| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sem Nan
    |
Posted - 2011.02.04 22:49:00 -
[151]
I like how the thread keeps going round and round, with people apparently trying to offend me or belittle me (something which i find unecessary, i might add) while no one touches the argument that has been made, that 'AFK' cloakers are capable of affecting people while beeing both AFK and 100% safe.
Remember, making it so you have to 'adapt' yourself is affecting.
|
Guillame Herschel
Gallente
NME1
|
Posted - 2011.02.04 22:54:00 -
[152]
Originally by: Sem Nan
AFK cloaking is FAR TOO efective for the amount of effort the cloaker has to put into it.
But that is not because the AFK cloaker is a brilliant strategist. It is because you are a fraidy-cat.
|
Ephemeron
BeerTia Maniacs
|
Posted - 2011.02.04 23:04:00 -
[153]
Sem Nan, the reason most people are attacking you because you represent cowardly behavior, which is a quality frowned upon in human society.
As far as pure game logic is concerned, there's no real problem. The problem is psychological, it is with the person, not the game.
It comes from erroneous belief that you can rely on local chat to be 100% safe in 0.0. Local was never meant for that, 0.0 was never meant to be that safe.
|
Admiral Leviathan
|
Posted - 2011.02.04 23:08:00 -
[154]
Originally by: Ephemeron
Sem Nan, the reason most people are attacking you because you represent cowardly behavior, which is a quality frowned upon in human society.
As far as pure game logic is concerned, there's no real problem. The problem is psychological, it is with the person, not the game.
It comes from erroneous belief that you can rely on local chat to be 100% safe in 0.0. Local was never meant for that, 0.0 was never meant to be that safe.
+1 HTFU
|
Sem Nan
|
Posted - 2011.02.04 23:24:00 -
[155]
Edited by: Sem Nan on 04/02/2011 23:25:13
Still, i haven't been convinced that sitting cloaked in a system, for more than 30 days, 23 hours per day and making people 'adapt' to that situation while the cloaker himself cannot be activelly rooted out is fair play.
You can call me coward, you can call me carebear, you can say i have no balls, you can tell me to GTFO, you can tell me to HTFU (don't even know what that means, to be honest), you can say you will kill my dog and you can tell me that chocolate is bad for my health. It's a waste of keyboard for you, and a waste of read time for me, since that acomplishes nothing.
I want to know why that fact which i pointed out is being considered fair play. Why someone who is 100% safe while being able to affect people is intended behaviour.
|
Mike Voidstar
|
Posted - 2011.02.04 23:44:00 -
[156]
Edited by: Mike Voidstar on 04/02/2011 23:47:17
And here we have the difference between myself and the OP. I don't care what the cloaking guy can and cannot do while cloaked, I just don't think he should be safer than in a station while doing it.
By being cloaked in system, by default assumed active, and providing his disruptive credible threat, he is engaging the residents of that system in EVE's ever so beloved non-consensul PVP. This is right and proper. However, the residents need to have the opportunity to engage him as well---and currently he is as safe or safer than if he were docked.
If he's sitting at his computer and dodging hunters while preventing them from carrying out whatever ops they choose (sandbox, remember?) then that is fine. Providing that disruption 100% of the time, in 100% safety is still wrong. One guy should not be able to waste the time and effort of the residents of a system in complete safety while afk.
Docking games are also a seperate issue, but if someone was dedicated enough to create a fleet with some instalocking ships and enough alpha to get the job done, you could kill someone on their way out of the station before they could warp off or dock again.
Also, I agree that Local is a problem. It's just a seperate problem. It is not an unrelated problem. However, even if fixed I still would argue that cloaks should be probable as I described. They should not be inuvunerable in space.
|
Ephemeron
BeerTia Maniacs
|
Posted - 2011.02.04 23:45:00 -
[157]
Quote:
Still, i haven't been convinced that sitting cloaked in a system, for more than 30 days, 23 hours per day and making people 'adapt' to that situation while the cloaker himself cannot be activelly rooted out is fair play.
Sem, the real solution to your problem is to bait the cloaker. A Raven with 2 heavy neuts and warp disruptor will be enough. You can even fit a cyno on it and drop carriers on the cloaker. There are many ways to setup traps.
Every time the cloaker attacks, you can kill him, and after many failures, he will leave you alone.
On other hand, if the guy never actually attacks you, if he simply uses some alt char with low skills, you should figure it out and just ignore him completely. Dedicated a high skill char to staying AFK 23/7 costs a lot of wasted opportunity. He'd be hurting himself more than you, if there's never any attack.
|
Sem Nan
|
Posted - 2011.02.04 23:51:00 -
[158]
Like i said, a person makes other people change their behaviours while AFK. Like the CSM has said: "AFK Cloaking is lame"
At the end of the day, if CCP makes it so the person behind the cloaked ship has to interact with the game, i'm perfectly fine with it. All i ask of him is interaction.
And stop trying to attack me, i'm too happy about the fact that Sting is going to the WWE.
|
Admiral Leviathan
|
Posted - 2011.02.05 00:02:00 -
[159]
Originally by: Sem Nan
Edited by: Sem Nan on 04/02/2011 23:36:05
Edited by: Sem Nan on 04/02/2011 23:25:13
Still, i haven't been convinced that sitting cloaked in a system, for more than 30 days, 23 hours per day and making people 'adapt' to that situation while the cloaker himself cannot be activelly rooted out is fair play.
You can call me coward, you can call me carebear, you can say i have no balls, you can tell me to GTFO, you can tell me to HTFU (don't even know what that means, to be honest), you can say you will kill my dog and you can tell me that chocolate is bad for my health. It's a waste of keyboard for you, and a waste of read time for me, since that acomplishes nothing.
I want to know why that fact which i pointed out is being considered fair play. Why someone who is 100% safe while being able to affect people is intended behaviour.
Oh, and btw. Honest curiosity, since i often times wonder how life in 0.0 would be without local. How do you hunt people during roams, with no local? With 0.0 empty as it is already, it probably will become much more of a chore.. probing down all those empty systems..
For those it may concern: HTFU
As to answer your question, this means someone invested a full plex to effectively slow down operations in one system. He also invested in the skills/training time/assets needed for this "alt". He also did not use his main at all during that period. He also did the research about your little operation. He exploited the fact that a single AFK cloaker effectively shuts down that system because your corp made the enormous mistake of risking everything in a single system. He is also most probably in a ****ty clone for a month. He also had to fly past gate camps and sling bubbles to get there. If someone does all this, I believe he earns the right to explode a t1 industrial or attempt to kill a lone drake on the final wave in a sanctum. Anything else will bite back.
|
Mike Voidstar
|
Posted - 2011.02.05 00:03:00 -
[160]
The problem with baiting is that means the invunerable cloaker still gets to have his consensual pvp as he likes it, while bringing non-consensual pvp to everyone else.
OP gets his combat fleet together on coms, everyone logged out in space so they don't show in local, sets his bait ship up by hanging out the "come gank me" flag. One hour goes by. 2 Hours go by. People fall asleep, get bored, log in and make some ISK whatever. One guy not at the keyboard has wasted the time and effort of multiple people in complete safety.
And then he wakes up from his nap, pats his girlfriend on the behind and looks over at his computer... gets on coms, calls his buddies and while they form up he scouts thier locations. And then, without wasting any of his friends' time, he lights his Cyno, wipes out significant assets of the target corp and either gets in a new ship 'cause his paper cannon got blowed up or they failed to kill him and he just hits the cloak again.
All this is done in more safety than being docked provides, with the defenders having done all they can to prevent it at the cost of dozens of man hours and who knows how much isk. I don't have a problem with the loss, I have a problem with the wasted time and invunerablity.
|
|
Admiral Leviathan
|
Posted - 2011.02.05 00:07:00 -
[161]
Originally by: Sem Nan
Edited by: Sem Nan on 05/02/2011 00:01:19
However, the system is cynojammed, and it's difficult to mobilize more than 5 people unless it's actual home defense we're talking about. We've tried, he didn't bite. The only thing we didn't tried yet is a mining-fleet bait. Think that can work?
OMG.... So he can't light a cyno either? With proper intel in your region this means you guys are 100% safe provided each ship fits very little to either kill any single covert or survive long enough for reinforcement.
|
Sem Nan
|
Posted - 2011.02.05 00:11:00 -
[162]
Edited by: Sem Nan on 05/02/2011 00:12:59
Originally by: Admiral Leviathan
Originally by: Sem Nan
Edited by: Sem Nan on 05/02/2011 00:01:19
However, the system is cynojammed, and it's difficult to mobilize more than 5 people unless it's actual home defense we're talking about. We've tried, he didn't bite. The only thing we didn't tried yet is a mining-fleet bait. Think that can work?
OMG.... So he can't light a cyno either? With proper intel in your region this means you guys are 100% safe provided each ship fits very little to either kill any single covert or survive long enough for reinforcement.
Yes, he can only light covert cynos. How long do you think a single raven can survive if 12 to 15 stealth bombers drop bombs at the same time on your head in the space of 7 seconds? During a home defense op, my corp wiped out almost 20 battleships with a single stealth-bomber fleet run.
If some people weren't able to tell by now, i am posting on a hidden alt. Can't blame me for trying to not garner more attention to our sov, hehe. I can tell you that all homework has been done, and we can't make bait fleets with less than 5 people with capital support unless we accept that most of the non-capital fleet will be lost. And kills mean more camping for the cloaker.
|
Mike Voidstar
|
Posted - 2011.02.05 00:13:00 -
[163]
Edited by: Mike Voidstar on 05/02/2011 00:15:45
Even my carebearing self has to back off on the cynojammed thing.
At that point you go mine in a Domi instead of a barge until he feels lucky, and you keep the Warrior II's warmed up and happy until he arrives. You dont waste time, you just lose profit.
|
Sem Nan
|
Posted - 2011.02.05 00:14:00 -
[164]
Originally by: Mike Voidstar
Even my carebearing self has to back off on the cynojammed thing.
At that point you go mine in a Domi instead of an Orca until he feels lucky, and you keep the Warrior II's warmed up and happy until he arrives. You dont waste time, you just lose profit.
Cyno-jammers do not jam covert cynos.
|
Ephemeron
BeerTia Maniacs
|
Posted - 2011.02.05 00:15:00 -
[165]
Quote:
The Raven bait is also a good one, however personally i'd rather use a Scorpion to that end.
That sentence is evidence that you have near-zero real PvP experience.
Just a statement of fact, not an insult. People with good PvP experience generally don't complain about AFK cloakers.
|
Sem Nan
|
Posted - 2011.02.05 00:22:00 -
[166]
Originally by: Ephemeron
Quote:
The Raven bait is also a good one, however personally i'd rather use a Scorpion to that end.
That sentence is evidence that you have near-zero real PvP experience.
Just a statement of fact, not an insult. People with good PvP experience generally don't complain about AFK cloakers.
Exactly.
Which is more obvious, Scorpion or Raven?
|
Mike Voidstar
|
Posted - 2011.02.05 00:27:00 -
[167]
Cynojammers don't jam Covert Cynos... but the biggest thing they gate in is a gimped battleship.
The threat becomes an order of magnitude less severe.
I still don't believe he should be able to inflict that threat in complete safety, and still argue that he should be probable to a reasonable degree of accuracy so that he can't stay afk while doing this. However, you are allowing one guy with limited resources to hold you hostage. Without the Cynojammer, there is no way you can reasonably defend yourself from the potential risk. With one--- well.... Covert Ops ships are dangerous, but they are not capitol ships, and they have short jump ranges.
I don't say bait him, I say carry on as normal with ships more prepared for the combat threat he poses until he gets tired and leaves. This is exactly why I have only the 1 Myrmidon loss despite not running into a station anytime a non-blue blew through the system.
|
Sem Nan
|
Posted - 2011.02.05 00:34:00 -
[168]
Originally by: Mike Voidstar
Cynojammers don't jam Covert Cynos... but the biggest thing they gate in is a gimped battleship.
The threat becomes an order of magnitude less severe.
I still don't believe he should be able to inflict that threat in complete safety, and still argue that he should be probable to a reasonable degree of accuracy so that he can't stay afk while doing this. However, you are allowing one guy with limited resources to hold you hostage. Without the Cynojammer, there is no way you can reasonably defend yourself from the potential risk. With one--- well.... Covert Ops ships are dangerous, but they are not capitol ships, and they have short jump ranges.
I don't say bait him, I say carry on as normal with ships more prepared for the combat threat he poses until he gets tired and leaves. This is exactly why I have only the 1 Myrmidon loss despite not running into a station anytime a non-blue blew through the system.
Yes, in my specific case i have to say that i get more and more convinced that some people in my group should be smacked in the forehead. But, like you've said, we're not talking specifically about my case. Non-jammed systems are to be considered.
|
Donnovich Vacano
|
Posted - 2011.02.05 03:10:00 -
[169]
OK. it is just this simple cloaking does not negate risk, it just lets you delay it. After he drops the cloak there is a full 10 sec in which he is completely dead in the watter. He can't turn on his tank, he can't target you, he can't even warp out. during that ten seconds either pop him, warp out, or play his game an cloak yourself. Go ahead and neut him down. He can't do a thing to stop you. If you choose to fight it out you actually have the advantage. If somehow he does manage to beat you, well it must have been a hell of a fight, get a new ship and try again. That's life in null sec. The problem isn't afk cloakers it's your pathetic corp. The policy of booting anyone who looses a fight is stupid. Frankly if you arn't loosing at least a ship a week you are probably doing something wrong.
|
Mike Voidstar
|
Posted - 2011.02.05 04:37:00 -
[170]
Originally by: Donnovich Vacano
OK. it is just this simple cloaking does not negate risk, it just lets you delay it. --- The policy of booting anyone who looses a fight is stupid. Frankly if you arn't loosing at least a ship a week you are probably doing something wrong.
It does negate risk. He's 100% safe unless he decides completly at his option to put himself in harm's way. He's the only pilot in space completly immune to non-consensual PvP.
You are right though. The OP's particular circumstance is goofy and a poster child for all the contempt the mouth breathing baby eaters heap upon carebears.
It does not excuse the imbalance of invunerable cloaking, but it does negate alot of the problems with it in his particular case.
|
|
SGT FUNYOUN
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.02.05 06:33:00 -
[171]
Ok only one problem I can see with your Cloak fuel idea... while yes it might effectively kill AFK cloaking. It would also TOTALLY kill the entire Covert Ops ship class.
How you ask? Well here's why...
I am a Helios Pilot myself. The Helios is the T2 CovOps Probe Launcher frigate of Gallente design. While I agree AFK cloaking could be somewhat annoying for some people, I also reserve the right to say that if you do not have the courage to accept a little risk by moving your fleet out of the station to handle your business while a lone CovOps ship sits in your system for a month then you either need to move out of that system or stop playing this game because this game is all about taking risks. Think about it... you are flying through space... that in and of itself is inherently deadly just from the lack of Oxygen.
Now how does your Cloak fuel idea that I have personally seen brought up by at least three other people Bi***ing about AFK cloakers like you, hurt the entire Cov Ops/Black Ops/Worm Hole Scouting crowd of which I am a proud member?
 I personally like to use my little Helios Frigate ALONE thank you very much. 
Yes I belong to a Corp. Yes we go on PvP roams and yes I use my Helios for scouting down tasty targets for my Corp mates to munch. But my primary use for it, is as a lone haven of unbridled freedom. My little Helios is the Black Stallion of the old west for the cowboy. The airplane for the Wright Brothers. The automobile for those wanting to pioneer the open road of Route 66.
It is the one thing in this game that allows me the freedom to go anywhere I please whenever I please, without having to worry about whether or not I am going to get blasted to bits because my cloak just ran out of fuel and now my nearest supply is 50 jumps away. Your little Fuel idea would now remove my freedom in that now I am permanently shackled to whatever system I happen to have fuel in or to the logistics capabilities of my corporation. Which I might add is extremely unreliable because this is not reality and noone gets paid for the number of hours they play here so it means that at any given time I am esentially alone even if every one of my Corp mates is on at the time. Not to mention what about those players who do not have a corporation huh? Have you thought about them? Some of them might want to fly out into low and null sec and find Worm holes to sell the bookmarks to without having to share the profits because they have to fly in a fleet to go anywhere. Your little fuel idea has now just killed their primary means of making millions of ISK.
So no you will get absolutely NO support from me for your lame a** idea that has been suggested many times before and I say you and your corp mates need to either man up and grow some f***ing b****s or GO BACK TO PLAYING F***ING WOW YOU F***ING P***Y!!!
Cloaking devices are supposed to be NEARLY invincible... ever since they were first conceived of back in the early days of Sci Fi. They are meant for espionage and subterfuge. If you do not like a spy sitting in your system then kill him. The only reason AFK cloaking is such an "issue" for you is because you are too chicken to just carry on with your lives as if nothing is amiss and the guy on the other side of that screen is using your weak and pathetic little sniveling whiny a** as a daily punch line to brag about to his friends and make you look like an even bigger idiot.
Every time I see one of these anti cloaker threads I laugh at the mental weakness of the player on the other end because now I know of just one more person in this world that I am better than.
You want to stop about half of the AFK cloakers... THEN GET OUT OF THE D*** STATION YOU F***ING P***Y!!! They will go away when they realize that your not going to be bullied around.
STOP MESSING WITH MY SCI FI D*** IT!!!   [:!:
Yargh. I be SGT Funyoun. King of the Pirates!!! |
SGT FUNYOUN
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.02.05 06:46:00 -
[172]
Originally by: Sem Nan
Edited by: Sem Nan on 04/02/2011 23:36:05
Edited by: Sem Nan on 04/02/2011 23:25:13
Still, i haven't been convinced that sitting cloaked in a system, for more than 30 days, 23 hours per day and making people 'adapt' to that situation while the cloaker himself cannot be activelly rooted out is fair play.
You can call me coward, you can call me carebear, you can say i have no balls, you can tell me to GTFO, you can tell me to HTFU (don't even know what that means, to be honest), you can say you will kill my dog and you can tell me that chocolate is bad for my health. It's a waste of keyboard for you, and a waste of read time for me, since that acomplishes nothing.
I want to know why that fact which i pointed out is being considered fair play. Why someone who is 100% safe while being able to affect people is intended behaviour.
Oh, and btw. Honest curiosity, since i often times wonder how life in 0.0 would be without local. How do you hunt people during roams, with no local? With 0.0 empty as it is already, it probably will become much more of a chore.. probing down all those empty systems..
You want fair play... then go play WoW. Life is not fair. Space is cold, cruel, and merciless. As far as game play mechanics go fairness is all about balancing stats, a numbers game pure and simple. However when it comes to the human factor there is no such thing as fair. Any advantage you can get over another player is still an advantage. Even if it might be considered cheating or dishonest or unfair. That is human nature. The main reason why Cloaking is so effective. It was designed around that.
Psychological warfare is one of the greatest attributes of the cloaking sytems. Instead of trying to ruin everybody elses' good times... how about you just learn to play better and buy a bigger ship.
And stop letting one guy with one measly frigate scare you into hiding. Because all your doing is giving him something funny to laugh at. Like me right now.  I am laughing at your weakness. It is quite comical to me. Because you are only proving that I am better than you.   
Yargh. I be SGT Funyoun. King of the Pirates!!! |
tomato1
|
Posted - 2011.02.05 07:01:00 -
[173]
okay well this is just to let you guys know what i think of afk cloaking and that is..is that for one its not really that fair there is the argument that that is part of the hunt such as a miner not paying attetion but imagine logging onto eve in an alt and going to work from 9 to 5 not having to care about what is going on in eve and mean while 30 or 3mill other people cause it dont matter how many, cant get rid of this one guy my point is that are you playing eve...or are you not playing eve how is if fair for one guy that pays 30bucks month to hold up 30 other people that each pay same and yet not even have to play the game to achive such a goal of drailing mining plexing ratting what ever....if anything the way cloak works right now it engerages to be non engaged if you want my idea it would be have a timer of sorts like 1hour timer that if nothing is touched or moved or anything not a botten presed for say an hour you are uncloaked another way i imagine is that similar to the one hour timer is that your cloak slowly wears off if not refreshed and is easer to scan out as time goes on i dont really agree with fuel based idea as i read in the top part 24 hours is long enough to do the same thing and i would not have issue with having capitals still be able to afk cloak anyhow this is just my thoughts and i can only wish i see some of them in the game ;-)
|
Commander Funyoun
|
Posted - 2011.02.05 07:26:00 -
[174]
Edited by: Commander Funyoun on 05/02/2011 07:30:43
Originally by: tomato1
okay well this is just to let you guys know what i think of afk cloaking and that is..is that for one its not really that fair there is the argument that that is part of the hunt such as a miner not paying attetion but imagine logging onto eve in an alt and going to work from 9 to 5 not having to care about what is going on in eve and mean while 30 or 3mill other people cause it dont matter how many, cant get rid of this one guy my point is that are you playing eve...or are you not playing eve how is if fair for one guy that pays 30bucks month to hold up 30 other people that each pay same and yet not even have to play the game to achive such a goal of drailing mining plexing ratting what ever....if anything the way cloak works right now it engerages to be non engaged if you want my idea it would be have a timer of sorts like 1hour timer that if nothing is touched or moved or anything not a botten presed for say an hour you are uncloaked another way i imagine is that similar to the one hour timer is that your cloak slowly wears off if not refreshed and is easer to scan out as time goes on i dont really agree with fuel based idea as i read in the top part 24 hours is long enough to do the same thing and i would not have issue with having capitals still be able to afk cloak anyhow this is just my thoughts and i can only wish i see some of them in the game ;-)
Only problem with your "fix"; the same "fix" that has been suggested and shot down thousands of times is that a player who is sitting in an area in a Cov Ops cloaker can sit in one spot and forget to touch his mouse for over your little time limit. next thing he knows his ship and pod go poof because his cloak just turned off.
I have a better idea. if a player has no activity for over one hour. no interaction with the key board no interaction with the mouse nothing... then kick him off his client. Log his client out and make his ship insta-warp to a safe spot where he can be of no bother to u and his ship does not show up on local or on the scanner or probes and when he gets back he just logs back on, his ship is reinsta-warped back to the original spot, and keeps playing. if he wants to cloak sit in a system for an extended period of time all he has to do is reach over and jiggle his mouse every 30 minutes or so. No moving his ship, no being able to be probed after a certain time. no fuel requirements or time limits. AND NO AFK CLOAKING. because now to AFK cloak means to get automatically logged off after one hour of no activity. The cloakers get to have their nice fancy super expensive near invincibility, and the anti cloaker whiners get to have their no AFK cloakers bandwagon. Every body is happy now.
Not to mention it would reduce lag time by reducing the load on the servers.
|
Infinity Ziona
Minmatar
Cloakers
|
Posted - 2011.02.05 08:06:00 -
[175]
Originally by: Commander Funyoun
Edited by: Commander Funyoun on 05/02/2011 07:30:43
Originally by: tomato1
okay well this is just to let you guys know what i think of afk cloaking and that is..is that for one its not really that fair there is the argument that that is part of the hunt such as a miner not paying attetion but imagine logging onto eve in an alt and going to work from 9 to 5 not having to care about what is going on in eve and mean while 30 or 3mill other people cause it dont matter how many, cant get rid of this one guy my point is that are you playing eve...or are you not playing eve how is if fair for one guy that pays 30bucks month to hold up 30 other people that each pay same and yet not even have to play the game to achive such a goal of drailing mining plexing ratting what ever....if anything the way cloak works right now it engerages to be non engaged if you want my idea it would be have a timer of sorts like 1hour timer that if nothing is touched or moved or anything not a botten presed for say an hour you are uncloaked another way i imagine is that similar to the one hour timer is that your cloak slowly wears off if not refreshed and is easer to scan out as time goes on i dont really agree with fuel based idea as i read in the top part 24 hours is long enough to do the same thing and i would not have issue with having capitals still be able to afk cloak anyhow this is just my thoughts and i can only wish i see some of them in the game ;-)
Only problem with your "fix"; the same "fix" that has been suggested and shot down thousands of times is that a player who is sitting in an area in a Cov Ops cloaker can sit in one spot and forget to touch his mouse for over your little time limit. next thing he knows his ship and pod go poof because his cloak just turned off.
I have a better idea. if a player has no activity for over one hour. no interaction with the key board no interaction with the mouse nothing... then kick him off his client. Log his client out and make his ship insta-warp to a safe spot where he can be of no bother to u and his ship does not show up on local or on the scanner or probes and when he gets back he just logs back on, his ship is reinsta-warped back to the original spot, and keeps playing. if he wants to cloak sit in a system for an extended period of time all he has to do is reach over and jiggle his mouse every 30 minutes or so. No moving his ship, no being able to be probed after a certain time. no fuel requirements or time limits. AND NO AFK CLOAKING. because now to AFK cloak means to get automatically logged off after one hour of no activity. The cloakers get to have their nice fancy super expensive near invincibility, and the anti cloaker whiners get to have their no AFK cloakers bandwagon. Every body is happy now.
Not to mention it would reduce lag time by reducing the load on the servers.
Its a good idea but one CCP will not touch as it will directly impact on their ability to claim bogus concurrent users online.
---------------------------------------------
I AM BETTER THAN YOU. |
Infinity Ziona
Minmatar
Cloakers
|
Posted - 2011.02.05 08:08:00 -
[176]
Originally by: tomato1
okay well this is just to let you guys know what i think of afk cloaking and that is..is that for one its not really that fair there is the argument that that is part of the hunt such as a miner not paying attetion but imagine logging onto eve in an alt and going to work from 9 to 5 not having to care about what is going on in eve and mean while 30 or 3mill other people cause it dont matter how many, cant get rid of this one guy my point is that are you playing eve...or are you not playing eve how is if fair for one guy that pays 30bucks month to hold up 30 other people that each pay same and yet not even have to play the game to achive such a goal of drailing mining plexing ratting what ever....if anything the way cloak works right now it engerages to be non engaged if you want my idea it would be have a timer of sorts like 1hour timer that if nothing is touched or moved or anything not a botten presed for say an hour you are uncloaked another way i imagine is that similar to the one hour timer is that your cloak slowly wears off if not refreshed and is easer to scan out as time goes on i dont really agree with fuel based idea as i read in the top part 24 hours is long enough to do the same thing and i would not have issue with having capitals still be able to afk cloak anyhow this is just my thoughts and i can only wish i see some of them in the game ;-)
If you have 30 or 3000 guys you have no issue with 1 guy holding you up. If it means so much to you then go to a cyno jammed system for extra safety.
---------------------------------------------
I AM BETTER THAN YOU. |
SGT FUNYOUN
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.02.05 08:20:00 -
[177]
Originally by: Infinity Ziona
Originally by: Commander Funyoun
Edited by: Commander Funyoun on 05/02/2011 07:30:43
Originally by: tomato1
okay well this is just to let you guys know what i think of afk cloaking and that is..is that for one its not really that fair there is the argument that that is part of the hunt such as a miner not paying attetion but imagine logging onto eve in an alt and going to work from 9 to 5 not having to care about what is going on in eve and mean while 30 or 3mill other people cause it dont matter how many, cant get rid of this one guy my point is that are you playing eve...or are you not playing eve how is if fair for one guy that pays 30bucks month to hold up 30 other people that each pay same and yet not even have to play the game to achive such a goal of drailing mining plexing ratting what ever....if anything the way cloak works right now it engerages to be non engaged if you want my idea it would be have a timer of sorts like 1hour timer that if nothing is touched or moved or anything not a botten presed for say an hour you are uncloaked another way i imagine is that similar to the one hour timer is that your cloak slowly wears off if not refreshed and is easer to scan out as time goes on i dont really agree with fuel based idea as i read in the top part 24 hours is long enough to do the same thing and i would not have issue with having capitals still be able to afk cloak anyhow this is just my thoughts and i can only wish i see some of them in the game ;-)
Only problem with your "fix"; the same "fix" that has been suggested and shot down thousands of times is that a player who is sitting in an area in a Cov Ops cloaker can sit in one spot and forget to touch his mouse for over your little time limit. next thing he knows his ship and pod go poof because his cloak just turned off.
I have a better idea. if a player has no activity for over one hour. no interaction with the key board no interaction with the mouse nothing... then kick him off his client. Log his client out and make his ship insta-warp to a safe spot where he can be of no bother to u and his ship does not show up on local or on the scanner or probes and when he gets back he just logs back on, his ship is reinsta-warped back to the original spot, and keeps playing. if he wants to cloak sit in a system for an extended period of time all he has to do is reach over and jiggle his mouse every 30 minutes or so. No moving his ship, no being able to be probed after a certain time. no fuel requirements or time limits. AND NO AFK CLOAKING. because now to AFK cloak means to get automatically logged off after one hour of no activity. The cloakers get to have their nice fancy super expensive near invincibility, and the anti cloaker whiners get to have their no AFK cloakers bandwagon. Every body is happy now.
Not to mention it would reduce lag time by reducing the load on the servers.
Its a good idea but one CCP will not touch as it will directly impact on their ability to claim bogus concurrent users online.
Hmmm... yes I see your point. However in the interest of moving the game forward instead of backwards it may be necessary for CCP to look at their bottom line instead of going all gah gah over 500 players that are not even actually playing. They do not get payed by the hour... they get payed by the month.
Yargh. I be SGT Funyoun. King of the Pirates!!! |
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2011.02.05 09:09:00 -
[178]
Edited by: Mag''s on 05/02/2011 09:09:59
Originally by: SGT FUNYOUN
I have a better idea. if a player has no activity for over one hour. no interaction with the key board no interaction with the mouse nothing... then kick him off his client.
I'm taking you posted this with your alt by mistake?
Anyway, this idea has been handed out time and time again. It just won't work because it's so easy to bypass.
Plus, server load is negligible on people who are AFK.
Originally by: Allestin Villimar
Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it.
Originally by: Torothanax
Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive. |
Donnovich Vacano
|
Posted - 2011.02.05 09:15:00 -
[179]
Originally by: Mike Voidstar
Originally by: Donnovich Vacano
OK. it is just this simple cloaking does not negate risk, it just lets you delay it. --- The policy of booting anyone who looses a fight is stupid. Frankly if you arn't loosing at least a ship a week you are probably doing something wrong.
It does negate risk. He's 100% safe unless he decides completly at his option to put himself in harm's way. He's the only pilot in space completly immune to non-consensual PvP.
You are right though. The OP's particular circumstance is goofy and a poster child for all the contempt the mouth breathing baby eaters heap upon carebears.
It does not excuse the imbalance of invunerable cloaking, but it does negate alot of the problems with it in his particular case.
So you are saying that it's not fair that a ship should operate exactly how it was designed to work? So what if they are immune to non-consentual pvp. That's called game balance. For every tactic there must be a counter. There are scanners therefore there must be a way to be unscanable. And it's counter balanced by the fact that you have to uncloak to do anything. It would be just as easy to achieve th same result in a specially fit inty. You drop the inty in a safe spot on the very edge of the system set it going full speed and run the mwd perma by the time you finish scanning him down and get there he's already off grid from your warp in point. It takes a well skilled pilot and alot of careful setup but it works just fine for the same purposes.
|
Mike Voidstar
|
Posted - 2011.02.05 09:56:00 -
[180]
Originally by: Donnovich Vacano
So you are saying that it's not fair that a ship should operate exactly how it was designed to work? So what if they are immune to non-consentual pvp. That's called game balance. For every tactic there must be a counter. There are scanners therefore there must be a way to be unscanable. And it's counter balanced by the fact that you have to uncloak to do anything. [/quote
Not at all. I'm not suggesting any changes to cloaks or cloaking ships at all. All I'm suggesting is that others have some way of probing a cloaked ship with a small margin of error so that hunting characters have the opportunity of a chance to find the cloaked ship. This would be simple for an active pilot taking the basic precautions to avoid. An AFK ship would be much easier to catch, which would bring the system into balance once again. A Stealth ship could perform it's function, but would not be able to do so with impunity while AFK---just like the rest of EVE
I am fine with what a cloaked ship does. The issue is that it allows such perfect safety that it's pilot can continue to fulfill his purpose in greater safety than being docked, all the time, with no recourse. A single pilot can provide credible threat of a magnitude such that it disrupts the activities of everyone in the system---which is fine if he needs to be as active as his victims to do so. Being probed would not break his cloak, it would just put him at risk of having it broken.
So what if they are immune to non-consensual PVP? Are you even playing EVE? That is the entire core of the PVP system in EVE, that no one is safe in space. The same can be asked of anyone in EVE---so what if Haulers are immune from non-consensual PVP. So what if Missioners are immune from non-consensual PVP. How about we just disallow pvp completly unless they agree to a duel on the spot! And folks call me a Carebear.
You claim that for every tactic there must be a counter. There is no counter to a cloak. It has set penalties for it's operation, but this does not counter it, it sets the rules of engagement for the cloaking pilot, balancing what the ship does in combat. However there still needs to be a way to engage the pilot against his will, or all that pre-nerfing does nothing for game balance as the pilot is in total control of when and how he suffers those penalties. Currently a cloaked pilot is completly invunerable, until he chooses not to be.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |