EVE Search - A plan to give balance to cloaking (Images)

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

A plan to give balance to cloaking (Images)

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Caliph Muhammed inderpendent manufacturing operations Amen Anera 55	Posted - 2012.01.01 18:30:00 - [271] - Quote Nestara Aldent wrote: Epic trollthread is epic. Just the fact that after more than a dozen pages ppl still take you seriously Endeavour and answer shows how strong your troll-fu is. AFK cloaker cant be AFK to gather intel and open a cyno, but you know that, I dont assume you dont. If I thought for a second he was just trolling i'd disregard everything he says. But I don't get that impression. I believe he believes in his position 100%. Do to that I feel inclined to enlighten him for educational purposes. And its not a ego issue either. Im not just presenting counter arguments against him because I don't feel he's able to overcome them, I am doing it because his notions of fairplay and reprieve from hardship would completely ruin the game.
Endeavour Starfleet Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 505	Posted - 2012.01.01 23:04:00 - [272] - Quote I highly doubt my plan would ruin the game. Except maybe for those who cant live without coming home from work to a free solo kill. And no this is not a troll thread. Why would you think I would go to the trouble of getting set up in Sisi to get my images just to troll? This is a serious idea to give balance to cloaking. Presented to CCP for consideration and maybe even testing on Sisi.
Mag's the united Negative Ten. 4752	Posted - 2012.01.01 23:06:00 - [273] - Quote Endeavour Starfleet wrote: I highly doubt my plan would ruin the game. That's because you have absolutely no idea about balance and game mechanics. 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.
Endeavour Starfleet Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 505	Posted - 2012.01.01 23:18:00 - [274] - Quote Mag's wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: I highly doubt my plan would ruin the game. That's because you have absolutely no idea about balance and game mechanics. Again wrong. Otherwise I could have joined the countless others who say "Give em an AFK timer" instead of thinking of a balanced way to address the issue of going afk. That is why this topic is getting so much attention. It is not a rage topic made after losing a ship but a topic made after observing the situation for quite some time and watching the problem get worse. If this idea were implemented the AFK cloakers would have to log off and lose their free effect. Or risk being found and destroyed. They will have to join the many other active cloakers in getting their kill. The thought of losing that daily free "SOLO KILL" sticker is what is driving a good chunk of opposition to this topic in my opinion. Same exact thing as the risk free hisec ganks of freighters before CCP buffed concord.
Caliph Muhammed inderpendent manufacturing operations Amen Anera 56	Posted - 2012.01.01 23:25:00 - [275] - Quote Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Mag's wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: I highly doubt my plan would ruin the game. That's because you have absolutely no idea about balance and game mechanics. Again wrong. Otherwise I could have joined the countless others who say "Give em an AFK timer" instead of thinking of a balanced way to address the issue of going afk. That is why this topic is getting so much attention. It is not a rage topic made after losing a ship but a topic made after observing the situation for quite some time and watching the problem get worse. If this idea were implemented the AFK cloakers would have to log off and lose their free effect. Or risk being found and destroyed. They will have to join the many other active cloakers in getting their kill. The thought of losing that daily free "SOLO KILL" sticker is what is driving a good chunk of opposition to this topic in my opinion. Same exact thing as the risk free hisec ganks of freighters before CCP buffed concord. No its pretty much you don't have a clue about balance and you're ego won't let you admit others more intelligent and capable of making the determinations have said that you getting ganked is good for the game and the economy. By all means continue deluding yourself with the us/them fallacy along with the rest of the fallacious opinion you've presented. Endeavour Starfleet wrote: I highly doubt my plan would ruin the game. Except maybe for those who cant live without coming home from work to a free solo kill. And no this is not a troll thread. Why would you think I would go to the trouble of getting set up in Sisi to get my images just to troll? This is a serious idea to give balance to cloaking. Presented to CCP for consideration and maybe even testing on Sisi. The community doesn't take you seriously, you're alt posting for fear of your own safety and you actually think the devs are going to consider your ideas for a game change? You highly doubt? You've been shredded over 14 pages and still as of yet, not provided any substance to your arguments other than your emotional outcry for protection. I'm glad that your plans won't even get a dev response or consideration let alone make it to testing. Im off to afk cloak and get me a sucker kill, and it's great knowing the devs are laughing the entire time I do it. Tissue? You are not the smartest person in this thread let alone the game, and not even on this page. You are not failing to explain your point to ignorant masses it's that your point is dimwitted. And we as a community have heard it hundreds of times before. You are not breaking ground here. Please take your mining laser and crack through the iron reinforced shell between your ears so that you may recieve enlightenment.
Endeavour Starfleet Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 505	Posted - 2012.01.02 00:18:00 - [276] - Quote Why would a dev respond to this topic? They already know that once they announce it they will receive a flood of ragequit promises (That of course never happen) and have to clean thread after thread of TOS breaking crap from angry former AFK cloakers that now actually have to be in the vicinity of their computers all day to get their ganks later in the day. Instead the best way would to announce it in a dev blog days or a week before its implemented. Just enough time for AFK cloakers that cant handle not being AFK anymore to get out. Then implement their timers, Cloaking fuel bays, Direct find probes, or my balanced idea. Because by the time they decide to implement the idea it will be committed because they haven't started thinking of this issue just because of my topic. This has been going on for years and a solution may still take years. They will have the internal logs to make sure their decision is just (In whatever way they eventually rule). The acceptance that it will not be a popular decision with a certain group of players. And the code ready for testing on Sisi. Once its time to implement it is when it is time to announce. Just like the CONCORD buff that while ago.
Caliph Muhammed inderpendent manufacturing operations Amen Anera 56	Posted - 2012.01.02 00:27:00 - [277] - Quote Ok snowflake that's what it is. They're so taken back by your awe inspiring logic and sheer determination in spite of dozens of posters telling you that you're clueless and they're waiting to spring the announcement.
Endeavour Starfleet Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 505	Posted - 2012.01.02 00:33:00 - [278] - Quote Caliph Muhammed wrote: Ok snowflake that's what it is. They're so taken back by your awe inspiring logic and sheer determination in spite of dozens of posters telling you that you're clueless and they're waiting to spring the announcement. I am not 100 percent sure they wont say that they will accept AFK cloaking I am pretty sure tho they will have to make an announcement at once point. It is just that it wont happen in my topic. Yet until they make said announcement I will continue to defend the ideas I present to add risk to going AFK while cloaked and continue to urge CCP to do something about it when possible. Even if it means a dreaded cloak fuel bay.
Caliph Muhammed inderpendent manufacturing operations Amen Anera 56	Posted - 2012.01.02 00:41:00 - [279] - Quote Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Caliph Muhammed wrote: Ok snowflake that's what it is. They're so taken back by your awe inspiring logic and sheer determination in spite of dozens of posters telling you that you're clueless and they're waiting to spring the announcement. I am not 100 percent sure they wont say that they will accept AFK cloaking I am pretty sure tho they will have to make an announcement at once point. It is just that it wont happen in my topic. Yet until they make said announcement I will continue to defend the ideas I present to add risk to going AFK while cloaked and continue to urge CCP to do something about it when possible. Even if it means a dreaded cloak fuel bay. You havent defended one idea yet, because you aren't intelligent enough to understand what defending an idea means. And thats harsh I know, but it's the truth. What you have done is ignore every argument of substance, dismissed it as us/them fallacy and continued to make multiple statements of grade school level and hot air. And they have made a statement of it being okay. Its called it's designed as it is and working as intended. Do you think they forgot to add a fuel cost or a skill cooldown timer and you are revealing some issue that the entire community forgot to address? Or do you believe that it slipped their mind to add a inactivity boot timer?
Endeavour Starfleet Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 507	Posted - 2012.01.02 00:59:00 - [280] - Quote http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Forum_rules Read it please. As for "as intended" AFK cloaking really exploded in popularity a few years ago. Cloaks are an OLD and legacy system with virtually no changes for far longer than AFK cloaking has been the serious imbalance in favor of large alliances it is today. Back in the day the AFKing was low enough that you had to be really unlucky to have one serious about causing effect in your system. Now you have areas where system after system has one at the ready. Yet this isn't going to be the easiest thing to address because no matter what they do. Someone is going to lose their source of effect. My idea to balance cloaking: Will mean many AFK cloakers who were used to this nearly limitless source of free effect with extremely little risk will have to adapt to an active lifestyle or log off. A fuel bay idea: Same as before except now you have active operations effected and people cloaked up in bad situations becoming decloaked because they ran out of fuel despite being active at the PC. AFK timer idea: MANY industries and playstyles affected. The issue is the problem is growing. Especially as a hotdropable cloak alt takes peanuts worth of time to train.
Lord Zim Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 487	Posted - 2012.01.02 01:01:00 - [281] - Quote Oh look, the rules argument.
Caliph Muhammed inderpendent manufacturing operations Amen Anera 56	Posted - 2012.01.02 01:01:00 - [282] - Quote Endeavour Starfleet wrote: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Forum_rules Eat monkey sack moron. Your ideas are garbage and unnecessary carebear incrementalism.
Lord Zim Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 487	Posted - 2012.01.02 01:13:00 - [283] - Quote Hey, so you say you've defended your idea, and I'm not going to go through 15 pages to make sure, but have you assuaged the WH concerns with your idea?
Endeavour Starfleet Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 507	Posted - 2012.01.02 01:41:00 - [284] - Quote Yes. In my plan there is time on grid where the cloak returns no signatures even if they were on grid. Edit: I mean right on top of the random point. This can also be played with a bit. More time with no returns or less time with longer time per scan. It is adaptable enough that the variations can be hammered or on Sisi in my opinion. Remember going offgrid via a warp resets the timer. So you just need to spend some time setting up some nice quickwarp bookmarks and keep lightly aligned if you need to do a quick reset. Edit2: What that means is that an active pilot who does warping every once in a while will never be detected in a wormhole. Satisfying the needs of WH cloakers while still removing the will to go AFK.
Lord Zim Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 487	Posted - 2012.01.02 01:55:00 - [285] - Quote I'm pretty certain you'd find gathering fully reliable intel while warping on and off grid to be challenging and annoying.
Endeavour Starfleet Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 507	Posted - 2012.01.02 02:02:00 - [286] - Quote Lord Zim wrote: I'm pretty certain you'd find gathering fully reliable intel while warping on and off grid to be challenging and annoying. The timing can be played with on Sisi. But you arent exactly having to hit it every few seconds. and the distance is small enough you are back in a short time.
Caliph Muhammed inderpendent manufacturing operations Amen Anera 56	Posted - 2012.01.02 02:12:00 - [287] - Quote Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Lord Zim wrote: I'm pretty certain you'd find gathering fully reliable intel while warping on and off grid to be challenging and annoying. The timing can be played with on Sisi. But you arent exactly having to hit it every few seconds. and the distance is small enough you are back in a short time. Why should someone not be allowed to go afk in a game they pay to play each month? They can't kill you afk. Your solution is a arbitrary penalty for a mechanic you don't care for. And its never, ever, going to be in the game.
Lord Zim Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 488	Posted - 2012.01.02 08:26:00 - [288] - Quote Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Lord Zim wrote: I'm pretty certain you'd find gathering fully reliable intel while warping on and off grid to be challenging and annoying. The timing can be played with on Sisi. But you arent exactly having to hit it every few seconds. and the distance is small enough you are back in a short time. I'd say this is pretty much irrelevant. Cloaked intel gatherers are already marginalized enough as it is with the metagame of using spies, you want people to use more advanced/demanding intel tactics than that. If you're going to have some sort of mechanic where the cloaked guy is made into being discoverable, then you have to add some sort of mechanic to allow the cloaked guy to perform long-term intel-gathering by being undiscoverable. Add an uncomfortable compromise, like making them weak as a kitten and utterly defenseless, and you'll make your suggestion more balanced.
Mag's the united Negative Ten. 4752	Posted - 2012.01.02 11:00:00 - [289] - Quote Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Mag's wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: I highly doubt my plan would ruin the game. That's because you have absolutely no idea about balance and game mechanics. Again wrong. Otherwise I could have joined the countless others who say "Give em an AFK timer" instead of thinking of a balanced way to address the issue of going afk. That is why this topic is getting so much attention. It is not a rage topic made after losing a ship but a topic made after observing the situation for quite some time and watching the problem get worse. If this idea were implemented the AFK cloakers would have to log off and lose their free effect. Or risk being found and destroyed. They will have to join the many other active cloakers in getting their kill. The thought of losing that daily free "SOLO KILL" sticker is what is driving a good chunk of opposition to this topic in my opinion. Same exact thing as the risk free hisec ganks of freighters before CCP buffed concord. So you think the AFK timer wouldn't work because of balance? You've just proven my point quite nicely. This topic gets attention, because you keep bumping from the grave. New people then post about how wrong you are and how unbalanced this approach is. The fact that you avoid awkward questions, speaks volumes about your argument and stance on the subject. Caliph Muhammed may be blunt, but he has a good and valid point about you. But again you use your old fall back position of linking forum rules, instead of arguing your position. This with the other *none* arguments you have such as "SOLO KILL" and your constant insistence of linking this with a concord buff. Yea, good job. 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.
Endeavour Starfleet Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 507	Posted - 2012.01.02 13:19:00 - [290] - Quote It is not a "fall back" I grew tired of the forum TOS breaking stuff so I posted the link to the TOS. Just in cause some have not had the chance to read it. If accepting the forum rules makes my position on this issue weaker with you so be it. This isn't lowsec local or the middle of NPC nullsec. Members are expected to follow the rules here and CCP is enforcing them quite a bit more vigorously than the old forum. And yes I am linking this with the CONCORD buff because back then too the pirates were claiming that CCP would never take action (And the TOS breaking stuff was even heavier on that one. Atleast now the reporting system works better) And the pirates also claimed that if CCP would stop their nearly free kills of large HP craft with said buff that they would quit the game in droves. CCP instead fixed the issue. So this idea that one's pvp activity is sacred when it involves such a distant level of risk between attacker and victim doesn't seem to be the case.
Lord Zim Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 488	Posted - 2012.01.02 14:50:00 - [291] - Quote So you're not going to balance your suggestion for a solution, I take it.
Endeavour Starfleet Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 507	Posted - 2012.01.02 15:01:00 - [292] - Quote The being discoverable part is if he dosent move in the large amount of time it takes before he even registers as a signature. The idea is already balanced. If they don't want to warp off grid and back in 10-20 mins that is their problem. Their victims are already forced to be aligned, spam dscan etc... Its balanced.
Lord Zim Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 489	Posted - 2012.01.02 17:49:00 - [293] - Quote Balanced when you're thinking about an aggressive cloaker, sure. Pure intel-gathering, not so much.
Endeavour Starfleet Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 513	Posted - 2012.01.02 20:56:00 - [294] - Quote I disagree. Intel is an active task to begin with so if you are watching something you will not want to go AFK for long anyway. And a simple logoff is needed if you do have to go AFK. Unless the goal is effect on system which is what AFKing is often used for.
Mars Theran EVE Rogues EVE Rogues Alliance 21	Posted - 2012.01.02 21:41:00 - [295] - Quote I think the issue with a simple logoff, is that it really is not that simple. When you log off you sort of reveal your presence, ship type, and potentially location to any potential targets/agressors in system. Given somebody is a actually paying close attention, that means you may log in to find they have bubbled up your warp in, provided they have enough bubbles, and had enough time to potentially locate your safe. Maybe not a strong possibility, but they may even have time to scan you out with combat probes. Don't really recall if your cloak is maintained in log off, or if you decloak the second you close the client. Not sure I ever really payed attention to that bit. Not a major concern, but obviously logging in sort of gives you away. edit: Personally, I think your idea is a bit to OP when it comes to scanning down cloaked vessels, and sort of defeats the purpose of having them in the first place. I already offered a measure of balancing that would potentially make this idea more feasible in the sense of it having a much reduced likelihood of actually pinning down a cloakers location without them sitting on a moon or station, or some other thing. i.e: Intel guys have to be more careful, but the afk safespot is not nearly so at risk. I think it was my first post in this thread. Also, I believe eliminating the ability to decloak without bumping a ship is important here. No tech should auto decloak unless it is directional fired on grid, and then with limitations to arc and rate of fire.
Lord Zim Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 489	Posted - 2012.01.02 22:18:00 - [296] - Quote Endeavour Starfleet wrote: I disagree. Intel is an active task to begin with so if you are watching something you will not want to go AFK for long anyway. And a simple logoff is needed if you do have to go AFK. Unless the goal is effect on system which is what AFKing is often used for. Intel is an activity which may require looking at something for a long time. Having to warp back and forth to avoid getting popped means you might miss something important. If you absolutely must do something with reducing the impact of AFK cloakers, while not ***** over pure intel gatherers, the important thing to do is to just make changes that alerts vigilant players that active and aggressive cloakers are about. If they can't do because they're in some sort of silent mode, and thus can't be found, then people can relax more. I'm not saying my idea is the best one (or even a good one,I know Ingvar'll *** about it), but it's a moderation and a counter to your counter which you're completely missing. You're broadsiding cloakers and just dealing with one "problem", without trying to moderate the residual effects/problems your "problemsolving" adds. Kind of like those that just go "aww remove local, null is safer than hisec", which is just a dumb statement.
Krops Vont 3 Sun Empire 0	Posted - 2012.01.02 23:02:00 - [297] - Quote Or they use up capacitor? It would be a neat idea you can stay cloaked for a bit but the capital would only have so long as he is not cap stable. maybe a good 20min before ooh look on d-scan!
Poetic Stanziel Arrakis Technology 674	Posted - 2012.01.02 23:06:00 - [298] - Quote Endeavour Starfleet wrote: You cant destroy a cloaked contact regardless of the player is asleep, in school, etc.. If the player is asleep, why do you care? You're looking for some easy kills? Is that it? Today I lost my common sense, It slipped away between Amamake and Rens, I think it happened in highsec, Using a Brutix to gank a Providence. -- Flunk
Lord Zim Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 489	Posted - 2012.01.02 23:11:00 - [299] - Quote Poetic Stanziel wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: You cant destroy a cloaked contact regardless of the player is asleep, in school, etc.. If the player is asleep, why do you care? You're looking for some easy kills? Is that it? When you answer the question "how do you know?", is when you know the answer to the question "why do you care?". Don't be dumb.
Poetic Stanziel Arrakis Technology 674	Posted - 2012.01.02 23:12:00 - [300] - Quote Lucien Visteen wrote: What is so special about your ship that you should be able to find complete safety in the lands of the enemy. It has a cloaking device. BTW, I was at your house last night, hiding behind a bush. You didn't even know I was there. BAN BUSHES!! Today I lost my common sense, It slipped away between Amamake and Rens, I think it happened in highsec, Using a Brutix to gank a Providence. -- Flunk

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.