Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lexar Mundi
EVE Pilots for the Ethical Treatment of Asteroids
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 09:26:00 -
[1] - Quote
If you want to make it to where people can't afk in a safe spot cloaked, should people afk in low sec stations be ejected out after they are away for a long period of time?
They have the same effect as the afk cloaky sitting in your carebear mining systems.
The solution is simple, most MMOs have an inactivity timer.(EVE does not have this) Once this timer runs out it simply logs the character off after 30 min to an hour of inactivity. This was originally used to kick people off of full servers so others could log on. If you are so worried about people AFK this would make the cloaked pilots sit at their computers or try to come up with a system to be at their computer with out actually being there.
EVE should implement an afk timer where if you leave for a period of time, it logs your character out (long enough where miners don't get booted)
Don't make us cloaked pilots who actually sit at our computer watching POSs in WHs pay for the AFK pilots out in nul sec!
~Edit to make my post more clear~ |
Ranger64511
Nasgul Collective Cascade Imminent
19
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 09:28:00 -
[2] - Quote
What on earth is this? Fairly sure EVE doesn't have an inactivity timer so no idea what your talking about......well i guess the timer would be when DT comes and you get logged out automatically. This is my gate. There are many others like it, but this one is mine. My gate is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. Without me, my gate is useless. Without my gate, I am useless. |
Lexar Mundi
EVE Pilots for the Ethical Treatment of Asteroids
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 09:31:00 -
[3] - Quote
Ranger64511 wrote:What on earth is this? Fairly sure EVE doesn't have an inactivity timer so no idea what your talking about......well i guess the timer would be when DT comes and you get logged out automatically. I was suggesting to implement one.
EVE does not have one at the moment |
Leemi Sobo
54
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 09:47:00 -
[4] - Quote
inactivity timer workaround |
Zoe Athame
Aliastra Gallente Federation
30
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 09:53:00 -
[5] - Quote
Lexar Mundi wrote:
Don't make us cloaked pilots who actually sit at our computer watching POSs in WHs pay for the AFK pilots out in nul sec!
What do you mean pay? Cloaks aren't being changed. |
Lexar Mundi
EVE Pilots for the Ethical Treatment of Asteroids
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 10:02:00 -
[6] - Quote
Zoe Athame wrote:Lexar Mundi wrote:
Don't make us cloaked pilots who actually sit at our computer watching POSs in WHs pay for the AFK pilots out in nul sec!
What do you mean pay? Cloaks aren't being changed. I never said they were. |
Lexar Mundi
EVE Pilots for the Ethical Treatment of Asteroids
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 10:04:00 -
[7] - Quote
I think this works better, that birds not even pushing the space bar...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWvYRR5x_uw |
MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
684
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 10:08:00 -
[8] - Quote
if you want to fix the problem, remove local chat as an lintel tool. Then only active fleets are hostile to you.
we already know wormholespace is more awesome than 0.0 It feels more like a 0.0 system should. Maybe -0.5 and below truesec should be no local?
Without local this whole argument would end. Two birds with one stone. Why dust 514 is on Console and not PCBattle field 3 salesXbox 360: 2.2 millionPlayStation 3: 1.5 millionPC: 500,000 |
Lexar Mundi
EVE Pilots for the Ethical Treatment of Asteroids
7
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 10:13:00 -
[9] - Quote
MotherMoon wrote:if you want to fix the problem, remove local chat as an lintel tool. Then only active fleets are hostile to you.
we already know wormholespace is more awesome than 0.0 It feels more like a 0.0 system should. Maybe -0.5 and below truesec should be no local?
Without local this whole argument would end. Two birds with one stone.
I actually agree with you, 0.0 should have no local. No local brings back fun PvP |
Zoe Athame
Aliastra Gallente Federation
30
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 10:43:00 -
[10] - Quote
Lexar Mundi wrote:Zoe Athame wrote:Lexar Mundi wrote:
Don't make us cloaked pilots who actually sit at our computer watching POSs in WHs pay for the AFK pilots out in nul sec!
What do you mean pay? Cloaks aren't being changed. I never said they were.
Refer to the first question in my post. |
|
Leemi Sobo
54
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 11:06:00 -
[11] - Quote
I hope this thing gets its power from an USB port
I just wanted to point out that there are pretty simple workarounds for everything |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
448
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 11:20:00 -
[12] - Quote
MotherMoon wrote:if you want to fix the problem, remove local chat as an lintel tool. Then only active fleets are hostile to you.
we already know wormholespace is more awesome than 0.0 It feels more like a 0.0 system should. Maybe -0.5 and below truesec should be no local?
Without local this whole argument would end. Two birds with one stone.
I'd say remove all local for all 0.0 except the ones that have NPC stations. Then add an 'entry tracker' POS-module that makes local show everybody (but requiring upgraded sov and eating up a LOT of isotopes (or requiring so much CPU and grid it basically needs it's own POS), so it becomes something alliances will only put up in their main systems). Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
984
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 11:30:00 -
[13] - Quote
http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/2029/cloakyballs.png My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Tyson Gallane
The Dead Rabbit Society
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 11:32:00 -
[14] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:MotherMoon wrote:if you want to fix the problem, remove local chat as an lintel tool. Then only active fleets are hostile to you.
we already know wormholespace is more awesome than 0.0 It feels more like a 0.0 system should. Maybe -0.5 and below truesec should be no local?
Without local this whole argument would end. Two birds with one stone. I'd say remove all local for all 0.0 except the ones that have NPC stations. Then add an 'entry tracker' POS-module for upgraded sov, that makes local show everybody. It should requiring so much CPU and grid it basically needs it's own large POS, leaving almost nothing for defenses, maybe even requiring it's own fuel supply to make it require enough money and attention for even big alliances not to put them all over the place. 'Perfect intelligence'-local (benefiting defenders more then attackers) should be balanced by being expensive, logistic-intensive and vulnerable.
I like it. A deployable you'd need to online near each gate, maybe? When someone jumps through the gate they get a little message in their local chat telling them they've been booked in (and they appear on the local memberlist).
Then, if you arrive by alternate means (a covert cyno!) you aren't booked by the entry registers and don't show unless you fly near a gate.
T.
|
Tyson Gallane
The Dead Rabbit Society
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 11:34:00 -
[15] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/2029/cloakyballs.png
LOL
|
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
68
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 11:38:00 -
[16] - Quote
Lexar Mundi wrote:If you want to make it to where people can't afk in a safe spot cloaked, should people afk in low sec stations be ejected out after they are away for a long period of time?
They have the same effect as the afk cloaky sitting in your carebear mining systems.
The solution is simple, most MMOs have an inactivity timer.(EVE does not have this) Once this timer runs out it simply logs the character off after 30 min to an hour of inactivity. This was originally used to kick people off of full servers so others could log on. If you are so worried about people AFK this would make the cloaked pilots sit at their computers or try to come up with a system to be at their computer with out actually being there.
EVE should implement an afk timer where if you leave for a period of time, it logs your character out (long enough where miners don't get booted)
Don't make us cloaked pilots who actually sit at our computer watching POSs in WHs pay for the AFK pilots out in nul sec!
~Edit to make my post more clear~
here's your answer,,, remove local,, if your afk cloaked without local it's usless,, see this post >>>>> >>>CLICK ME<<< |
MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
685
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 20:04:00 -
[17] - Quote
Tyson Gallane wrote:Tobiaz wrote:MotherMoon wrote:if you want to fix the problem, remove local chat as an lintel tool. Then only active fleets are hostile to you.
we already know wormholespace is more awesome than 0.0 It feels more like a 0.0 system should. Maybe -0.5 and below truesec should be no local?
Without local this whole argument would end. Two birds with one stone. I'd say remove all local for all 0.0 except the ones that have NPC stations. Then add an 'entry tracker' POS-module for upgraded sov, that makes local show everybody. It should requiring so much CPU and grid it basically needs it's own large POS, leaving almost nothing for defenses, maybe even requiring it's own fuel supply to make it require enough money and attention for even big alliances not to put them all over the place. 'Perfect intelligence'-local (benefiting defenders more then attackers) should be balanced by being expensive, logistic-intensive and vulnerable. I like it. A deployable you'd need to online near each gate, maybe? When someone jumps through the gate they get a little message in their local chat telling them they've been booked in (and they appear on the local memberlist). Then, if you arrive by alternate means (a covert cyno!) you aren't booked by the entry registers and don't show unless you fly near a gate. T.
yup, black Ops battleships are useless as long as local stays around.
Come on CCP this is crazy, we've been talking about removing local from 0.0 for the past 6 years. LET GET ON IT ALLREADY Why dust 514 is on Console and not PCBattle field 3 salesXbox 360: 2.2 millionPlayStation 3: 1.5 millionPC: 500,000 |
Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
205
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 20:06:00 -
[18] - Quote
I doubt when CCP buffed blasters, they were thinking, Lets slaughter Hulks and Mackinaws in the tens of thousands. Yet that's really the only thing that came out of the Blaster Buff.
If CCp nerf AFK cloaking, they won't put much thought in to ATK cloakers. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
453
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 20:12:00 -
[19] - Quote
Tyson Gallane wrote:Tobiaz wrote:MotherMoon wrote:if you want to fix the problem, remove local chat as an lintel tool. Then only active fleets are hostile to you.
we already know wormholespace is more awesome than 0.0 It feels more like a 0.0 system should. Maybe -0.5 and below truesec should be no local?
Without local this whole argument would end. Two birds with one stone. I'd say remove all local for all 0.0 except the ones that have NPC stations. Then add an 'entry tracker' POS-module for upgraded sov, that makes local show everybody. It should requiring so much CPU and grid it basically needs it's own large POS, leaving almost nothing for defenses, maybe even requiring it's own fuel supply to make it require enough money and attention for even big alliances not to put them all over the place. 'Perfect intelligence'-local (benefiting defenders more then attackers) should be balanced by being expensive, logistic-intensive and vulnerable. I like it. A deployable you'd need to online near each gate, maybe? When someone jumps through the gate they get a little message in their local chat telling them they've been booked in (and they appear on the local memberlist). Then, if you arrive by alternate means (a covert cyno!) you aren't booked by the entry registers and don't show unless you fly near a gate. T.
That's also a very nice idea. Making it an simple anchorable like a bubble (but make it consume fuel as well) would make it a very vulnerable. Perhaps a special high-slot scrambler mod to avoid being registered?
A big downside would be the ease of which these can be simply dragged along and placed whenever a mining op or gatecamp is planned. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Mars Theran
EVE Rogues EVE Rogues Alliance
227
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 20:19:00 -
[20] - Quote
..and other people that live in Null keep fighting to keep it. hmm..
On the other hand, something that satisfies both parties like mentioned above seems a good compromise. However, req. some large POS to online it is a bit rediculous.
I suggest it be incorporated into Sov mechanics and TCU as an upgrade. It sinks ISK initially, but until Sov has to be rebuilt there is no further need for the expense.
I'd also suggest the implementation of a module which can be mounted mid or high on a ship, or maybe as a Rig, which allows certain ships to bypass the local channel. Cov Ops specifically obviously, including Black Ops and Cloaky Haulers, (and CovOps T3s too I suppose).
Then all you need is some means of decloaking or detecting cloaking vessels. Obviously, any vessel fit with a counter local module would be boosted against detection, and CovOps Cloaks would be harder to detect than Improved Cloaks, etc..
Make the game more interesting and varied. Sounds like a good plan to me.
On the other hand, there are many who would disagree with even the ability to detect the presence of a cloaked vessel in a system with no local. Some because it requires :effort: and others because they want to be invisible and invulnerable. While it is nice to be invulnerable once in awhile, I'm of the opinion if you want to spend the day in game afk, you should sit in a station or risk your ship. Auction - EVE Rogues Alliance [ROGUE]: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1215438#post1215438-á-á~ Latest bid: 40 million ISK. |
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
839
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 20:22:00 -
[21] - Quote
Ocih wrote:I doubt when CCP buffed blasters, they were thinking, Lets slaughter Hulks and Mackinaws in the tens of thousands. Yet that's really the only thing that came out of the Blaster Buff.
If CCp nerf AFK cloaking, they won't put much thought in to ATK cloakers. Wait, wait...
you mean it wasn't to let Catalysts lay waste to hulks? Heresy! Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
455
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 21:02:00 -
[22] - Quote
Ok I've added the following entries to the WDATT list: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SyqOQ09grn4n-JoKm7h9701p9GIRNcW6e1BQG_ZfCSE/edit?pli=1#heading=h.7wbzhxkynx54
- Remove perfect local from null-sec and add an anchorable module that consumes fuel that tracks all players in local that entered or through a jumpgate, speak in local, or is target-locked. Once tracked, players leaving the system by any means, will be registered correctly.
- Remove perfect local from null-sec and add a POS-module, fitting requirements requiring its own large POS, showing all players entering and leaving the system through any means (excluding covert jump portal).
- A high-slot 'scambling' module hiding a playerGÇÖs presence in local and from local-count, but also removing his ability to see others in local. This module comes in different sizes for each ship-class and consumes considerable cap or cap charges. It can not be combined with a cloak.
Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Lexar Mundi
EVE Pilots for the Ethical Treatment of Asteroids
8
|
Posted - 2012.05.24 08:04:00 -
[23] - Quote
Zoe Athame wrote:Lexar Mundi wrote:Zoe Athame wrote:Lexar Mundi wrote:
Don't make us cloaked pilots who actually sit at our computer watching POSs in WHs pay for the AFK pilots out in nul sec!
What do you mean pay? Cloaks aren't being changed. I never said they were. Refer to the first question in my post. I meant that statement toward people coming up with ideas, not that CCP was going to implement such thing. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |