Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 [200] 300 .. 343 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
EZ Windy
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 15:43:57 -
[5971] - Quote
Lots has been said on this topic but in my opinion AFK cloaking is an exploit and should be fixed.
One of the objective of this game is to engage players (play the game, consume goods, etc) and being AFK in an exploit defeats that objective. Sure, we can argue AFK cloaking is not threatening but that is not my point. My point is that extended or 24/7 AFK cloaking should not be allowed because during that time players are not engaged in the game. A change is required that will still allow cloaking for purpose of gathering intel or spying but at the same time allow players to really engage in in game.
I propose, and maybe this as already been done, that the cloaking devices be made fuel / consumption dependent. A separate cargo hold could contain enough fuel to operate the cloak for say 2 hours, at the end of which time, refueling would be required. If you're AFK for the day, and have not refueled, you risk being scanned and popped. Fuel based cloaking devices will add a badly needed fix and a new level of logistics to the game.
EZ |
Wander Prian
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
206
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 18:07:29 -
[5972] - Quote
EZ Windy wrote:Lots has been said on this topic but in my opinion AFK cloaking is an exploit and should be fixed. One of the objective of this game is to engage players (play the game, consume goods, etc) and being AFK in an exploit defeats that objective. Sure, we can argue AFK cloaking is not threatening but that is not my point. My point is that extended or 24/7 AFK cloaking should not be allowed because during that time players are not engaged in the game. A change is required that will still allow cloaking for purpose of gathering intel or spying but at the same time allow players to really engage in in game. I propose, and maybe this as already been done, that the cloaking devices be made fuel / consumption dependent. A separate cargo hold could contain enough fuel to operate the cloak for say 2 hours, at the end of which time, refueling would be required. If you're AFK for the day, and have not refueled, you risk being scanned and popped. Fuel based cloaking devices will add a badly needed fix and a new level of logistics to the game. EZ
It's been suggested before and shot down many times for the same reason: You are breaking working and balanced gameplay while trying to fix a "problem", that only affects a small portion of the user-base. Your idea would break wormholes, exploration, PVE-runners who sneak into hostile space. As you can use a cloak with any ship with a high-slot, you'd have to add cloak-fuelbay for every ship with a slot to use it. |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
749
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 23:10:56 -
[5973] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:.
AFK cloaking only works because of local.
Local is too powerful...and needs to go. In its place should be a player deployed structure like just about everything else that can be attacked and destroyed or subverted.
How convenient that's exactly one of the functions of the proposed new structures.
But really you just don't have anything to work on so you're desperately grasping at straws now.
If you go afk in space there should be a way to kill you. Even if it is just a special D-scan.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4787
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 23:43:53 -
[5974] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:.
AFK cloaking only works because of local.
Local is too powerful...and needs to go. In its place should be a player deployed structure like just about everything else that can be attacked and destroyed or subverted. How convenient that's exactly one of the functions of the proposed new structures. But really you just don't have anything to work on so you're desperately grasping at straws now. If you go afk in space there should be a way to kill you. Even if it is just a special D-scan.
And local should not be invulnerable to attack. My view is that so long as that is the case, then AFK cloaking should absolutely remain. Dumbing down the game is just bad.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Moonacre Parmala
Virtual Warriors IMPERIAL LEGI0N
2
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 07:47:43 -
[5975] - Quote
How about providing the capacity to 'ping' and actively hunt down the AFK cloaker?
Similar to a submarine being pinged by sonar. Deploy probes with a slow scan time, to allow the "ping" to reach a target and be reflected back, at the same time give the cloaker a indication that they're being 'pinged'. repeat with a closing circle of probes and say after an average of 10-15 minutes work you'll have a rough location of the cloaked ship, whilst giving them the chance to run away.
If you wait long enough you can get a location, within say 5000m of the ship, then it's a case of warping in and dispatching a ship that is just being an annoyance. The flip side being, if the claoker is active then all they need do is warp off and the scan becomes null and void, that way you've established you've an active threat or an popped cloaked ship. |
Pandora Carrollon
Kingsman Tailors
98
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 18:37:26 -
[5976] - Quote
So... 288 pages and you guys have this all worked out, right?
C'mon guys, clearly CCP thinks that AFK cloaking is valid and isn't going to do anything about it.
It seens to be an equal tool for the stalker as much as it's an anti-stalking tool.
If you don't like someone cloaked, be vigilant, or cloak up yourself and mess with them. How nervous do you think they'd be if 20 members of a corp they are stalking are also 'in system', not in-dock, and can't be scanned down?
It's up to you to determine how you react. The tool is useable by anyone. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4788
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 19:24:46 -
[5977] - Quote
Moonacre Parmala wrote:How about providing the capacity to 'ping' and actively hunt down the AFK cloaker?
Similar to a submarine being pinged by sonar. Deploy probes with a slow scan time, to allow the "ping" to reach a target and be reflected back, at the same time give the cloaker a indication that they're being 'pinged'. repeat with a closing circle of probes and say after an average of 10-15 minutes work you'll have a rough location of the cloaked ship, whilst giving them the chance to run away.
If you wait long enough you can get a location, within say 5000m of the ship, then it's a case of warping in and dispatching a ship that is just being an annoyance. The flip side being, if the claoker is active then all they need do is warp off and the scan becomes null and void, that way you've established you've an active threat or an popped cloaked ship.
Not unless you are willing to give up local. Why should you have your cake and eat it too?
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony The Wraithguard.
200
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 09:13:46 -
[5978] - Quote
coz cake is gud. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4794
|
Posted - 2016.03.13 06:34:51 -
[5979] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:coz cake is gud.
Well...there is that...
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Moonacre Parmala
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
2
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 11:24:20 -
[5980] - Quote
I personally think you should have the ability to once a week have local go down...... either through sustained ECM or Physical attack like prior to an attack, Exactly like our (My) forces initial actions, remove communications, remove logistics/re-supply, remove moral then remove the opposing force. That way you provide a whole new game dynamic to be utilised. It could then be 'policed' by CCP to reduce total abuse and reduce knock on effect to (too many) innocents but would make for fun times... but it think that'a slightly off topic :)
(or knock it out but allow it to be repaired in game.........) |
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4801
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 18:31:29 -
[5981] - Quote
Moonacre Parmala wrote:I personally think you should have the ability to once a week have local go down...... either through sustained ECM or Physical attack like prior to an attack, Exactly like our (My) forces initial actions, remove communications, remove logistics/re-supply, remove moral then remove the opposing force. That way you provide a whole new game dynamic to be utilised. It could then be 'policed' by CCP to reduce total abuse and reduce knock on effect to (too many) innocents but would make for fun times... but it think that'a slightly off topic :)
(or knock it out but allow it to be repaired in game.........)
What would you attack or ECM?
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Moonacre Parmala
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
2
|
Posted - 2016.03.16 11:11:37 -
[5982] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Moonacre Parmala wrote:I personally think you should have the ability to once a week have local go down...... either through sustained ECM or Physical attack like prior to an attack, Exactly like our (My) forces initial actions, remove communications, remove logistics/re-supply, remove moral then remove the opposing force. That way you provide a whole new game dynamic to be utilised. It could then be 'policed' by CCP to reduce total abuse and reduce knock on effect to (too many) innocents but would make for fun times... but it think that'a slightly off topic :)
(or knock it out but allow it to be repaired in game.........) What would you attack or ECM?
i'd use it for a system attack, or if that way inclined use it to go for a POS or just to give ultimate cover for piracy/covert ops.
as to physical actions against a comm's array, that could be 'policed' by local security or hired out to players to defend. And to prevent repeated attacks have CONCORD jump in to effect repairs and protect until it can be re-attacked at a suitable time period. Plus would make it a fleet operation to take it down, be it stealth bombers in a hit and run or bs's in a stand and slug it out job.
Just not a lone captain balckbeard in a frigate who wants to cause problems. |
Evander1992
Global Isk Network
3
|
Posted - 2016.03.16 18:15:49 -
[5983] - Quote
If i remember the EVE lore correctly, ships in a system are connected to the local network by gates, as they provide connection services for everyone inside. Saying this, two options come to mind, regarding the balance of afk cloaking. First you make cloaked ships scannable by a ping system with probes, as Monacre suggested, and then you:
- Give the ability to manually control a ship communication array: turning them off would disconnect you completely from the gate network, making you disappear from local. The disadvantage would be that is disconnected you obviously only have access to the wh-style delayed local chat, as no real time info are received from your ship
or
- Give gates by default separate service upgrades, for example: CONCORD bounty network service, Standing Relay service, real time communication service and so on. Obviously, theese services can go offline if brought down by using the enthosis on every gate in the system. If all the services are down, no local and afk cloaking paradise :3 |
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
1106
|
Posted - 2016.03.17 12:54:51 -
[5984] - Quote
Moonacre Parmala wrote:I personally think you should have the ability to once a week have local go down... So once a week people call an "op" to take down the local when it's most convenient for them, so that you don't do it at the most inappropriate moment.
Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
|
Lyissa Serine
Eternal Sunshine. Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.17 22:03:37 -
[5985] - Quote
I have a cloaky camper in my system, there have been no attacks on any ships, not even a sighting since he first appeared many hours ago.
Most of the residents have logged off, but in the hope that he occasionally looks at his screen, I now keep my alt logged in at the station, with luck this may persuade him to stay in the system rather than go and camp another, more active system.
So now we are both (probably) afk and not playing Eve.
Is this really what the developers of Eve had in mind for the game?
I don't think so.
Personally I have no problem with someone actively cloaked and hunting but please give me the tools to hunt down someone who has not pressed a key for hours and who is no longer active in the game. |
Morrigan LeSante
Black Omega Security The OSS
1333
|
Posted - 2016.03.18 11:13:00 -
[5986] - Quote
Lyissa Serine wrote: Is this really what the developers of Eve had in mind for the game?
How the might of the strongest null coalition can be cowed into inactivity by a single grey name in the local channel? That you're too scared to use your own sovereign territory because someone might shoot you? Frankly, I doubt it. I doubt it very much. Up to you if you want to use your space or not. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4812
|
Posted - 2016.03.18 18:34:36 -
[5987] - Quote
Evander1992 wrote: If all the services are down, no local and afk cloaking paradise :3
Your post is not all that different from what has been proposed regarding the upcoming observatory array.
As for the bit I quoted, nobody will AFK cloak in a system without local....well unless they are taking a bio, answering the phone, making a sandwich, etc. Strategically doing it will no longer be a thing.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Electra Magnetic
Echelon Research SpaceMonkey's Alliance
44
|
Posted - 2016.03.18 19:57:22 -
[5988] - Quote
I'm going to post my original idea again since I still think it would work in solving the problem.
Require cloaks to use cap while activated at a slow rate and do not allow capacitors to recharge while cloaked.
This solves a couple issues. One, it prevents people from AFK'ing in space for long amounts of time in order to "cloaky camp" and prevent other players from enjoying the game. Second, It balances pvp in the game by reducing the benefit cloakers get when they burn off and cloak so that they can regen cap to come back in for another surprise attack in order to remain untouchable. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4812
|
Posted - 2016.03.18 21:48:27 -
[5989] - Quote
Electra Magnetic wrote:I'm going to post my original idea again since I still think it would work in solving the problem.
Require cloaks to use cap while activated at a slow rate and do not allow capacitors to recharge while cloaked.
This solves a couple issues. One, it prevents people from AFK'ing in space for long amounts of time in order to "cloaky camp" and prevent other players from enjoying the game. Second, It balances pvp in the game by reducing the benefit cloakers get when they burn off and cloak so that they can regen cap to come back in for another surprise attack in order to remain untouchable.
No. Nerfing people who actively fly cloaking ships is just bad.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
SandKid
Sunset Logistics Company
199
|
Posted - 2016.03.22 21:13:17 -
[5990] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Electra Magnetic wrote:I'm going to post my original idea again since I still think it would work in solving the problem.
Require cloaks to use cap while activated at a slow rate and do not allow capacitors to recharge while cloaked.
This solves a couple issues. One, it prevents people from AFK'ing in space for long amounts of time in order to "cloaky camp" and prevent other players from enjoying the game. Second, It balances pvp in the game by reducing the benefit cloakers get when they burn off and cloak so that they can regen cap to come back in for another surprise attack in order to remain untouchable. No. Nerfing people who actively fly cloaking ships is just bad.
I see that at Page 288 there are still only two ideas...
1) Change Local to where it behaves like WH Space in Nullsec (You have to chat to show up)
2) Nerf Cloaks to where they cannot last permanently OR Develop a method for hunting cloaked ships
Personally I like both...as in do both. Remove active local in Null AND create a module/scanner that after some effort allows the pinpointing of cloaked ships. Active flyers will easily avoid this module if that's all they are trying to do (i.e. scouts).
AFK cloaking would cease to exist because A) Local stops the perception and B) The module acts as an intel creator and creates risk for cloaked pilots without destroying the effectiveness of their tactics - i.e. either you have a dedicated scout-finder in each system or you just accept the fact someone might be scouting you and now you REALLY don't know.
I think it creates a bit of a thrill for cloaky pilots (having roamed null myself just for the sake of seeing more of EVE) as well as puts to bed the whole nonsense of afk cloaking. This also would serve to increase the usability around covops ships and attacking operations in null as the module wouldn't make them defenseless but does require them to actively be aware of their surroundings. |
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4815
|
Posted - 2016.03.22 21:23:28 -
[5991] - Quote
Those are ideas from people who have not really read the thread nor have they looked at some ideas discussed in the thread about the Observatory Array.
Your idea of a finding cloaked ships will likely be a feature on the OA. There have been rather strong hints that local will go away...well will become just another chat channel vs. a source of intel.
Hopefully this will be what happens.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Tian Toralen
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
45
|
Posted - 2016.03.28 18:33:47 -
[5992] - Quote
Ultimate idea to stop AFK cloaky campers. The fact that they are AFK is the most annoying fact. Look at this CCP: http://i.imgur.com/HdiLhS8.jpg A certain corporation, has 1 pilot in each of these systems. They don't own the systems, in fact they are enemies with the people there. They have been there since 1 week at least (my knowledge). Is this the future of this game? Plex accounts just to park them in enemy territory - AFK. Pay to keep the enemy under constant threat with no danger to yourself. Or is this convenient to CCP?
It's not a system upgrade, because all null systems would need one. And if a system upgrade that can decloak ships exists, bombers for example will never be sure when it will be activated.
All cloaked ships should prove they are not AFK, using a reasonable time interval, like 20 min. If they don't - they get decloaked.
All cloak modules will ask a certain random combination of 3 letters/numbers to be entered at 20 min intervals, with 1 min timer. If it is not entered corectly, ship gets decloaked. No big deal, if the pilot is not AFK, he will just recloak. Also on activation of the module the combination must be entered, during a 1 min time interval. This is to prevent bots, a bot that is just pressing a key to look like he's not AFK. Also once the bot gets decloaked he can't just F1 and cloak back up, he will need to enter the key combo to cloak, or lose his cloak after 1 min.
It may look as an extreme solution, but this is required, unless CCP has some very good anti-bot software. And this targets only AFK cloakers. This threatening the enemy with no danger to yourself system, must go.
About non-AFK cloaky campers - it's their bussiness what they do with their time. |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony The Wraithguard.
224
|
Posted - 2016.03.28 20:17:28 -
[5993] - Quote
AHAHAHAHAHAHA
And this coming from Karmafleet, your Number One griefer corp? That's rich.
How about you read some of this thread before resetting us back to page 3? |
Tian Toralen
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
45
|
Posted - 2016.03.28 21:23:50 -
[5994] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:AHAHAHAHAHAHA
And this coming from Karmafleet, your Number One griefer corp? That's rich.
Quote:About non-AFK cloaky campers - it's their bussiness what they do with their time.
My suggestion works only against AFK cloakers not against cloakers that camp and are at their keyboard ... at least once every 10 min. |
Wander Prian
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
207
|
Posted - 2016.03.28 23:51:22 -
[5995] - Quote
It doesn't change the fact that it is a very convoluted and clunky mechanic that would just punish active players. It reminds me of lootspew. In a bad way |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4822
|
Posted - 2016.03.29 00:43:44 -
[5996] - Quote
Tian Toralen wrote:Brokk Witgenstein wrote:AHAHAHAHAHAHA
And this coming from Karmafleet, your Number One griefer corp? That's rich.
Quote:About non-AFK cloaky campers - it's their bussiness what they do with their time. My suggestion works only against AFK cloakers not against cloakers that camp and are at their keyboard ... at least once every 10 min.
It is still a nerf to a module that also comes with considerable downsides. So no. No need to nerf active players to get at inactive ones.
My preferred solution is remove local, put in the OA and let it put local back, but is also vulnerable to attack and hopefully hacking, and make cloaks scannable so long as an OA is anchored in system.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Tian Toralen
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
45
|
Posted - 2016.03.29 11:46:35 -
[5997] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:It doesn't change the fact that it is a very convoluted and clunky mechanic that would just punish active players. It reminds me of lootspew. In a bad way What do you mean convoluted and klunky? You use a cloak module, you activate it, the module will display a random letter and a text box. Enter the letter, during a period of 1 min, else the module deactivates. It's a "security code" invented by the device manufacturer, to prevent it's use by drone robots (RP perspective)... Repeat every~15 minutes to prove you are not afk or a bot. It will not decloak you instantly, you have 1 min to enter it. And if you don't enter it, you just get deckloaked, no big deal if you are not AFK.
What do you mean nerf? Is a nerf to AFK. Or do you mean AFK camping has no value to you, only active camping has value? Then why complain? Sure - everyone says AFK campers are no threat, but if I want to take away the AFK aspect: "noo, it's a nerf!". There is no nerf, if you want to stay cloaked in a system for 24/7 you can do that, just not AFK.
What's with the OA (Observer Array)? You realize it will be needed in all null sec systems? What do you mean we should be able to scan cloaked ships? I don't want that. I like to be cloaky (and not AFK). |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony The Wraithguard.
224
|
Posted - 2016.03.29 13:22:07 -
[5998] - Quote
Game mechanics have to be plain and simple. Unless there is a good reason to add fluff, don't. We have enough timers as it is; and no-one running multiple accounts will go for this.
It's not just the cloaky eyes. It's my bathroom break. It's going over the kid's homework before resuming operations.
Reconnaissance work, aka "prolonged stealth operations behind enemy lines" requires that we can do "stuff" without constantly having to push a dead man's switch in an environment where neither docking nor safelogging are desirable.
When a recon does its job it is a problem? Why don't you ask us to enter a lockbreaker code for every ECM module activated, and a transponder ID for every sentry drone deployed? Traders and cyno alts will of course be subject to the same harassment I presume - auto logoffski?
No thanks.
I don't have to prove I'm not AFK because being AFK isn't against the rules. Please scroll up the thread to find numerous counters to deal with the situation, along with healthy debate pro and con. The long and short of it, is that even knowing the recon is there is already wrong. You can't fix that wrong by introducing another wrong. That'd be ... well ... even more wrongierst.
Let me guess... you're trying to solo rat? Within the repository of wisdom that is this thread are all the answers. 1 cloaker vs 1 ratter = no problem. 1 cloaker+cyno = a fleet vs 1 ratter = one dead ratter. One cyno fleet vs 1 defense fleet = gudfites. You have no defense fleet? Allow me to show you the nearest wormhole to Empire space.
Then there's a couple of pages on targeting delay, low sensor strength, the futility of regular roaming fleets countered by merely staying aligned, no cynoes in plexes, somebody also mentioned large jump drives in conjunction with the inability to warp to fleet members inside anoms ..... yup, that about covers it I guess.
Oh wait. If I recall correctly someone else brought up the concepts of "Two Way Street" and "deal with it".
(this, in a nutshell, what I've gathered thus far LOL)
After that we pretty much agreed local chat needs some tweaking before the cloak needs a tweak. Several suggestions were acceptable, granted; but timers, fuel, scanprobes, basically all ONE-SIDED nerfs were shot down relentlessly.
TL;DR - now you're up to speed comrade. |
Tian Toralen
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
45
|
Posted - 2016.03.29 13:53:17 -
[5999] - Quote
I don't care about local chat. Remove it if you wish, it will be equal for me or the enemy. I am against AFK players planted in systems just to provide a threat - at absolutely no peril to the one doing the threatening.
See this image: http://i.imgur.com/HdiLhS8.jpg
Those are AFK players parked there since many weeks ago.
Only cloak modules will require this random letter to be entered. Who said anything about ECM modules. Maybe once every 30 minutes then. Maybe once every hour? Is that really too much? To prevent people leaving their characters logged in over night, or over the entire day while they are not there. This - or CCP can find a way to identifty AFK players or bots and deckloack them. |
Wander Prian
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
207
|
Posted - 2016.03.29 14:15:41 -
[6000] - Quote
It's not the AFK-part that you hate. It's the uncertainty. You want perfect Intel about the dangers. Cloaking up in a system for a while breaks the perfect Intel from local and you feel like it's wrong that you cannot know for sure about the risks. You are well on your way to becoming a true nullbear! Congrats!
Have you ever actually used cloak-capable ships? Done any scouting? Wormholes? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 [200] 300 .. 343 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |