| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Warren Wagner
   |
Posted - 2011.01.02 01:54:00 -
[1]
I would suggest the added ability to fit a Sov structure or POS that is in a system with Strategic Soverignty level 5 (or a lower threshold) a module that would allow the decloaking of cloaked ships that have been in the same 1,000,000 km range for a period of twenty minutes or more. While it may seem like a viable tactic to disrupt commerce of an area, I believe achieving such an effect should require some player interaction.
Another idea to achieve the same effect would be to have cloaking devices consume fuel. A covert ops ship would have a bonus to significantly reduce fuel consumption, but eventually it would be used. A combat ship with a tech 1 cloaking device would consume fuel much more quickly, and would be unable to 'camp' a system for as long. Suggested times for fuel consumption would make the covert ops ship last 3 hours or so while a non-bonused ship would be able to cloak for 15 to 20 minutes.
|
Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.01.02 02:22:00 -
[2]
inb4 AFK Cloaker
ps. Cloaking is fine. If you can't deal with the "threat" of AFK cloakers, you shouldn't be in 0.0 period.
|
Warren Wagner
|
Posted - 2011.01.02 02:29:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Warren Wagner on 02/01/2011 02:31:45
Of course I can "deal with the threat of AFK cloakers" just as I can deal with the threat of seven hot dropped titans and a fleet of 1,500 in system. The issue here is the value of a cloaked ship with no effort. Your response does not address the value of an afk alt. You should not be able to effectively stop intelligent/effective ratting and mining in a fully upgraded system by parking an afk alt in a system for days on end.
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
|
Posted - 2011.01.02 03:35:00 -
[4]
Edited by: ShahFluffers on 02/01/2011 03:35:44
 Originally by: Warren Wagner
You should not be able to effectively stop intelligent/effective ratting and mining in a fully upgraded system by parking an afk alt in a system for days on end.
Is that what they are calling it these days? Huh. We just call it Macroing.
Save your arguments OP. Go to EvE Search and look up "AFK cloaking" in the Assembly Hall and Features and Ideas boards. Everything that can be said has been said regarding this subject and it ALWAYS ends in an impasse.
_______________________
"Just because I seem like an idiot doesn't mean I am one."
~Unknown |
Lord Dragonmede
|
Posted - 2011.01.02 03:36:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Warren Wagner
Edited by: Warren Wagner on 02/01/2011 02:31:45
Of course I can "deal with the threat of AFK cloakers" just as I can deal with the threat of seven hot dropped titans and a fleet of 1,500 in system. The issue here is the value of a cloaked ship with no effort. Your response does not address the value of an afk alt. You should not be able to effectively stop intelligent/effective ratting and mining in a fully upgraded system by parking an afk alt in a system for days on end.
A cloaker, be it AFK or not doesn't stop such activities, the FEAR of cloakers inhibits pilots from wanting to undock. If you have an effective set of defensive procedures, a standing defense fleet, and have pilots willing to guard the miners, you will have no problems. Nerf local if anything...
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Green-Core
The Obsidian Legion
|
Posted - 2011.01.02 03:46:00 -
[6]
Originally by: AFK Cloaker
@ the OP:
Do you really have so little faith in your alliance's ability to protect your non combatants that you fear the presence of one cloaked ship in your system? Sounds more to me like you need better friends.
--Vel
I'm more of a care-badger. |
Ragnar256
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.01.02 04:55:00 -
[7]
Cloaks consuming fuel is a bad idea.
A single cloaked ship can at most kill an unprepared BC.
|
Warren Wagner
|
Posted - 2011.01.02 05:44:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Warren Wagner on 02/01/2011 05:55:37
First, plenty of cloaked ships can fit a covert cyno which can take down a carrier, much larger than a bc. Second, it's not the ability of the alliance to support the non-combatants - it's the need to have such support due to one afk pilot in the system. One guy doing absolutely nothing, not even at their computer, should not be need a standing combat fleet. No rational person would make that arguement. It would be like saying all corps and alliances should maintain a 100 man standing fleet at all times in case a fleet of bots attacked their POS. There is zero effort by the afker. It is not inability - again, I am arguing the value of an afk alt is too high. There should be pilot participation.
|
Bella Solo
|
Posted - 2011.01.02 06:00:00 -
[9]
Cloaks are fine, they keep macro ratting down.
|
Warren Wagner
|
Posted - 2011.01.02 06:03:00 -
[10]
Fine, I'm all for cloaked ships used to disrupt macro ratting and mining as well as even used as a warfare tactic. They should need to be at the computer though. It has nothing to do with how useful they are in discouraging poor practices. It has to do with their value against people playing the game properly.
|
|
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
|
Posted - 2011.01.02 08:02:00 -
[11]
Edited by: ShahFluffers on 02/01/2011 08:04:07
Originally by: Warren Wagner
First, plenty of cloaked ships can fit a covert cyno which can take down a carrier, much larger than a bc.
A covert cyno can kill a carrier? I though only titans could do that. NERF THE COVERT CYNO!!!
No seriously... if you lose a carrier to covert cyno gang then you are doing something horribly, horribly wrong.
Originally by: Warren Wagner
One guy doing absolutely nothing, not even at their computer, should not be need a standing combat fleet. No rational person would make that arguement. It would be like saying all corps and alliances should maintain a 100 man standing fleet at all times in case a fleet of bots attacked their POS.
You don't need 100 men. Adapt your routine and your ship fittings.
Instead of using a carrier to farm sanctums, use a Dominix. Better yet, use an Ishtar. Yeah, you don't have all that smexy DPS and it takes longer to clear the area... but if something should go wrong you can GTFO much more easily.
If you ABSOLUTELY NEED that carrier though... get a friend in an interceptor or cloaky recon (preferably an Arazu or Rapier) to watch your back and kill anyone who dares to decloak on you. Having a heavy nuetralizer on your carrier also helps (you can cap out the cloaky ship so he/she loses point and you can warp off... you should have been aligned out anyways).
Originally by: Warren Wagner
There is zero effort by the afker. It is not inability - again, I am arguing the value of an afk alt is too high. There should be pilot participation.
Don't use this argument. Ever. Why? Because it can easily be applied to people who go afk in stations... or people who warp into missions/plexes/sanctums, grab aggro, deploy drones, and go afk... or set up market orders and log off... or set up research/datacore ques and log off... etc. etc. Should we nerf all those too because there is little "pilot participation" involved?
I could go on and on and on and on about how you need to adapt just like every other person in the game. However I'm hungover, irritable, and just plain sick of seeing this same topic come up over and over again.
So instead... let me put up a list of other "cloaking detection" topics that have DIED.
[Assembly Hall] Partial detection of cloaked ships
[Assembly Hall] Anti-cloak gun
[Assembly Hall] Anti Cloaking Device in 0.0
[Assembly Hall] Stealth-field probes
[Features and Ideas] Cloaking Device Changes - Ideas
[Features and Ideas] cloaked ships
[Features and Ideas] Module Idea: Decloaker
[Features and Ideas] Cloaking Ping for SOV
The list keeps going. 
_______________________
"Just because I seem like an idiot doesn't mean I am one."
~Unknown |
Niklas
|
Posted - 2011.01.02 08:28:00 -
[12]
Tbh, I'd trade local for being able to scan/probe down cloakers.
I don't mind that they are a threat, I just mind that they are a threat that I cannot combat in any way in a proactive manner. Its all reactive. They choose when, where, how. Highly annoying.
|
s666ss666ss666
|
Posted - 2011.01.02 09:18:00 -
[13]
Except they are very limited in how, due to eather being in a covert ship (with the LOLtastic DPS and tank that beings with it), or having to preselect the where before they can even cloak, and having a **** poor lock time.
also how will I out-endure Russian gatecamps by being in a different TZ and letting the Russians go to bed so I can get past?
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2011.01.02 11:05:00 -
[14]
another f*ggot whining about cloak mechanics.
Cloak is fine, AFK cloak is fine, camping systems AFK is fine, stopping system activities AFK is just your fault having no balls for baiting/killing them.
|
Chrar
|
Posted - 2011.01.02 11:52:00 -
[15]
The effect of such a ship is the same as the one of having snipers, covert and black ops troops on the field:
The enemy knows something is there but what? Is it safe to go out? Is the reward worth the risk? Should a strong search and destroy team be sent out?
It's ok, and it's a viable and effective tactic.
|
Medarr
Amarr
ZeroSec
|
Posted - 2011.01.02 13:00:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Warren Wagner
Fine, I'm all for cloaked ships used to disrupt macro ratting and mining as well as even used as a warfare tactic. They should need to be at the computer though. It has nothing to do with how useful they are in discouraging poor practices. It has to do with their value against people playing the game properly.
Your opinion of 'playing properly' But Opinions are just like ********s everyone has one...
|
Warren Wagner
|
Posted - 2011.01.03 21:11:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Warren Wagner on 03/01/2011 21:16:30
Edited by: Warren Wagner on 03/01/2011 21:15:22
Originally by: Chrar
The effect of such a ship is the same as the one of having snipers, covert and black ops troops on the field:
The enemy knows something is there but what? Is it safe to go out? Is the reward worth the risk? Should a strong search and destroy team be sent out?
It's ok, and it's a viable and effective tactic.
I agree it is viable and effective. Again, please make it require some player interaction by the covert ship. While some of the topics addressed this - they did not follow up in any constructive way. I don't mind that covert ships have the potential to camp a system, but when it's going on the 9th day in a row that the guy is sitting in the system afk, it is something that I'd like addressed.
Also, there is no possiblity of sending out a 'Strong search and destroy fleet" because you can not 'search' or 'destroy' a cloaked ship.
|
AFK WithProbesOut
|
Posted - 2011.01.03 21:16:00 -
[18]
Haters gonna hate.
|
Warren Wagner
|
Posted - 2011.01.03 21:25:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Warren Wagner on 03/01/2011 21:26:23
Originally by: s666ss666ss666
Except they are very limited in how, due to eather being in a covert ship (with the LOLtastic DPS and tank that beings with it), or having to preselect the where before they can even cloak, and having a **** poor lock time.
also how will I out-endure Russian gatecamps by being in a different TZ and letting the Russians go to bed so I can get past?
It make take some tweaking to fit with the mechanics, but basically the proposal is to require a form of pilot interaction from the covert ship. Any form of warp would be another acceptable way of resetting the timer. I can see where you are coming from with the 'scout' version of the cloaking mechanics, but a scout is extremely valuable - scouting needs to be an active specialty as well. It requires pilot interaction the same as camping a system. Generally a scout trying to watch for a gate camp to clear is not afk most of the time - or at least at their computer every 20-30 minutes.
This could also be accomplished by giving 'scout' type ships an even longer bonus to fuel requirements - 8-10 hours (very minimal consumption).
|
Sazkyen
|
Posted - 2011.01.03 21:30:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Warren Wagner
Edited by: Warren Wagner on 03/01/2011 21:16:30
Edited by: Warren Wagner on 03/01/2011 21:15:22
Originally by: Chrar
The effect of such a ship is the same as the one of having snipers, covert and black ops troops on the field:
The enemy knows something is there but what? Is it safe to go out? Is the reward worth the risk? Should a strong search and destroy team be sent out?
It's ok, and it's a viable and effective tactic.
I agree it is viable and effective. Again, please make it require some player interaction by the covert ship. While some of the topics addressed this - they did not follow up in any constructive way. I don't mind that covert ships have the potential to camp a system, but when it's going on the 9th day in a row that the guy is sitting in the system afk, it is something that I'd like addressed.
Also, there is no possiblity of sending out a 'Strong search and destroy fleet" because you can not 'search' or 'destroy' a cloaked ship.
CAPTCHA FTW
|
|
|
Warren Wagner
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 04:14:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Warren Wagner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is zero effort by the afker. It is not inability - again, I am arguing the value of an afk alt is too high. There should be pilot participation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Don't use this argument. Ever. Why? Because it can easily be applied to people who go afk in stations... or people who warp into missions/plexes/sanctums, grab aggro, deploy drones, and go afk... or set up market orders and log off... or set up research/datacore ques and log off... etc. etc. Should we nerf all those too because there is little "pilot participation" involved?
This is an extremely valid arguement and should not be avoided because in every case mentioned the pilot is taking a risk with a reward or calculating profit and setting up the process. When calculating the value of some action there is either capital at stake or time / labor involved - or some combination of both. This risk/reward is what makes actions worth doing. In the case of AFK camping a system - there is zero risk with a very high level of reward. There is no pilot interaction, no risk of losing a ship, and no time spent. The value of this AFK action is too high.
|
Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 13:15:00 -
[22]
Regardless of AFK or not, scanning cloaked ships would be ok imho, if it took a long time.
Long enough for any sane and halfway alert pilot to get away and relocate.
Like for example 10 min. That wouldn't really hurt bomber squads or covert ops.
___________________________________
Balance is power, guard hide it well
"Ceterum censeo Polycarbonem esse delendam" |
Korg Leaf
Time Bandits.
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 14:15:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Warren Wagner
Edited by: Warren Wagner on 02/01/2011 05:55:37
First, plenty of cloaked ships can fit a covert cyno which can take down a carrier, much larger than a bc. Second, it's not the ability of the alliance to support the non-combatants - it's the need to have such support due to one afk pilot in the system. One guy doing absolutely nothing, not even at their computer, should not be need a standing combat fleet. No rational person would make that arguement. It would be like saying all corps and alliances should maintain a 100 man standing fleet at all times in case a fleet of bots attacked their POS. There is zero effort by the afker. It is not inability - again, I am arguing the value of an afk alt is too high. There should be pilot participation.
A. your suggestion isnt new
B. If he isnt at his computer then where is the issue? He cant probe you down, decloak and pop a cyno unless he is at his computer.
|
Meeko Atari
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 14:41:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Lord Dragonmede
Originally by: Warren Wagner
Edited by: Warren Wagner on 02/01/2011 02:31:45
Of course I can "deal with the threat of AFK cloakers" just as I can deal with the threat of seven hot dropped titans and a fleet of 1,500 in system. The issue here is the value of a cloaked ship with no effort. Your response does not address the value of an afk alt. You should not be able to effectively stop intelligent/effective ratting and mining in a fully upgraded system by parking an afk alt in a system for days on end.
A cloaker, be it AFK or not doesn't stop such activities, the FEAR of cloakers inhibits pilots from wanting to undock. If you have an effective set of defensive procedures, a standing defense fleet, and have pilots willing to guard the miners, you will have no problems. Nerf local if anything...
I think the Botting Program used keeps them from making Isk to sell for real $$ If there is an Netural in system!
Hence the Whines!!!
Nerfing cloakers in 0.0 is a buff to macros
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 14:44:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Lord Dragonmede
A cloaker, be it AFK or not doesn't stop such activities, the FEAR of cloakers inhibits pilots from wanting to undock. If you have an effective set of defensive procedures, a standing defense fleet, and have pilots willing to guard the miners, you will have no problems. Nerf local if anything...
And why is it that only one side is required to have an "effective set of defensive procedures"? Why is it only one side needs to have a "standing defense fleet"? Why is it that only one side is required to "have pilots willing to guard" and ready to drop everything at a moment's notice while the AFK cloaker need not be concerned about any of this? In fact, a cloaker using the AFK/non-AFK technique to wear down a system need not be concerned of any risk whatsoever. Why should only one side have to be exposed to risk?
Grief a PVP'er. Run a mission today! |
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 14:50:00 -
[26]
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
And why is it that only one side is required to have an "effective set of defensive procedures"? Why is it only one side needs to have a "standing defense fleet"? Why is it that only one side is required to "have pilots willing to guard" and ready to drop everything at a moment's notice while the AFK cloaker need not be concerned about any of this?
they arent required to do anything. They are only required if they want do some specific things like ratting and such; but they dont have to... If they want, they should have the efforts, not the guy sitting im some system afk cloaked.
|
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 14:55:00 -
[27]
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Originally by: Lord Dragonmede
A cloaker, be it AFK or not doesn't stop such activities, the FEAR of cloakers inhibits pilots from wanting to undock. If you have an effective set of defensive procedures, a standing defense fleet, and have pilots willing to guard the miners, you will have no problems. Nerf local if anything...
And why is it that only one side is required to have an "effective set of defensive procedures"? Why is it only one side needs to have a "standing defense fleet"? Why is it that only one side is required to "have pilots willing to guard" and ready to drop everything at a moment's notice while the AFK cloaker need not be concerned about any of this? In fact, a cloaker using the AFK/non-AFK technique to wear down a system need not be concerned of any risk whatsoever. Why should only one side have to be exposed to risk?
If there were no Local, there would be NO NOTICE of someone cloaked in a system.
That's the same as I don't know if there is a bubble on that incoming gate or if that ship I'm just attacking is a bait with a carrier gank squad 5 jumps out.
It's funny that we can overload/destroy many if not all systems of our ships, except for the communications device.
Remove Local.
It's useless anyway. In Null/Low it's misused as intel tool and in high sec it's used as spam-channel. Get rid of it.
support
Public Idea Tracker | 24hr PLEX |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 15:01:00 -
[28]
Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 04/01/2011 15:04:50
Originally by: Robert Caldera
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
And why is it that only one side is required to have an "effective set of defensive procedures"? Why is it only one side needs to have a "standing defense fleet"? Why is it that only one side is required to "have pilots willing to guard" and ready to drop everything at a moment's notice while the AFK cloaker need not be concerned about any of this?
they arent required to do anything. They are only required if they want do some specific things like ratting and such; but they dont have to... If they want, they should have the efforts, not the guy sitting im some system afk cloaked.
If they don't, they die. It's as simple as that. Don't get me wrong, it should be this way. And my issue isn't with players having to put up defenses to survive in 0.0. The issue I take is with players that are able to go out hunting, set up cynos, have systems on their toes while they themselves need not to be concerned about risk to themselves. Hell, there's a thread somewhere here where an AFK cloaker admits he's watching TV and reading a book in the middle of 0.0 where it's supposed to be hostile, all the while collecting information on a system and having people wonder whether a cyno will go off or not. Tell me, what worries does the cloaker have?
What would you tell a miner that demands to be able to safely read a book or watch TV in 0.0 while mining?
Grief a PVP'er. Run a mission today! |
Karn Velora
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 15:05:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Karn Velora on 04/01/2011 15:06:49
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Originally by: Lord Dragonmede
A cloaker, be it AFK or not doesn't stop such activities, the FEAR of cloakers inhibits pilots from wanting to undock. If you have an effective set of defensive procedures, a standing defense fleet, and have pilots willing to guard the miners, you will have no problems. Nerf local if anything...
And why is it that only one side is required to have an "effective set of defensive procedures"? Why is it only one side needs to have a "standing defense fleet"? Why is it that only one side is required to "have pilots willing to guard" and ready to drop everything at a moment's notice while the AFK cloaker need not be concerned about any of this? In fact, a cloaker using the AFK/non-AFK technique to wear down a system need not be concerned of any risk whatsoever. Why should only one side have to be exposed to risk?
Your first three sentences all start with "Why is it only one side..."
Well... you don't think that cloaker's alliance has the same "problem"? You think they don't need the same type of standing defense fleet to deal with the exact same issue? Just pointing out that this isn't "unfair" if affects everyone - and yes, it does affect everyone. If the opposing alliance doesn't have this problem, then they have clearly outsmarted you in some way.
You are not the only side that needs a defensive fleet. You are not the only side that needs procedures to deal with cloakers. You are not the only side that need to have pilots willing to drop what they are doing at a moment's notice. You are not the only side to be exposed to risk.
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 16:00:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Karn Velora
It's not meant to be safe!
Exactly  .
Grief a PVP'er. Run a mission today! |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |