Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Exlegion
Caldari Salva Veritate
|
Posted - 2009.11.18 16:19:00 -
[1]
While a cloaker is cloaked and immobile (or at constant velocity, not speed) he dissapears from local chat. That means if the cloaker wants to keep the system under constant alert he himself must remain alert (or at least at the keyboard). As soon as the cloaker moves (ie, warps, changes speed and/or direction, etc.) cloaker reappears in local chat.
This should be a somewhat win/win for everyone involved while at the same time forcing all players to remain actively on keyboard. The cloaker can still go AFK for bathroom breaks, talk on the phone, change the baby's diaper, etc. And since the cloaker is AFK he no longer (and rightfully so) has no influence in play. As soon as he's back he can continue his terror spree but must remain at the keyboard.
/thread
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.11.18 16:51:00 -
[2]
1) I doubt CCP will be willing to implement this - the coding will be too weird.
2) People don't want cloakers disappearing from chat - they'd much rather know about the stealth bomber coming to gank them than not.
3) Find object, orbit at like 212km. Your vector is constantly changing, so you stay in local, but there's no chance of you getting caught.
Sorry man, I don't think this is a good solution at all. Not supported.
|
Exlegion
Salva Veritate
|
Posted - 2009.11.18 17:10:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Exlegion on 18/11/2009 17:17:26 I'll address points 2 and 3 as I have no idea what kind of coding would be required to implement this change.
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto 2) People don't want cloakers disappearing from chat - they'd much rather know about the stealth bomber coming to gank them than not.
This in particular is what needs changing. It is perfectly fine that cloakers influence and "terrorize" a system keeping it in a high state of alert. That is their purpose. However, I believe this should be the case only while the cloaker himself is at the keyboard. As soon as he goes AFK to do whatever his ability to influence the activities of [active] players should cease. Basically, if he's not actively playing he should not be able to actively influence others (keep a system in high alert).
And even though the cloaker still has zero risk while cloaked he would now be forced to remain active. There is absolutely nothing wrong with forcing the cloaker to be at the keyboard while still being able to keep a system under active alert.
And to answer your question, as soon as the cloaker becomes active again, he reappears in local chat allowing everyone to go into a high state of alert once again. It would be no different from a hostile jumping in through a gate.
As an added bonus to the cloaker, he now has the ability to be completely incongnito *while* not in play. As for the system itself, as long as the player is inactive (AFK) they don't have to suspend their normal day-to-day activities for the entirety of the unwelcomed visit.
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto 3) Find object, orbit at like 212km. Your vector is constantly changing, so you stay in local, but there's no chance of you getting caught.
I don't think this would be difficult at all. You could add an exception as a code that removes the cloaked pilot from local chat if the orbit command is activated.
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre E-P-O-C-H
|
Posted - 2009.11.18 17:34:00 -
[4]
Not supporting T.T;;;; ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2009.11.18 18:07:00 -
[5]
not supported for the 10235658th time
|
Baaldor
Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.18 19:13:00 -
[6]
Not supported.
However when you state "And since the cloaker is AFK he no longer (and rightfully so) has no influence in play" Would you agree that AFK empire haulers also would not have any influence in play?
|
Exlegion
Caldari Salva Veritate
|
Posted - 2009.11.18 19:25:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Exlegion on 18/11/2009 19:35:17
Originally by: Baaldor Not supported.
However when you state "And since the cloaker is AFK he no longer (and rightfully so) has no influence in play" Would you agree that AFK empire haulers also would not have any influence in play?
Funny you should mention that. AFK empire haulers have greater risk than AFK cloakers in 0.0.
I'm not even asking to have the risk increased for AFK cloaking, so you can relax. Your profession will remain risk-free ;). I'm proposing a change that rightfully invalidates influence when the player has gone AFK. If the cloaker is AFK then he is cleared from local chat. The cloaker remains invulnerable and the system has no need to remain in a high state of alert for 23 hours per day while the cloaker is present.
To answer your question more clearly: Yes, the AFK hauler is still influencing Eve. And here's the difference: The AFK hauler is STILL susceptible to the influence of others (suicide ganking, etc).
My proposal is attacking one problem only. If a cloaker is going to intimidate a system for 23 hours per day 7 days per week, then he shall be forced to be at the keyboard for 23 hours, 7 days per week. That is all.
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre E-P-O-C-H
|
Posted - 2009.11.18 20:58:00 -
[8]
You can choose to be intimidated... or not.
It won't matter either way. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
Baaldor
Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.18 21:35:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Exlegion
The bad man touched me.
Working as intended.
|
Exlegion
Caldari Salva Veritate
|
Posted - 2009.11.18 22:10:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Drake Draconis You can choose to be intimidated... or not.
It won't matter either way.
Hmm. I can choose to love. I can choose to hate. I can choose to wear red. But as your response, it is all irrelevent.
Having active hostiles heightening the security of a system is a valid tactic. The ability to do this while also being AFK is unlike Eve. I don't expect this to sit well with some of you. And the fact is you, as a cloaker can still go AFK. But not only would you like the ability to go AFK for 23 hours. You also want to continue to degrade the security of your enemy all while watching TV or sleeping. And your response is "they can choose not to worry". The choice you're referring to of course, them slacking their security :). Profit for nothing.
Anyway, just thought I'd offer my 2 cents on the matter.
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr |
|
Exlegion
Caldari Salva Veritate
|
Posted - 2009.11.18 22:51:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Baaldor
Originally by: Exlegion
The bad man touched me.
Working as intended.
I wrote a nice mature reply to your response a few posts up. And you follow it up with this?
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre E-P-O-C-H
|
Posted - 2009.11.18 22:53:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Exlegion
My proposal is attacking one problem only. If a cloaker is going to intimidate a system for 23 hours per day 7 days per week, then he shall be forced to be at the keyboard for 23 hours, 7 days per week. That is all.
So what you're saying is your argument is irrelevant.
Ok... Makes sense to me.
Try making sound arguments before you start coming up with counter arguments... you just shot yourself in the foot.. if not the leg as well.
Don't look at me pal... you chose the words... I just responded in such a way to get you to realize that your arguing over something pointless.
I mean think about this... how do you know they are AFK?
That is entirely an assumption... for all you know the guy is sitting there... watching.. waiting.
you might want to put a little more thought time into this before you come down here and emo-rage about something as simple as mind warfare. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
|
Posted - 2009.11.18 22:56:00 -
[13]
So I'm in my nyx in a ratter system. I sit 13km from the warpin of the middle belt. Not on a warp in direction. Ratter comes along. I'm cloaked. Not in local.
Ratter warping to belt as shown by directional scanners. I decloak immediately. He's either given a heartattack seeing a nyx appear suddenly on his local or landing into a belt with someone when he knew 3 seconds ago wasnt even in the system. My shadow serp sebo is going. My 30km point has him dead to rights. He's done.
If this is possible. Nobody will ever go do stuff in 0.0 anymore. ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe. ------------------------ Life sucks and then you get podded. |
Exlegion
Caldari Salva Veritate
|
Posted - 2009.11.18 23:14:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Drake Draconis So what you're saying is your argument is irrelevant.
Ok... Makes sense to me.
Try making sound arguments before you start coming up with counter arguments... you just shot yourself in the foot.. if not the leg as well.
Don't look at me pal... you chose the words... I just responded in such a way to get you to realize that your arguing over something pointless.
I mean think about this... how do you know they are AFK?
That is entirely an assumption... for all you know the guy is sitting there... watching.. waiting.
you might want to put a little more thought time into this before you come down here and emo-rage about something as simple as mind warfare.
I don't know what you're arguing. However, I can tell you what I am proposing, or at least make it clearer to understand.
I am not, I repeat, NOT, proposing to nerf AFK cloaking. You can still AFK-cloak for 23 hours per day if you wish. You can AFK-cloak without worries. You will still remain invulnerable :P. What I am proposing is that WHILE YOU ARE AFK-cloaked you do not have influence over your surroundings. I am not acting out of line here. And I am not proposing an outrageous idea. If you are not at the keyboard then you do not get to deprive a system from mining and PVE.
A parked cloaked ship has a purpose. It keeps a system on its toes. And why not? It should be on its toes. There are hostiles on the system. What I do NOT agree with is an AFK player influencing an entire system.
I know what you're thinking. "If he's AFK what does it matter?". And my response is if he's AFK you're right, it does not matter. The problem manifests itself when trying to distinguish whether a player is at the keyboard or the player is AFK not even playing the game. My proposal allows the cloaker to go AFK for as long as he wishes while allowing the defending system to run business as usual. If the cloaker wishes to disrupt business as usual then it can still be accomplished. The only difference is that the cloaker must be playing the game.
I know, an outrageous proposal :P. How dare I suggest the cloaker be at the keyboard playing?
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre E-P-O-C-H
|
Posted - 2009.11.18 23:35:00 -
[15]
Fair enough... but your proposal is entirely based on an assumption.
You cannot... and will not... beyond all reasonable doubt... prove said player is even AFK... let alone cloaked or any of the above.
Space is vast... lots of places to hide.
Try spending 3 weeks in WHS and then you'll figure it out real quick.
The point I'm trying to get across to you is this is not a problem... its only a problem when you make it such.
If there is an AFK cloaker in system... then there is... how you react and treat him is entirely up to you.
Any good operation in mining or PVE requires constant attention and observing of your surroundings... it dosen't matter if someone is AFK cloaked or not.
While your proposal seems fair... there will never be a solution granted to it because we cloakers here (i fly covert ops frigates frequently... and stealth bombers now) can't just sit there and remain cloaked all of the time... we have to make sure people don't get too close...yet we cant be too far away or we can't get any good intelligence.
It's not as easy as it looks... it just seems that way.
It's all mental warfare...
you keep pointing out that its free reign intimidation.... and as Ive pointed out to you... you choose to be intimidated or not.
You call it irrelevant... I pointed out you said it.
Is it a problem? Not to me... if we have an intruder... we act accordingly and just pay attention.. evetaully we may "call it" as an AFK and go back to work but we make sure people understand there is a risk.
But in reallity the risk is still the same with... or without the AFK cloaker.
Which is why this is a whine post.
So while you dare to call the AFK'er to be interacting with the computer... will i think its fair that all AFK'ers be required to be interacting with the computer.
So that includes -
1: Haulers on auto pilot 2: Miners who AFK mine. 3: AFK Missioning (yep they do) 4: ????? 5: ?????
You open this door... people are gonna demand balance to the system.
So while I respect your position... keep in mind that your not going to get very far.
PS: I know what its like to deal with AFK Cloakers.... so I AFK cloak right back. Difference is... in WHS.... you still have to leave some time.... granted in low sec/0.0 your dealing with gates but still.. set up a nice little trap.... ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
Verone
Gallente Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.11.18 23:48:00 -
[16]
I still fundamentally fail to see how people can be intimidated by one person, cloaked, in a safespot, AFK.
I mean honestly, harden the **** up, grow a spine, and get on with playing.
\o/ EON FICTION WRITER OF 2008! \o/
>>> THE LIFE OF AN OUTLAW <<< |
Exlegion
Caldari Salva Veritate
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 00:28:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Verone
I still fundamentally fail to see how people can be intimidated by one person, cloaked, in a safespot, AFK.
I mean honestly, harden the **** up, grow a spine, and get on with playing.
Because you have not yet properly identified the problem. The problem is determining whether the player is AFK or not. If it is an absolute truth that the cloaker is AFK then HE IS NOT A THREAT. I thought I had made myself clear on this :). If he is not AFK he IS A THREAT. The problem is determining whether the cloaker is AFK or actually playing the game.
Consider the following.
A mission runner at his PC makes 50 million in 5 hours. One day he decides to create a macro and instead of being at the PC for the whole 5 hours decides to go AFK while still making his 50 million.
Is it fair he's away from the game and still able to meet his goal? After all, he would have still made the 50 million isk if he hadn't created the macro. Why is it important he be at the keys to make his isk? If you're honest in answering these questions then you'll understand why AFK play is against the spirit of Eve :).
If your goal as an AFK cloaker is to degrade the system's security (and face it, you know it is ;)) what is wrong with requiring you to be at the keyboard to accomplish this goal?
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr |
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 00:30:00 -
[18]
omg stop whining. empire is that way ->
|
Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 00:56:00 -
[19]
Yet another thread that shows why w-space style Local is better...
AFK cloakers have zero impact on w-space operations.
Do people spend large amounts of time cloaked (afk and at the keyboard) in wormholes? Yes.
Do other people stop doing what they would be doing because thier MIGHT be a cloaker. No.
Fix Local. Problem solved. ~ Santiago Fahahrri Galactic Geographic |
Baaldor
Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 01:43:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Exlegion
Originally by: Baaldor
Originally by: Exlegion
The bad man touched me.
Working as intended.
I wrote a nice mature reply to your response a few posts up. And you follow it up with this?
Nope. You went on a rant. I responded in kind.
I drew a line between what you are suggesting to what is currently in practice. AFK is AFK. Your arguements are shifitng to justify your sandy clam whine.
|
|
Quazal Atreides
Gallente Encarta Industries
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 03:31:00 -
[21]
on the same note but a different stance to get rid of the AFK cloakers my idea involves simply that the cloak uses 101% of your cap recharge rate
So if you go afk then after say 10mins your cloak will disarm because you have no cap, but the 101% cap usage rate is 101% of anything, so if you happen to use a cap booster 800 then next cycle it will take 808 cap away..
The only way for the cloak not to use cap will be if your in warp speed... so even orbating objects uses the cloak cap rate... whereas whilst in warp you regen cap at normal warp rate...
this is how i would work the afk cloakers...
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 03:36:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Quazal Atreides on the same note but a different stance to get rid of the AFK cloakers my idea involves simply that the cloak uses 101% of your cap recharge rate
So if you go afk then after say 10mins your cloak will disarm because you have no cap, but the 101% cap usage rate is 101% of anything, so if you happen to use a cap booster 800 then next cycle it will take 808 cap away..
The only way for the cloak not to use cap will be if your in warp speed... so even orbating objects uses the cloak cap rate... whereas whilst in warp you regen cap at normal warp rate...
this is how i would work the afk cloakers...
another solution looking for a problem. first find a problem. than you might try to apply your solution to it.
|
Johnny Dexter
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 16:00:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Johnny Dexter on 19/11/2009 16:06:08 People, I don't think you understand why AFK cloaking is a problem. It's not the little minus sign in local or the fact a hostile is in your space. No, those are very common phenomenon in 0.0 space and they don't bother me a bit.
The thing that does bother me is that someone can come to my space and decide when, where, who and how he will attack. There is absolutely nothing you can do about it.
It's not what they can do while cloaked, it's what they can do when they're not
EDIT: Let me clarify, as a ratter you shouldn't care about a solo Vagabond or a bomber, both can be fended off with a decent setup and/or a friend. However, AFK cloakers and especially bombers are mostly only after miners because they know miners can't survive 2 bombs. There is a counter for all ships except bombers.
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre E-P-O-C-H
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 16:07:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Johnny Dexter People, I don't think you understand why AFK cloaking is a problem. It's not the little minus sign in local or the fact a hostile is in your space. No, those are very common phenomenon in 0.0 space and they don't bother me a bit.
The thing that does bother me is that someone can come to my space and decide when, where, who and how he will attack. There is absolutely nothing you can do about it.
It's not what they can do while cloaked, it's what they can do when they're not
Oh please... grow a damn backbone.
The same could be said for a covert ops/black ops/stealth bomber death squad.
Cloak or no cloak.. anyone can go anywhere and do anything they want... the cloak just makes it harder to find them.
AFK Cloaking is only a problem when you make it one... either you man up and deal with it in such a way that you don't shrink in terror... or you ignore it to the point where you deal with security breeches like you would normally deal with them in 0.0 or WHS or low sec for that matter.
For crying out loud... you people must live paranoid lives or something.
EVE is EVE.... it's not supposed to be easy or pleasant.... its supposed to be challenging... this argument has been beaten with a bloody stick and has been shot down each and every time.
Why people think there's going to be a change is even beyond my abilities to rationalize. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
Johnny Dexter
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 16:37:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Drake Draconis Wrong again... bombers are glass cannons... you target one... he can't cloak... then shoot them. The only thing you have to fear is when you decide to fly in a straight line... if you do.. expect a bomb thrown in your face...otherwise your ok for the most part.
Don't mine solo...don't fly/roam solo... work in teams....
And what makes you think bombers will hang around long enough for you to lock and shoot them? If you align to a planet or moon you can decloak, attack and warp away with 2 to 3 seconds, I've seen it plenty of times.
Working together, yeah right. How exactly will stacking 10 miners together help fight bombers when one bomb can kill all 10 of them at the same time? |
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 16:50:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Johnny Dexter
Originally by: Drake Draconis Wrong again... bombers are glass cannons... you target one... he can't cloak... then shoot them. The only thing you have to fear is when you decide to fly in a straight line... if you do.. expect a bomb thrown in your face...otherwise your ok for the most part.
Don't mine solo...don't fly/roam solo... work in teams....
And what makes you think bombers will hang around long enough for you to lock and shoot them? If you align to a planet or moon you can decloak, attack and warp away with 2 to 3 seconds, I've seen it plenty of times.
Working together, yeah right. How exactly will stacking 10 miners together help fight bombers when one bomb can kill all 10 of them at the same time?
ever tried sling bubbles on the belt. so bombers get sucked into it on warp in. that might give your miners time to warp out.
|
Quazal Atreides
Encarta Industries
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 16:55:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Drake Draconis
Oh please... grow a damn backbone.
The same could be said for a covert ops/black ops/stealth bomber death squad.
Cloak or no cloak.. anyone can go anywhere and do anything they want... the cloak just makes it harder to find them.
AFK Cloaking is only a problem when you make it one... either you man up and deal with it in such a way that you don't shrink in terror... or you ignore it to the point where you deal with security breeches like you would normally deal with them in 0.0 or WHS or low sec for that matter.
For crying out loud... you people must live paranoid lives or something.
EVE is EVE.... it's not supposed to be easy or pleasant.... its supposed to be challenging... this argument has been beaten with a bloody stick and has been shot down each and every time.
Why people think there's going to be a change is even beyond my abilities to rationalize.
Quote: EDIT: Let me clarify, as a ratter you shouldn't care about a solo Vagabond or a bomber, both can be fended off with a decent setup and/or a friend. However, AFK cloakers and especially bombers are mostly only after miners because they know miners can't survive 2 bombs. There is a counter for all ships except bombers.
Wrong again... bombers are glass cannons... you target one... he can't cloak... then shoot them. The only thing you have to fear is when you decide to fly in a straight line... if you do.. expect a bomb thrown in your face...otherwise your ok for the most part.
Don't mine solo...don't fly/roam solo... work in teams....
ok i have highlighted my issue... i do agree with what you say in 'princaple' however you say it sholdnt be easy or pleasent, and yet a guy can come into a system at 1130 (or whatever time the server comes up) cloak and stay there until 10.59 the following day. now unless im mistaken this is a VERY EASY way to cause havoc/agro or even play the game as it wasn't meant to be played...
My personal issue isn't with SB/Cov ops or Black ops, its with people that use the cloaks on any ship and sit their cloaked up for hours... You assume that everyone who afk cloaks is a SB... i have many times found myself in this situation when a BS/BS warps to me and guess what he had cloaked for hours in that system without me being able to probe him down ot his cloak deactivating... (and yes im a pvper) how many hulks would it take to shoot a BS down?
Another counter measure against cloakers is how about an ability that allows the scanning of faint traces of 'spatial disruption' that will with the right skills (and talking max level scanning or new skill) so this way there is the ablity to find the cloakers... obviosly if they are not afk then they will simply warped claoked and not be found...
In this game and its mechanics there is always a action/reaction scenario all ships etc have their nemesis on the battlefield and yet people who cloak have COMPLETE immunity from being found...this isn't right/fair/*put in your expletives here*
The work in teams scenario is great in theory but not all of us are in large alliances/corps or are you suggesting that unless your in one or other you should be?
|
Scerolikk Teromni
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 18:00:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Exlegion The problem is determining whether the player is AFK or not. If it is an absolute truth that the cloaker is AFK then HE IS NOT A THREAT.
I and a fleet of ten other stealth bombers sit 50km from a gate for several minutes. A scout comes through and we place our hands on our F1 and F2 keys. An entire fleet comes through, thinking the system is empty because we have all disappeared from local, and we uncloak and fire our bombs and then pelt the people that are still alive with torps.
This is a stupid idea. If somebody is logged into a system, they shall appear in local chat, AFK or not.
|
Verone
Gallente Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 19:53:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Exlegion
Originally by: Verone
I still fundamentally fail to see how people can be intimidated by one person, cloaked, in a safespot, AFK.
I mean honestly, harden the **** up, grow a spine, and get on with playing.
Because you have not yet properly identified the problem. The problem is determining whether the player is AFK or not. If it is an absolute truth that the cloaker is AFK then HE IS NOT A THREAT. I thought I had made myself clear on this :). If he is not AFK he IS A THREAT. The problem is determining whether the cloaker is AFK or actually playing the game.
OH NO.
THERE IS SOMEONE IN MY LOCAL WHO IS NOT BLUE AND WHO MIGHT NOT BE AFK. QUICKLY, I MUST DOCK UP AND DO NOTHING UNTIL HE GOES AWAY.
Originally by: Exlegion Consider the following.
A mission runner at his PC makes 50 million in 5 hours. One day he decides to create a macro and instead of being at the PC for the whole 5 hours decides to go AFK while still making his 50 million.
Is it fair he's away from the game and still able to meet his goal? After all, he would have still made the 50 million isk if he hadn't created the macro. Why is it important he be at the keys to make his isk? If you're honest in answering these questions then you'll understand why AFK play is against the spirit of Eve :).
If your goal as an AFK cloaker is to degrade the system's security (and face it, you know it is ;)) what is wrong with requiring you to be at the keyboard to accomplish this goal?
That summary has NOTHING to do with why people want AFK cloaking mechanics changed, being AFK while logged into the game is a completely different ballpark to creating a macro to make ISK.
A cloaker comes into "your" system, cloaks and goes AFK. He's not making isk, he's not mining, ratting, running missions... anything. HE'S AFK. He's gaining no advantage over any other person in Eve. He's doing nothing wrong. He's causing no problem.
People want it changing because there's someone in their local who isn't blue and they're too scared to undock and run a mission or play the game in case they get probed down and lose a ship.
Effectively, the people who want it changing are pretty spineless and want it changed because they're too scared to undock if there's a hint of risk involved. There's no sense to it at all. Someone who's AFK in space is not a problem, neither is someone who's sat actively probing for mission runners.
The problem isn't the cloaking mechanic, it's working as intended. The problem is that people are too spineless to undock when there's someone who's not part of their napfest in local and they don't know where in space he is.
\o/ EON FICTION WRITER OF 2008! \o/
>>> THE LIFE OF AN OUTLAW <<< |
Exlegion
Caldari Salva Veritate
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 21:35:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Verone OH NO.
THERE IS SOMEONE IN MY LOCAL WHO IS NOT BLUE AND WHO MIGHT NOT BE AFK. QUICKLY, I MUST DOCK UP AND DO NOTHING UNTIL HE GOES AWAY.
Verone, you asked a question. I answered it. You now lock caps and put words and my mouth why?
Originally by: Verone That summary has NOTHING to do with why people want AFK cloaking mechanics changed, being AFK while logged into the game is a completely different ballpark to creating a macro to make ISK.
The cloaker IS accomplishing something. Otherwise why is parking a cloaked ship in hostile territory even done? AFK cloaking serves a purpose. You don't have to admit it to me. But you know it :). It will do no one any good arguing about it.
Originally by: Verone A cloaker comes into "your" system, cloaks and goes AFK. He's not making isk, he's not mining, ratting, running missions... anything. HE'S AFK. He's gaining no advantage over any other person in Eve. He's doing nothing wrong. He's causing no problem.
If nothing is being accomplished then why do it? If the cloaker is AFK why not just log off? And the honest answer is because it is an effective way to run down the security of a system. Stay AFK cloaked long enough and the system will eventually lower its security alert to normal. And the problem I have with this is one side has to work hard to maintain the status quo. The other side can literally fall asleep and just wait for the other side to eventually wear down.
Listen, don't get upset at me because I'm telling it how it is. You know it. I know it. I would have more respect for you if you at the very least admitted this is psychological warfare. And it IS a perfectly legal tactic. I take issue with the fact you can do this even while sleeping or at school (ie, not playing the game). That is my problem with this tactic. Anyway, you can pretend like you really don't understand what the issue here is :).
Originally by: Verone People want it changing because there's someone in their local who isn't blue and they're too scared to undock and run a mission or play the game in case they get probed down and lose a ship.
I can't speak for everyone else, but the umpteenth time, I want it changed so that if you're AFK (ie, not playing the game) you're unable to influence the security of a system.
Originally by: Verone Effectively, the people who want it changing are pretty spineless and want it changed because they're too scared to undock if there's a hint of risk involved. There's no sense to it at all. Someone who's AFK in space is not a problem, neither is someone who's sat actively probing for mission runners.
Again, I can't speak for everyone else. But I can tell you that in my case it has nothing to do with spine or with me being scared. So you can stop it right there with the "you're too skerred or chicken" childish nonsense. I'm talking about a player being AFK virtually 24/7. Name-calling won't change the facts.
Originally by: Verone The problem isn't the cloaking mechanic, it's working as intended. The problem is that people are too spineless to undock when there's someone who's not part of their napfest in local and they don't know where in space he is.
Again, it has nothing to do with spines or napfests. If you want to cloak yourself for 23 hours per day I am not asking to have this nerfed. I am asking that you be in front of your PC. Stop degrading the problem into something that isn't.
So, again, before you throw it out there again. What I am asking for is if you're going to AFK-CLOAK for 23 hours per day then be prepared to be in front of the PC for 23 hours per day.
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |