| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
9
   |
Posted - 2011.10.14 04:19:00 -
[511] - Quote
Be aware if you are violating the forum TOS with your posts in here. There is a flag above your post that can be hit to report you. Keep that in mind when trying to use Libel, Trolling or other TOS violating tactics to try to derail this topic and others.
In case you are not aware of the rules http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Forum_rules Note rules 4-7 in particular.
Now can we focus on discussing ways to provide risk for those who are cloaked while not active in their client? IE the topic? |
Jee'ta
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
11
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 05:24:00 -
[512] - Quote
KrakizBad wrote:The Apostle wrote:/snip whine I'm still waiting for the killmail from someone who is AFK. You show me yours and I'll show you mine.
It's much easier to find killmails for someone who had been AFK, possibly for many hours, before the kill. Which is of course why you need to treat hostiles in system as being potentially active.
Stop raising dumb arguments.
A cloaked presence should require active management in some form. AFK while 100% immune from detection or counter is just poor game design. But then, it is CCP, so change on this issue is unlikely.
|
KrakizBad
Eve Defence Force
Fatal Ascension
19
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 05:25:00 -
[513] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Now can we focus on discussing ways to provide risk for those who are cloaked while not active in their client? IE the topic?
Quit trolling or I'll report you.
Jee'ta wrote:It's much easier to find killmails for someone who had been AFK, possibly for many hours, before the kill. Which is of course why you need to treat hostiles in system as being potentially active.
Clearly working as intended. |
Jee'ta
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
12
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 05:34:00 -
[514] - Quote
I read somewhere that a lot of the Eve devs got their start ganking noobs in UO.... so quite probably.
|
Karim alRashid
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
49
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 06:14:00 -
[515] - Quote
Jee'ta wrote:KrakizBad wrote:The Apostle wrote:/snip whine I'm still waiting for the killmail from someone who is AFK. You show me yours and I'll show you mine. It's much easier to find killmails for someone who had been AFK, possibly for many hours, before the kill. Which is of course why you need to treat hostiles in system as being potentially active. Note to self: Stop raising dumb arguments. A cloaked presence should require active management in some form. AFK while 100% immune from detection or counter is just poor game design. But then, it is CCP, so change on this issue is unlikely.
FYP. |
Kitty McKitty
In Praise Of Shadows
401
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 06:25:00 -
[516] - Quote
I HAVE HEARD THAT PEOPLE CAN LOG OUT AND HAVE COMPLETE IMMUNITY WHILST NOT EVEN RUNNING THE GAME CLIENT. THEY COULD BE OUT IN A FIELD HAVING A PICNIC MEANWHILE THEY MAKE ZERO EFFORT IN GAME TO PROTECT THEIR ASSETS. I THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE FORCED TO LOG IN EVERY 15 MINUTES AND PRESS A 'SAFETY' BUTTON TO ENSURE THAT EVERYONE IS OPERATING FAIRLY AND EVENLY.
THEY COULD BE LOGGED OFF IN YOUR VERY SYSTEM THAT YOU OWN AND YOU WOULDN'T EVEN KNOW IT OR BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT!!!!!!
GÖÑ Haviing your portrait painted here helps INTAKI Disabled Children GÖÑ |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
106
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 06:29:00 -
[517] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:There is a flag above your post that can be hit to report you
SWEET.
Had no idea that was there!
Thanks for pointing that out, I went through and flagged all your posts.
|
Ekrund
Serenity Prime
Cascade Imminent
2
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 06:52:00 -
[518] - Quote
Sniped117 wrote:A possible solution to AFK cloaky alts
Sounds to me like you have this all wrong. If they're AFK they're not doing anything, it's all in your head. The game is fine, you just need therapy. |
Signal11th
101
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 07:42:00 -
[519] - Quote
Ahh, This thread is a gift that just keeps on giving.
God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
baltec1
91
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 09:22:00 -
[520] - Quote
I did this on post 11. As you can see it didn't stop them from whining about seeing a red in local and being too cowardly to do anything about it. |
|
|
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 10:46:00 -
[521] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:Ahh, This thread is a gift that just keeps on giving.
How is this relevant to the conversation? This topic is about discussing ways to provide risk to the practice of being AFK or not active in the client when cloaked in a hostile system. My idea being probe a random point with warning of decloak.
I refer you to the forum TOS. Link above. |
Kitty McKitty
In Praise Of Shadows
405
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 10:54:00 -
[522] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Signal11th wrote:Ahh, This thread is a gift that just keeps on giving. How is this relevant to the conversation? This topic is about discussing ways to provide risk to the practice of being AFK or not active in the client when cloaked in a hostile system. My idea being probe a random point with warning of decloak. I refer you to the forum TOS. Link above.
Feel free to cry about it. It is relevant because this is thread #23072350972450289837650208572 on the subject and every single one of them is full of clueless crybabies that want risk free ratting in contestable space. If you whine that there is no risk to being AFK you are missing the point. There is also no risk to you cowering in your station too afraid to undock because of a hostile ship doing nothing.
GÖÑ Haviing your portrait painted here helps INTAKI Disabled Children GÖÑ |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
494
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 10:59:00 -
[523] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Now can we focus on discussing ways to provide risk for those who are cloaked while not active in their client? Sure. As soon as you explain why it is a even problem that needs to be solved and, if so, why the proposed solution of removing them from local (or, indeed, removing local entirely) is not adequate to solve that (supposed) problem.
GÇöGÇöGÇö
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Kitty McKitty
In Praise Of Shadows
406
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 11:02:00 -
[524] - Quote
Problem : Cowards
Solution : Stop being babbys
GÖÑ Haviing your portrait painted here helps INTAKI Disabled Children GÖÑ |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 11:02:00 -
[525] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Now can we focus on discussing ways to provide risk for those who are cloaked while not active in their client? Sure. As soon as you explain why it is a even problem that needs to be solved and, if so, why the proposed solution of removing them from local (or, indeed, removing local entirely) is not adequate to solve that (supposed) problem.
The topic states "A possible solution to AFK cloaky alts" Not "This is a discussion of what is AFK cloaking" CCP knows darn well what AFK cloaking is. We are discussing solutions here.
Removing local will cause far more problems than solutions. Not to mention someone in this very topic already admitted to doing the same in Wormhole systems and in fact using it to make his cloaking nuclear. Removing local = highly buffed AFK cloaking not solves it. |
Kitty McKitty
In Praise Of Shadows
406
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 11:12:00 -
[526] - Quote
You need a problem before you suggest a solution to it. What is the problem?
GÖÑ Haviing your portrait painted here helps INTAKI Disabled Children GÖÑ |
Elisha Starkiller
Viziam
Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 11:25:00 -
[527] - Quote
Diddent read thread as far too long,
Why are AFK cloakers a problem again???? I rat all the time in systems with a red in local... there is this thing in game called a "DIRECTIONAL SCANNER" its quite handy you know...
but then the real problem with AFK cloakers is that people cant run their bots... so keep it up AFK'ers your doing a grand job :D
ES |
Signal11th
102
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 11:27:00 -
[528] - Quote
Kitty McKitty wrote:You need a problem before you suggest a solution to it. What is the problem?
This is exactly the point? To find a solution to "AFK cloaking" you need to have a problem! CCP and around 350 posts on here say there is no problem with AFK cloaking so your posts are completely pointless (not yours Kitty).
The only problem I have seen with it is the ability to stop a site from spawning , but how many people does that affect probably less than 0.5% of the EVE population.
God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
The Apostle
The Black Priests
414
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 11:30:00 -
[529] - Quote
3 quick posts from 3 different dudes saying "what problem?"
This is so totally a figment of our imagination that it simply doesn't warrant post #23072350972450289837650208572 on the topic.
It wasn't, isn't and never has been an issue.
You're 100% correct. You can leave now.
Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest.
WTB: An Austrian kangaroo!
|
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 11:33:00 -
[530] - Quote
Elisha Starkiller wrote:Diddent read thread as far too long,
Why are AFK cloakers a problem again???? I rat all the time in systems with a red in local... there is this thing in game called a "DIRECTIONAL SCANNER" its quite handy you know...
but then the real problem with AFK cloakers is that people cant run their bots... so keep it up AFK'ers your doing a grand job :D
ES
You do realize Dscan cant detect a ship that is cloaked right? How is that relevant to the topic? |
|
|
Signal11th
102
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 11:33:00 -
[531] - Quote
The Apostle wrote:3 quick posts from 3 different dudes saying "what problem?"
This is so totally a figment of our imagination that it simply doesn't warrant post #23072350972450289837650208572 on the topic.
It wasn't, isn't and never has been an issue.
You're 100% correct. You can leave now.
Tbh Apostle I've only been posting to see if I can get this thread to 1000 posts, after the first two pages the rest of it is bascially saying the same thing.
God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
The Apostle
The Black Priests
414
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 11:35:00 -
[532] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:The Apostle wrote:3 quick posts from 3 different dudes saying "what problem?"
This is so totally a figment of our imagination that it simply doesn't warrant post #23072350972450289837650208572 on the topic.
It wasn't, isn't and never has been an issue.
You're 100% correct. You can leave now. Tbh Apostle I've only been posting to see if I can get this thread to 1000 posts, after the first two pages the rest of it is bascially saying the same thing.
No way dude. As I said before, I never repeat myself. 
Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest.
WTB: An Austrian kangaroo!
|
Elisha Starkiller
Viziam
Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 11:37:00 -
[533] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
You do realize Dscan cant detect a ship that is cloaked right? How is that relevant to the topic?
if they are cloaked they are not a problem, when they uncloak you can see them on the D-Scan, when they uncloak next to you fight back??? .
none of this thread is relevant as there is no problem..............
|
The Apostle
The Black Priests
414
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 11:42:00 -
[534] - Quote
Elisha Starkiller wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
You do realize Dscan cant detect a ship that is cloaked right? How is that relevant to the topic?
if they are cloaked they are not a problem, when they uncloak you can see them on the D-Scan, when they uncloak next to you fight back??? . none of this thread is relevant as there is no problem..............
This topic has already been deemed as a "non-issue" by the experts. However, your comments have been noted and forwarded to the appropriate authorities.
Thank you for posting and we look forward to seeing more of your insightful commentary in the near future.
Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest.
WTB: An Austrian kangaroo!
|
Kitty McKitty
In Praise Of Shadows
407
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 11:44:00 -
[535] - Quote
Elisha Starkiller wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
You do realize Dscan cant detect a ship that is cloaked right? How is that relevant to the topic?
if they are cloaked they are not a problem, when they uncloak you can see them on the D-Scan, when they uncloak next to you fight back??? . none of this thread is relevant as there is no problem..............
This. Watch d-scan and even if something pops up right next to you, they have a decloak timer before they can lock you. Fly something that can gtfo in such an event. I had a loki decloak right next to me recently and since I was paying attention and not being an incompetent ninny, I simply burned away and GTFO.
Adapt or cry. Looks like most people just want to cry and have CCP fix it for them just like mummy and daddy do IRL.
GÖÑ Haviing your portrait painted here helps INTAKI Disabled Children GÖÑ |
Elisha Starkiller
Viziam
Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 11:47:00 -
[536] - Quote
The Apostle wrote:
This topic has already been deemed as a "non-issue" by the experts. However, your comments have been noted and forwarded to the appropriate authorities.
Thank you for posting and we look forward to seeing more of your insightful commentary in the near future.
SWEEEEEET :D |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
130
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 12:07:00 -
[537] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:baltec1 wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Read a few pages back about the AFK cloaker in WH sites. AFK cloaking is not just a nullsec issue so the remove local stuff is off topic.
This topic needs to focus on the various ideas published that can reasonably deal with the issue of the risk free incentive to walk away from the keyboard while not swinging a heavy nerfbat that would cause active cloakers to randomly decloak or manage a fuel bay in hostile territory.
Nerf local. You no longer have a box with a random neut or red sitting there scaring you into a station/pos, covert ops get to be covert and the 0.0 bots stop working. 3 things fixed with one stone. No you will just suddenly find the enemy uncloaking in perfect range of you for a free gank or hotdrop with no warning. Still claim removing local will fix AFK cloaking? Lets focus on serious solutions please and not off topic stuff about nullsec.
Yes, if you do it right, as I've suggested many times in this thread and apparently must again. So, here we go...
1. When a ship cloaks, it gets removed from local. The other ships in the system cannot see it, but they can see each other and all non-cloaked ships as they do now.
2. When a ship cloaks, it loses access to local. Now it cannot use local as an intel-gathering tool, and, just like in wormholes, the cloaked vessel would need to actively gather intel through use of probes, dscan, or simply flying somewhere and looking.
3. When a ship uncloaks, there's a delay in being able to lite off a cyno of, say, 15 to 30 seconds. This prevents the imbalance of the invisible pilot being able to hot drop a fleet on someone's head.
* Possible exception to 3... allow Black Ops ships to be able to lite a cyno with no delay after decloaking. They could use a little love.
So, here you go. Cloaks act as true cloaks and are balanced by requiring the active gathering of intel and minimizing (or removing) the instant hot-drop risk a totally unknown vessel would pose. Intel for a covops vessel becomes an active endeavour instead of simply scrolling through local. The "afk cloak" issue goes completely away and null space still retains the risk of null space. Finally, and most important to me personally, by not breaking cloaks you're not breaking a very important aspect of wormhole life that requires cloaks to indeed be able to remain unknown, unseen and undetectable.
Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
494
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 12:08:00 -
[538] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:The topic states "A possible solution to AFK cloaky alts" GǪand the question is: what is the problem with AFK cloaking that needs to be solved? Why are the proposed solutions to this (supposed) problem not adequate?
Quote:We are discussing solutions here. GǪwhich is completely pointless if you can't specify what the problem is.
Quote:Removing local will cause far more problems than solutions. GǪand yet, it 100% solves the problem of AFK cloaking.Quote:Removing local = highly buffed AFK cloaking not solves it. How are they buffed? They're not doing anything. Remove local and what happens? They're still not doing anything.
GÇöGÇöGÇö
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Karim alRashid
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
50
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 12:13:00 -
[539] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet,
Would you, please, define the precise semantics of the phrase "free gank"?
What do you mean by "free"? "free" as in "freedom" or "free" as in "free beer"?
You create the impression that you oppose "free ganks". What is exactly the thing you oppose - the freedom to gank or you maintain that ganks must incur costs?
|
Zendon Taredi
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 12:20:00 -
[540] - Quote
The Apostle wrote:Morganta wrote:the argument that nobody should be 100% safe is complete crap
Can you please repeat that? I'd like it preseved for posterity when I discuss that we need x, y and z and it's blown to hell and back..... because NO-ONE in Eve should be 100% safe....
well, the docked-up guys are safe. but anybody flying in eve is always exposed to some risk. hopefully we will get daggers and pistols for incarna. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |