|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Innocent Murderer
Unjustly Accused
   |
Posted - 2010.07.03 04:34:00 -
[1]
I'm up for the fuel idea. People still get to use their cloaks when they want with existing mechanics, but not for indefinite periods of time. Cloaks would then require *gasp* tactics. 
(As an aside, rather than nerf existing cargo bays on ships such as Covops frigs implementing a fuel requirement, I suggest that a dedicated fuel bay would be added)
That's my .02 isk. Allow people to hold enough fuel to cloak for a good number of hours, but not AFK-cloak 23.5/7.
|
Innocent Murderer
Unjustly Accused
|
Posted - 2010.07.03 23:52:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
This thread is made of failure. For the very idea that you want more safety in 0.0, all proponents of the "nerf cloaks" view should be shamed and humiliated. The solution that would make both sides happy is obvious: replace Local, either with Constellation or with a w-space style Local. So you also fail for persistently refusing to consider the obvious win-win solution.
I don't want more safety. I want to end some safety. Cloaks are a get-out-of-jail-free, unstoppable, unbeatable module. What is the counter to a cloaked person? There is none. There is not a force in the game that can make a person ever decloak aside from downtime. And that is the core issue here. With fuel usage, a person using a cloak can enjoy the same functionality that currently exists, they just can't do it forever without penalty.
Fuel pros: cloaking now requires skill and tactics (and a fuel source).
Fuel cons: no more perma-AFK-cloaking.
Also, this thread is not about local chat, it's about AFK-cloaking and solutions to that. Congratulations on the attempted hijack, though.
|
Innocent Murderer
Unjustly Accused
|
Posted - 2010.07.04 05:22:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Innocent Murderer on 04/07/2010 05:26:25
Edit: fixed for grammammar and spelling.
Originally by: Elton Murrow
The cloaker can't do much damage
Clearly you have not encountered a cloaky Tengu with an interdiction nullifier. I encourage you to experience that wonderful event some time. It's not what they do while cloaked. It's what they do while uncloaked (duh).
Originally by: The Next Guy
The issues are directly related. and as for your argument the same could be said for station docking, I'm sorry not very persuasive.
No, it couldn't. You can shoot a station (in sovereign space, anyways). You can bubble a station and camp the exit. Therefore, a person can kill you while trying to use a station to play docking games, but they can't do so at leisure with no penalties. Fail comparison is fail.
Originally by: The Next Guy
No the core issue here is local chat mechanics.
Local chat mechanics simply allows everyone to see that who is in system, not where they are, what they're in, or anything else. If you take away local, then A: we'd be in WH space with jumpgates, which if everyone wanted they would move to instead of nullsec, and B: then corporations and alliances wouldn't even be able to tell which of their own members were in a system. Removing local would also grant enormous benefits to attackers in nullsec (I have the feeling you'd like that) because a local spike would be undetectable and a covert jump bridge would enable huge fleets to enter with the strong likelihood of no detection (because having probes out covering a solar system and probing 23.5/7 is extremely tiresome and difficult). Fleets could jump in without detection, set a POS into reinforced without allied forces in-system even detecting the attack, and then disappear again. And presuming that AFK-cloaking was not fixed in any way, then the person who did it could just cloak/safe up again and wait for the next opportunity. Repeat this process ad infinitum until somebody runs out of jumpbridge fuel.
And that's just one possibility if local was removed in nullsec.
In short, shut up, grow a pair, and fight like an EVE player instead of whining to get local removed so you can attack someone with impunity. Before you try to turn that quote into an argument against cloaks using fuel, cloaks as they are allow people to choose fights with impunity indefinitely.
My solution is to simply add an eventual time limit to that. So yeah, you can fly in, cloak for x number of hours, and then surprise-PvP boat-violence someone's ship just like you can now, but not for weeks on end without having to leave a system (and thus render yourself vulnerable momentarily).
Start thinking of some cons to this and stop trying to change the subject.
|
Innocent Murderer
Unjustly Accused
|
Posted - 2010.07.04 16:28:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Taltine
Atleast make non cov ops ships probable but make them hard to find but possible and maby a module that has a pulse aera effect that makes cloaked non cov ops ships targetable so u can fist probe em then warp near it and pulse it to make it targetable. maby when u get hit on probes u cant warp in at 0 but make it like 10 or 20 so u need to run around and pulse em out. and cov ops ships only probable afther an afk period
And I always wonder why people flame those who want to end AFK-cloaking.
|
Innocent Murderer
Unjustly Accused
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 16:26:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Voith
AFK Cloaking is broken and goes against everything EVE and real PvPers stand for: Risk.
It allows a person to assume no risk and to affect the game of others. If you like AFK cloaking you should go back to WoW.
QFT.
|
Innocent Murderer
Unjustly Accused
|
Posted - 2010.07.06 00:06:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
Originally by: Innocent Murderer
Originally by: The Next Guy
No the core issue here is local chat mechanics.
Local chat mechanics simply allows everyone to see that who is in system, not where they are, what they're in, or anything else. If you take away local, then...
... then there'd be no AFK cloaking problem. The "covert ops" and "black ops" ships would be able to actually conduct such operations. 0.0 would be less than 100% safe, which is how its supposed to be, but organized, competent alliances would have the upper hand and probably enjoy a lot more good fights.
How would that remove the cloaking problem? That would remove the ability to see the problem, not the actual problem itself. Congratulations, you're a dumbass. Or a troll. Or someone who makes a living off of using an imbalanced game mechanic. Or some combination of all three.
Also, you have yet to post a negative to adding a fuel requirement to cloaks. I don't see any problems with allowing 16 hours of cloaking in any ship. Do you? (I'm sure you do, otherwise you wouldn't be posting about the erosion of your case for AFK-cloaking) If so, please post them. Otherwise don't bother posting at all.
|
Innocent Murderer
Unjustly Accused
|
Posted - 2010.07.06 01:53:00 -
[7]
* Local Chat should removed.
No. No, no, and no.
* More pipes should be created from Lowsec to Nullsec. (or just more frequent WH's directly between the two.
Yes.
* Black-Ops ships should have their jump B. range at least doubled.
And a whole crapload of other improvements.
* Pirate NPC stations should shoot at anyone with -5 standing or worse to them and refuse docking (should be the same for all factions/corps but only pirate ones really relevant here)
Haven't really thought about this before. It would be an interesting idea. Might keep people from ever being able to fix standings with that pirate corp if they go below -5 though.
* Something also needs to be done about the rampant NAPs, but I'll leave that for someone else to fix that actually cares about sovereignty wars.
Make resources scarcer in nullsec. Upgrades made mercoxit, arkonor, bistot, and crokite a bit too common.
Nullsec should be dangerous to everyone (hence why I hate AFK-cloaking), and there should be reasonably safe PvEing for Sov holders who can camp a gate. After all, they had to fight to win that system, and to control the in/out points which mostly determine who gets access to that system.
Xorv you should be a little more careful when you post, I barely had to look to see the "I hate the Northern Coalition" you'd inserted in the text.
|
Innocent Murderer
Unjustly Accused
|
Posted - 2010.07.06 03:36:00 -
[8]
And how do they exploit it? They pick off people at leisure, then resume their invulnerable state. Risk vs. reward is imbalanced with cloaking. All that fuel would do would be to make them have to do something else after a long time of being able to do what is already possible under game mechanics. I don't care what they're doing when they're AFK so much as I care that they can attack without warning against a target of their choosing (which can almost never fight back) and then go back to being AFK/invulnerable indefinitely. It's the indefinitely part that I and many others have an issue with.
What is a con to adding a fuel requirement to a cloak? I'm still waiting for someone to explain how it could ruin things.
|
Innocent Murderer
Unjustly Accused
|
Posted - 2010.07.06 04:33:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Induc
Where would you get it? NPC sell orders? Free or not?
Free? Free? Free like the minerals I mine?
Planetary interaction seems to be a great candidate for this.
Originally by: Induc
However you decide to solve it will add yet one more thing I have to remember before I undock.
Cry moar. That's up to maybe five things...ammo...fittings..fuel..No wait, that's three. Maybe four if you ask someone if the station is camped. If you're that lazy/stupid that you can't remember fuel, well, I hear HKO has a low subscription cost.
Originally by: Induc
And what about wormholes? Do I have to find an exit to k-space every 16 hours because some whiny nullbears can't HTFU?
I want you to repeat that sentence to yourself a couple times, you should realize what's wrong with that sentence eventually.
Also, see the first paragraph.
|
Innocent Murderer
Unjustly Accused
|
Posted - 2010.07.06 14:18:00 -
[10]
You should probably try flying a covops or a recon ship before posting about cloaks.
|
|
|
Innocent Murderer
Unjustly Accused
|
Posted - 2010.07.06 16:30:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Paul99
they have the log EXPLOIT
Who's they and what's the exploit? Originally by: Paul99
and it schouldn't be that way.
What shouldn't, and why not?
Originally by: Paul99
Maybe if LOCAL is REMOVED than 0.0 space will really start to be enjoyable to solo/small gang pvp
Maybe if IDIOCY is REMOVED than the forums will really start to be enjoyable to reasonable/intelligent posters.
|
Innocent Murderer
Unjustly Accused
|
Posted - 2010.07.07 02:25:00 -
[12]
Perhaps you've been misled by my semantics.
Let me fix that.
First, let me recommend that you go die in an aggressive oxidizing reaction, the sooner, the better (in-game, of course). I don't fly in safe space. I fly in space that is routinely intruded upon by roaming gangs, random neutrals, and large, angry capital fleets. Stop pretending that 0.0 is safe--clearly you don't live there.
Taking away local does not fix the fact that someone can remain in an invulnerable state, undetected, indefinitely. It simply hides that (and makes it a helluva lot easier on invading forces/raiders, which I get the feeling you would like).
I don't care if someone who is cloaked is AFK at times. I care that there's no penalty for being AFK indefinitely and then be able to choose targets selectively with no risk. As cloaking is currently, a person can stay in a system forever--nothing can force them out. They can endlessly harass and kill people at leisure and then resume their invulnerable state until such time as they choose--hours, days, weeks, or even months later. There is no penalty for being logged on and cloaked in a system--while doing so still grants that person the ability to see local and occasionally pop out some probes and/or scan for anomalies a person might be ratting in. This is an unbalanced game mechanic. You and I disagree over a fundamental issue: that a person should be able to cloak forever. No other activatable module in the game uses no cap, no ammo, and no fuel, with the exception of civilian railguns. Cloaks are extremely useful and powerful tools. Minimum drawbacks, maximum benefits.
I propose to fix this imbalance by simply adding a fuel requirement (CCP can rack their brains on that one, it's not exactly the most difficult problem in the world) that gives people the ability to cloak for an extended period of time (16-24 hours). Once they have used a cloak for over that time, they run out of fuel and can't cloak anymore. This would result in several things: people who would AFK-cloak most of the day, perhaps picking a few people off here and there, (which is what currently happens) could still do that, and then they would have to acquire more fuel, presumably outside of the solar system when their fuel runs out if they want to continue to cloak. Thus, it would be extremely difficult to do things such as spam local 23.5/7/365 or perma-AFK-cloak. Difficult, but not impossible...although you may have some trouble finding a way around with your rather limited intellect that you've displayed thus far. Other people would use cloaks selectively if they thought they were being probed out, or would warp around constantly (which would require them to be present at the controls, unless they feel like violating the EULA).
People would have to use discretion when activating their cloaks, rather than use them as a get-out-of-jail-free-while-passing-go-and-collecting-200-dollars card. End result: cloak fuel manufacturers make money (random side effect, but one that should be considered), perma-AFK-cloaking is much more difficult, and cloaks are no longer the end-all be-all module of EVE, while still retaining their inherent tactical value.
You have thus far failed to put forth any sort of drawback to adding a fuel requirement with a reasonable time limit. At this point your arguments have become thinly disguised rants against nullsec alliances, as all your "solutions" would screw over people who have fought to hold sovereign space, and really help people who go for quick, easy kills. Go cry over in CAOD about taking away local, not here. And perhaps post a decent argument while you're off QQing.
|
Innocent Murderer
Unjustly Accused
|
Posted - 2010.07.07 03:44:00 -
[13]
Well, if a person's in a wormhole longer than 16 hours, and they don't have PI set up because they aren't inhabiting the system...tough nuggets. This is EVE. HTFU. Assuming the fuel lasts 16 hours, then you have 16 hours to do whatever it is you need to do that involves a cloak. That's the point about the fuel: you have a long time to cloak, but you can't do it forever.
Also, if a person's not logged on then that's just great. (Next thing you know, someone will propose a nerf so that nobody can log off)
|
Innocent Murderer
Unjustly Accused
|
Posted - 2010.07.07 15:35:00 -
[14]
You clearly have not run into the 13-year-old WoW player who doesn't go for bait, choosing instead to spam local from server start-up to downtime.
Bait is not the solution to a cloaked person, because there is nothing that can force them to decloak. Yes, I used the word force. A very dangerous word in the EVE lexicon, but one that's suitable to describe the solution to perma-cloaking.
Still waiting for a con to the fuel idea that isn't the result of somebody failing to think about it for at least five seconds...
|
Innocent Murderer
Unjustly Accused
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 05:43:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Lia'Vael
Now bartender where is my drink.
I think we could all use one, TBQFH.
|
Innocent Murderer
Unjustly Accused
|
Posted - 2010.07.22 00:37:00 -
[16]
Originally by: TheLordofAllandNothing
I love afk cloaking. Cloak in enemy ratting system whilst i do work or play dwarf fortress, every now and then you go out and gank someone to keep the fear factor up. Ruining your game, without even playing the game 
I bolded the important part.
Originally by: TheLordofAllandNothing
Remove local would be better, then i can REALLY have some fun. I love cloaking ships, uncloaking in a stealth recon next to some guy is the best thing ever.
Exactly why removing local is a cloaking boost and would not help balance things at all.
|
Innocent Murderer
Unjustly Accused
|
Posted - 2010.07.26 22:31:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Lia'Vael
We have a saying on WoW
Whatever credibility you may have had before just evaporated.
|
Innocent Murderer
Unjustly Accused
|
Posted - 2010.07.26 23:43:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Lia'Vael
I play it proudly same with Hello Kitty Online(meow). Both games are way too hardcore for you.
Oh, man! That was intense! Please, make it stop!
Originally by: Lia'Vael
Innocent Murderer, we have already established that you are a petty control freak with issues conceiving the act of preparation and that you lack the strength of vigilance. Now shoo I have business to attend to.
OH GOD NOT MOAR
|
|
|
| |
|