver. No one can MAKE you feel anything. No one can MAKE you afraid. They can only offer, or suggest, an emotion. You take it as much as anything else. This isn't to say that its easy to refuse; its wired into us and fucking hard to resist, but it is doable.
Imagine facing an opponent that has conquered his own biology. Who has conquered himself. This is how you turn 'perception of risk' against its users.

Knowledge of human psychology is a large part in the meta-game of EVE. It comes as no surprise that alliances are using such phenomena to their advantage.

It seems what you're really attacking here is the political side of EVE and how its effecting your gameplay. The players of EVE tread a fine line between influencing reality and the game world, as the assertions to doxxing or whatever, and the idea of spies within corps, informers, etc. When you tread out onto the fringe of the EVE world you stop playing the game and begin playing with people. Its a scary thought, and if you can't handle it there is no shame in stepping closer to empire space. The most important part for all players, though, is to remember its a game. And games are for having fun.

>>173803943
>you are autistic
>that's irrelevant

Kek

Guys, I'm autistic and arguing AGAINST this cloak tool. Can we stop with the retarded insults, please?

>>173803997
>Knowledge of human psychology is a large part in the meta-game of EVE. It comes as no surprise that alliances are using such phenomena to their advantage.
So do you grant that this strategy is consistent enough that it serves as a viable tool to instill perception of risk in their targets, that, by using this strategy, one is able to consistently and effectively cause his victims and targets to feel that perception of risk?

Or are you simply stating that it's coincidence?

>It seems what you're really attacking here is the political side of EVE
if this is what you have gathered from my discussion here, then there has been some misunderstanding. This is in no way related to the politics of EVE Online, and rather, a sole focus on the lack of available in-game mechanics that players have to engage with a cloaky camper. Due to the complicated nature of EVE Online's corporations, it is very easy to confuse my concern with the politics of EVE Online, but rest assured, this is strictly a discussion about the in game mechanics themselves.

>>173804467
A U T I S M
U
T
I
S
M

>>173779479
Why does it need to be fair? Most of the shit in this game is uneven and unfair.

>>173804601
Yes, we have established that I am autistic.

Blinky, it's time to stop posting.