Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Azrael Dinn
The 20th Legion Mildly Sober
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 12:07:00 -
[1] - Quote
Topic says it all.
Why:
1. You are not playing the game but yet you still are
2. Your getting an indirect benefits in many ways and your still not playing the game
I don't realy care how this is dealt with. My solution would be a heavy water fuel bay to the claoks but thats my idea.
Now lets hear the whines next. |
Arduemont
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
264
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:05:00 -
[2] - Quote
There is a search function on this forum. Try looking up how often this has come up before starting a new one, otherwise we end up saying the same things as before over and over.
Just go back and read the old threads (all 30 or so of them in which this gets shot down). |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1289
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 22:32:00 -
[3] - Quote
Can you come up with a way to do this (removing afk cloaking) that does not hurt active cloakers?
So far no one has. |
Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
676
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:57:00 -
[4] - Quote
so i decided to try this "afk cloaking thing" that people clearly think is an exploit so i figure i'l get rich doing it. I set my alarm to wake up right after downtime and undock from jita in a stealth bomber with nothing but a cloak eagerly awaiting isk and rage mails saying why they think I am cheating or a bad person.
so i warp to a safe and cloak then go back to bed, i woke up with no mails or isk =( so i guess i have to stay there longer I left my computer on till downtime again, didn't touch anything other then chat a bit in corp chat. nothing happened even the next day which i did it again. there seems to be no exploit or issue
therefore, afk cloaking isn't a problem. |
Lady Hanguko
Suicide Lemmings
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 07:44:00 -
[5] - Quote
NO, no, and no. Ever hear of psychological warfare? well, just cause u never encountered it, doesn't mean its not an effective tactic. Grab the enemy by the balls, squeeze REAAAL tight... and then u put a cherry on a cake, and put a few cloaked ships afk, in their remaining HQ systems.... OH yeah, i can hear their tears in the cold vacuum of space.
Bad idea, to deny that. |
Azrael Dinn
The 20th Legion Mildly Sober
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 08:29:00 -
[6] - Quote
Lady Hanguko wrote:NO, no, and no. Ever hear of psychological warfare? well, just cause u never encountered it, doesn't mean its not an effective tactic. Grab the enemy by the balls, squeeze REAAAL tight... and then u put a cherry on a cake, and put a few cloaked ships afk, in their remaining HQ systems.... OH yeah, i can hear their tears in the cold vacuum of space.
Bad idea, to deny that.
Yes I have and I want that part of the gameplay be active and not "have fun with my alt, I'll go make isks elsewhere while you look at my alt there."
See now the key word: Active gameplay. Which seems to be something CCP also likes.
Going AFK is not active gameplay. I don't mind the cloakers or the people who cloak up and do psychological warfare. It's a real fun part of the game but I HATE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT PLAYING THE GAME BUT ARE STILL PLAYING THE GAME even though they can be at the mall buying **** films or something else. |
Lady Hanguko
Suicide Lemmings
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 08:57:00 -
[7] - Quote
Sup
Here my reason why id argue its legit with regards to "active gameplay" . The Corp that is being greefed this way, deserves it. Its a valid mechanic. They allowed them self to be in such a situation. It wouldn't be fair for the attacker to "suffer" boredom in afk psycho-war. An attacker by that point, has the right to make an enemy suffer, while retaining the flexibility of time to go about their life, and leaving afk boats to discourage the enemy. That right was earned by superior balls&tactics, whatever else to do that.
Truth is, there are more reasons too. For example, ure in 0 sec, and gate is being camped on both sides. U ether a hunter, an explorer, or maybe even a daring trader in a cloaked Indy. The game shouldn't force u to be online for next 50 years the gate be camped. U should be able to go afk, and return later to see if ur chases to make a ran for it, has improved.
There are more there it came from. On the other hand, i do agree that cloak needs an effective counter, a way decloak an enemy, some other way then drone swarm, something more dependable. Maybe a new anti-cloak probe, or even a special ship that specializes in anti-recon activities... donno.
0/ |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
86
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 09:42:00 -
[8] - Quote
If AFK is the problem because they are not playing while "playing" then Add fuel needs to drones so people can't AFK missions Add fuel needs to mining lasers so people can't AFK mine Add fees to sit in stations so people can't AFK in station And add an auto log timer so that if you are AFK for more than 15 min you get logged out. That should suitably counter all AFK activities |
Jint Hikaru
OffWorld Exploration Inc
292
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 11:23:00 -
[9] - Quote
Azrael Dinn wrote:Topic says it all.
Why:
1. You are not playing the game but yet you still are
2. Your getting an indirect benefits in many ways and your still not playing the game
I don't realy care how this is dealt with. My solution would be a heavy water fuel bay to the claoks but thats my idea.
Now lets hear the whines next.
I think you've provided enough whines for this thread already Azrael.
Jint Hikaru - Miner / Salvager / Explorer / SpaceBum In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
497
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 15:09:00 -
[10] - Quote
Any "solution" to afk cloaking needs to be careful not to hurt standard cloak operations....
A cloak is a valid tool for hiding from hostiles, for going afk for several minutes to answer the phone, for . . ..
Essentially, balancing it would be very hard and difficult to do!!!!
Add to this, afk cloaking is the only valid manner to counter the nearly-omniscient local chat that is used as an intel tool. Addressing AFK cloaking without addressing "local chat" is like banning legal gun ownership without addressing the high crime rate, or demanding abstinence only education without addressing teen pregnancy, or banning abortion without addressing incest, ****, or legitimate medical concerns... |
|
Davon Mandra'thin
Solar Horizon Directive Blue Nation
103
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 15:44:00 -
[11] - Quote
My god, is this arguement really going on again?
Just give it up. There is nothing wrong with AFK cloakies. If they're afk then they can't hurt you, if they're not then they would suffer fromt he stupid ideas people come up with the hurt the AFK ones.
Just give it up. There is nothing wrong with AFK cloakies. |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
279
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 18:05:00 -
[12] - Quote
Did you know that in almost a decade of EVE Online, not a single person has died to an AFK cloaker? This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Belshazzar Babylon
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
75
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 01:19:00 -
[13] - Quote
[Proposal] do not allow new post with the words AFK Cloaker in the title or opening post. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
871
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 02:18:00 -
[14] - Quote
CCP should provide star trek tricorder scanning for life signs in front of the monitor. If they are none the cloak would disengage automatically. a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1301
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 03:34:00 -
[15] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:CCP should provide star trek tricorder scanning for life signs in front of the monitor. If they are none the cloak would disengage automatically. They have those now... sort off.
Nowhere near as compact and multipurpose. |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Elysian Empire
372
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 13:00:00 -
[16] - Quote
Azrael Dinn wrote:Topic says it all.
Why:
1. You are not playing the game but yet you still are
2. Your getting an indirect benefits in many ways and your still not playing the game
I don't realy care how this is dealt with. My solution would be a heavy water fuel bay to the claoks but thats my idea.
Now lets hear the whines next.
Oh boy it's another nullbear cry thread.
If you want the rewards of nullsec, deal with the risks, baby.
Requiring fuel or cap usage would destroy legitimate, active cloaking and extended recon deployments. It's a terrible idea, simply awful.
PS: Here's a list of things AFK cloakers have never, and can never, do: Make a single isk Provide intel for their fleet Kill someone Shut down a system or in any other way prevent you from doing whatever you want
Take your battered psyche and go back to hello kitty online if the mere presence of another player scares you so bad |
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow The Revenant Order
749
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 15:47:00 -
[17] - Quote
No.
While they are cloaked and AFK, they can't hurt you. Why? Because they are AFK.
Show us on the doll where the bad AFK cloaker touched you.
HTFU or GTFO.
"War is not measured in terms of who wins or loses, who is right or wrong.-á It is measured in terms of who survives." |
Kaelie Onren
Nyan Cat Logistics Persona Non Gratis
41
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:04:00 -
[18] - Quote
these AFK cloaker whiner threads are a staple of eve-o. Every post bashing the notion just gives birth to new fanatic illogical posters on both sides. And there are those like me, who get in just because I like the sound of my own voice... err typing. :) |
Praxis Astra
Smiling Friends Social Club Stealth Syndicate
123
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:10:00 -
[19] - Quote
OK: If someone has something in this game that you don't have that you consider some kind of unfair advantage, the answer isn't to try to get it taken from them. The answer is to go for that thing yourself.
Praxis Astra Master of Assassins and Punctuality http://heartsandmindsalliance.org |
Azrael Dinn
The 20th Legion Mildly Sober
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 08:23:00 -
[20] - Quote
Praxis Astra wrote:OK: If someone has something in this game that you don't have that you consider some kind of unfair advantage, the answer isn't to try to get it taken from them. The answer is to go for that thing yourself.
I'm doing it all the time and still I think it's !"#-ñ%!"#-ñ% retarted that no one has a chance to get me while doing it. |
|
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Elysian Empire
374
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 11:03:00 -
[21] - Quote
Azrael Dinn wrote:Praxis Astra wrote:OK: If someone has something in this game that you don't have that you consider some kind of unfair advantage, the answer isn't to try to get it taken from them. The answer is to go for that thing yourself. I'm doing it all the time and still I think it's !"#-ñ%!"#-ñ% retarted that no one has a chance to get me while doing it.
Then you have a terrible understanding of game balance. AFK Cloakers are incapable of any kind of action what-so-ever, for other players to be able to affect them while they themselves are incapable of doing anything is utterly stupid. It's the most basic level game balance imaginable.
Not to mention the fact that all these stupid, stupid ideas about cap/fuel needs, probes to find cloakies, etc would cause even bigger imbalances when it comes to holding/capturing territories in null. It is essential for a dynamic, healthy environment that cloaking exist and allow you such protections (at the sacrifice of absolutely all your own offensive capabilities).
And last but not least, it would utterly destroy wormhole space.
Additionally, you didnt address the points we've raised about how your terrible ideas would ruin legitimate, active cloaking roles.
So to summarise: Stop crying. Man up or go back to hisec, you terrible nullbear.
I respect hisec bears more than you, at least they admit they are risk averse and choose a gameplay style that suits that, rather than crying to change ALL styles of gameplay to suit their carebear ways while masquerading as PVPers |
Azrael Dinn
The 20th Legion Mildly Sober
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 11:58:00 -
[22] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote: Then you have a terrible understanding of game balance....
I respect hisec bears more than you, at least they admit they are risk averse and choose a gameplay style that suits that, rather than crying to change ALL styles of gameplay to suit their carebear ways while masquerading as PVPers
I don't realy care do you respect me or not and even if you don't no one cares :D
And to address something... I tossed the idea of fuelbays in. It's not an terrible idea and I don't need to think about the balance nor do you. CCP needs to, if they are willing to implement something like that into the game. And lets face it. CCP is also saying AFK playing is bad.
So I see AFK cloaking as a bad thing and thats my point of view and I presented one option to address it. If you see it as a good thing cause you want to jack off while playing. Well thats fine. But stop yelling stupid stupid stupid if you don't have anything else to say. |
SmilingVagrant
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
567
|
Posted - 2012.09.17 04:31:00 -
[23] - Quote
Nullsec should not be risk free. One of the risks we deal with in nullsec is AFK cloakers. Here's an idea. Fit up an interceptor and learn to catch them on the way in. If they are using nullified T3's learn to use hictors with infinipoints. |
Evanga
Trust Doesn't Rust Against ALL Authorities
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.17 06:48:00 -
[24] - Quote
Tbh, nothing is wrong with afk cloakers. As stated in this thread, they cant hurt you when they afk.
[troll] So, the thing that has to be done by you is to as followed;
1. Continue ratting 2. Minimize local chat 3. do not and keep an eye out on dscan 4. sent rage mail to the guy when he kills you [/troll]
|
Plaude Pollard
Crimson Cartel
76
|
Posted - 2012.09.17 18:29:00 -
[25] - Quote
Arduemont wrote:Just go back and read the old threads (all 30 or so of them in which this gets shot down). There's way more than 30 threads about this topic. Unless you accidentally forgot the 'k' after the number. New to EVE? Want to learn? The Crimson Cartel will train you in the fields of your choice. Mainly active in EU afternoons and evenings. Contact me for more info. |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Elysian Empire
383
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:14:00 -
[26] - Quote
Azrael Dinn wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote: Then you have a terrible understanding of game balance....
I respect hisec bears more than you, at least they admit they are risk averse and choose a gameplay style that suits that, rather than crying to change ALL styles of gameplay to suit their carebear ways while masquerading as PVPers
I don't realy care do you respect me or not and even if you don't no one cares :D And to address something... I tossed the idea of fuelbays in. It's not an terrible idea and I don't need to think about the balance nor do you. CCP needs to, if they are willing to implement something like that into the game. And lets face it. CCP is also saying AFK playing is bad. So I see AFK cloaking as a bad thing and thats my point of view and I presented one option to address it. If you see it as a good thing cause you want to jack off while playing. Well thats fine. But stop yelling stupid stupid stupid if you don't have anything else to say.
Wrong. Fuel (or cap) usage for covert ops ships is an utterly atrocious idea. This is a simple fact. |
betoli
Ketogenic Killzone
46
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:09:00 -
[27] - Quote
Azrael Dinn wrote:Topic says it all.
Why:
1. You are not playing the game but yet you still are
2. Your getting an indirect benefits in many ways and your still not playing the game
I don't realy care how this is dealt with. My solution would be a heavy water fuel bay to the claoks but thats my idea.
Now lets hear the whines next.
Why post a proposal here, when it regularly gets destroyed in discussion 25 times a month?
|
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Elysian Empire
385
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:36:00 -
[28] - Quote
betoli wrote:Azrael Dinn wrote:Topic says it all.
Why:
1. You are not playing the game but yet you still are
2. Your getting an indirect benefits in many ways and your still not playing the game
I don't realy care how this is dealt with. My solution would be a heavy water fuel bay to the claoks but thats my idea.
Now lets hear the whines next. Why post a proposal here, when it regularly gets destroyed in discussion 25 times a month?
I think he should show us on the doll where the AFK player touched him
oh wait he cant because the player was afk. |
Lykouleon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
512
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:44:00 -
[29] - Quote
One day, I'm going to go back and catalog how many times this topic has been brought up and summarily shot down like a wounded buffalo. That will also be the day I finally lose the last shred of sanity I have. Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER SO I CAN HIT THEM WITH MY SWORD |
Alexej
HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 14:10:00 -
[30] - Quote
Once upon a time EVE was a fine place for PVP. Then they introduced jump bridges, warp to 0km, sanctums and interdiction nullifiers. If you living in 0.0, you already know how easy to grind ISK unharmed with absolutely zero risk.
For the rest of the people:
Step 1: Get into a large alliance. Step 2: Get a drake. Step 3: Go to a system where you have a lot of sanctums and an online POS. Step 4: Put the local chat in a big window in the middle of your screen. Step 5: If local is clear start to rat in a nice fluffy sanctum. Step 6: If you see anything other than blue in the local window press: warp to POS then GOTO Step 5.
Even if you are a totally stupid idiot you can still avoid being caught. The only way to counter this level of carebearness is semi-AFK cloaking. Logon traps, fast jumps in, directional scans are way too slow methods to catch anyone else than true retards. And you want the only working solution left out of this game. Dear Azrael Dinn, you are an *******. |
|
Azrael Dinn
The 20th Legion Mildly Sober
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 11:06:00 -
[31] - Quote
Alexej wrote:Once upon a time EVE was a fine place for PVP. Then they introduced jump bridges, warp to 0km, sanctums and interdiction nullifiers. If you living in 0.0, you already know how easy to grind ISK unharmed with absolutely zero risk.
For the rest of the people:
Step 1: Get into a large alliance. Step 2: Get a drake. Step 3: Go to a system where you have a lot of sanctums and an online POS. Step 4: Put the local chat in a big window in the middle of your screen. Step 5: If local is clear start to rat in a nice fluffy sanctum. Step 6: If you see anything other than blue in the local window press: warp to POS then GOTO Step 5.
Even if you are a totally stupid idiot you can still avoid being caught. The only way to counter this level of carebearness is semi-AFK cloaking. Logon traps, fast jumps in, directional scans are way too slow methods to catch anyone else than true retards. And you want the only working solution left out of this game. Dear Azrael Dinn, you are an *******.
Dear Alexej, please go and learn how to pvp. |
Evanga
Trust Doesn't Rust Against ALL Authorities
22
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 13:39:00 -
[32] - Quote
Only renters and cva cry about afk cloakers |
Elderel
The Black Legionnares SpaceMonkey's Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 18:09:00 -
[33] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Can you come up with a way to do this (removing afk cloaking) that does not hurt active cloakers?
So far no one has.
Not a blanket removal like what's so often requested but yes, I have found a way to counter afk cloaks without screwing active cloakers. The currently useless system scanner array pos module could very easily be tweaked to provide an active, and limited, means to counter afk cloaking in a system. Couple it with an ihub upgrade requirement and you've made it something of an advantage to holding sov over simply slumming in npc space and harassing your neighbors.
Details on the module change would be similar to the following: When activated this module sends out a system wide burst of harmonic radiance (or whatever you want to call it) that disrupts ALL cloaking in system for 5 minutes. This effect is so energy intensive that it can only be used ever (pick balancing number) hours and disrupts any other module of this kind in the system for the same duration.
My personal thought is that if you can't scan down an afk ship in 5 minutes, you deserve to have afk cloaks in your systems. I'm also of the opinion that any half competent pilot can avoid scan probes for a few minutes to stay alive thru the disruption effect. If you're too stupid to get yourself a collection of safes so you don't have to bounce off celestials at grid ranges, you deserve to die because you fail as a covops pilot. Now, whether you consider afk cloaking to be a problem or not is irrelevant - the simple fact is covops cloaks are too good and have no balancing factors of any kind beyond the limited number of ships they can be fitted to. |
Azrael Dinn
The 20th Legion Mildly Sober
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 10:44:00 -
[34] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Can you come up with a way to do this (removing afk cloaking) that does not hurt active cloakers?
So far no one has.
There has been alot of solutions and topics how they would be countered.
Main problem seems to be that most of the solutions would kill cloaking completely. I would personaly want to see fuel bays for the specialized ships and just fuel in cargo bay for others. And it would be CCPs problem how to balance it so that it would be fair to the ones using cloaks and it would also kill afk cloaking. Mayby higher meta level mods would consume less fuel so you could cloack up for longer period of times or something.
I don't see how this would ruin cloaking completely. It would just mean that if your stupid enough to leave your ship to be cloaked for long period of times without you being around someone would eventualy find you and kill you if they wanted to. You could still do all the psychological warfare you want by being in the system or traps and so on but you would most importantly be active and not passive ratting in empire waiting there and not even paying attention.
And stop posting no no no no I can't play without afk cloaking and start saying something constructive. |
Adeleda Adoudel
Welp The Monkey
15
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 14:09:00 -
[35] - Quote
Azrael Dinn wrote:
2. Your getting an indirect benefits in many ways and your still not playing the game
What indirect benefit are you getting? If it's stopping other people from ratting then its not benefitting you, its just harrassing them.
Also how do you know if they are AFK or not? You complain saying they're afk cloaking, but if they are they're doing no harm are they? They're not even there. |
Azrael Dinn
The 20th Legion Mildly Sober
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 14:22:00 -
[36] - Quote
Adeleda Adoudel wrote:Azrael Dinn wrote:
2. Your getting an indirect benefits in many ways and your still not playing the game
What indirect benefit are you getting? If it's stopping other people from ratting then its not benefitting you, its just harrassing them. Also how do you know if they are AFK or not? You complain saying they're afk cloaking, but if they are they're doing no harm are they? They're not even there.
I'll just counter this by saying. Lets add the fuelbays and scans into the game. Is there a problem then? And if you don't get the indirect benefits of psychological warfare, well thats your problem then. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1314
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 03:09:00 -
[37] - Quote
Azrael Dinn wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:Can you come up with a way to do this (removing afk cloaking) that does not hurt active cloakers?
So far no one has. There has been alot of solutions and topics how they would be countered. Main problem seems to be that most of the solutions would kill cloaking completely. I would personaly want to see fuel bays for the specialized ships and just fuel in cargo bay for others. And it would be CCPs problem how to balance it so that it would be fair to the ones using cloaks and it would also kill afk cloaking. Mayby higher meta level mods would consume less fuel so you could cloack up for longer period of times or something. I don't see how this would ruin cloaking completely. It would just mean that if your stupid enough to leave your ship to be cloaked for long period of times without you being around someone would eventualy find you and kill you if they wanted to. You could still do all the psychological warfare you want by being in the system or traps and so on but you would most importantly be active and not passive ratting in empire waiting there and not even paying attention. And stop posting no no no no I can't play without afk cloaking and start saying something constructive. I've gone on several WH and null roams where I have done more than 24 hours worth of cloaking (most of my roams last a week or so, depending on how much I am able to play) without being anywhere near someplace where I could dock up.
Any sort of fuel or cap use or whatever that would have any effect on an afk cloaker would make my personal activity very very difficult. I'm sure there are many other folks who do similar things that require long cloak times away from any source of refueling.
And to the person with the pulse thing: that kills bombers and gate/POS scouts. Adds certain death to an already tedious job. And if it had a significant (say 6 hours) cooldown, it woudl be pretty useless against the afk cloakers. |
Jint Hikaru
OffWorld Exploration Inc
310
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 09:28:00 -
[38] - Quote
Azrael Dinn wrote:Adeleda Adoudel wrote:Azrael Dinn wrote:
2. Your getting an indirect benefits in many ways and your still not playing the game
What indirect benefit are you getting? If it's stopping other people from ratting then its not benefitting you, its just harrassing them. Also how do you know if they are AFK or not? You complain saying they're afk cloaking, but if they are they're doing no harm are they? They're not even there. I'll just counter this by saying. Lets add the fuelbays and scans into the game. Is there a problem then? And if you don't get the indirect benefits of psychological warfare, well thats your problem then.
fuelbays kill the active cloaker who spends time away from any refueling base. For example behind enemy lines work, or deep wormhole resident hunting.
System wide scans. However they work (even if you dont use them to then scan down a cloaker), simply knowing a cloaker is present in this way still breaks wormholes.
Edit: Posted the following before and I am sure i will post it again:
Simply remove cloakers from local. And deny that cloaker local.
- Now cloaks are really cloaked.
- Now AFK Cloaking cannot cause any fear.
- Now active cloakers have to work for more intel.
- Now system residents have to pay a little more attention to whats going on around them.
- Now (if done correctly) BOTs can be caught.
Jint Hikaru - Miner / Salvager / Explorer / SpaceBum In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. |
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow The Revenant Order
756
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 04:56:00 -
[39] - Quote
No.
Working as intended.
HTFU.
There is a counter to cloakers. It's called a standing fleet. "War is not measured in terms of who wins or loses, who is right or wrong.-á It is measured in terms of who survives." |
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow The Revenant Order
756
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 04:57:00 -
[40] - Quote
If all else fails, the biomass queue is over
Don't forget to give me your stuff. "War is not measured in terms of who wins or loses, who is right or wrong.-á It is measured in terms of who survives." |
|
greeny knight
Solar Storm Intrepid Crossing
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 15:38:00 -
[41] - Quote
i also hate afk cloackies mmm
now i found this
http://games.chruker.dk/eve_online/inventory.php?group_id=193
nuff said
for people that need glasses Monophobia Bonus
now let it get implimanted |
Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
772
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 20:30:00 -
[42] - Quote
Herping yourDerp wrote:so i decided to try this "afk cloaking thing" that people clearly think is an exploit so i figure i'l get rich doing it. I set my alarm to wake up right after downtime and undock from jita in a stealth bomber with nothing but a cloak eagerly awaiting isk and rage mails saying why they think I am cheating or a bad person.
so i warp to a safe and cloak then go back to bed, i woke up with no mails or isk =( so i guess i have to stay there longer I left my computer on till downtime again, didn't touch anything other then chat a bit in corp chat. nothing happened even the next day which i did it again. there seems to be no exploit or issue
therefore, afk cloaking isn't a problem.
can someone help me maybe I am doing it wrong i been in jita for like 1 week now, didn't even get 1 rage mail. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
10271
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 14:02:00 -
[43] - Quote
What game mechanic are they using to interact with you, whilst they are AFK?
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Zeravla Shardani
Valkyrie's Mining Corporation
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 13:25:00 -
[44] - Quote
Then perhaps ccp should stop alowing us to train while we are afk/offline since we are playing but not playing?
Ever hear of snipers? Do you really think they stay awake 24/7 or never leave their position to **** or **** or sleep or eat or anythng? Yes snipers go afk but the enemy doesnt know if or when they do it. Hell the sniper could move on and they often do since it is dangerous for them to stay in one position very long yet the enemy doesnt know this until they actually go out and verify!
Combat forces also use decoys and various forms of deceptive practices to deceive, distract and or delay their enemies.
AFK cloaking is a valid gammng tactic so go get some cheese for your whine :-)
One last point. I played wow for years since it's begining. For years the useless noobs would come into the forums and moan and groan about this change or that change that needed to be made because oh the current system is soooo hard or unfair especially for the noobs. So what has happened now? WoW has become watered down and stupified to appease all the useless morons with IQ's south of 30. I left wow and came to EVE because I got tired of playing in kindercare and wanted to actually think for myself.
So my point is that I hope CCP doesnt listen to all the whining of the noobs and keeps doing what they are doing :-) And all the ignorant low IQ noobs can go back to wow!
Oh and for the one moaning about you posting in the wrong place, ignore him! When a game has been around as long as Eve there is very little that hasn't been discussed already except maybe new content and even that gets old fast. In reality very few people actually research old past post first. Most just want a fast current reply often times from new players who probably were not around when it was last discussed and I see no problem with it. If you don't want to read it then move on. Honestly...ediots that whine about trivial crap like this are about as usefull as the forum grammar police! |
Arduemont
Lords 0f Justice Fidelas Constans
288
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 14:47:00 -
[45] - Quote
Zeravla Shardani wrote:Then perhaps ccp should stop alowing us to train while we are afk/offline since we are playing but not playing?
Ever hear of snipers? Do you really think they stay awake 24/7 or never leave their position to **** or **** or sleep or eat or anythng? Yes snipers go afk but the enemy doesnt know if or when they do it. Hell the sniper could move on and they often do since it is dangerous for them to stay in one position very long yet the enemy doesnt know this until they actually go out and verify!
Combat forces also use decoys and various forms of deceptive practices to deceive, distract and or delay their enemies.
AFK cloaking is a valid gammng tactic so go get some cheese for your whine :-)
One last point. I played wow for years since it's begining. For years the useless noobs would come into the forums and moan and groan about this change or that change that needed to be made because oh the current system is soooo hard or unfair especially for the noobs. So what has happened now? WoW has become watered down and stupified to appease all the useless morons with IQ's south of 30. I left wow and came to EVE because I got tired of playing in kindercare and wanted to actually think for myself.
So my point is that I hope CCP doesnt listen to all the whining of the noobs and keeps doing what they are doing :-) And all the ignorant low IQ noobs can go back to wow!
Oh and for the one moaning about you posting in the wrong place, ignore him! When a game has been around as long as Eve there is very little that hasn't been discussed already except maybe new content and even that gets old fast. In reality very few people actually research old past post first. Most just want a fast current reply often times from new players who probably were not around when it was last discussed and I see no problem with it. If you don't want to read it then move on. Honestly...ediots that whine about trivial crap like this are about as usefull as the forum grammar police!
Brilliant post. Usually I cant be bothered to rant in afk cloaky threads. But that pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter.
Also...
Zeravla Shardani wrote:Honestly...ediots that whine about trivial crap like this are about as usefull as the forum grammar police!
"Useful".
|
HY RWO
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 22:27:00 -
[46] - Quote
so.... I was AFK cloaked the other day and I didnt see any one ratting or mining, Might have been cause I was AFK and therefore not a threat? |
Zeravla Shardani
Valkyrie's Mining Corporation
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 09:42:00 -
[47] - Quote
Arduemont wrote:There is a search function on this forum. Try looking up how often this has come up before starting a new one, otherwise we end up saying the same things as before over and over.
Just go back and read the old threads (all 30 or so of them in which this gets shot down).
Why should we do that when the old post will probably be locked (which makes no sense). People create new post because they want their views seen and or have further questions. So if having multiple post annoys you dont come crying to us about it, talk to the genius's at ccp who lock post for no good reason! |
Arduemont
Lords 0f Justice Fidelas Constans
290
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:17:00 -
[48] - Quote
Zeravla Shardani wrote:Arduemont wrote:There is a search function on this forum. Try looking up how often this has come up before starting a new one, otherwise we end up saying the same things as before over and over.
Just go back and read the old threads (all 30 or so of them in which this gets shot down). Why should we do that when the old post will probably be locked (which makes no sense). People create new post because they want their views seen and or have further questions. So if having multiple post annoys you dont come crying to us about it, talk to the genius's at ccp who lock post for no good reason!
They're not locked. Go look.
"They're probably locked" is a daft thing to say when you can actually check. If they were locked that would be a very strong argument indeed, but they're not. So you might as well have not opened your mouth. |
Zylona Femtov
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 17:28:00 -
[49] - Quote
AFK cloacking is use for a lot of reason and there's no middle or half way arround it.
You might even need to use it to go to the WC, when RL your body tell you to.
Psy warfare, spying, urgent need, no place to park your ship, waiting for a scout, etc.... people have a lot of reason to use it
That is part of the game and it's not an exploit, you need to get use to it. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
725
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 09:26:00 -
[50] - Quote
Azrael Dinn wrote:Topic says it all.
Why:
1. You are not playing the game but yet you still are
2. Your getting an indirect benefits in many ways and your still not playing the game
I don't realy care how this is dealt with. My solution would be a heavy water fuel bay to the claoks but thats my idea.
Now lets hear the whines next.
There is a fault in your reasoning. AFK cloaking is the only activity where someone does not benefit from being AFK. How do you actually know if the player is AFK or not? Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
|
lara montbank
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 18:35:00 -
[51] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Can you come up with a way to do this (removing afk cloaking) that does not hurt active cloakers?
So far no one has.
Easy its the fact that ppl dont know if the person cloaked for up to 23 hrs in system is active or not and they cant scan him down but its not the cloaked ship that stops them mining its the black ops fleet that he could jump in so all that really needs to be done is put a black ops jammer into system sov and then no one will care if the cloaky is active or not because he is basicly usless against even a half decent sheild tanked barge. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1323
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 20:43:00 -
[52] - Quote
I have to admit that doesn't hurt the active cloaker. |
Jason Cesaille
URCO Logistics
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 02:54:00 -
[53] - Quote
I personally don't have a cloak-able ship on my combat alt that i enjoy using so i can only speculate on what i have learnt so far, the only way in which i can see there being a method to possibly appease both sides is to have a emission rating or heat rating on the cloak. This could then build up over extended use of say a hour or what ever length of time is suitable, you could then have a scanner to scan for these emissions or heat build up. The template is in place if they used a similar model to the planet scanning for resources where by white spots indicate heat/emissions, this would also mean if these emission are produced by all ships then the best place for a cloaker is on main routes. Alternatively if its heat based the sun or volcanic planets also produce heat as do big facilities.
And not to ruin continuity in low/null sec have interference on the scanner that makes it a lot less accurate so that you could only scan down to withing say 1au of the target. That way the high sec care bares get their counter measure that is partially effective, and cloaking ops are not totally compromised.
I mean if they use the heat side of thing for the build up AFK cloaking could still happen if they leave it near say a star but then one scan would give that away in the sense no heat spots else where on the map.
Anyway what you think? viable to both sides?
|
Jint Hikaru
OffWorld Exploration Inc
324
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 08:22:00 -
[54] - Quote
Jason Cesaille wrote:I personally don't have a cloak-able ship on my combat alt that i enjoy using so i can only speculate on what i have learnt so far, the only way in which i can see there being a method to possibly appease both sides is to have a emission rating or heat rating on the cloak. This could then build up over extended use of say a hour or what ever length of time is suitable, you could then have a scanner to scan for these emissions or heat build up. The template is in place if they used a similar model to the planet scanning for resources where by white spots indicate heat/emissions, this would also mean if these emission are produced by all ships then the best place for a cloaker is on main routes. Alternatively if its heat based the sun or volcanic planets also produce heat as do big facilities.
And not to ruin continuity in low/null sec have interference on the scanner that makes it a lot less accurate so that you could only scan down to withing say 1au of the target. That way the high sec care bares get their counter measure that is partially effective, and cloaking ops are not totally compromised.
I mean if they use the heat side of thing for the build up AFK cloaking could still happen if they leave it near say a star but then one scan would give that away in the sense no heat spots else where on the map.
Anyway what you think? viable to both sides?
Someone 'actively cloaking' behind ememy lines doing some recon work may very well be cloaked up for more than an hour. You have now nerfed an active cloaker.
Same thing for someone cloaked in a WH. He could be stalking the local residents setting up the correct time to pounce. Your scannable heat signature now alerts the residents that someone is cloaked in the WH. You just broke Wormholes!
Jint Hikaru - Miner / Salvager / Explorer / SpaceBum In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. |
Jason Cesaille
URCO Logistics
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 10:11:00 -
[55] - Quote
Jint Hikaru wrote:Jason Cesaille wrote:I personally don't have a cloak-able ship on my combat alt that i enjoy using so i can only speculate on what i have learnt so far, the only way in which i can see there being a method to possibly appease both sides is to have a emission rating or heat rating on the cloak. This could then build up over extended use of say a hour or what ever length of time is suitable, you could then have a scanner to scan for these emissions or heat build up. The template is in place if they used a similar model to the planet scanning for resources where by white spots indicate heat/emissions, this would also mean if these emission are produced by all ships then the best place for a cloaker is on main routes. Alternatively if its heat based the sun or volcanic planets also produce heat as do big facilities.
And not to ruin continuity in low/null sec have interference on the scanner that makes it a lot less accurate so that you could only scan down to withing say 1au of the target. That way the high sec care bares get their counter measure that is partially effective, and cloaking ops are not totally compromised.
I mean if they use the heat side of thing for the build up AFK cloaking could still happen if they leave it near say a star but then one scan would give that away in the sense no heat spots else where on the map.
Anyway what you think? viable to both sides?
Someone 'actively cloaking' behind ememy lines doing some recon work may very well be cloaked up for more than an hour. You have now nerfed an active cloaker. Same thing for someone cloaked in a WH. He could be stalking the local residents setting up the correct time to pounce. Your scannable heat signature now alerts the residents that someone is cloaked in the WH. You just broke Wormholes! Quote:Anyway what you think? viable to both sides? Um, how is this anything but a nerf to cloaking???
The way i would suggest doing it would be it is only a dominant showing of a heat signature if the ship has been on one spot for more than a hour, kind of a if you stay still the heat radius gets bigger making it hard to hide
|
Arduemont
Lords 0f Justice Fidelas Constans
302
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 11:13:00 -
[56] - Quote
This thread is terrible. |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Elysian Empire
410
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 07:35:00 -
[57] - Quote
Jason Cesaille wrote:Jint Hikaru wrote:Jason Cesaille wrote:I personally don't have a cloak-able ship on my combat alt that i enjoy using so i can only speculate on what i have learnt so far, the only way in which i can see there being a method to possibly appease both sides is to have a emission rating or heat rating on the cloak. This could then build up over extended use of say a hour or what ever length of time is suitable, you could then have a scanner to scan for these emissions or heat build up. The template is in place if they used a similar model to the planet scanning for resources where by white spots indicate heat/emissions, this would also mean if these emission are produced by all ships then the best place for a cloaker is on main routes. Alternatively if its heat based the sun or volcanic planets also produce heat as do big facilities.
And not to ruin continuity in low/null sec have interference on the scanner that makes it a lot less accurate so that you could only scan down to withing say 1au of the target. That way the high sec care bares get their counter measure that is partially effective, and cloaking ops are not totally compromised.
I mean if they use the heat side of thing for the build up AFK cloaking could still happen if they leave it near say a star but then one scan would give that away in the sense no heat spots else where on the map.
Anyway what you think? viable to both sides?
Someone 'actively cloaking' behind ememy lines doing some recon work may very well be cloaked up for more than an hour. You have now nerfed an active cloaker. Same thing for someone cloaked in a WH. He could be stalking the local residents setting up the correct time to pounce. Your scannable heat signature now alerts the residents that someone is cloaked in the WH. You just broke Wormholes! Quote:Anyway what you think? viable to both sides? Um, how is this anything but a nerf to cloaking??? The way i would suggest doing it would be it is only a dominant showing of a heat signature if the ship has been on one spot for more than a hour, kind of a if you stay still the heat radius gets bigger making it hard to hide
Or we could just not implement stupid mechanics that do nothing but nerf legitimate playstyles because crybaby bears need even more safety than they already have.
I know its a shocking idea |
Jason Cesaille
URCO Logistics
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 09:06:00 -
[58] - Quote
Like i said i think cloaking is fine as is but that to one side every development in war has a counter measure, at present the cloak rules supreme with no counter measure. By adding a way to counter it you can still use it and do things fine but just means those that use it with less shall we say strategy get a kick in the butt.
Personally though drone swarms work well against cloaks well enough that its a viable counter provided you take certain other steps.
Either way i was merely adding a option of compromise that could work |
Jint Hikaru
OffWorld Exploration Inc
327
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 11:39:00 -
[59] - Quote
Jason Cesaille wrote: The way i would suggest doing it would be it is only a dominant showing of a heat signature if the ship has been on one spot for more than a hour, kind of a if you stay still the heat radius gets bigger making it hard to hide
So all an AFK cloaker has to do is point at a random spot in space and switch on engines. No longer stationary... no heat buildup.
You could counter that by saying, well that dosn't count, they have to warp at least once an hour.
Now its a massive nerf to active (non covert ops) ships that have managed to get in place undetected and are waiting cloaked, to spring on someone... or performing intel-gathering.
Jint Hikaru - Miner / Salvager / Explorer / SpaceBum In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. |
Arduemont
Lords 0f Justice Fidelas Constans
322
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 00:49:00 -
[60] - Quote
Seriously?
Is this thread still going? Do us a favour and look up the old ones, everything you anti-cloakers are saying has been covered literally hundreds of times in previous threads. Do some god damn reading. I am done baby sitting you lot and slowly and patiently explaining why the hundreds of terrible ideas you people come up with are crap.
I just don't get it. What is so wrong with you people that your so damn scared of 1 person in a system? If someone is there and you want to run anomalies, move next door. Is that really that scary? |
|
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
160
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 07:35:00 -
[61] - Quote
Is that afk guy in local bother you?
The solution is simple make the afk guy disappear from local when he cloaks.
There now he won't be bother you now won't you?
Seriously AFK Cloaking is only as bad is the mind allows it to be.
The only people I see whining are ratters and botters who want to mine in complete safety in 0.0.
HTFU. |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Elysian Empire
411
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 10:40:00 -
[62] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:Is that afk guy in local bother you?
The solution is simple make the afk guy disappear from local when he cloaks.
There now he won't be bother you now won't you?
Seriously AFK Cloaking is only as bad is the mind allows it to be.
The only people I see whining are ratters and botters who want to mine in complete safety in 0.0.
HTFU.
QFT |
maciek9
Lords of Sandbox Rebel Alliance of New Eden
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 10:01:00 -
[63] - Quote
oh yes, +1 to the idea,
lets force those afk crybabies to do some PvP while they are in nullsec |
Arduemont
Lords 0f Justice Fidelas Constans
372
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 14:00:00 -
[64] - Quote
maciek9 wrote:those afk crybabies to do some PvP while they are in nullsec
Wait, sorry.... Who's a cry baby? The afker, who is afk, or the crybaby crying about the afker, who is afk? |
maciek9
Lords of Sandbox Rebel Alliance of New Eden
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 16:13:00 -
[65] - Quote
Arduemont wrote:maciek9 wrote:those afk crybabies to do some PvP while they are in nullsec Wait, sorry.... Who's a cry baby? The afker, who is afk, or the crybaby crying about the afker, who is afk?
ofc cloakers who cry at every attempt to target their immunity in nullsec. Theres a place for this way of playstyle in eve --> Hisec
you can stay there for ages without anyone targeting you, dont even have to turn on cloak ^^
|
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1335
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 02:41:00 -
[66] - Quote
maciek9 wrote:Arduemont wrote:maciek9 wrote:those afk crybabies to do some PvP while they are in nullsec Wait, sorry.... Who's a cry baby? The afker, who is afk, or the crybaby crying about the afker, who is afk? ofc cloakers who cry at every attempt to target their immunity in nullsec. Theres a place for this way of playstyle in eve --> Hisec you can stay there for ages without anyone targeting you, dont even have to turn on cloak ^^ No, active cloakers "cry" at every attempt to completely destroy their play style.
Almost every suggestion to "counter" afk cloaking will completely eliminate the feasibility of traditional cloaky activities.
Interestingly, the two suggestions that don't do that have nothing to do with cloaks, rather local and cynos. |
Arduemont
Lords 0f Justice Fidelas Constans
376
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 05:04:00 -
[67] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Interestingly, the two suggestions that don't do that have nothing to do with cloaks, rather local and cynos.
I've always been of the opinion that the proposed local changes are too much. The idea of a black-ops cyno jammer I see no problem with, except that It wouldn't stop people whining about cloakies.
I spent all yesterday evening chasing and camping four cloakies. Some of them were almost definitely afk, and they rarely moved about. It does get a little tedious, but we got one of them, and I am more than happy to chase the others around for Home Defence purposes. I've always laughed at people complaining about them, because I've had to deal with people doing it since very early in my Eve career and never really had any problems with them. It always infuriates me that people just come straight to the forums to whine that there is "No counter to afk cloaking".
|
maciek9
Lords of Sandbox Rebel Alliance of New Eden
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 09:25:00 -
[68] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:maciek9 wrote:Arduemont wrote:maciek9 wrote:those afk crybabies to do some PvP while they are in nullsec Wait, sorry.... Who's a cry baby? The afker, who is afk, or the crybaby crying about the afker, who is afk? ofc cloakers who cry at every attempt to target their immunity in nullsec. Theres a place for this way of playstyle in eve --> Hisec you can stay there for ages without anyone targeting you, dont even have to turn on cloak ^^ No, active cloakers "cry" at every attempt to completely destroy their play style. Almost every suggestion to "counter" afk cloaking will completely eliminate the feasibility of traditional cloaky activities. Interestingly, the two suggestions that don't do that have nothing to do with cloaks, rather local and cynos.
Well most solutions I saw would only force them to move few km every half hour (ie. the probing sugestion). If thats to much of an activity in nullspace for them. Well no comment.
It's just silly for me that in game suposed to be all about technology you can use magic invisibility hat, that saves you from pvp in a place made for pvp.
|
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Elysian Empire
412
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 13:55:00 -
[69] - Quote
maciek9 wrote:Arduemont wrote:maciek9 wrote:those afk crybabies to do some PvP while they are in nullsec Wait, sorry.... Who's a cry baby? The afker, who is afk, or the crybaby crying about the afker, who is afk? ofc cloakers who cry at every attempt to target their immunity in nullsec. Theres a place for this way of playstyle in eve --> Hisec you can stay there for ages without anyone targeting you, dont even have to turn on cloak ^^
If anyone needs a ticket back to bloody hisec its the nullbears who cry their eyes out because - gasp - another player is in the same system as they are. The fact that you want CCP to introduce mechanics that will allow you to kill AFK players is utterly idiotic, and it speaks volumes about how bad of a player you are. You can't fight someone who's active, so you want CCP to give you a kill button on players who aren't there. What's next, you want them to let you kill players who are docked? Ones who are logged off?
If you can't deal with that little name in local, get the hell out of nullsec because you are terrible and have no claim to the rewards of 0.0 |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Elysian Empire
412
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 14:04:00 -
[70] - Quote
maciek9 wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:maciek9 wrote:Arduemont wrote:maciek9 wrote:those afk crybabies to do some PvP while they are in nullsec Wait, sorry.... Who's a cry baby? The afker, who is afk, or the crybaby crying about the afker, who is afk? ofc cloakers who cry at every attempt to target their immunity in nullsec. Theres a place for this way of playstyle in eve --> Hisec you can stay there for ages without anyone targeting you, dont even have to turn on cloak ^^ No, active cloakers "cry" at every attempt to completely destroy their play style. Almost every suggestion to "counter" afk cloaking will completely eliminate the feasibility of traditional cloaky activities. Interestingly, the two suggestions that don't do that have nothing to do with cloaks, rather local and cynos. Well most solutions I saw would only force them to move few km every half hour (ie. the probing sugestion). If thats to much of an activity in nullspace for them. Well no comment. It's just silly for me that in game suposed to be all about technology you can use magic invisibility hat, that saves you from pvp in a place made for pvp.
Did you even think this through? It's a stupid suggestion, so if you honestly think it's a "solution" (and I use that term loosely, as there isn't an actual problem) then... you may not be too bright.
Lets break it down.
It hinders active playing - reconnaissance can rely on sitting in a key location and watching whats happening, or moving into an advantageous position and waiting for the right opportunity to hit. Forcing these pilots to constantly move ruins that.
So far, that's one big negative to active players.
Lets move on to AFK players, and see how this change would affect them
AFK player double clicks in arbitrary direction, leaving his ship to float in that direction forever.
Oh look at that, they're moving, so this system doesn't do a damn thing to AFK cloakers.
So your suggestion doesn't "help" against AFKs, but works against actives.
And we're back to square one: The fact that nullbears are the biggest cowards in EVE, bigger than even the hisec bears - who at least have the balls to admit they don't want to risk their stuff.
|
|
maciek9
Lords of Sandbox Rebel Alliance of New Eden
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 14:25:00 -
[71] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Did you even think this through? It's a stupid suggestion, so if you honestly think it's a "solution" (and I use that term loosely, as there isn't an actual problem) then... you may not be too bright.
Lets break it down.
It hinders active playing - reconnaissance can rely on sitting in a key location and watching whats happening, or moving into an advantageous position and waiting for the right opportunity to hit. Forcing these pilots to constantly move ruins that.
So far, that's one big negative to active players.
Lets move on to AFK players, and see how this change would affect them
AFK player double clicks in arbitrary direction, leaving his ship to float in that direction forever.
Oh look at that, they're moving, so this system doesn't do a damn thing to AFK cloakers.
So your suggestion doesn't "help" against AFKs, but works against actives.
And we're back to square one: The fact that nullbears are the biggest cowards in EVE, bigger than even the hisec bears - who at least have the balls to admit they don't want to risk their stuff.
Noone says its as simple as putting probes and scanning cloakers down in 5 sec, clearly rage hinders your ability to see the problem here.
And so far the afk cloakers are worst cowards in nullsec, carebears coming to null know they may be forced to fight, cloakers dont have to bother with that. No to afk living in null i say :P
|
Arduemont
Lords 0f Justice Fidelas Constans
390
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 18:50:00 -
[72] - Quote
maciek9 wrote: Noone says its as simple as putting probes and scanning cloakers down in 5 sec, clearly rage hinders your ability to see the problem here and what the solutions proposed are.
And so far the afk cloakers are worst cowards in nullsec, carebears coming to null know they may be forced to fight, cloakers dont have to bother with that. No to afk living in null i say :P
Clearly rage and fear makes you see a problem here (When there isn't one). I don't see one at all. I deal with cloakies on a daily basis, there is no problem. Camping your system? Move next door. If he follows you he's not afk, therefore set up a gate camp and catch him. |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Elysian Empire
415
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 10:30:00 -
[73] - Quote
maciek9 wrote:Noone says its as simple as putting probes and scanning cloakers down in 5 sec, clearly rage hinders your ability to see the problem here and what the solutions proposed are.
And so far the afk cloakers are worst cowards in nullsec, carebears coming to null know they may be forced to fight, cloakers dont have to bother with that. No to afk living in null i say :P
Can you read, fella? I never inferred your (terrible) "solution" to be a very quick and easy 5-second probe job, the points I made hold true even if your (terrible) "solution" is a much longer and more complicated process.
The bottom line is it interferes with legitimate, active reconnaissance pilots, while doing nothing to actual AFK players (ps AFK players are effectively none-entities, there is no need to do anything to them in the first place).
Ignorance of the activities, how they work, how long they take and how your (terrible) "solution" would ruin them can be excused - I can hardly expect a stupid carebear who does nothing but mine or shoot rats to understand such things, after all. Reconnaissance takes time. It's not unusual for an active scout to sit in one location for extended periods of time, whether thats sitting at a tower watching a fleet form and relaying information or waiting in a particular strategic location ready to decloak and grab something, or act as a warp in, or whatever.
As for calling afk cloakers "cowards"... that simply does not make sense. Venturing out into real life and leaving the computer game is not some act of "cowardice". It's just something we (well, most of us) do. And as there is literally nothing they can do to anyone still in game there is no issue. They are not there. They can't hurt you. They're not "cowards". They're not anything. They're none-entities. The fact that you're so terrified of them is pathetic. Go back to hisec. |
maciek9
Lords of Sandbox Rebel Alliance of New Eden
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 13:51:00 -
[74] - Quote
Well you should take a chill pill and read before you call people names. As i written before afk cloakers are not of a big issue for me. You would know that if you could read instaead of insta-raging. And in particular read again what afk cloakers are and what they are meant to achieve by staying for 3-4 weeks in one place. And the solution still stands imo, as technology without counter is just stupid.
Maybe lets see real world reconnaisance, that way maybe you understand what I'm getting at if thats hard for you to grasp. Is the real world reconnisance without risk of fail ? No. Is it sucessful way of gathering info ? Yes. That simple. Lets just keep it real. |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Elysian Empire
418
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 15:42:00 -
[75] - Quote
maciek9 wrote:Well you should take a chill pill and read before you call people names. As i written before afk cloakers are not of a big issue for me. You would know that if you could read instaead of insta-raging. And in particular read again what afk cloakers are and what they are meant to achieve by staying for 3-4 weeks in one place. And the solution still stands imo, as technology without counter is just stupid.
Maybe lets see real world reconnaisance, that way maybe you understand what I'm getting at if thats hard for you to grasp. Is the real world reconnisance without risk of fail ? No. Is it sucessful way of gathering info ? Yes. That simple. Lets just keep it real.
How many times now have you purposefully ignored the arguments against your silly ideas based on how they ruin legitimate activities of active players?
I'm not going to bother repeating them because you clearly can't refute any of them.
High sec space is that way -> |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
10275
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 08:34:00 -
[76] - Quote
maciek9 wrote:Well most solutions I saw would only force them to move few km every half hour (ie. the probing sugestion). If thats to much of an activity in nullspace for them. Well no comment.
It's just silly for me that in game suposed to be all about technology you can use magic invisibility hat, that saves you from pvp in a place made for pvp.
Why should cloaking change, when the reason for AFKing remains untouched?
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Captain Kanki
ReSpawners Choke Point
5
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 08:44:00 -
[77] - Quote
Remove afk cloaking? No. Theres been 0 good reasons to do it. Cloaking is part of this game and it is working atm. |
Azrael Dinn
The 20th Legion Mildly Sober
13
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 09:37:00 -
[78] - Quote
Heh this topic seems to be alive and well ^^
Remove Captain Kanki from forums: Yes. He lacks the skills to present any reasons for hes points of views or working solutions for the topic.
So anyhow... fuelbays ^^. They will not ruin anything and CCP needs to think about the balance NOT US. You can still afk-cloak, but not indefinetly and thus the problem is solved for everyone.
The one who want to play cloaky games can the one trying to find cloakers can do that also and many other things would be improved. |
Arduemont
Lords 0f Justice Fidelas Constans
472
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 13:12:00 -
[79] - Quote
Why is this thread still going on?
Here's how it is:
An afk cloaker, is afk. So he is not doing ANYTHING. So why does he bother you? Simple answer, because your scared that he WILL do something.
Now there are already very good counters to AFK cloakers, you can set up a standing fleet so you can get a quick warp in on anyone who is attacked by him, you can specifically bait and kill him, or better yet, you can move next door to do your ratting/mining whatever. If he follows you to next door, then he's not afk and thus all your stupid argument against the afk cloakers are invalid.
People need to use a little logic. I don't get how people can be so dense and unthinking. There is literally no reason to change afk cloaking. |
Callduron
136
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 16:09:00 -
[80] - Quote
The point is not that afk cloakers can kill people while afk but that you can afk 95% of your time and still be a very effective killer. I would certainly agree that cloaking is a fun and valid part of the game and that any fix should not break actively playing with cloaked ships.
But you shouldn't be able to log in just after downtime, press one button and interdict a system for 23 hours. It's disproportionate and it's actually less fun.
Suppose instead that cloaks burned a steadily increasing amount of cap. Neglible for the first 10 minutes, you need to be cap fit to sustain past 20 mins and unfeasible past 30 minutes. Followed by a 2 minute cloak cooldown period.
It would make hunting while cloaked still perfectly valid but it would also make hunting cloakers a fun part of the game. At the moment if we organise a fleet to try to deal with someone in our space it's quite frankly generally rather boring. We might get them and do from time to time but generally defensive efforts of an organised gang of people can be completely neutralised by the other player simply alt tabbing and playing a different game.
As a nullsec FC I want my fleet members to have more fun blowing people up and less time being blue-balled. |
|
Arduemont
Lords 0f Justice Fidelas Constans
486
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 16:24:00 -
[81] - Quote
Anyone can be afk 95% of the time and still be an effective killer. Ships that use cloaks already are specifically weaker because of the use of covert cloaks, and the other cloaks slow target speed and ship movement etc. They are already paying for the privilege of being able to cloak.
If you don't agree with people being able to be afk and then kill people, perhaps you should also propose some method of kicking people out of stations if they're afk in a station for more than 30 minutes?
Also, there are already counters for afk cloaking. Something you failed to pass comment on.
As for it being boring dealing with afk cloakies, well so what? |
Azrael Dinn
The 20th Legion Mildly Sober
13
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 10:09:00 -
[82] - Quote
Arduemont wrote:... Azrael Dinn wrote:So anyhow... fuelbays ^^. They will not ruin anything and CCP needs to think about the balance NOT US. You can still afk-cloak, but not indefinetly and thus the problem is solved for everyone. Are you kidding? You want anyone who cloaks to pay for fuel and be fine with that. Also, lets not forget the fact that if they run out of fuel for any reason the cloak is completely useless. Let me say it again, there is no good reason to change cloaking anyway.
No i'm not kidding and as we both have the oposite points of views I could say the same to you that are you kidding by saying that they cloacks are fine.
The threat is about removing or fixing AFK cloaking so give a solution or be quiet.
All you cloak lovers always say is that it's working it's working. Of course it's working when you can be afk cloacked 23,5/7 and rat on 3 other accounts at the same time in empire or in your own precious bear system.
And if your so dence that you can't see this from other points of views then you better stop posting.
So more solutions and less crying that is working. |
Arduemont
Lords 0f Justice Fidelas Constans
486
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 15:38:00 -
[83] - Quote
There was no content in that post ^^. You said I was crying (when Im the one happy with how it is), and that I was dense, and that AFK cloaking IS a threat (without putting forward any argument for why), and then told me not to bother posting if I cant empathise with your side of the argument when you clearly are just as bad as me.
Lets put this straight with facts, rather than bogus opinion.
1- Afk cloakers are afk, therefore not doing anything. 2- If they're not afk, you can kill them. 3- They can't stop you doing anything except through fear. 4- If your afraid to do something you can change system to do it without fear. 5- If they follow you, they're not afk. Therefore see point 2. 6- Cloaks reduce the combat effectiveness of a ship, by using up slots or from adverse effects.
If your still worried about the fact they can be safe whilst afk, well then you should propose to get rid of POS shields and the ability to dock. Make a counter argument or don't bother responding. |
Nylith Empyreal
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
139
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 03:06:00 -
[84] - Quote
It's the topic that never ends, it goes on and on my friends, some people, started whining not knowing what it was, and they'll continue whining forever just because.... "Oh, you can't help that," said the troll: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad." "How do you know I'm mad?" -ásaid the forumwarrior. "You must be," said the troll, "or you wouldn't have come here." |
Azrael Dinn
The 20th Legion Mildly Sober
13
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 06:09:00 -
[85] - Quote
Arduemont wrote:There was no content in that post ^^. You said I was crying (when Im the one happy with how it is), and that I was dense, and that AFK cloaking IS a threat (without putting forward any argument for why), and then told me not to bother posting if I cant empathise with your side of the argument when you clearly are just as bad as me.
Lets put this straight with facts, rather than bogus opinion.
1- Afk cloakers are afk, therefore not doing anything. 2- If they're not afk, you can kill them. 3- They can't stop you doing anything except through fear. 4- If your afraid to do something you can change system to do it without fear. 5- If they follow you, they're not afk. Therefore see point 2. 6- Cloaks reduce the combat effectiveness of a ship, by using up slots or from adverse effects.
If your still worried about the fact they can be safe whilst afk, well then you should propose to get rid of POS shields and the ability to dock. Make a counter argument or don't bother responding.
1. Not true. There is the psychological warfare side of things in this one also. 2. Not true. Even how much you want to find them and do what you can you might not still get them. 3. True but industrialists are usualy easy to kill so they can also use force 4. True but it will not resolve the issue of the AFK cloaker being somewhere AFK 5. See point 2 6. And? it is your choice will or will you not fit your ship with cloaks. If you do not like the disadvantaged over the advantages then do not fir a cloak.
I'll drop the dence things so this wont go into a fight over whos more dencer but I ment with they crying part that most posts are "crycrycry no solution crycrycry" and I did not mean you in specific. Though it would be nice that you would give also an solution to this and so IF you would have to make an solution to this what would it be? How would you remove AFK cloaking.
My solution is still that claoks should use fuel (heavy water, it's cheap and easy to get, mayby add something that allowes you to extract heavy water from ice so you don't need to go to a station to get it) and special cloak ships could have the fuel bays. 1. You could still AFK cloak for some time if needed 2. Game would be more tactical as you need to think more what you do with your cloaked ships 3. You can still do psychological warfare if you want. 4. Cloaks would realy not change there would be just something new in them, something new that you need to keep in your mind and now just fly mindlessly all over the place.
Oh and CCP is removing POS shields or they are planing to do so, so no need to propose that. ;) |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc
424
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 09:27:00 -
[86] - Quote
Azrael Dinn wrote:Arduemont wrote:There was no content in that post ^^. You said I was crying (when Im the one happy with how it is), and that I was dense, and that AFK cloaking IS a threat (without putting forward any argument for why), and then told me not to bother posting if I cant empathise with your side of the argument when you clearly are just as bad as me.
Lets put this straight with facts, rather than bogus opinion.
1- Afk cloakers are afk, therefore not doing anything. 2- If they're not afk, you can kill them. 3- They can't stop you doing anything except through fear. 4- If your afraid to do something you can change system to do it without fear. 5- If they follow you, they're not afk. Therefore see point 2. 6- Cloaks reduce the combat effectiveness of a ship, by using up slots or from adverse effects.
If your still worried about the fact they can be safe whilst afk, well then you should propose to get rid of POS shields and the ability to dock. Make a counter argument or don't bother responding. 1. Not true. There is the psychological warfare side of things in this one also. 2. Not true. Even how much you want to find them and do what you can you might not still get them. 3. True but industrialists are usualy easy to kill so they can also use force 4. True but it will not resolve the issue of the AFK cloaker being somewhere AFK 5. See point 2 6. And? it is your choice will or will you not fit your ship with cloaks. If you do not like the disadvantaged over the advantages then do not fir a cloak. I'll drop the dence things so this wont go into a fight over whos more dencer but I ment with they crying part that most posts are "crycrycry no solution crycrycry" and I did not mean you in specific. Though it would be nice that you would give also an solution to this and so IF you would have to make an solution to this what would it be? How would you remove AFK cloaking. My solution is still that claoks should use fuel (heavy water, it's cheap and easy to get, mayby add something that allowes you to extract heavy water from ice so you don't need to go to a station to get it) and special cloak ships could have the fuel bays. 1. You could still AFK cloak for some time if needed 2. Game would be more tactical as you need to think more what you do with your cloaked ships 3. You can still do psychological warfare if you want. 4. Cloaks would realy not change there would be just something new in them, something new that you need to keep in your mind and now just fly mindlessly all over the place. Oh and CCP is removing POS shields or they are planing to do so, so no need to propose that. ;)
|
Prince Kobol
628
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 09:53:00 -
[87] - Quote
I understand the sentiment that somebody who is afk should not be able to have a direct effect / influence within game.
Yes somebody who was afk has never killed anybody, the issue is that you never know if that person is afk or not.
I do not agree cloaks need fuel or a timer as this has for too much potential to hurt other area's of the game.
I would much prefer to introduce a new class of ship, say a destroyer and new types of probes to help scan down cloaked ships.
The way it would work would be that the scan time would be a lot longer then normal probes and only the new ship type can equip the probes.
If the person is not afk and is moving around there is no problem as it would be impossible to scan them due to the scan time.
However if the person goes afk they run the risk of being detected.
I do not see anything wrong with this. |
Azrael Dinn
The 20th Legion Mildly Sober
13
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 10:08:00 -
[88] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote: ........
Like I said that if you do not have any solutions for this then do not post. You realy need to be realy dense to not understand that. ^^
I'm saying it's broken and I want to hear solutions for it not crying that it's not broken. If the fuel idea is bad then present a better one. |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc
424
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 13:41:00 -
[89] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:I understand the sentiment that somebody who is afk should not be able to have a direct effect / influence within game.
Yes somebody who was afk has never killed anybody, the issue is that you never know if that person is afk or not.
I do not agree cloaks need fuel or a timer as this has for too much potential to hurt other area's of the game.
I would much prefer to introduce a new class of ship, say a destroyer and new types of probes to help scan down cloaked ships.
The way it would work would be that the scan time would be a lot longer then normal probes and only the new ship type can equip the probes.
If the person is not afk and is moving around there is no problem as it would be impossible to scan them due to the scan time.
However if the person goes afk they run the risk of being detected.
I do not see anything wrong with this.
That'd still utterly destroy wormhole space, as the presence of sigs (even if it took a long time to scan) would tell you if/how many cloaked ships are in your system.
You seem to be arguing against not knowing whether someone is afk or not (rather than cloaked ships being "invincible" like some others make a point of), but I still disagree with the existence of any issue. You don't know if that player is active and you SHOULDN'T know if they're active, imo. You shouldn't be able to just know that kind of thing. If a player wants to appear afk to lull someone into a false sense of security they should be able to. Your destroyer idea would prevent that kind of metagaming, shrinking the sandbox purely for the benefit of cowardly null ratters/miners who want perfect safety in 0.0 of all places. |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc
424
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 13:45:00 -
[90] - Quote
Azrael Dinn wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote: ........
Like I said that if you do not have any solutions for this then do not post. You realy need to be realy dense to not understand that. ^^ I'm saying it's broken and I want to hear solutions for it not crying that it's not broken. If the fuel idea is bad then present a better one.
The reason I don't have any solutions is because there isn't a problem. Regarding point 4 in the earlier post, you went on to explain that you can (and I assume do?) just move system to do your business, leaving the afk in an empty system - which you claimed was a problem. I explicitly asked how that's a problem, because it doesn't make a lick of sense. A single player, entirely by himself in a system, is not at his keyboard. How is that a problem? You're demanding solutions and trying to dismiss me because I didn't provide any, but you can't even say what the problem is. How can you expect solutions if you can't define the issue?
PS "really". Two L's. |
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1054
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 06:40:00 -
[91] - Quote
Azrael Dinn wrote: I'm saying it's broken and I want to hear solutions for it not crying that it's not broken. If the fuel idea is bad then present a better one.
You saying its broken is simply an opinion. You have the right to that opinion, and you used it to post a thread. What you do not have is the right to deny somebody else the ability to post thier opinion.
You made a thread on a public forum with your opinion, you're now finding other people who's opinion differs from yours.
They are telling you there is no problem and thus no sollution required, welcome to whats called "interacting with people", you seem rusty, if I were you I'd work on it.
|
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc
430
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 12:56:00 -
[92] - Quote
Remove cloakies from local. Everybody wins. |
Devon Krah'tor
Magis.Erudire.Ratus.Knoen
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 22:50:00 -
[93] - Quote
in game mechanic that has an appreciable effect (phsych warfare) has exactly zero direct counters, unless you go with: have a large fleet on standby 23/7 in every system with an AFK cloaker.
That seems to define a broken mechanic.
AFK miner? gank
AFK hauler? gank
Not easy, yes, but Possible.
find a cloaked ship in a solar system by moving with 2000 meters of him? possible? yes... likely? uhmm ... nope.
CCP please create another T2 Destroyer with a anti cloak role. Cloak disruptor Probe: X% chance to disrupt all cloaks in Y(Distance) (X based on Y)
Cloaking Modules can be re-engaged normally after (very short) cooldown timer (give active probers a chance to hunt for ship before it cloaks again.
Problems solved :)
And yes, removing cloaks from Local is also a good idea. Greater.Insight.Skill.Knowledge |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc
430
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 07:58:00 -
[94] - Quote
Devon Krah'tor wrote:in game mechanic that has an appreciable effect (phsych warfare) has exactly zero direct counters, unless you go with: have a large fleet on standby 23/7 in every system with an AFK cloaker.
That seems to define a broken mechanic.
AFK miner? gank
AFK hauler? gank
Not easy, yes, but Possible.
find a cloaked ship in a solar system by moving with 2000 meters of him? possible? yes... likely? uhmm ... nope.
CCP please create another T2 Destroyer with a anti cloak role. Cloak disruptor Probe: X% chance to disrupt all cloaks in Y(Distance) (X based on Y)
Cloaking Modules can be re-engaged normally after (very short) cooldown timer (give active probers a chance to hunt for ship before it cloaks again.
Problems solved :)
And yes, removing cloaks from Local is also a good idea.
If the only effect afk cloaks have is psychological warfare then the counter is don't fall for it. There absolutely does not need to be a "counter" to AFK players. I'm sick of hearing this dumb argument from cowardly nullbears.
And, again, anti-cloaking ships or probes would utterly destroy several areas of the game. Stop bloody suggesting it. |
Jint Hikaru
OffWorld Exploration Inc
347
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 08:00:00 -
[95] - Quote
Devon Krah'tor wrote: CCP please create another T2 Destroyer with a anti cloak role. Cloak disruptor Probe: X% chance to disrupt all cloaks in Y(Distance) (X based on Y)
Cloaking Modules can be re-engaged normally after (very short) cooldown timer (give active probers a chance to hunt for ship before it cloaks again.
Problems solved :)
And yes, removing cloaks from Local is also a good idea.
This kind of gives active cloakers a huge shafting..... (depending on how far you are talking about for 'Y'
Plus it could really ruin Wormholes.... ping your dissruptor and click D-Scan. any hidden hostiles in your WH will be listed.
Jint Hikaru - Miner / Salvager / Explorer / SpaceBum In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. |
TheBlueMonkey
Don't Be a Menace
179
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 09:27:00 -
[96] - Quote
Azrael Dinn wrote:Topic says it all.
Why:
1. You are not playing the game but yet you still are
2. Your getting an indirect benefits in many ways and your still not playing the game
I don't realy care how this is dealt with. My solution would be a heavy water fuel bay to the claoks but thats my idea.
Now lets hear the whines next.
Also remove the ability to list things on the market or remove the items you've listed when you log off.
Also, skill training should only train while you're logged on.
Also, production runs should only run while you're logged on
Also, research should only run while you're logged on.
Also, sov should only be held while at least 1 member of your alliance is logged on
etc etc etc etc etc
You're playing the wrong game if you think that the person playing AFK is the reason you keep failing. |
Devon Krah'tor
Magis.Erudire.Ratus.Knoen
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 12:03:00 -
[97] - Quote
Jint Hikaru wrote:Devon Krah'tor wrote: CCP please create another T2 Destroyer with a anti cloak role. Cloak disruptor Probe: X% chance to disrupt all cloaks in Y(Distance) (X based on Y)
Cloaking Modules can be re-engaged normally after (very short) cooldown timer (give active probers a chance to hunt for ship before it cloaks again.
Problems solved :)
And yes, removing cloaks from Local is also a good idea.
This kind of gives active cloakers a huge shafting..... (depending on how far you are talking about for 'Y' Plus it could really ruin Wormholes.... ping your dissruptor and click D-Scan. any hidden hostiles in your WH will be listed.
Hence why Disruptor has X% chance based off Y(range) the specifics would be up to CCP to sort out, however the range wouldn't touch the entire solar system, something like a 1-4 AU bubble. The presence of this unique ship on the active cloakers DScan would alert him to the danger so he could himself move out of range.
I'm not suggesting an IWIN ship vs cloakers, I'm suggesting something with a chance to detect them. btw this T2 Destroyer would also be gimped somewhat by the Cloak Disruptor fit (like the cov-ops/t3 ships are) Greater.Insight.Skill.Knowledge |
Devon Krah'tor
Magis.Erudire.Ratus.Knoen
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 12:11:00 -
[98] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:Devon Krah'tor wrote:in game mechanic that has an appreciable effect (phsych warfare) has exactly zero direct counters, unless you go with: have a large fleet on standby 23/7 in every system with an AFK cloaker.
That seems to define a broken mechanic.
AFK miner? gank
AFK hauler? gank
Not easy, yes, but Possible.
find a cloaked ship in a solar system by moving with 2000 meters of him? possible? yes... likely? uhmm ... nope.
CCP please create another T2 Destroyer with a anti cloak role. Cloak disruptor Probe: X% chance to disrupt all cloaks in Y(Distance) (X based on Y)
Cloaking Modules can be re-engaged normally after (very short) cooldown timer (give active probers a chance to hunt for ship before it cloaks again.
Problems solved :)
And yes, removing cloaks from Local is also a good idea. If the only effect afk cloaks have is psychological warfare then the counter is don't fall for it. There absolutely does not need to be a "counter" to AFK players. I'm sick of hearing this dumb argument from cowardly nullbears. And, again, anti-cloaking ships or probes would utterly destroy several areas of the game. Stop bloody suggesting it.
You have a very binary thought process. I am suggesting a ship that could engage in a hunt for a cloaked ship, not push a button and instantly reveal all cloakers in the system.
I'm not a 'cowardly nullbear' I'm a player of this game and I think being able to perform a task in the game of eve without an appreciable chance of being countered by another player to be a broker mechanic.
I assume you either profit from this mechanic personally, are unable to coherently think through the possibility of creating a ship that could actively search for an active cloaker (who could spot him on DSCAN and actively evade)
It makes perfect sense that covert ops would have counter cover ops working against them. Stop defending a broken bloody game mechanic.
Greater.Insight.Skill.Knowledge |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc
431
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 14:45:00 -
[99] - Quote
Devon Krah'tor wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:Devon Krah'tor wrote:in game mechanic that has an appreciable effect (phsych warfare) has exactly zero direct counters, unless you go with: have a large fleet on standby 23/7 in every system with an AFK cloaker.
That seems to define a broken mechanic.
AFK miner? gank
AFK hauler? gank
Not easy, yes, but Possible.
find a cloaked ship in a solar system by moving with 2000 meters of him? possible? yes... likely? uhmm ... nope.
CCP please create another T2 Destroyer with a anti cloak role. Cloak disruptor Probe: X% chance to disrupt all cloaks in Y(Distance) (X based on Y)
Cloaking Modules can be re-engaged normally after (very short) cooldown timer (give active probers a chance to hunt for ship before it cloaks again.
Problems solved :)
And yes, removing cloaks from Local is also a good idea. If the only effect afk cloaks have is psychological warfare then the counter is don't fall for it. There absolutely does not need to be a "counter" to AFK players. I'm sick of hearing this dumb argument from cowardly nullbears. And, again, anti-cloaking ships or probes would utterly destroy several areas of the game. Stop bloody suggesting it. You have a very binary thought process. I am suggesting a ship that could engage in a hunt for a cloaked ship, not push a button and instantly reveal all cloakers in the system. I'm not a 'cowardly nullbear' I'm a player of this game and I think being able to perform a task in the game of eve without an appreciable chance of being countered by another player to be a broker mechanic. I assume you either profit from this mechanic personally, are unable to coherently think through the possibility of creating a ship that could actively search for an active cloaker (who could spot him on DSCAN and actively evade) It makes perfect sense that covert ops would have counter cover ops working against them. Stop defending a broken bloody game mechanic.
I have a very binary thought process regarding this issue because it is a very binary issue. Introducing a ship or probe or some other mechanic to detect cloaked ships utterly destroys wormhole space. Even if you make it a convoluted or timeconsuming process, or even if you give it some %chance to not find anything on a given scan, it still wrecks wormhole mechanics. A deliberate design of wormhole mechanics was the inability to detect cloaked players at all. Introducing a mechanic to detect them, regardless of what limits you put on it, undermines that.
Additionally, it doesn't solve any "problem" because there is no "problem". You're suggesting things that have nothing but negatives, all because your psyche is so frail and battered that a single other player (in a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER game at that) who isn't even there causes you to freak out and stop what you're doing/quit.
It's ridiculous. HTFU or go back to hisec.
Edit: As for "counters"... AFK players do not need a counter. I do not see you suggesting things that would allow me to kill you when you're AFK in your pos or outpost, so it's a bit hypocritical to be demanding mechanics to kill other AFK players because the mere sight of them causes you to inconvenience yourself.
On top of that, cloaks are already balanced. There are plenty of limitations put on ships capable of cloaking, so by themselves they're not much of a threat even if they're active. |
Devon Krah'tor
Magis.Erudire.Ratus.Knoen
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 15:02:00 -
[100] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:Devon Krah'tor wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:Devon Krah'tor wrote:in game mechanic that has an appreciable effect (phsych warfare) has exactly zero direct counters, unless you go with: have a large fleet on standby 23/7 in every system with an AFK cloaker.
That seems to define a broken mechanic.
AFK miner? gank
AFK hauler? gank
Not easy, yes, but Possible.
find a cloaked ship in a solar system by moving with 2000 meters of him? possible? yes... likely? uhmm ... nope.
CCP please create another T2 Destroyer with a anti cloak role. Cloak disruptor Probe: X% chance to disrupt all cloaks in Y(Distance) (X based on Y)
Cloaking Modules can be re-engaged normally after (very short) cooldown timer (give active probers a chance to hunt for ship before it cloaks again.
Problems solved :)
And yes, removing cloaks from Local is also a good idea. If the only effect afk cloaks have is psychological warfare then the counter is don't fall for it. There absolutely does not need to be a "counter" to AFK players. I'm sick of hearing this dumb argument from cowardly nullbears. And, again, anti-cloaking ships or probes would utterly destroy several areas of the game. Stop bloody suggesting it. You have a very binary thought process. I am suggesting a ship that could engage in a hunt for a cloaked ship, not push a button and instantly reveal all cloakers in the system. I'm not a 'cowardly nullbear' I'm a player of this game and I think being able to perform a task in the game of eve without an appreciable chance of being countered by another player to be a broker mechanic. I assume you either profit from this mechanic personally, are unable to coherently think through the possibility of creating a ship that could actively search for an active cloaker (who could spot him on DSCAN and actively evade) It makes perfect sense that covert ops would have counter cover ops working against them. Stop defending a broken bloody game mechanic. I have a very binary thought process regarding this issue because it is a very binary issue. Introducing a ship or probe or some other mechanic to detect cloaked ships utterly destroys wormhole space. Even if you make it a convoluted or timeconsuming process, or even if you give it some %chance to not find anything on a given scan, it still wrecks wormhole mechanics. A deliberate design of wormhole mechanics was the inability to detect cloaked players at all. Introducing a mechanic to detect them, regardless of what limits you put on it, undermines that. Additionally, it doesn't solve any "problem" because there is no "problem". You're suggesting things that have nothing but negatives, all because your psyche is so frail and battered that a single other player (in a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER game at that) who isn't even there causes you to freak out and stop what you're doing/quit. It's ridiculous. HTFU or go back to hisec. Edit: As for "counters"... AFK players do not need a counter. I do not see you suggesting things that would allow me to kill you when you're AFK in your pos or outpost, so it's a bit hypocritical to be demanding mechanics to kill other AFK players because the mere sight of them causes you to inconvenience yourself. On top of that, cloaks are already balanced. There are plenty of limitations put on ships capable of cloaking, so by themselves they're not much of a threat even if they're active.
First explain how introducing a new ship with a specialized module that has the ability to, with skill, have a chance to temporarily disable all cloaks will 'destroy' WH space.
Considering its a specialized ship, would its presence not alert the cov-op pilot to the potential danger? Perhaps use a fuel cost or charges, perhaps a huge cool down or massive cap usage to 'fire' the disruptor so as to not make it spammable.
AFK in POS - Can Seige said POS, with a greater chance of success than moving within 2000m of the cloaker in system. AFK in Station - granted, you cannot Pod individual, however an alliance can take over the station and remove his ability to redock with a greter chance of success than moving within 2000m of the cloaker in system.
LOL frail and battered psyche, that's cute. Anyway as I previously stated I play this game and I seek to improve it. Likewise I haven't demanded anything, only suggested something that in fact existed and continues to exist in reality, as allowing an enemies submarine free reign in your waters without any ability to hunt for it is very dangerous (see WWII, battle for the atlantic)
Perhaps the crux of this (obviously highly emotionally charged) discussion is the need to differentiate between types of cloak. One for the Spy, and one for the Ambusher?
The spy could continue to gather information without risk, only his time and effort.
The ambusher could be revealed by the Disruptor, but has a ship-type that is more capable in combat than the spy.
Greater.Insight.Skill.Knowledge |
|
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc
432
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 08:01:00 -
[101] - Quote
Devon Krah'tor wrote:First explain how introducing a new ship with a specialized module that has the ability to, with skill, have a chance to temporarily disable all cloaks will 'destroy' WH space.
Considering its a specialized ship, would its presence not alert the cov-op pilot to the potential danger? Perhaps use a fuel cost or charges, perhaps a huge cool down or massive cap usage to 'fire' the disruptor so as to not make it spammable.
AFK in POS - Can Seige said POS, with a greater chance of success than moving within 2000m of the cloaker in system. AFK in Station - granted, you cannot Pod individual, however an alliance can take over the station and remove his ability to redock with a greter chance of success than moving within 2000m of the cloaker in system.
LOL frail and battered psyche, that's cute. Anyway as I previously stated I play this game and I seek to improve it. Likewise I haven't demanded anything, only suggested something that in fact existed and continues to exist in reality, as allowing an enemies submarine free reign in your waters without any ability to hunt for it is very dangerous (see WWII, battle for the atlantic)
Perhaps the crux of this (obviously highly emotionally charged) discussion is the need to differentiate between types of cloak. One for the Spy, and one for the Ambusher?
The spy could continue to gather information without risk, only his time and effort.
The ambusher could be revealed by the Disruptor, but has a ship-type that is more capable in combat than the spy.
Because as I've already said, the inability to know if there are cloaked ships in wormhole space is a deliberate design. Adding a ship that will, with a few clicks, tell you if/how many cloaked ships are in the wormhole defeats the god damn point. You may not be too familiar with wormhole mechanics or the typical styles of gameplay, but take it from people who've spent years doing it: Introducing a ship or mechanic that'll not only tell you cloaked ships are there but let you find them is horrific, and destroys what makes wormhole space unique and interesting. You claim it's presence would alert the cov-ops pilot... but what relevance does that have? Great, they know that the enemy knows they are present (despite wormhole space being specifically designed to prevent that)... now what? The jig is up, already. Good job ruining an entire area of space with your peabrained idea.
As for sieging a pos or taking over an outpost... they both take a lot of effort and provide the person sitting in them ample time and opportunity to get out safely, additionally sieging a pos or taking over an outpost doesn't undermine core mechanics of 0.0 space.
You want to improve the game, and I appreciate the good intentions, but take it from someone who actually knows: Your suggestion would make the game worse in many ways. |
Devon Krah'tor
Magis.Erudire.Ratus.Knoen
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 11:57:00 -
[102] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:Devon Krah'tor wrote:First explain how introducing a new ship with a specialized module that has the ability to, with skill, have a chance to temporarily disable all cloaks will 'destroy' WH space.
Considering its a specialized ship, would its presence not alert the cov-op pilot to the potential danger? Perhaps use a fuel cost or charges, perhaps a huge cool down or massive cap usage to 'fire' the disruptor so as to not make it spammable.
AFK in POS - Can Seige said POS, with a greater chance of success than moving within 2000m of the cloaker in system. AFK in Station - granted, you cannot Pod individual, however an alliance can take over the station and remove his ability to redock with a greter chance of success than moving within 2000m of the cloaker in system.
LOL frail and battered psyche, that's cute. Anyway as I previously stated I play this game and I seek to improve it. Likewise I haven't demanded anything, only suggested something that in fact existed and continues to exist in reality, as allowing an enemies submarine free reign in your waters without any ability to hunt for it is very dangerous (see WWII, battle for the atlantic)
Perhaps the crux of this (obviously highly emotionally charged) discussion is the need to differentiate between types of cloak. One for the Spy, and one for the Ambusher?
The spy could continue to gather information without risk, only his time and effort.
The ambusher could be revealed by the Disruptor, but has a ship-type that is more capable in combat than the spy.
Because as I've already said, the inability to know if there are cloaked ships in wormhole space is a deliberate design. Adding a ship that will, with a few clicks, tell you if/how many cloaked ships are in the wormhole defeats the god damn point. You may not be too familiar with wormhole mechanics or the typical styles of gameplay, but take it from people who've spent years doing it: Introducing a ship or mechanic that'll not only tell you cloaked ships are there but let you find them is horrific, and destroys what makes wormhole space unique and interesting. You claim it's presence would alert the cov-ops pilot... but what relevance does that have? Great, they know that the enemy knows they are present (despite wormhole space being specifically designed to prevent that)... now what? The jig is up, already. Good job ruining an entire area of space with your peabrained idea. As for sieging a pos or taking over an outpost... they both take a lot of effort and provide the person sitting in them ample time and opportunity to get out safely, additionally sieging a pos or taking over an outpost doesn't undermine core mechanics of 0.0 space. You want to improve the game, and I appreciate the good intentions, but take it from someone who actually knows: Your suggestion would make the game worse in many ways.
mmm clever use of the word 'peabrained' I like what you did there. And although such infallible logic has rocked me back to my heels, I will nevertheless attempt a rebuttal
The premise of your entire argument is thus : it will ruin WSpace, as this area of the game is designed around the concept of stealth and cloaking. Fine, so WSpace eminations alter/eliminate using a disruptor, which is btw mounted on your ship, not a probe you launch. Now WSpace is maintained as it is and working as intended. You can breathe a sigh of relieif.
I would ask you now then why A) Cloaks should show up in Local. Why the creation of a second type of cloak, specifically fit for combat cov ops ships (versus purely information gathering ones) wouldn't eleviate that problem. And how these two changes wouldn't in fact go hand in hand with a disruptor module, mounted on a specialized hull that could detect/disrupt the Ambusher Cloak (for combat ships)
Yes seiging a POS or a Station are hard. Finding a Cloaking and flying within 2000m of him in a solar system are a c%$t hair short of impossible.
If I was so inclined, I could create 1000 subscriptions, train them to fly a covops and flood nullsec with AFK cloakers. Imagine the tears.
Is this a mechanic your willing to defend without comprimise? Greater.Insight.Skill.Knowledge |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1340
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 20:38:00 -
[103] - Quote
The problem with the disruptor ship is that it does something than no other ship (or ship based module) in EVE can do: apply an effect across a whole system.
This is a bit OP (about as much as the old AOE DD imo) and if you limit it in any way so that it is not OP, you make it only useful against active cloakers and hence does nothing to "counter" afk cloakers.
Edit2: read back a bit more carefully, and this was not entirely what was suggested. I apologize for derping and you may return to your semi-debate.
Edit: and anyone who gives tears over 1 potentially afk guy is a fool. There are plenty of options to deal with invaders, and there are many systems that do not have afk cloakers (or anyone for that matter). |
Devon Krah'tor
Magis.Erudire.Ratus.Knoen
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 22:13:00 -
[104] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:The problem with the disruptor ship is that it does something than no other ship (or ship based module) in EVE can do: apply an effect across a whole system.
This is a bit OP (about as much as the old AOE DD imo) and if you limit it in any way so that it is not OP, you make it only useful against active cloakers and hence does nothing to "counter" afk cloakers.
Edit2: read back a bit more carefully, and this was not entirely what was suggested. I apologize for derping and you may return to your semi-debate.
Edit: and anyone who gives tears over 1 potentially afk guy is a fool. There are plenty of options to deal with invaders, and there are many systems that do not have afk cloakers (or anyone for that matter).
I see your point and raise you 1 off grid boosting ship.
PS never stated Cloak disruptor had to have a system wide range, probably in the AUs though.
Again, allow me suggest another type of cloak (Ambusher) that can be fitted by combat ships that can be countered with disruptor. Cov-Ops (intelligence gathering) ships can retain the old (Spy) type cloak and remain utterly undetectable.
Greater.Insight.Skill.Knowledge |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1340
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 01:09:00 -
[105] - Quote
Devon Krah'tor wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:The problem with the disruptor ship is that it does something than no other ship (or ship based module) in EVE can do: apply an effect across a whole system.
This is a bit OP (about as much as the old AOE DD imo) and if you limit it in any way so that it is not OP, you make it only useful against active cloakers and hence does nothing to "counter" afk cloakers.
Edit2: read back a bit more carefully, and this was not entirely what was suggested. I apologize for derping and you may return to your semi-debate.
Edit: and anyone who gives tears over 1 potentially afk guy is a fool. There are plenty of options to deal with invaders, and there are many systems that do not have afk cloakers (or anyone for that matter). I see your point and raise you 1 off grid boosting ship. PS never stated Cloak disruptor had to have a system wide range, probably in the AUs though. Again, allow me suggest another type of cloak (Ambusher) that can be fitted by combat ships that can be countered with disruptor. Cov-Ops (intelligence gathering) ships can retain the old (Spy) type cloak and remain utterly undetectable. Note: I did edit after I realized I misunderstood. Also I forgot about offgrid boosting... which I have been against for quite a while.
Your two cloak idea would not have any effect whatsoever on afk cloaking (because an afk cloaker of the kind people worry most about is not a combat ship, rather a covert ops with cyno).
There is simply no idea (that modifies cloaking mechanics or cloaks) that would do anything to afk cloakers without making active cloak activities much more difficult or tedious than they already are. Yet. I've been thinking for a long while on this. If anyone comes up with one, I might even buy them a PLEX. Maybe. Not committing to that though. |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc
439
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 11:25:00 -
[106] - Quote
Devon Krah'tor wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:Because as I've already said, the inability to know if there are cloaked ships in wormhole space is a deliberate design. Adding a ship that will, with a few clicks, tell you if/how many cloaked ships are in the wormhole defeats the god damn point. You may not be too familiar with wormhole mechanics or the typical styles of gameplay, but take it from people who've spent years doing it: Introducing a ship or mechanic that'll not only tell you cloaked ships are there but let you find them is horrific, and destroys what makes wormhole space unique and interesting. You claim it's presence would alert the cov-ops pilot... but what relevance does that have? Great, they know that the enemy knows they are present (despite wormhole space being specifically designed to prevent that)... now what? The jig is up, already. Good job ruining an entire area of space with your peabrained idea.
As for sieging a pos or taking over an outpost... they both take a lot of effort and provide the person sitting in them ample time and opportunity to get out safely, additionally sieging a pos or taking over an outpost doesn't undermine core mechanics of 0.0 space.
You want to improve the game, and I appreciate the good intentions, but take it from someone who actually knows: Your suggestion would make the game worse in many ways. mmm clever use of the word 'peabrained' I like what you did there. And although such infallible logic has rocked me back to my heels, I will nevertheless attempt a rebuttal The premise of your entire argument is thus : it will ruin WSpace, as this area of the game is designed around the concept of stealth and cloaking. Fine, so WSpace eminations alter/eliminate using a disruptor, which is btw mounted on your ship, not a probe you launch. Now WSpace is maintained as it is and working as intended. You can breathe a sigh of relieif. I would ask you now then why A) Cloaks should show up in Local. Why the creation of a second type of cloak, specifically fit for combat cov ops ships (versus purely information gathering ones) wouldn't eleviate that problem. And how these two changes wouldn't in fact go hand in hand with a disruptor module, mounted on a specialized hull that could detect/disrupt the Ambusher Cloak (for combat ships) Yes seiging a POS or a Station are hard. Finding a Cloaking and flying within 2000m of him in a solar system are a c%$t hair short of impossible. If I was so inclined, I could create 1000 subscriptions, train them to fly a covops and flood nullsec with AFK cloakers. Imagine the tears. Is this a mechanic your willing to defend without comprimise?
Yes, I am. I'll get to why in a moment.
First, I am glad you appreciate how destructive such a ship (or other similar suggestions) would be to wormhole mechanics, and of course disallowing the use of such a ship (or similar mechanic) in wormhole space would of course preserve the glorious, superior mechanics of wormhole space. It'd feel a bit clunky to say "ah! But ... strange system effect! Just so happens you can't use that ship now!", but it'd at least preserve the sanctity of wormholes.
However, I still entirely disagree with such a ship because there are, again, legitimate activities and playstyles in nullsec space which would be massively hindered. I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but long term reconnaissance missions, whether it's observing an enemy fleet, or waiting in a strategic location to provide jump/warp in points, etc rely on the ability to sit cloaked in one location for extended periods of time. I feel that being able to locate these brave agents is detrimental to the game, as it helps entrench residents/defenders by making even simple acts of observing them or getting in position much more difficult. There are further arguments in favour of cloaking, such as countering the stupid, instant and infallible local tool by introducing doubt - are you there, or are you afk? Some kind of mechanic to detect stationary cloaked ships would remove this doubt, providing people with even more security and intel than they already have, and remove the one tiny thing players can do to help counter the overpowered local tool. No to that, I say.
And above all else, I don't understand why you feel you should have the right to find and kill afk players in your system anyway. You already have every advantage, yet you are so mad that they simply have the ability to sit in your system doing nothing? Pah.
As for you creating an army of afk alts, yes, I fully support that. I will defend that without question or compromise. As they're all afk and incapable of doing anything, there is no problem. It may scare some local bears to see "twonk1, twonk2, twonk3..." etc in local, and they may think theres a big fleet out to get them but the ability to employ such forms psychological warfare and meta-gaming are what elevate EVE Online above the wow-level dreck that MMO game space is dominated by. |
Devon Krah'tor
Magis.Erudire.Ratus.Knoen
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 16:04:00 -
[107] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
However, I still entirely disagree with such a ship because there are, again, legitimate activities and playstyles in nullsec space which would be massively hindered. I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but long term reconnaissance missions, whether it's observing an enemy fleet, or waiting in a strategic location to provide jump/warp in points, etc rely on the ability to sit cloaked in one location for extended periods of time. I feel that being able to locate these brave agents is detrimental to the game, as it helps entrench residents/defenders by making even simple acts of observing them or getting in position much more difficult. There are further arguments in favour of cloaking, such as countering the stupid, instant and infallible local tool by introducing doubt - are you there, or are you afk? Some kind of mechanic to detect stationary cloaked ships would remove this doubt, providing people with even more security and intel than they already have, and remove the one tiny thing players can do to help counter the overpowered local tool. No to that, I say.
And above all else, I don't understand why you feel you should have the right to find and kill afk players in your system anyway. You already have every advantage, yet you are so mad that they simply have the ability to sit in your system doing nothing? Pah.
As for you creating an army of afk alts, yes, I fully support that. I will defend that without question or compromise. As they're all afk and incapable of doing anything, there is no problem. It may scare some local bears to see "twonk1, twonk2, twonk3..." etc in local, and they may think theres a big fleet out to get them but the ability to employ such forms psychological warfare and meta-gaming are what elevate EVE Online above the wow-level dreck that MMO game space is dominated by.
Ok so then I need 10,000 subscriptions and to afk cloak 1 system at a time (preferably an enemy staging system or other strategically important location) perhaps cashing the node. Get the point? no counter = potential for abuse. Eve needs to move towards a full PvP/Sandbox style and away from this sandbox with the grade 3 teacher watching version of it. Which means every action must have a way to stop it/negate it/deal with it etc... by the Player Base
You have highlighted several concerns with being able to reveal or detect a cloaked ship which show me that 1)there is a serious problem with the existing system and 2) the solution rests with the creation of new mechanics, adjustment of old ones.
A) revamp of the DScanner (a very cool idea, needs to updated badly) https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=112964&find=unread this seems to be going in the right direction.
B) creation of 2 or more cloaks, revision on how they actually work and what hulls can use them. Example: 'Spy' T2 Cloak - Covops only. cannot be revealed by Disruptor(Basically the cloak we have now, except cannot use covert cyno). 'Ambusher' T2 Cloak - Recon and above very fast lock time when uncloaking. can be disrupted. can use covert cyno)
C) creation of some kind of cloak disruptor which cannot affect purely information gathering cloakers only those fit for a combat role. That is to say that a cloaker operating on the strategic level, not tactical cannot be revealed by any means. He poses no direct physical threat and thus should not be threatened physically. i.e. can't affect Spy, can affect Ambusher
When in doubt, look at a real-world military. If the enemy can do something and nobody can find any way to counter or deal with it... that's a problem.
edit: and no HTFU is not a reasoned response to a strategic imbalance in a game. Also I am not mad, upset, crying etc. I happen to be a member of a military in RL and so generally have an interest in balancing the amazing shared hallucination that is eve online. Greater.Insight.Skill.Knowledge |
Michael Loney
Skullspace Industries
32
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 18:26:00 -
[108] - Quote
Remove AFK | Cloaking
There are 2 distinct parts here:
1) AFK - Mining - Ratting - Hauling - Market trading
2) Cloaking - Intel spy - Cyno drop - 'Safe' travel - Bombing - Terrorizing - Bounty hunting
Please pick one and make arguments on it separately, then check to make sure your suggestion does not negatively impact any of the other listed areas. If it does, go back to the drawing board and start over. After finding your best answer please post it along with all your back research for peer review.
That is all. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
10672
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 18:33:00 -
[109] - Quote
Devon Krah'tor wrote:edit: and no HTFU is not a reasoned response to a strategic imbalance in a game. Also I am not mad, upset, crying etc. I happen to be a member of a military in RL and so generally have an interest in balancing the amazing shared hallucination that is eve online. But it is balanced. The difference is local's intel is guaranteed, whereas the psychological effects from AFKing are not.
Plus, why shouldn't there be psychological warfare in this game? I think it's a great addition.
Let's face it, when they decloak, they are just as killable as you. This really is a none issue and you can take precautions. Sure you may still diaf, but as I said, the only guarantee here is the easy mode local intel.
Want changes to cloaks? Then let's deal with the reason for AFKing first please.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Devon Krah'tor
Magis.Erudire.Ratus.Knoen
5
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 18:46:00 -
[110] - Quote
Mag's wrote: Plus, why shouldn't there be psychological warfare in this game? I think it's a great addition.
Let's face it, when they decloak, they are just as killable as you. This really is a none issue and you can take precautions. Sure you may still diaf, but as I said, the only guarantee here is the easy mode local intel.
Want changes to cloaks? Then let's deal with the reason for AFKing first please.
Not to invalidate your perspective, I'd like to get into that shortly. However I have yet to receive a response to the proposal of diversifying cloaking modules based on task and effectiveness, versus one Uber cloak. Would really appreciate some feedback. Also considering within that suggestion, is the allowance to maintain undiscoverable cloaking as it stands.
but perhaps that is for another thread. Either way. Lets look at the reasonhs for AFKing. I presume you have some ideas, as you brought it up. Greater.Insight.Skill.Knowledge |
|
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1340
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 00:48:00 -
[111] - Quote
Devon Krah'tor wrote:Mag's wrote: Plus, why shouldn't there be psychological warfare in this game? I think it's a great addition.
Let's face it, when they decloak, they are just as killable as you. This really is a none issue and you can take precautions. Sure you may still diaf, but as I said, the only guarantee here is the easy mode local intel.
Want changes to cloaks? Then let's deal with the reason for AFKing first please.
Not to invalidate your perspective, I'd like to get into that shortly. However I have yet to receive a response to the proposal of diversifying cloaking modules based on task and effectiveness, versus one Uber cloak. Would really appreciate some feedback. Also considering within that suggestion, is the allowance to maintain undiscoverable cloaking as it stands. but perhaps that is for another thread. Either way. Lets look at the reasonhs for AFKing. I presume you have some ideas, as you brought it up. I've mentioned the biggest issue with that idea. It does nothing to solve afk cloaking, just adds unnecessary complexity.
An afk cloaker would just make sure to use the same setup as the active spy, and thus will still be "invincible".
All the idea would do is make Devs work more and make cloaky hunters have a little more risk in an already highly risky, low reward profession (either that or I just suck with bombers ).
There simply is no way (still considering betting a PLEX on this) to hinder afk cloakers without making things more difficult for active cloak activities, some of which are already difficult and risky for very little reward (note: while modifying cloaking itself). There may be a way to remove the silly terror that is afk cloaking, but the answer lies with the other mechanics responsible, not cloaking (cynos, local, etc). Or just growing up and learning the many ways to deal with potential intruders already used by WH corps and a few sov holders.
EDIT: Devon thank you for at least being reasonable with your debate style. I really like the lack of personal attacks and whining. rare thing, but makes these discussions actually enjoyable. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
10672
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 11:29:00 -
[112] - Quote
Devon Krah'tor wrote:Mag's wrote: Plus, why shouldn't there be psychological warfare in this game? I think it's a great addition.
Let's face it, when they decloak, they are just as killable as you. This really is a none issue and you can take precautions. Sure you may still diaf, but as I said, the only guarantee here is the easy mode local intel.
Want changes to cloaks? Then let's deal with the reason for AFKing first please.
Not to invalidate your perspective, I'd like to get into that shortly. However I have yet to receive a response to the proposal of diversifying cloaking modules based on task and effectiveness, versus one Uber cloak. Would really appreciate some feedback. Also considering within that suggestion, is the allowance to maintain undiscoverable cloaking as it stands. but perhaps that is for another thread. Either way. Lets look at the reasonhs for AFKing. I presume you have some ideas, as you brought it up. My perspective that psychological warfare is a great addition, could indeed be argued either way.
As far as the different cloaks idea is concerned, I refer once more to my post. Let's sort out the reason for AFKing first, then let's look at cloaks. Even with this diversifying cloaks idea, you end up gaining more intel power on top of the already powerful local intel tool. That surely cannot be seen, as a balanced approach.
That being said, I actually like the status quo and don't wish for any changes. But if you want cloaks to change, then local should be changed to stop it's easy mode intel system. The fact that you can AFK without a cloak and gain the same psychological effects, means your focus should be on local. If indeed AFKing is your target.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow The Revenant Order
774
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 19:00:00 -
[113] - Quote
This again?
Working as intended, HTFU, find some friends to watch your back, STFU, stop ****posting your *****tears all over the forum, buy some tampons as you need them apparently, and quit *****ing.
Furthermore:
- Give me your stuff - Biomass queue is over "War is not measured in terms of who wins or loses, who is right or wrong.-á It is measured in terms of who survives." |
Devon Krah'tor
Magis.Erudire.Ratus.Knoen
8
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 21:26:00 -
[114] - Quote
Jack Carrigan wrote:This again? Working as intended, HTFU, find some friends to watch your back, STFU, stop ****posting your *****tears all over the forum, buy some tampons as you need them apparently, and quit *****ing. Furthermore: - Give me your stuff - Biomass queue is over
allow me to translate this into big boy adult talk for everyone else
"oh god please don't change the game I'm afraid of change its like leaving my parents basement please godno" now hush... the adults are talking.
If I walk away with one thing from this thread, its that there are several issues all woven together making the fix for these issues bigger then sliding a bar one way or the other. I will conced that simply adding a new module to find the one covert ops cloak is an insufficient fix, and humbly retire to my lab to think this through further.
cheers, and respect to those of you capable of communicating ideas, to the rest, I appreciate the entertainment.
Douglas MacArthur "I shall return" Greater.Insight.Skill.Knowledge |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1340
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 04:46:00 -
[115] - Quote
Devon Krah'tor wrote:Jack Carrigan wrote:This again? Working as intended, HTFU, find some friends to watch your back, STFU, stop ****posting your *****tears all over the forum, buy some tampons as you need them apparently, and quit *****ing. Furthermore: - Give me your stuff - Biomass queue is over allow me to translate this into big boy adult talk for everyone else "oh god please don't change the game I'm afraid of change its like leaving my parents basement please godno" now hush... the adults are talking. If I walk away with one thing from this thread, its that there are several issues all woven together making the fix for these issues bigger then sliding a bar one way or the other. I will conced that simply adding a new module to find the one covert ops cloak is an insufficient fix, and humbly retire to my lab to think this through further. cheers, and respect to those of you capable of communicating ideas, to the rest, I appreciate the entertainment. Douglas MacArthur "I shall return" Good luck on your thinkings. I'll be around to point out flaws forever.
Seriously though, I want to hug you for being a reasonable person... very rare on these forums. You debated well, and when you felt you ran out of points, you backed off. At least I think thats what happened.
As for Jack, my guess is he didn't read past the OP... not a great idea after 6 pages.
|
Azrael Dinn
The 20th Legion Mildly Sober
13
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 07:14:00 -
[116] - Quote
Michael Loney wrote:Remove AFK | Cloaking
There are 2 distinct parts here:
1) AFK - Mining - Ratting - Hauling - Market trading
2) Cloaking - Intel spy - Cyno drop - 'Safe' travel - Bombing - Terrorizing - Bounty hunting
Please pick one and make arguments on it separately, then check to make sure your suggestion does not negatively impact any of the other listed areas. If it does, go back to the drawing board and start over. After finding your best answer please post it along with all your back research for peer review.
That is all.
No on this topic there is on "Remove AFK cloaking". There is just one part here. If we go for all AFK activities we can close the game right now cause you can list manufacturing, reserch, invention, P.I. and almost all other industry based activities to your part 1 and without those there will be no EVE cause you would not have ships to blow up. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
1073
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 09:41:00 -
[117] - Quote
Azrael Dinn wrote:Michael Loney wrote:Remove AFK | Cloaking
There are 2 distinct parts here:
1) AFK - Mining - Ratting - Hauling - Market trading
2) Cloaking - Intel spy - Cyno drop - 'Safe' travel - Bombing - Terrorizing - Bounty hunting
Please pick one and make arguments on it separately, then check to make sure your suggestion does not negatively impact any of the other listed areas. If it does, go back to the drawing board and start over. After finding your best answer please post it along with all your back research for peer review.
That is all. No, this topic there is only "Remove AFK cloaking". There is just one part here. If we go for all AFK activities we can close the game right now cause you can list manufacturing, reserch, invention, P.I. and almost all other industry based activities to your part 1 and without those there will be no EVE cause you would not have ships to blow up. The problem is...
If you are attacking this particular problem because you have a problem with people being "AFK" then it is only fair to be consistent and work on getting rid of all mechanics that allow for AFKing. After all... it isn't fair that people can "gain an advantage when they are not on the computer."
If you are attacking this on the basis that cloaking itself isn't directly counterable... well... look at the ships themselves. They are actually quite gimped with regards to direct combat and won't stand up in a "fair fight."
If you are against AFK cloaking because you fear cyno drops... that's a different mechanic system separate from cloaking. You can alter it so that normal cynos need to spool up... but what about covert cynos? Taking the point above in account (that cloaking-capable ships are weak in direct combat) how is a person supposed to last long enough to pin down a target (remember, only Stealth Bombers have no targeting delay and they have minimal tanking ability) and live long enough for a cyno to spool up?
Beyond that... if you create mechanics that allow for system scans of cloaking ships you effectively negate any point to cloaks in general (because any anti-cloaking ship that can scan a system becomes standard for any serious 0.0 and wormhole dweller) and if you make it "localized" then you are doing nothing against "AFK cloakers" (who sit in safe spots well out of the way of any celestial object) and instead directly nerfing "active cloakers" who are trying to do things in their tinfoil ships.
The most important issue though is how are people supposed to take their enemies by surprise if local tells everyone in the area that a "potential hostile" is in system? Every time I have gone to null-sec in a ship, as soon as I appear in local everyone docks up. And they will never come out. Ever. Until I leave or am killed by the thousand man horde. This makes for VERY few opportunities to engage anyone or do any real damage no matter how well I prepared. The only counter I have is to devalue local by sitting in the system until they are used to my presence. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
Azrael Dinn
The 20th Legion Mildly Sober
13
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 14:36:00 -
[118] - Quote
Well I wouldn't actualy mind about the fact that if I would need to make the ships activly but it's just not happening.
There are too few of us versus the people getting blown up in the ships that we make so if the build mechanics would change in a way that every build would need active game time it would mean that you would run out of ships realy realy fast.
Also I would go for the remove local idea cause it would be a good change to the game actualy. But as long as it's there then removing AFK cloakers is the choice what I would like to have. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1340
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 15:44:00 -
[119] - Quote
Azrael Dinn wrote:Michael Loney wrote:Remove AFK | Cloaking
There are 2 distinct parts here:
1) AFK - Mining - Ratting - Hauling - Market trading
2) Cloaking - Intel spy - Cyno drop - 'Safe' travel - Bombing - Terrorizing - Bounty hunting
Please pick one and make arguments on it separately, then check to make sure your suggestion does not negatively impact any of the other listed areas. If it does, go back to the drawing board and start over. After finding your best answer please post it along with all your back research for peer review.
That is all. No, this topic there is only "Remove AFK cloaking". There is just one part here. If we go for all AFK activities we can close the game right now cause you can list manufacturing, reserch, invention, P.I. and almost all other industry based activities to your part 1 and without those there will be no EVE cause you would not have ships to blow up. I think the quoted poster was providing a guideline for those making suggestions to counter afk cloaking.
He was saying, in order to come up with a counter method, you must check each activity listed to make sure you are not impacting them in a negative way.
This has so far been shown to not be possible.
Also... some posts have gone missing from this thread... |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
10674
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 17:27:00 -
[120] - Quote
Azrael Dinn wrote:Well I wouldn't actualy mind about the fact that if I would need to make the ships activly but it's just not happening.
There are too few of us versus the people getting blown up in the ships that we make so if the build mechanics would change in a way that every build would need active game time it would mean that you would run out of ships realy realy fast.
Also I would go for the remove local idea cause it would be a good change to the game actualy. But as long as it's there then removing AFK cloakers is the choice what I would like to have. Well being as local is the reason for AFking, (in the context of psychological warfare) then it's the thing that should be looked at. Without local's instant intel, AFKing would be pointless.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
|
Azrael Dinn
The 20th Legion Mildly Sober
13
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 09:07:00 -
[121] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Azrael Dinn wrote:Well I wouldn't actualy mind about the fact that if I would need to make the ships activly but it's just not happening.
There are too few of us versus the people getting blown up in the ships that we make so if the build mechanics would change in a way that every build would need active game time it would mean that you would run out of ships realy realy fast.
Also I would go for the remove local idea cause it would be a good change to the game actualy. But as long as it's there then removing AFK cloakers is the choice what I would like to have. Well being as local is the reason for AFking, (in the context of psychological warfare) then it's the thing that should be looked at. Without local's instant intel, AFKing would be pointless.
So everyone would agree that lets remove local? |
|
CCP Eterne
C C P C C P Alliance
115
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 09:33:00 -
[122] - Quote
There are enough threads on this topic. I suggest you post in those rather than start a new one. CCP Eterne | Community Representative
@CCP_Eterne |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |