| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
JitaBUGz TheGreat
   |
Posted - 2011.04.27 05:05:00 -
[31]
Someone died to a cloaky!!!!!!!
So in that case, nerf all ships. I keep dying to them all:P
I lost a Dramiel to a Domi. Nurf warp scam, and beer. I mean wtf. Can i not drink and forget to jump. Death to all Domi's now!!!!!!!!!! Nerf Nerf Nerf.
P.S. Cloak is op, buff it
-after a slight nerf^^
ttllltttttltttll- Afk can not kill you, of can it? 
|
P42ALPHA
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 05:08:00 -
[32]
Edited by: P42ALPHA on 27/04/2011 05:10:50
 Originally by: Captain Brickwalle
I support this. But only because I make all my money off of Sisters gear.
Sisters is not T2, T2 is crafted*
And if Sisters were to play a roll in probing cloaked ships, the lp price should be at least 8x the price atm. At the least.
|
Skytorn
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 05:24:00 -
[33]
I agree, I hate when there was a cloaky sitting in one of my systems when i was in NC. Let us scan them down and teach them a lesson!!! I mean killing a afk player is so much fun, vs. staying in my station to scared to go out and play the game. CCP fix this, or we will all quit!!!!!
|
Dazram Two
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 05:25:00 -
[34]
Hmmm. Sounds like a pretty good proposal.
/signed
|
Rafael Freeman
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 05:32:00 -
[35]
Originally by: AFK Cloaker
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 06:09:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Akita T
As for hotdropping...
Cynojammer = no more hotdrops, PERIOD.
Dirt Nap Squad make a killing off that misconception.
Quote:
Also, adding a little spool-up time for jump (the larger the craft the longer you need from cyno initiation to moment you actually jump, say 5 secs for subcapitals via portal, 10 secs for dreads, 15 secs for carriers, etc) would keep everything "fair enough", since it would give you an opportunity to escape the hotdrop or stop it from happening, even in a system where you can't use a cynojammer.
I support this method of nerfing "AFK Cloaking" :)
--
[Aussie players: join ANZAC channel] |
I Love Boobies
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 06:17:00 -
[37]
Sounds like another botter who is getting messed up by AFK cloakers, lol. Cloaking is fine, been this way forever. About the only time it gets brought up is when the botters out in 0.0 start having their ISK flow being interrupted by them.
|
cpu939
Gallente
Strategic Syndicate
-Mostly Harmless-
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 08:19:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Akita T
As for hotdropping...
Cynojammer = no more hotdrops, PERIOD.
Also, adding a little spool-up time for jump (the larger the craft the longer you need from cyno initiation to moment you actually jump, say 5 secs for subcapitals via portal, 10 secs for dreads, 15 secs for carriers, etc) would keep everything "fair enough", since it would give you an opportunity to escape the hotdrop or stop it from happening, even in a system where you can't use a cynojammer.
I think your numbers are wrong, as you said ship sizes dreads are bigger then carriers heck they're bigger then some of the super carriers, that said I'm not a fan of this idea far to often to get a hot drop on a titan you need to be read to go at a moments notice.
also black ops can jump into a cyno jammed system.
01010011 01110100 01110010 01100001 01110100 01100101 01100111 01101001 01100011 00100000 01010011 01111001 01101110 01100100 01101001 01100011 01100001 01110100 01100101 00100000 01001101 01100101 01 |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 08:24:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Mara Rinn
Originally by: Akita T
As for hotdropping... Cynojammer = no more hotdrops, PERIOD.
Dirt Nap Squad make a killing off that misconception.
Meh, a black ops squad/bridge hotdrop is not quite so devastating as a carrier hotdrop... although I'll admit, against just a few miners or so, sure, quite nasty.
_
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts
|
Long John Silver
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 08:31:00 -
[40]
I SUPPORT keeping AFK cloaky mechanics just as they are.
|
|
|
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 08:45:00 -
[41]
774006 kittens died in the making of this thread.
Originally by: Allestin Villimar
Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it.
Originally by: Torothanax
Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 08:48:00 -
[42]
Incoming brainstorm.
New attribute for cloaks, lets call it Cloaking Volume (short CV, how fitting), which determines how good a cloak and cover a ship of a certain size.
Depending on the ship's size and the CV a cloak can have a different effect:
- Remove ship from overview, directional scanner and combat probes, remove pilot from local
- Remove ship from overview, directional scanner and combat probes
- Remove ship from overview and combat probes
- Remove ship from overview only
- Remove ship from overview only when it's not moving
- Fail to cloak ship
The first point should only be available for CovOps cloaks, the last point is for Titans, no matter the cloaking device. Protocloaks are less effective than T2 cloaks or faction cloaks. Where to put the other ship sizes, I'll leave up for discussion.
FLAME ON!
--------
|
The Old Chap
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 08:52:00 -
[43]
This thread still doesn't get us any nearer to 'who ate all the pies'?
|
Hauling Hal
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 08:53:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Abrazzar
Incoming brainstorm.
New attribute for cloaks, lets call it Cloaking Volume (short CV, how fitting), which determines how good a cloak and cover a ship of a certain size.
Depending on the ship's size and the CV a cloak can have a different effect:
- Remove ship from overview, directional scanner and combat probes, remove pilot from local
- Remove ship from overview, directional scanner and combat probes
- Remove ship from overview and combat probes
- Remove ship from overview only
- Remove ship from overview only when it's not moving
- Fail to cloak ship
The first point should only be available for CovOps cloaks, the last point is for Titans, no matter the cloaking device. Protocloaks are less effective than T2 cloaks or faction cloaks. Where to put the other ship sizes, I'll leave up for discussion.
FLAME ON!
And when everyone stops using cloaks and uses unprobable ships instead, what will you want to be changed?
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 08:59:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Hauling Hal
And when everyone stops using cloaks and uses unprobable ships instead, what will you want to be changed?
Unprobable ships gimp themselves with their fitting, show up on the overview and the directional scanner. So they are not really that effective. You know what's there and can prepare for it.
--------
|
bitters much
Nekkid Inc.
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 09:10:00 -
[46]
leaving my sig here:
|
|
CCP StevieSG
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 09:20:00 -
[47]
Moved to Features and Ideas from EVE General.
|
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 11:21:00 -
[48]
I would like to have a device to cloak stuff on the forums. A "Cloak Thread" and "Cloak Member" forum option would be nice.
--
|
TuRtLe HeAd
Apocalypse Enterprises
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 11:46:00 -
[49]
Going back to the Authors suggestion.
T2 Probes... NO.
Probes for ONLY Cloaked Signatures ... Yes.. this way they would have to come out of cloak to avoid the probe.. (Hard to do when your AFK.) |
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 12:37:00 -
[50]
this thread sucks.
|
|
|
Ingvar Angst
Amarr
Omni Industrial Coalition
Talocan United
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 12:39:00 -
[51]
The only ones that would truly benefit from this are the bots.
This idea needs to be taken out behind the pos and podded.
|
Arnakoz
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 12:39:00 -
[52]
ug. this again. but i can't help but reply - maybe i'm too easy to troll....
i love how people say "afk cloakers are harmless" as if anyone knows they are actually afk, or when they will come back. whether you undock or hide like a whiny baby, the fact is that they are disruptive either which solution you come up with; merely becuase you've bothered trying to come up with it. and someone who AFK's the entire day can cause some amount of chaos for the entire time.
the simple fact of the matter is that it makes griefing and psychological assaults too easy.
i'm all for active cloakers to be able to move around and provide intel, hotdrop fleets, etc. this shouldn't change. just something should give with the afk types.
so how to accomplish both?
provide a tool, like a directional scanner, that takes a long time locate ships (say, 20 minutes, leaving you exposed while its running) and still isn't accurate. that is, it warps you somewhere within a sphere of 100km radius, leaving you exposed to the fact that he can see you, but you can't see him.
from there, if he is actually afk, you would need to find a way to decloak him. you could fly around in circles like a boob. you could warp in and out, dropping a can at each random warpin. you could do the same with a large fleet to speed that process up. you could drop a few of said cans, and try finding the center point of them all, which is where he should be, given the cans got scattered evenly around him/....
either way, it would take time, leave people exposed (e.g. requiring some amount of balls) and still allow people to be afk for upwards of 30 to 40 minutes at a time.
IMO, this seems like not only happy medium between both sides of the topic, but like a good feature as well; nothing more heart pumping than not being sure of whether you're being watched or not. plus, cloakers could start baiting with this - making it something of a double edged sword.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 13:10:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Arnakoz
i love how people say "afk cloakers are harmless"
They say it because it's true ù AFK ships, cloaked or not, are harmless.
Quote:
as if anyone knows they are actually afk, or when they will come back.
Sure, but then the problem isn't AFK cloakers, now is it? It's just a problem with cloakers, so complain about that istead.
Quote:
the fact is that they are disruptive either which solution you come up with [à] and someone who AFK's the entire day can cause some amount of chaos for the entire time.
Only if the self-proclaimed victim chooses to make it so.
Quote:
the simple fact of the matter is that it makes griefing and psychological assaults too easy.
Not really. The simple fact of the matter is that they make local less than 100% reliable, which is a good thing. If there is any griefing or "psychological assault" going on, it's the victim doing it, and it's really on them to solve that.
Quote:
just something should give with the afk types.
Why? They're completely harmless.
Quote:
IMO, this seems like not only happy medium between both sides of the topic, but like a good feature as well
Apart from the fact that it wouldn't actually do anything to AFK cloakers; apart from the fact that it's not really a middle ground between "it's not a problem" and "AFK people can hurt me"; and apart from the fact that the other side of the topic is "remove local"à no, it's neither of those two things.
Here's a solution to the AFK cloaker "problem": remove local. Get an escort.
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 13:12:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Mag''s on 27/04/2011 13:15:37
Originally by: Arnakoz
ug. this again. but i can't help but reply - maybe i'm too easy to troll....
i love how people say "afk cloakers are harmless" as if anyone knows they are actually afk, or when they will come back. whether you undock or hide like a whiny baby, the fact is that they are disruptive either which solution you come up with; merely becuase you've bothered trying to come up with it. and someone who AFK's the entire day can cause some amount of chaos for the entire time.
the simple fact of the matter is that it makes griefing and psychological assaults too easy.
i'm all for active cloakers to be able to move around and provide intel, hotdrop fleets, etc. this shouldn't change. just something should give with the afk types.
so how to accomplish both?
.... sniping another bad idea....
The fact that someone's cloaked and AFK all day, doesn't mean they are causing the chaos.
They don't stop you moving, undocking, using stargates, ratting, fitting ships, mining etc etc The only one that would stop all those things, are the pilots themselves.
Hence why this is called 'Psychological Warfare'. But people targeted for this type of warfare must, allow themselves to be taken in, in order for it to be effective.
TL:DR Stop playing the victim.
Edit: Tippia, your forum foo is faster than mine today. 
Originally by: Allestin Villimar
Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it.
Originally by: Torothanax
Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
|
Bienator II
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 15:33:00 -
[55]
what about:
- make them probable but the resulting bookmark would be a random location around the cloaked ship (100km or so, depending on the skill)
- additional effort is needed to find the ship after you are there (its still cloaked of course)
|
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 17:09:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Bienator II
what about:
- make them probable but the resulting bookmark would be a random location around the cloaked ship (100km or so, depending on the skill)
- additional effort is needed to find the ship after you are there (its still cloaked of course)
All this would achieve, is knowing if a scout has your gang position or not.
While ever local in null sec is showing full intel on whomever is in the system, no change to any cloak mechanic is required.
Originally by: Allestin Villimar
Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it.
Originally by: Torothanax
Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
|
Macmuelli
Gallente
Meltd0wn
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 17:50:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Macmuelli on 27/04/2011 17:51:23
Originally by: Bienator II
what about:
- make them probable but the resulting bookmark would be a random location around the cloaked ship (100km or so, depending on the skill)
- additional effort is needed to find the ship after you are there (its still cloaked of course)
Cloaking fields should be comparable to scanable anomalys.
Serveral comparable fields should be placed within solar systems.
If u warp to such a field, there should be also the possibilty that u face a gravimetric solar storm.
Massive Damage, or probally some kind of moduls starts overloading.
It would make it a bit more risky, and probally funny.
If a cloaked ship starts moving, it will be easier to scan them.
There should be a day,where we are able to find them by a risky way.
eve since 2003
Do we need, Ice mining drones? |
Toriessian
Amarr
Helion Production Labs
Quantum Forge
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 18:39:00 -
[58]
I think an interesting way to do this that would not require training anything to V and actively improve the psychological aspect to the game without nerfing active cloaking....
1) Create a new launcher module that prevents a ship from warping or cloaking while probes are deployed. Sig radius of scanning ship is increased 500%.
2) This probe launcher allows you to scan down cloaked ship with a penalty to sig strength but it takes 1 full minute per scan cycle. You COULD use a BS but how fast can you scan down a frig sized ship with a penalty to scan strength on a non bonused ship?
3) AFK cloakers can now be caught
4) Active cloaky ships can drop combat probes and quickly find the prober due to sig penalty from probe launcher... possible bait? free kill?
Any flaws? More exciting for everyone?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 18:43:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Toriessian
Any flaws?
It's unnecessary.
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Feligast
Minmatar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 19:32:00 -
[60]
Jesus Jumping Christ, I wish CCP would add "griefing" to the list of censored words. The way people on this forum misuse it just ****es me off. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |