Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
GuRasta
Esokal Command Vera Cruz Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 02:23:00 -
[1] - Quote
AFK cloaking has become one of the key issues with EVE, 1 person can shut down an entire alliances PVE for as long as they wish. Faction battleships people have worked hard on sit in hanger and don't get used, and how many do you think log on to play, notice and afk cloaker and no pvp ops atm and just change skills and log off instead of actually playing the game? I know many including me that do it all the time. Sure, you can try to trap, until you get hotdropped by 20-40, it is normal protocol for almost EVERY nullsec alliance to just not rat with a cloak in system afk or not. Removing local is not the answer until a balanced way to protect your pve ships can be found, currently that would result in jumping in system 10 sec dscan for sancs and in under 30 secs have a faction bs pointed? That would obviously be hugely imbalanced. It Is time something be done to balance nullsec pve, with the changes to nullsec going to truesec no longer can an alliance just upgrade 4 systems in a row, causing 4 afk cloakers to be required. It is time something be done to prevent afk cloaking while not effecting much else, this would be a HUGE difference to nullsec pve and would encourage more ppl to play by giving them options other than station spinning. The current system makes 1 smug and 30 annoyed and discourages play, it should be apparent it is not good for the longevity of EVE online.
The Solution: Cloaks should require something along the lines of "liquid Nitrogen" to "cool your thermal signature"
By causing every cycle of the cloak to consume some fuel from cargo it would effectively prevent afk cloaking, while having almost no effect on active cloakers or pvp. It would be a huge boost to nullsec pve, give players more options when they sign on, and stop the 20-30 ppl being annoyed over 1 person cloaking then going to work, if you need to be gone that long players should be forced to log off. It is time something to be done to correct this issue, as I and many others I'm sure strongly believe it is in the best interest for EVE and its future. |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
269
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 02:39:00 -
[2] - Quote
NO, the only thing you'll do with this sort of idea is make bots more profitable than ever.
Is it what you want? |
mkjkgkvk Melkan
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 02:40:00 -
[3] - Quote
fantastic suggestion +1 |
GuRasta
Esokal Command Vera Cruz Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 02:45:00 -
[4] - Quote
wtf how do bots get more profitable? IT WOULD PREVENT BOTTING!!! right now they warp off and cloak, if anything you can sit in system with a bot for 2 hours until he runs out of fuel then probe and destroy |
Jade Mitch
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 02:57:00 -
[5] - Quote
Why is it even possible for a single ship to effect an entire system in any way?
That's what needs to be fixed (i.e. eliminated). |
Acwron
Anormalii S.A. Vera Cruz Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 03:03:00 -
[6] - Quote
+ 1 to this thread
A step forward has been made afaik. Cloakers won't be able to stop anomalies spawning anymore. But that's just a tiny little step. I fully support the changes. They should think how they gonna do it, there are millions way, CCP just need to smoke some good shite and work on it. |
grazer gin
Raving Rednecks
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 04:12:00 -
[7] - Quote
Or you could grow some balls and realise nullsec isnt a 100% safe place for all you pathetic carebears |
Acwron
Anormalii S.A. Vera Cruz Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 04:33:00 -
[8] - Quote
grazer gin wrote:Or you could grow some balls and realise nullsec isnt a 100% safe place for all you pathetic carebears
That hurts you know...I do have feelings ! |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
199
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 05:38:00 -
[9] - Quote
Oh... this thread again.
Not Supported. "Just because I seem like an idiot, doesn't mean I am one." ~Unknown |
H8FilledVoid
Monochrome Dream
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 05:52:00 -
[10] - Quote
I see a few smug system cloakers getting angry on this thread already. Time to grief the griefers! I support the idea of cloak fuel not to the benefiet of carebears, but to the spite of griefers! Also, this idea makes sence. U need ammo to fire weapons... why not to run a cloak? Or at the least make a setup for it to drain cap to empty regardless of the recharge rate. Then again... this would encourage bot activity... nevermind that part.
Love in H8 |
|
Aesiron
Squadron 1
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 07:48:00 -
[11] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Oh... this thread again.
Not Supported.
How about you post something decent for once instead of trolling? |
Sir Lokit
Esokal Command Vera Cruz Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 08:00:00 -
[12] - Quote
So let me get this straight. For people who dont agree. They say that 0.0 space isnt suppose to be safe. I dont think anyone ever argued that. No one is requesting for no pvp. Unless of course you guys are thinking something else? But out of the people that said that they disagreed, other than the post of "Its not suppose to be safe" No opinions were posted.
First and foremost. I feel if you dont agree with someone you should say WHY. Not just say, "Nope." Even if its the same reason someone else has stated already, make sure to say that its already been stated. I think we can all agree on the importance of giving a why rather then just disagreeing with someone.
Now onto the topic at hand. Why no cloakys for weeks on end? I'm asking WHY does it seem fair to allow someone to log into an alt every day and just leave it on in a system for a week straight on some computer that just sits there doing nothing else? Why does that seem fair? When they can ruin the game for many many other people and limiting their choices? PVP and 0.0 is about fighting back. What do you do to fight back against that? Im asking people who are disagreeing with the statement that this should be changed, and why it should stay the same? Why is this fair to have someone sit cloaked and NEVER have to check on their character again until the server kicks them off for DT? |
Spawne32
Omber Company
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 08:30:00 -
[13] - Quote
Sir Lokit wrote:Now onto the topic at hand. Why no cloakys for weeks on end? I'm asking WHY does it seem fair to allow someone to log into an alt every day and just leave it on in a system for a week straight on some computer that just sits there doing nothing else? Why does that seem fair? When they can ruin the game for many many other people and limiting their choices? PVP and 0.0 is about fighting back. What do you do to fight back against that? Im asking people who are disagreeing with the statement that this should be changed, and why it should stay the same? Why is this fair to have someone sit cloaked and NEVER have to check on their character again until the server kicks them off for DT?
I agree with this and i agree with the OP, let null be null and let high sec be high sec, people forget this is a game. Theres gonna be two different styles of play, pvp and pve, you got your hardcore gamers, and you got your casual gamers, but you have to protect both investments if CCP ever plans to keep people in this game so they take home a check every week. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
59
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 08:42:00 -
[14] - Quote
nerf nerf |
Venus Rinah
Paladin Philanthropists
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 08:47:00 -
[15] - Quote
I dont agree with afk'ers.
However I don't want to nerf the potential of exisitng cloak usage so heavily.
The view that "2 hours" worth of fuel should be given isn't very helpful for people genuinely scouting out sites in their covert op ships. It also removes the other main valid use of reconasance, where intelligence is provided by extended observations of strategic points. Both of these gameplay areas could be significantly nerfed as a result of this change.
As an example looking at existing cargo spaces as a model for a Cov Ops we get:
Anathema, 190m3 cargo maximum = 1267 race related ice gas product (e.g. helium isotope)
"current" average price for the isotopes at best = 400 isk / unit
400 * 1267 / 2 = 253,400 isk / hr to run a cloak. This seems plausible until you consider newer players wanting to use low tech cloaks for valid use. It forces it more into the provinces of a rich persons useage. Moreso hurting the limited game time playstyle.
It also implies a cycle time of approximatley 5.7 seconds. (Minor point: Cloaks don't currently cycle).
The above model seems to work, to some extent. Though you have done two things as a result:
1) The model is based on max cargo, so there is no space to store other things, how will current cyno fuel needs be accomodated? How can other things be stored for useage? How can anomolie site loot be captured?
2) With the increased demand for race related ice gas isotopes this will significantly raise their prices I would imagine. Good news for ice miners, perhaps bad news for POS owners and Cloak users.
I imagine to extend the model to recon ships, strategic cruisers and blockade runners you may need to have a multiplier for consumption amounts to balance for similar times based on the increase volume needed to be cooled and their cargo bays.
This will principally increase the cost per hour for cloak use for larger craft and in the case of blockade runners maybe some exception would need to be applied else the idea of having to store significant fuel to do it's role may make it redundant for what its actually trying to do?
In the case of capital ships that can't dock wanting to use cloaks, you might need stupid amounts of fuel with obvious logistical support just to make use of the technology.
All of a sudden, the simple model doesn't look so nice for the significant handicaps it applies for genuine players.
Assuming however, the numbers can be tweaked and some level of compromise can be reached so that the related time, impacts and costs are reduced to a bearable amount that makes sense, I could see this model working, but not as is currently proposed.
The idea that cloaks must use fuel: Why? I don't see you refuelling your ship to warp, provide power to a number of modules that don't use an ammo based model.
Also, how does this effect people who may want to use cloaking technology for genuine purposes based ona ctivity, like recon and scare related tactics but not go afk? As if the only logical argument is to remove afker's then why not apply a perdiodic validation window say every half an hour for prolonged cloak useage that needs to be confirmed in a few minutes, else the cloak will fail and need to be reapplied? (Maybe a minor irritation but will stop afk cloak use, I could put up with this rather than a debilitating fuel need.) |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
2339
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 10:37:00 -
[16] - Quote
What mechanic are they using, to interact with you and create fear whilst AFK?
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
GuRasta
Esokal Command Vera Cruz Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 10:40:00 -
[17] - Quote
Venus Rinah wrote:
Also, how does this effect people who may want to use cloaking technology for genuine purposes based ona ctivity, like recon and scare related tactics but not go afk? As if the only logical argument is to remove afker's then why not apply a perdiodic validation window say every half an hour for prolonged cloak useage that needs to be confirmed in a few minutes, else the cloak will fail and need to be reapplied? (Maybe a minor irritation but will stop afk cloak use, I could put up with this rather than a debilitating fuel need.)
soooo you wrote all that to say 250k isk/hr to cloak is debilitating? not to mention i never said anything about what cycle times or usage should be...and yea a dialog saying "are you here?" every 30 mins while cloaked sounds real fitting
your obviously not too in tune with "covert operations" where does loot from anomolies go you ask? in your noctis you tard because thats really the only thing you should be looting with, you rat with a cloaky rapier or something? also this gimps actual cloak usage? who the **** that actually uses a cloak without afking needs 3-4 hrs of cloak time? dont cloak in empty systems in transit, log if you have to go afk for more than 30 mins zomg thatd be terrible, fit cargo expanders and make it 6 hrs if it makes you happy, if your cloaked in a system 4 hours with your pew pew finger itching the whole time w.o a kill your doing it wrong |
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow The Revenant Order
243
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 10:43:00 -
[18] - Quote
Acwron wrote:grazer gin wrote:Or you could grow some balls and realise nullsec isnt a 100% safe place for all you pathetic carebears That hurts you know...I do have feelings !
How can it hurt your feelings?
Carebears don't have feelings. They're not even real people. "War is not measured in terms of who wins or loses, who is right or wrong.-á It is measured in terms of who survives." |
Venus Rinah
Paladin Philanthropists
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 11:00:00 -
[19] - Quote
GuRasta wrote:Venus Rinah wrote:
Also, how does this effect people who may want to use cloaking technology for genuine purposes based ona ctivity, like recon and scare related tactics but not go afk? As if the only logical argument is to remove afker's then why not apply a perdiodic validation window say every half an hour for prolonged cloak useage that needs to be confirmed in a few minutes, else the cloak will fail and need to be reapplied? (Maybe a minor irritation but will stop afk cloak use, I could put up with this rather than a debilitating fuel need.)
soooo you wrote all that to say 250k isk/hr to cloak is debilitating? not to mention i never said anything about what cycle times or usage should be...and yea a dialog saying "are you here?" every 30 mins while cloaked sounds real fitting your obviously not too in tune with "covert operations" where does loot from anomolies go you ask? in your noctis you tard because thats really the only thing you should be looting with, you rat with a cloaky rapier or something? also this gimps actual cloak usage? who the **** that actually uses a cloak without afking needs 3-4 hrs of cloak time? dont cloak in empty systems in transit, log if you have to go afk for more than 30 mins zomg thatd be terrible, fit cargo expanders and make it 6 hrs if it makes you happy, if your cloaked in a system 4 hours with your pew pew finger itching the whole time w.o a kill your doing it wrong
Actually no, not going to stand for this type of argument, now your heavily prescribing how I spend my time with the use of a cloak. And justifying your idea based on a model not everyone does or wants to follow. Also, read your own threads, you said a period of 2 hours, I used this value to base the maths on as was mentioned.
GuRasta wrote:... if anything you can sit in system with a bot for 2 hours until he runs out of fuel then probe and destroy
implies your period needed to wait for fuel exhaustion.
I also said the 250k isk an hour wasn't an big deal and you seem to ignore all the other issues quite conveniantly or the scalability problems mentioned.
Having to fit cargo expanders rather than other prefered mods on a recon ship for example isnt really a solution is it, maybe your understanding of effective use of some cloaked ships needs to be revised?
As a result of the snide insults, lack of comprehension and projection of your opinion how I should play this game, hf with your thread as obviously you don't want to compromise or discuss it sensibly, you just want to apply a nerfbat to cloakies. So I wont waste my time trying to discuss it with you.
-1 support, + 1 darwin award recommendation for OP. |
GuRasta
Esokal Command Vera Cruz Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 11:04:00 -
[20] - Quote
Mag's wrote:What mechanic are they using, to interact with you and create fear whilst AFK?
Theres a reason almost every null sec alliance tells people to not rat with cloaky in system wether active or not, why don't you ask them? You'd rather me tell you? Ok, maybe its because even if theres a 1% chance for them to come back/hot drop it makes it illogical to rat with faction bs, use t1 bs you say? you obviously dont have a marauder or faction bs in hanger then because then you'd know almost any of them would rather log than rat for half the ticks and risk being a lawl on the kb, not to mention many alliances will kick you out for losing a ratting ship while ratting with a red/nuet in system. Sure trying to trap sometimes works, but not agaisnt afk's, are you really going to sit in a sanc for 3 hours with a bait bs? not to mention they could just come back and hotdrop 20 in on you anyway. Normal protocol for null sec alliances is to not rat with cloaky in system, because the mechanics and risk of it make it an illogical decision, and effectively allow 1 afk cloaker to shut down an entire alliances pve for literally days on end. I'm seeing more trolling going on than reasoning, and until some1 without a smartass answer disagrees with a logical pro/con list of why i'll keep the troll bat ready. Ending afk cloaking and provide a means to kill botters/severely hinder what botters can do while providing almost no detriment to actual cloak usage? Even the trolls should agree, but then again I guess trolls aren't very smart. |
|
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow The Revenant Order
243
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 11:18:00 -
[21] - Quote
Solution to the entire *****fest: Remove cloaked ships from local.
If they're AFK, they can't hurt you.
If they're cloaked, they can't: - Target - Use EWAR - Fire Weapons
So, with that said, the mechanic is balanced, quit crying and trying to get it nerfed because you obviously suck at life. "War is not measured in terms of who wins or loses, who is right or wrong.-á It is measured in terms of who survives." |
Acwron
Anormalii S.A. Vera Cruz Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 11:40:00 -
[22] - Quote
Jack Carrigan wrote:Solution to the entire *****fest: Remove cloaked ships from local.
If they're AFK, they can't hurt you.
If they're cloaked, they can't: - Target - Use EWAR - Fire Weapons
So, with that said, the mechanic is balanced, quit crying and trying to get it nerfed because you obviously suck at life.
You surely come up very fast fast with the conclusions, especially about someone else's real life. Someone told me that those who are 100% sure of something are idiots. Smart people always have questions and doubts. I don't see you fit in the last category. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
2344
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 12:29:00 -
[23] - Quote
GuRasta wrote:Mag's wrote:What mechanic are they using, to interact with you and create fear whilst AFK? Theres a reason almost every null sec alliance tells people to not rat with cloaky in system wether active or not, why don't you ask them? You'd rather me tell you? Ok, maybe its because even if theres a 1% chance for them to come back/hot drop it makes it illogical to rat with faction bs, use t1 bs you say? you obviously dont have a marauder or faction bs in hanger then because then you'd know almost any of them would rather log than rat for half the ticks and risk being a lawl on the kb, not to mention many alliances will kick you out for losing a ratting ship while ratting with a red/nuet in system. Sure trying to trap sometimes works, but not agaisnt afk's, are you really going to sit in a sanc for 3 hours with a bait bs? not to mention they could just come back and hotdrop 20 in on you anyway. Normal protocol for null sec alliances is to not rat with cloaky in system, because the mechanics and risk of it make it an illogical decision, and effectively allow 1 afk cloaker to shut down an entire alliances pve for literally days on end. I'm seeing more trolling going on than reasoning, and until some1 without a smartass answer disagrees with a logical pro/con list of why i'll keep the troll bat ready. Ending afk cloaking and provide a means to kill botters/severely hinder what botters can do while providing almost no detriment to actual cloak usage? Even the trolls should agree, but then again I guess trolls aren't very smart. It was a simple question.
What mechanic are they using, to interact with you and create fear whilst AFK?
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
49
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 13:46:00 -
[24] - Quote
Mag's wrote:What mechanic are they using, to interact with you and create fear whilst AFK?
Dscan to name one I suppose.
But what can the players in the system he decides to go "afk" in do to chase him away? |
Grumpy Owly
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 14:02:00 -
[25] - Quote
OP suggestion unsupported, no real valid reason, poor argument and potentially "crippling" mechanic. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
2344
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 15:19:00 -
[26] - Quote
Lucien Visteen wrote:Mag's wrote:What mechanic are they using, to interact with you and create fear whilst AFK? Dscan to name one I suppose. But what can the players in the system he decides to go "afk" in do to chase him away? So while he is AFK, he's using dscan to create fear and interact? Did I read you right?
What can they do? Of course if he is AFK, then you're safe anyway, but....
Move systems, rat in PvP fit ships, have gangs setup even though you maybe in different systems, put up cyno jammers to removed a great swath of hot drop possibilities, gather as much intel as possible on the enemy, use any intel gathered to fight back, bait, etc. etc.
OK I'll ask again.......
What mechanic are they using, to interact with you and create fear whilst AFK?
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
StukaBee
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
41
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 15:26:00 -
[27] - Quote
ITT: psychological warfare is working as intended. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
2344
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 15:39:00 -
[28] - Quote
StukaBee wrote:ITT: psychological warfare is working as intended. Basically, yes.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Sir Lokit
Esokal Command Vera Cruz Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 15:40:00 -
[29] - Quote
I feel that OP might not be representing this as well as he could be. Not to be stepping on any toes or anything but a few people seem to be shifting onto the idea that they agree with the fact that AFK cloak is abuse of a good mechanic.
To get people onto the same page, I'd be more than happy to inform them.
"How do AFK people strike fear?"
You don't know if they are truly AFK. Are they returning once every few hours? Are they actually sitting there? Are they watching you rat right now with a covet cyno? When are they going to uncloak and warp onto you? (Since they can get a BM at any time while cloaked, warp away and come back if they so choose, since you dont know if they were really afk or not).
A pair of eyes in the system is incredibly strong. now the reasons I listed arent all encompassing, but its an example of how this can effect someones play.
Now onto a more important issue that I would like to address.
"That doesn't seem like a fair way to change the mechanic to the rest of us"
I like this statement a lot. It means many of you are thinking about the change and focusing more on how to solve the problem rather then just saying know. Thank you. Thank you very much for accepting this. And I feel the its the community's responsibility to come up with a solution. (Or CCP. Im not really sure who usually figures these things out, Even though I suppose ultimately its their choice)
The suggested idea By Gurasata was just that. A suggested idea. I feel more effort should be put forth on finding alternative, more comfortable solutions for everyone. Indeed everyone has different play styles. And thats exactly why we need more people giving input.
Within my own circle of friends their have been several different suggestions, such as a structure that randomly sends a pulse out in the system once every 30-45 minutes (15 minute interval of time for it to go off that no one knows where it will land in).
Obviously this has its issues that I'm more than sure I dont need to go into, its just a listed suggestion.
Or being able to probe people out to a grid. But not pin pointing where they are at. You just know they are on that grid.
This obviously has some issues as well.
Or, taking what someone else suggested, (Gurasta's suggestion) And trying to work with it a bit and come up with a solution that more people are happy with.
Perhaps have a changing timer? Use fuel after you have been cloaked for a solid 30 minutes. After 25 minutes the cooldown increases exponentially for each minute still cloaked. Until you start using fuel, which will reduce this cooldown.
Again this is just a suggestion. Please, We are all here to improve the game and continue making it move forward. The number one issue here is that there is nothing that can be currently done about AFK cloaks. You can destroy their entire alliance, you can make everyone move back to empire. But they can still have an AFK cloak in your system just because they dont like you, And there isn't a single thing that be done about it.
All the community is asking for is either a way to prevent people from going AFK all day or empowering people who get stuck in their home system to be able to go out and do something about it. No matter how tedious it might be.
Sorry for the WOT. Thank you for reading (For those of you that did.) |
Max Von Sydow
Droneboat Diplomacy
63
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 15:46:00 -
[30] - Quote
My biggest issue with afk cloakers is that they are in fact safe. The only way to be safer than someone who is cloaked is being docked, and docked people can be stationcamped making them unable to do anything, while someone who is cloaked at a safespot can just decloak and go about his own business. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |