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) |

Cur
Nova Australis Dark Knights of New Eden
41
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 23:13:00 -
[301] - Quote
Haxin Gam wrote:ya know, with all of these anti cloaking devices people come up with i can't help but think.
what becomes of us poor capital pilots who happen to be using a cloak? we can't de-cloak and warp, more then likely we will be scanned down before we would manage to warp. it really brings up a point that no one seems to notice, more people use cloaks then the silly people in cov-ops looking for an easy kill. you need a better solution then just, "lets create the easiest to avoid method to de-cloak someone possible!"
you don't need an offensive method to deal with the cloak, you need a way to prevent or mitigate the potential damage they can cause rather then just remain posed/docked up.
long story short, as much as i hate the cloakers in my system, i would hate to have my carrier destroyed after escaping a failed engagement because all of a sudden my cloak doesn't work.
Have the probe system reversed in this case to favor catching small ships rather than big ones.
IE ships with the smallest sig radius are easier found, in comparison to say a cloaked Nyx that had jumped into system 5mins ago, and is cloaked at a safe waiting for his cap to regen before jumping again.
Or simply make Capitals and bigger immune/ineffected from said probes.
The problem with cloaking in its entirity is that currently people pay for alt accounts, train them Cyno5 + Covops, move them to a system of an enemy, that character remains there for the next month, logged in 23/7 seemingly afk, when its owner checks on it periodicly for targets to hotdrop onto.
The sheer fact that one aspect of the game, afk cloaking - i so important/worthwile for people to invest in multiple alt accounts and only train chars up to 10mil or under sp so they can perform that specific role and that is it.
|

Poetic Stanziel
Arrakis Technology
674
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 23:16:00 -
[302] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote: No need to bring your fleet and take down the POS. Just go abuse the cloaking system. AFK cloakers can bring down POSes?
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 |

Caliph Muhammed
inderpendent manufacturing operations Amen Anera
57
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 23:16:00 -
[303] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: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.
We don't recieve free intel that tells us when people are actually active when uncloaked why should you receve free intel about others that are cloaked? It's like your trying make a argument you deserve something easier while the cloakers deserve less.
At this point and I use that term in the sense for as long as these threads have sprang up you can deduce that at the end of the day one side has to have a 1up. Its either cloakers or non cloakers. And if you give it to the non cloakers then cloaking becomes obsolete. Hence we are where we're at. These threads are ignored and always will be. |

Poetic Stanziel
Arrakis Technology
674
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 23:16:00 -
[304] - Quote
Double post. 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 - 2012.01.03 00:20:00 -
[305] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:We don't recieve free intel that tells us when people are actually active when uncloaked why should you receve free intel about others that are cloaked? It's not "free intel" when it's something you have to actively work at getting. Just saying.
Caliph Muhammed wrote:It's like your trying make a argument you deserve something easier while the cloakers deserve less. Yeah, no. The only thing I've been vehemently against has been removing some or all ships from local because that would make life pretty miserable for people who aren't running around in fleets. Cloaking I don't really see a problem with, even though I'm thinking some sort of fuel consumption thingy could add a dimension to cloaking. The chances are definitively there that in practice it'd suck ass, but I'm in the process of working on making a strategy game so I get to play around with mechanics instead of just theorizing.
In fact, if you've read what I've been doing in this thread, what I've been doing is try to get him to see the other side, see how it affects them, and see if there might be something he might want to do with his idea to make it more palatable. Not that he wants to make any changes at all, though, he's married to it. |

Feather Storm
Tindalosian Trading Consortium
4
|
Posted - 2012.01.03 00:45:00 -
[306] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: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.
This will not work if this is implemented you could totally mess over any cloaked player afk or not gathering intel will be imposable in any reasonable fashion.
with a 30 min time scale all I will need is 6 pilots using these probes at 5 min intervals and no cloaked ship will ever accomplish any task in any system I do not want them in, and if the timer is longer you just need more pilots to spam the probes. Gathering intel requires you to stay on grid with your target to observe with 1 scan completing every 5 min no cloaked ship will ever be able to sit still long enough to gather useful intel. and you can forget scanning in any way, shape or form. using either probes (You have to have the map open and pay attention to how you position them. This reduces the attention you can give to local space) or with the D-scanner requires you to remain in one place for the duration of a scan and because of the way it works multiple scans are often needed preferably all done from essentially the same place.
And if I was going to be doing anything sensitive that I did not want observed I would spam these probes from multiple ships to make sure that the cloaked ship had no choice but to leave grid repeatedly to avoid this.
this is bad it would render an entire class of ship useless for the job it was intended to do.
Less Blob, More fun. |

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
512
|
Posted - 2012.01.03 02:17:00 -
[307] - Quote
More pilots affect nothing Edit: During the timer. It is based on the cloaker end not theirs. 6 pilots spamming scans will be as effective as one or a hundred. If you have changed grid before YOUR timer runs out it is not possible to remove your cloak.
Player leaves grid and returns to reset his grid timer. Which is for the player not anyone else. His grid timer determines WHEN these probes work.
The only thing 6 pilots could do is cover more space with smaller probes to remove a single scan cycle or so. Which only matters after player has been afk so long he starts to show up.
Timing is up to CCP and sisi testing but I was thinking 15-30 mins needed per warp off and back. Simple as hell if you made a bookmark at about 1000k or so out from your grid. |

Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
490
|
Posted - 2012.01.03 08:56:00 -
[308] - Quote
You're not really getting what I'm trying to tell you, are you? |

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
564
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 10:50:00 -
[309] - Quote
As CCP is looking for new module ideas. I am bringing this back up to give them this idea for consideration. |

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
100
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 12:14:00 -
[310] - Quote
if afk cloaking would be nerfed, instant local must go as well, because afk cloaking is the only way currently to subvert local intel.
Its simple as that. Otherwise it would be too easy to avoid any danger. |

Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
527
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 12:36:00 -
[311] - Quote
Lousy ganker spotted. |

Silentkiller1980
Tactical Tea Baggers Seventh Sanctum.
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 13:09:00 -
[312] - Quote
I guess there's lots of cloaky bomber pilots posting here! The point the OP is making is to try to make the AFK cloaker who just wants to shut down a system by warping to a safe spot cloaking up & going AFK in the knowledge that everyone is looking at local & sees a red in system & docks up. The psychological & physical risk is 100% on everyone else in that system & none on the cloaky guy. A system like the OP says would at least make sure that any cloaky red in system is actively hunting/scouting & therefore moving rather than AFK & no threat, and is now a target. |

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
100
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 13:20:00 -
[313] - Quote
Silentkiller1980 wrote:I guess there's lots of cloaky bomber pilots posting here! The point the OP is making is to try to make the AFK cloaker who just wants to shut down a system by warping to a safe spot cloaking up & going AFK in the knowledge that everyone is looking at local & sees a red in system & docks up. The psychological & physical risk is 100% on everyone else in that system & none on the cloaky guy. A system like the OP says would at least make sure that any cloaky red in system is actively hunting/scouting & therefore moving rather than AFK & no threat, and is now a target.
if you know thats the only intention of that particular pilot, just go on doing your things as you know he is not dangerous. AFK cloaking as itself is absolutely all right and even NEEDED with the current local system.
Robert Caldera wrote:if afk cloaking would be nerfed, instant local must go as well, because afk cloaking is the only way currently to subvert local intel.
Its simple as that. Otherwise it would be too easy to avoid any danger. |

Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
527
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 13:21:00 -
[314] - Quote
Lousy ganker is still spotted. |

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
100
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 13:37:00 -
[315] - Quote
a f*gg*t spotted. get the f*ck out if you dont have any real argument. |

Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
527
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 13:40:00 -
[316] - Quote
You're the one that wants to ruin nullsec, not me, because you can't get ganks. |

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
100
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 13:45:00 -
[317] - Quote
can you understand my argument or not? Do you have any counter argument or not?
If not -> GTFO.
afk cloaking is the result of instant local. if you "fix" the first without the other, you get an even more broken nullsec than it is now. I dont want a too safe nullsec (it is already now) and yes, I want kills. you want absolute safety. There should be no absolute safety.
You can fly a 30 billion marauder in null with little risk till none because of always friendly locals. If you would do that in high sec, someone would come and gank you the day after he scanned your fit. Nullsec is already too safe. |

Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
527
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 13:49:00 -
[318] - Quote
There we have the "absolute safety" bullshit card again.
Do you really think I can undock in any ship, even a velator, go to sleep for 8+ hours and wake up to a ship and not a pod in a station? |

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
100
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 13:51:00 -
[319] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:There we have the "absolute safety" bullshit card again.
Do you really think I can undock in any ship, even a velator, go to sleep for 8+ hours and wake up to a ship and not a pod in a station?
with absolute safety I mean for people who are not asleep or cloaked of course, I assumed that was clear for everyone who is not totally retrded. However, in big parts of null exactly this would happen, you undock your velator, go sleep and find yourself on a nice undock spot at your station 8 hours later!! |

Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
527
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 13:59:00 -
[320] - Quote
Oh, so it's safety if I'm paying attention.
Well, that's perfect safety, then. We don't ever have a lapse of concentration.
And I've tried this theory of undocking in a velator and just hanging around, multiple times. It's died every time. |

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
100
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 14:01:00 -
[321] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Oh, so it's safety if I'm paying attention. yes, if paying attention = watching local then its too much safety for too little effort. Obvious. This is why people afk cloak, to take you this kind of safety. Thats absolutely all right and viable.
Lord Zim wrote:And I've tried this theory of undocking in a velator and just hanging around, multiple times. It's died every time.
you tried that in a wrong place. |

Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
527
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 14:09:00 -
[322] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Oh, so it's safety if I'm paying attention. yes, if paying attention = watching local then its too much safety for too little effort. Obvious. This is why people afk cloak, to take you this kind of safety. Thats absolutely all right and viable. I don't give a flying **** about AFK cloaking. I've used it myself to **** people off, it's hilarious. I think it should stay because people get all spergy and ******** over it.
And it brings out the ******** gankers who just want to remove local because they're so bad at ganking they can't even catch the unwary.
Robert Caldera wrote:Lord Zim wrote:And I've tried this theory of undocking in a velator and just hanging around, multiple times. It's died every time. you tried that in a wrong place. Oh really. A backwater end system with nobody else in system is "a wrong place"? What's the "right place" then? |

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
100
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 14:15:00 -
[323] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:And it brings out the ******** gankers who just want to remove local because they're so bad at ganking they can't even catch the unwary. like I said.. nearly absolute safety for almost no effort. You disagree?
Lord Zim wrote:Oh really. A backwater end system with nobody else in system is "a wrong place"? What's the "right place" then? then you are either very bad at eve or very unlucky. As I said, for the most parts of zero, there arent hostiles for hours or even days. |

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
5171
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 14:18:00 -
[324] - Quote
Come on guys, let this fail and unbalanced idea thread die.
Neither of you want AFKing to stop in it's present state, so why argue over the same old stuff?
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. |

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
100
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 14:25:00 -
[325] - Quote
Lord Zim isnt even playing this game anymore, just sperging in forums about it. His last eve-kill record was in fact a loss of a VELATOR, 2 years ago, which he still cant get over apparently! :-D |

Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
527
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 14:31:00 -
[326] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Lord Zim wrote:And it brings out the ******** gankers who just want to remove local because they're so bad at ganking they can't even catch the unwary. like I said.. nearly absolute safety for almost no effort. You disagree? No, it's not "like you said". You said "absolute safety", not "nearly absolute safety".
Robert Caldera wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Oh really. A backwater end system with nobody else in system is "a wrong place"? What's the "right place" then? then you are either very bad at eve or very unlucky. As I said, for the most parts of zero, there arent hostiles for hours or even days. "very bad at eve or very unlucky"? Is that the best you can come up with? It's all done to test the "it's absolute safety" bullshit people like you spew forth time and time again, when you know perfectly well it isn't "absolute safety".
I guess next you'll say that having the possibility of detecting cloaked ships will bring forth "absolute safety" as well.
Robert Caldera wrote:Lord Zim isnt even playing this game anymore, just sperging in forums about it. His last eve-kill record was in fact a loss of a VELATOR, 2 years ago, which he still cant get over apparently! :-D This isn't my active PVP alt. Hope that helps. |

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
100
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 14:46:00 -
[327] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: No, it's not "like you said". You said "absolute safety", not "nearly absolute safety".
its practically the same. You cant be killed if you watch local and dont want to get involved in pvp. The chance of that is very very slim. Watch local -> never get killed. Stop hairsplitting, its the same as if I would tell you there is a way of finding afk cloaker by closing <2000m to him. The chance is practically not there unless he is a f*cking dumb r*tard and deserves to die.
Lord Zim wrote: I guess next you'll say that having the possibility of detecting cloaked ships will bring forth "absolute safety" as well..
yes, it will. Having the ability of probing out cloaked ships would kill afk cloaking, which is exactly something I tried to tell you about in my previous postings. |

Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
527
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 15:00:00 -
[328] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Lord Zim wrote: No, it's not "like you said". You said "absolute safety", not "nearly absolute safety".
its practically the same. You cant be killed if you watch local and dont want to get involved in pvp. The chance of that is very very slim. Watch local -> never get killed. So you want to take "keep an eye on local and intel" safety, and turn that into "stare at the result of my cloak detector being spammed while drooling at the keyboard " safety?
Guess what you really want to do is force people in nullsec to move to hisec to run L4s or incursions, all because you can't get a gank.
Robert Caldera wrote:Lord Zim wrote:I guess next you'll say that having the possibility of detecting cloaked ships will bring forth "absolute safety" as well.. yes, it will. Having the ability of probing out cloaked ships would kill afk cloaking, which is exactly something I tried to tell you about in my previous postings. Oh, I'm sure you'll ***** and whine about it after local's removed as well.
"they can see me while I'm cloaked, I can't get ganks because the easy prey moved to hisec and the people who are still left actually use the cloak detection methods :( :( :(" |

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
100
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 15:03:00 -
[329] - Quote
to be clear, I dont want any changes in regard to cloak and local at all, just pointing out they are interconnected and cant be changed separately without the other. |

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
569
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 15:15:00 -
[330] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:a f*gg*t spotted. get the f*ck out if you dont have any real argument.
Keep this crap out of my topic. There is a flag function to report this kind of crap to the mods. |
|
|
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 |