Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Bland Inquisitor
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
32
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 02:18:00 -
[1] - Quote
[Interdictor] Counter-measures
So, cloaking is a tad overpowered. It hit me yesterday that with stealth and submarine technology came counter-measures, so why not have them in EvE?
The best candidate for their implementation would be the destroyer hull (because... well... death charges ofc). So why not add some new interdiction probes?
- Bloom Probe - instead of preventing warp, this probe emits a bright flash that increases signature radius and circumvents cloaking devices, taking them offline until the reactivation timer is over.
- EMP Probe - This plays havoc with electrical systems, causing all warheads and bombs to explode on contact of the sphere. A side effect of the EMP is it also causes temporary disruption to targeting speeds.
- Gravity well probe - This probe create a temporary gravity well pulling all ships in towards the epicenter.
- Heat probe - Creates a sphere that causes active modules to start taking heat damage.
- Lockbreaking probe - does exactly what it says on the tin.
I'm sure you could come up with many more awsome
Bland |
Joe Boirele
Lords 0f Justice Lords Of Stars
47
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 02:25:00 -
[2] - Quote
Cloaking already has a nerf. It's called local. The submarine analogy has a point, to an extent, except that you don't get a warning whenever there's a submarine in the same area as you. With a cloaked ship, you do. Enemies are just friends who stab you in the front.
Might makes right!
Proud Rattlesnake pilot. |
Aivlis Eldelbar
Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 08:49:00 -
[3] - Quote
This sounds interesting, though I believe CCP already stated we wouuldn't see some thing go AoE and heat generation was among them, iirc.
The Decloaking probe would be nice if you coulnd't use it on gates and such, since it would make gatecamping way too easy, even without good decloakers.
The EMP probe is essentially a combo of smartbomb and Sensor Damp, which sound mildly op even before going into the details. And with a bomber rework likely in the pipe already, I'd wait and see. Area of Effect sensor Dampening is an interesting concept, but I can foresee it really messing the balance as some fleets would be hit hard by it while others could ignore it altogether.
Lockbreaking probes already exist, they're the underused Lockbreaker Bombs, and they're underused for a variety of reasons.
And before the AFK cloaking crowd all jump on this as some kind of heresy, it would add some gameplay to a boring (if valid) tactic: you can trawl an area with these probes to make sure there aren't campers there. If the afker is dumb enough to do so somewhere close, he can be found and killed, and it would afford cloaky free zones to those that can work for them.
All in all +1 , hope this gives CCP food for thought. |
Bland Inquisitor
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 16:01:00 -
[4] - Quote
I would also like to see a 10 minute idle time log off timer or some method of being able to scan cloakers down to at least their grid so you could use these kinds of probes to eventually find and decloak afkers.
AFK cloaking is a dumb game mechanic, so too is local chat. Hopefully the get fixed. |
Draconus Lofwyr
UK Corp RAZOR Alliance
102
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 16:23:00 -
[5] - Quote
Joe Boirele wrote:Cloaking already has a nerf. It's called local. The submarine analogy has a point, to an extent, except that you don't get a warning whenever there's a submarine in the same area as you. With a cloaked ship, you do.
not true, a good sonar operator can tell you the type of screw in the water and the ship it belongs to. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
228
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 16:56:00 -
[6] - Quote
Bland Inquisitor wrote:I would also like to see a 10 minute idle time log off timer or some method of being able to scan cloakers down to at least their grid so you could use these kinds of probes to eventually find and decloak afkers.
AFK cloaking is a dumb game mechanic, so too is local chat. Hopefully the get fixed.
No, no, no. You completly misunderstood. A cloaking device make a ship invisible to the human eyes. You cannot interact with it and the pilot with the cloak need to take extra care of hers or his surroundings.
Cloaked vessels tend to be squishy.
Now after the zee grande defeat of BoB we haz BoB 1.1 and if someone with a cloaked vessel is interrupting your sanctums or heavens wizz drrehdz and carriarz it is working as intended.
/thread signature |
Bland Inquisitor
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 17:02:00 -
[7] - Quote
Any AFK action that can positively or negatively impact other players should be removed from the game and prevented at all costs. I believe CCP agrees with this, they already made tweaks to OGB, now they need to fix AFK cloaking.
Side note, removing Local would be a good move too. |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
719
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 17:05:00 -
[8] - Quote
Bland Inquisitor wrote:Any AFK action that can positively or negatively impact other players should be removed from the game and prevented at all costs. I believe CCP agrees with this, they already made tweaks to OGB, now they need to fix AFK cloaking.
Side note, removing Local would be a good move too.
AFK cloaking cannot negatively impact other players. Unless they're running some sort of bot, there's literally no action a cloaked player can take against you while AFK. "Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Cassandra Aurilien
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
147
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 17:06:00 -
[9] - Quote
Just have to mention... Your "heat" probes would likely be the most powerful anti-capitol weapon in the game. You can't defend against module damage, so you could burn out a capitol fleets weapons & hardeners without even having to engage them.
Also, there is a list of commonly suggested ideas on the sticky. Anti-cloaking probes suggestions go back to at least 2007. It's fine how it is, in my opinion. I do have to mention though, I live in WH space, so I'm used to assuming that there is always a cloaky hanging around somewhere. |
Willmahh
44
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 17:14:00 -
[10] - Quote
Bland Inquisitor wrote:I would also like to see a 10 minute idle time log off timer or some method of being able to scan cloakers down to at least their grid so you could use these kinds of probes to eventually find and decloak afkers.
AFK cloaking is a dumb game mechanic, so too is local chat. Hopefully the get fixed.
in order for something to be fixed, it must first be broken. just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it is broken.
i don't particularly care about afk cloakers...they are cloaked - they can't do anything. So you see them in local, do you always dock up when you aren't alone in a system? if so, you're doing it wrong.
i often play in cov ops and often run around systems cloaked. but to me, a technology like cloaking should require much more power to maintain than it currently does.
if anything were to change i would suggest that cloaking devices, when activated, consume cap at a very slowly (like a point or two per minute, but steady rate and while you are cloaked your cap doesn't regenerate.
This would make it so cloaking would have a finite length possible without recharging it. It could take several hours to completely drain your cap, but it would prevent being perma-cloaked 23/7
but again i don't even think this is necessary if all one needs to do to is ignore the +1 in local and keep your eyes open on D-scan... |
|
Bland Inquisitor
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 18:50:00 -
[11] - Quote
Clearly you do not understand the issue with afk cloaking, although off topic, I'll explain;
The main disadvantage sov-dwelling anom runners face over mission runners is the lack of the requirement to probe. This means when I'm running my level 4 missions in npc nullsec I can happily do so with an unlimited number of neutrals in local. I know that if I keep D-Scanning, I will catch probes and have an early warning to any potential threat.
In anomalies this is not the case, you can warp to any anomaly in system without giving away if you are actively hunting or not. Combine this with the upgrade system restricting your choice of systems to the ones you have upgraded (both Ihub upgrades as well as gaining military 5).
Just a single cloaked neut in Sov space system will deny that entire system from potentially 100's of pilots. When you can do so AFK for 23/7, pick and choose targets to hotdrop on your own terms with no means of counter or detection, that is a problem.
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
722
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 18:55:00 -
[12] - Quote
Bland Inquisitor wrote:
Just a single cloaked neut in Sov space system will deny that entire system from potentially 100's of pilots.
If 100s of pilots are afraid of one AFK guy, the only thing that is going to solve their problem is some nice low wholesale pricing on extra-absorbent Huggies. "Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Bland Inquisitor
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 19:06:00 -
[13] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Bland Inquisitor wrote:
Just a single cloaked neut in Sov space system will deny that entire system from potentially 100's of pilots.
If 100s of pilots are afraid of one AFK guy, the only thing that is going to solve their problem is some nice low wholesale pricing on extra-absorbent Huggies.
It takes 3 minutes for a ratting carrier to be killed by blops hotdrop. That is not enough time for a defense fleet to form, warp in and save the carrier. Even if they could, your talking about having to have an active defense fleet to combat and AFK threat. Why should somoene who isnt at his keyboard have so much power as to have 100 players be ready to counter a potential threat.
In reality, AFK cloaking is imbalanced.
You, can't even argue that if your aligned you can warp before being tackled from a deloaker, because the simple, yet effective tactic of moving infront of and bumping a target prior to tackling it.
I'm all for risk and reward, this is all reward and no risk for the cloaker. |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
722
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 19:08:00 -
[14] - Quote
Bland Inquisitor wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:Bland Inquisitor wrote:
Just a single cloaked neut in Sov space system will deny that entire system from potentially 100's of pilots.
If 100s of pilots are afraid of one AFK guy, the only thing that is going to solve their problem is some nice low wholesale pricing on extra-absorbent Huggies. It takes 3 minutes for a ratting carrier to be killed by blops hotdrop.
So what? You haven't described a game design problem - you've described a personal problem for a ratting carrier.
Is there an amazingly good reason why the carrier pilot shouldn't be expected to manage his risk by, e.g., not ratting in a carrier?
I can't think of one.
You're presenting this as if there's nothing the poor ratter could possibly do to to thwart the evil, OP afk cloaker. It's disingenuous at best, and a big fat lie at worst: He could try not being such an idiot.
I can't think of anything in Eve that inspires less sympathy than the plight of a solo capital ship ratter. Unsupported cap ships SHOULD get curbstomped. "Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Bland Inquisitor
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 19:11:00 -
[15] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Bland Inquisitor wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:Bland Inquisitor wrote:
Just a single cloaked neut in Sov space system will deny that entire system from potentially 100's of pilots.
If 100s of pilots are afraid of one AFK guy, the only thing that is going to solve their problem is some nice low wholesale pricing on extra-absorbent Huggies. It takes 3 minutes for a ratting carrier to be killed by blops hotdrop. So what? You haven't described a game design problem - you've described a personal problem for a ratting carrier. Is there an amazingly good reason why the carrier pilot shouldn't be expected to manage his risk by, e.g., not ratting in a carrier? I can't think of one.
your missing the point entirely. What is the risk taken by the cloaker? nothing. What is the overal impact, a substantially negative one which in my opinion is way too much power for someone who is essentially AFK/Alt tabbed. |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
722
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 19:13:00 -
[16] - Quote
Bland Inquisitor wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:Bland Inquisitor wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:Bland Inquisitor wrote:
Just a single cloaked neut in Sov space system will deny that entire system from potentially 100's of pilots.
If 100s of pilots are afraid of one AFK guy, the only thing that is going to solve their problem is some nice low wholesale pricing on extra-absorbent Huggies. It takes 3 minutes for a ratting carrier to be killed by blops hotdrop. So what? You haven't described a game design problem - you've described a personal problem for a ratting carrier. Is there an amazingly good reason why the carrier pilot shouldn't be expected to manage his risk by, e.g., not ratting in a carrier? I can't think of one. your missing the point entirely. What is the risk taken by the cloaker? nothing. What is the overal impact, a substantially negative one which in my opinion is way too much power for someone who is essentially AFK/Alt tabbed.
There's also no reward for the AFK cloaker. Any reward incurred happens while he's actively playing the game and has to uncloak, thereby incurring the risk of being shot at.
I'm not missing your point. You just don't have one. It's the same garden-variety self-entitled mewling that has been going on for ages. "Boo ******* hoo, someone is making it dangerous for me to do something obscenely stupid, it's not fair!" "Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Bland Inquisitor
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 19:17:00 -
[17] - Quote
His reward is being able to hide his activity, by being present all the time in the system you lack that information provided normally by local count increasing or decreasing.
An easier solution would be to have a inactivity logout timer or a method of seeing who is active, pilots that have not moved the cursor in 10 minutes (as an example) appear grayed out in local.
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
723
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 19:20:00 -
[18] - Quote
Bland Inquisitor wrote:His reward is being able to hide his activity, by being present all the time in the system you lack that information provided normally by local count increasing or decreasing.
The second-least sympathetic issue: People complaining that there is an edge-case where their otherwise 100% perfect intel tool is unreliable.
You're on a roll.
Quote:An easier solution would be to have a inactivity logout timer or a method of seeing who is active, pilots that have not moved the cursor in 10 minutes (as an example) appear grayed out in local.
You would just be back here - probably in about a single 10 minute span - after a cloaker parked in an anomaly and "idled". "Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Willmahh
44
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 19:20:00 -
[19] - Quote
Bland Inquisitor wrote:
Just a single cloaked neut in Sov space system will deny that entire system from potentially 100's of pilots.
If you had no local, you wouldn't even know he's there. ...and you would rat anyway with a watchful eye on D-scan...
So you're saying that knowing he's there is what makes your [insert popular word for man-parts here] retreat into your body cavity. |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
723
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 19:24:00 -
[20] - Quote
Willmahh wrote:Bland Inquisitor wrote:
Just a single cloaked neut in Sov space system will deny that entire system from potentially 100's of pilots.
If you had no local, you wouldn't even know he's there. ...and you would rat anyway with a watchful eye on D-scan... So you're saying that knowing he's there is what makes your [insert popular word for man-parts here] retreat into your body cavity.
Yes, it DOES seem like the complaint could be perfectly resolved by leaving cloaking entirely alone, and simply removing local, no? "Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
|
Bland Inquisitor
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 19:28:00 -
[21] - Quote
personally, I don't run anoms. I make money elsewhere in null/wh space. I've hotdropped many people in the past, plan to continue to do so in the future. My point is, D-Scanning is normally the way to detect threats, because you can scan down sites while cloaked without probes there is nothing to assist anom runners in preventing a hotdrop.
You can call it being a coward all you like, nobody of sane mind would risk expensive (300-5b) ratting ships with 0% chance of avoiding a loss.
|
Willmahh
45
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 19:28:00 -
[22] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Yes, it DOES seem like the complaint could be perfectly resolved by leaving cloaking entirely alone, and simply removing local, no?
that is exactly what i was saying.
that and HTFU. :) |
Willmahh
45
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 19:30:00 -
[23] - Quote
Bland Inquisitor wrote:personally, I don't run anoms. I make money elsewhere in null/wh space. I've hotdropped many people in the past, plan to continue to do so in the future. My point is, D-Scanning is normally the way to detect threats, because you can scan down sites while cloaked without probes there is nothing to assist anom runners in preventing a hotdrop.
You can call it being a coward all you like, nobody of sane mind would risk expensive (300-5b) ratting ships with 0% chance of avoiding a loss.
so, you're saying people should be allowed to risk a (300-5b) ratting ship with no chance of loss?
EDIT: so how do you deal with this issue in a wormhole? |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
513
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 19:34:00 -
[24] - Quote
I have no problem with afk cloaking as the afk ship be definition cannot do anything to you (they are afk...).
Worried about that afk ship cloaked in your system? Pre-prepare a hotdrop response and bait them or jump system.
I would however quite like a destroyer module that allowed scanning for active cloaked vessels i.e. a cloaked ship that has any kind of module active or that is traveling hence creating some kind of energy signature to be tracked. However I think it would need to have at least 2 dessies hunting to provide triangulation on the target (one via the 'sonar' module, one providing additional data via remote 'sonar'). This should only work on ships actually doing something though. There is no way in hell anyone should ever be able to track down a silent running cloaked ship other than literally bumoing into it.
Oh and depth charges would be smart bombs in Eve :) |
De'Veldrin
Saint's Industries Brothers of Tangra
2093
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 19:34:00 -
[25] - Quote
Oh look it's this thread again in which the following will happen.
1. Side one: AFK Cloaking is bad. 2. Side 2: No it's not, you're just terrible at Eve. 3. Side 1: No U! 4. Side 2: LOL NEWB, U R TEH SUXORS.
It's an argument that has never, in my 6 years of playing, come to any kind of resolution that doesn't devolve into children on a playground with their fingers in their ears.
We may as well debate gun control, abortion, or the death penalty. We'll get just as much accompolished. GÇ£SandboxGÇ¥ does not mean that you will succeed at anything you attempt; it means you can attempt anything you want to succeed at. One of the largest obstacles in the way of your success is other players. |
Bland Inquisitor
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 19:35:00 -
[26] - Quote
Willmahh wrote:Bland Inquisitor wrote:personally, I don't run anoms. I make money elsewhere in null/wh space. I've hotdropped many people in the past, plan to continue to do so in the future. My point is, D-Scanning is normally the way to detect threats, because you can scan down sites while cloaked without probes there is nothing to assist anom runners in preventing a hotdrop.
You can call it being a coward all you like, nobody of sane mind would risk expensive (300-5b) ratting ships with 0% chance of avoiding a loss.
so, you're saying people should be allowed to risk a (300-5b) ratting ship with no chance of loss?
No, I'm saying there should be a risk. Not a guaranteed chance of death. The determining factor of loss isn't if they manage to catch you or not, its if they are active or not.
An easy solution would be to make it so that all forms of scanning be classed as running active modules, requiring you to be uncloaked. |
Bland Inquisitor
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 19:36:00 -
[27] - Quote
De'Veldrin wrote:Oh look it's this thread again in which the following will happen.
1. Side one: AFK Cloaking is bad. 2. Side 2: No it's not, you're just terrible at Eve. 3. Side 1: No U! 4. Side 2: LOL NEWB, U R TEH SUXORS.
It's an argument that has never, in my 6 years of playing, come to any kind of resolution that doesn't devolve into children on a playground with their fingers in their ears.
We may as well debate gun control, abortion, or the death penalty. We'll get just as much accompolished.
They are already looking to nerf combat scanning, I want this to also include the internal scanner.
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
724
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 19:37:00 -
[28] - Quote
Bland Inquisitor wrote:Willmahh wrote:Bland Inquisitor wrote:personally, I don't run anoms. I make money elsewhere in null/wh space. I've hotdropped many people in the past, plan to continue to do so in the future. My point is, D-Scanning is normally the way to detect threats, because you can scan down sites while cloaked without probes there is nothing to assist anom runners in preventing a hotdrop.
You can call it being a coward all you like, nobody of sane mind would risk expensive (300-5b) ratting ships with 0% chance of avoiding a loss.
so, you're saying people should be allowed to risk a (300-5b) ratting ship with no chance of loss? No, I'm saying there should be a risk. Not a guaranteed chance of death. The determining factor of loss isn't if they manage to catch you or not, its if they are active or not. An easy solution would be to make it so that all forms of scanning be classed as running active modules, requiring you to be uncloaked.
I'm pretty much fine with solo carriers having a near-100% mortality rate. If anything, the fact that people do this only serves as evidence that they're not NEARLY in enough danger.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
De'Veldrin
Saint's Industries Brothers of Tangra
2094
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 19:39:00 -
[29] - Quote
Bland Inquisitor wrote:
They are already looking to nerf combat scanning, I want this to also include the internal scanner.
If it's a comprehensive rebalance that addresses both sides of the equation, that's fine. If it's a knee jerk reaction to the whining masses, then it will just end badly.
And by both sides I mean it needs to examine both cloaking AND the Instant Intelligence Network of Infalibility (AKA Local). GÇ£SandboxGÇ¥ does not mean that you will succeed at anything you attempt; it means you can attempt anything you want to succeed at. One of the largest obstacles in the way of your success is other players. |
Bland Inquisitor
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
33
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 19:43:00 -
[30] - Quote
De'Veldrin wrote:Bland Inquisitor wrote:
They are already looking to nerf combat scanning, I want this to also include the internal scanner.
If it's a comprehensive rebalance that addresses both sides of the equation, that's fine. If it's a knee jerk reaction to the whining masses, then it will just end badly. And by both sides I mean it needs to examine both cloaking AND the Instant Intelligence Network of Infalibility (AKA Local).
I'm all for the removal of local, However I also agree that combat scanning is a tad too easy and rolling the system scanner in as an active mod would be the better option to solving "the problem". Then we have a senario were both hunter and prey have a fighting chance.
To say that all carriers should die is plain stupid, You NEED a carrier to live in Null, why not allow it to double up as a ratting ship. |
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
513
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 19:50:00 -
[31] - Quote
De'Veldrin wrote:Oh look it's this thread again in which the following will happen.
1. Side one: AFK Cloaking is bad. 2. Side 2: No it's not, you're just terrible at Eve. 3. Side 1: No U! 4. Side 2: LOL NEWB, U R TEH SUXORS.
It's an argument that has never, in my 6 years of playing, come to any kind of resolution that doesn't devolve into children on a playground with their fingers in their ears.
We may as well debate gun control, abortion, or the death penalty. We'll get just as much accompolished.
Maybe any AFK cloaking thread should only be active when the OP is ATK... |
Bland Inquisitor
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 19:51:00 -
[32] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:De'Veldrin wrote:Oh look it's this thread again in which the following will happen.
1. Side one: AFK Cloaking is bad. 2. Side 2: No it's not, you're just terrible at Eve. 3. Side 1: No U! 4. Side 2: LOL NEWB, U R TEH SUXORS.
It's an argument that has never, in my 6 years of playing, come to any kind of resolution that doesn't devolve into children on a playground with their fingers in their ears.
We may as well debate gun control, abortion, or the death penalty. We'll get just as much accompolished. Maybe any AFK cloaking thread should only be active when the OP is ATK...
That is not an issue with me, I'm always at keyboard :) |
w3ak3stl1nk
Hedion University Amarr Empire
47
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 19:57:00 -
[33] - Quote
Is null supposed to be safe? No risk high reward null sec? Null logic at its best here. AFK cloaking is just keeping people honest that pvp can happen. |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
724
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 20:00:00 -
[34] - Quote
Bland Inquisitor wrote:
They are already looking to nerf combat scanning, I want this to also include the internal scanner.
Yeah, let's just rework arbitrary (and ALREADY RECENTLY REWORKED) systems because stupid people can't be bothered to manage their own risk by not ratting in carriers. That makes sense.
Quote:To say that all carriers should die is plain stupid, You NEED a carrier to live in Null, why not allow it to double up as a ratting ship.
Holy entitled whining, Batman! You don't NEED a carrier, and you certainly don't NEED to rat in one. These are not requirements. Plenty of players get by without the aid of a carrier every day.
It is allowed to double up as a ratting ship and, when it does so, it paints a nice big target on itself, which is exactly as it should be.
There's absolutely ZERO reason why ANY game mechanic should be changed to facilitate carrier ratting. You have the right to do stupid things. You do not have the right to have the game changed to take the edge off of your own stupidity, though.
Manage your own ******* risk like everyone else. "Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Bland Inquisitor
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 20:08:00 -
[35] - Quote
your focusing on a narrow tangent. Carrier, battleship,t3 or cruiser. They all encounter the exact same problem. Its not a risk reward argument if its not a risk, its suicide.
People just don't rat and wait for them to get bored. All I'm saying is, why allow someone who isn't at the keyboard so much influence over a larger number of players who are actually active? |
Tek Handle
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
54
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 20:10:00 -
[36] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote: There's also no reward for the AFK cloaker. Any reward incurred happens while he's actively playing the game and has to uncloak, thereby incurring the risk of being shot at.
This is bullshit and you know that. Cloaky camping the worthiest systems of an Nullsec entity is a common strategy to deny their income! So he or his party is of course being rewarded for being there w/o any risk. |
Cassandra Aurilien
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
148
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 20:13:00 -
[37] - Quote
Bland Inquisitor wrote:your focusing on a narrow tangent. Carrier, battleship,t3 or cruiser. They all encounter the exact same problem. Its not a risk reward argument if its not a risk, its suicide.
People just don't rat and wait for them to get bored. All I'm saying is, why allow someone who isn't at the keyboard so much influence over a larger number of players who are actually active?
The person who is giving them that influence is you.
Set a trap. Arrange a counter hot drop. You could have your fellow carrier ratters help out. |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
725
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 20:17:00 -
[38] - Quote
Bland Inquisitor wrote:your focusing on a narrow tangent. Carrier, battleship,t3 or cruiser. They all encounter the exact same problem. Its not a risk reward argument if its not a risk, its suicide.
Bull ****. On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everything that undocks eventually drops to 0. The only concern should be whether or not your isk-earning activities outpace your isk-losing activities.
Quote:People just don't rat and wait for them to get bored. All I'm saying is, why allow someone who isn't at the keyboard so much influence over a larger number of players who are actually active?
Personal problems, again. If they're so risk averse that they simply can't bring themselves to rat with a cloaker in the system, too ******* bad. The influence is completely self-inflicted. Nobody is preventing them from ignoring the AFK cloaker. They're CHOOSING to treat ANY risk as if it were insurmountable. "Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Bland Inquisitor
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 20:18:00 -
[39] - Quote
I don't anom rat, a lot of my alliance members do. Its the basic income for most nullsec alliance gunts. The cloakly camper is an impact on income. Do rat and inevitably lose ships, don't rat and lose out on income.
End of the day, being able to warp on top of people without scanning them down makes it far too easy. Forget combat scanning being too easy, you don't even require scanning skills for this. |
Willmahh
46
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 20:18:00 -
[40] - Quote
Eliminate local in NULL and you:
1. negate afk cloaking 2. negate tinfoil-hat ratters 3. create better SOV/NULL metagame 4. make sov holders actually post guards in their systems 5. negate threads like this |
|
Kaerakh
Surprisingly Deep Hole
226
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 20:34:00 -
[41] - Quote
Bland Inquisitor wrote:*OP addressing a controversial issue that clearly no one ever ever in the whole wided worldeded ever thought of before.*
An AFK cloaker has never killed a player. Therefore it's not a problem.
HTFU
Edit:
Willmahh wrote:Eliminate local in NULL and you:
1. negate afk cloaking 2. negate tinfoil-hat ratters 3. create better SOV/NULL metagame 4. make sov holders actually post guards in their systems 5. negate threads like this This^ (4 is naive, but everything else is true) |
Willmahh
49
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 20:37:00 -
[42] - Quote
Kaerakh wrote:Bland Inquisitor wrote:*OP addressing a controversial issue that clearly no one ever ever in the whole wided worldeded ever thought of before.* An AFK cloaker has never killed a player. Therefore it's not a problem. HTFU Edit: Willmahh wrote:Eliminate local in NULL and you:
1. negate afk cloaking 2. negate tinfoil-hat ratters 3. create better SOV/NULL metagame 4. make sov holders actually post guards in their systems 5. negate threads like this This^ (4 is naive, but everything else is true)
i always include a little naive in every good idea. its for balance. |
Zorrkinae vonHui
Gnostics of the Sense of Life
3
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 20:39:00 -
[43] - Quote
Bland Inquisitor wrote:Any AFK action that can positively or negatively impact other players should be removed from the game and prevented at all costs. I believe CCP agrees with this, they already made tweaks to OGB, now they need to fix AFK cloaking.
Side note, removing Local would be a good move too.
this sounds awefully wrong dude! be sure that no afk-cloaker ever has killed any of your friends ;D and removing local is just dumb^^ why should there not be an openforallchannel? I really don-¦t fancy with the idea to open an privatchat/newchannel for daily chatting with my surroundings^^ maybe they should remove combatprobes aswell cuz it-¦s to easy to find you?
I-¦d recommend to overthink your suggestions once again^^ "there are million ways to death, but only one way leads to life" |
Bland Inquisitor
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 20:55:00 -
[44] - Quote
Zorrkinae vonHui wrote: and removing local is just dumb^^ why should there not be an openforallchannel? I really don-¦t fancy with the idea to open an privatchat/newchannel for daily chatting with my surroundings^^ maybe they should remove combatprobes aswell cuz it-¦s to easy to find you?
I-¦d recommend to overthink your suggestions once again^^
Local was never intended as an instant intel channel. Note that regional chat exists but isnt used, Local provides you with an updated list of not only who is around but their standings to you. Intel on hostile entities based on chat channels is less than ideal for a game as advanced as EvE online.
Nobody that wants local removed is asking so because they dislike the chat channel, How it works in W-Space is a step in the right direction in regards to local, however its a poor game mechanic. Having to actually scan and find players would drastically improve gameplay.
|
Silvetica Dian
Manson Family Advent of Fate
1051
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 21:02:00 -
[45] - Quote
Bland Inquisitor wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:Bland Inquisitor wrote:
Just a single cloaked neut in Sov space system will deny that entire system from potentially 100's of pilots.
If 100s of pilots are afraid of one AFK guy, the only thing that is going to solve their problem is some nice low wholesale pricing on extra-absorbent Huggies. It takes 3 minutes for a ratting carrier to be killed by blops hotdrop. That is not enough time for a defense fleet to form, warp in and save the carrier. Even if they could, your talking about having to have an active defense fleet to combat and AFK threat. Why should somoene who isnt at his keyboard have so much power as to have 100 players be ready to counter a potential threat. In reality, AFK cloaking is imbalanced. You, can't even argue that if your aligned you can warp before being tackled from a deloaker, because the simple, yet effective tactic of moving infront of and bumping a target prior to tackling it. I'm all for risk and reward, this is all reward and no risk for the cloaker.
have you considered having cloaky eyes in the systems they will drop from? We cloaky camp some people and they stay docked all day. They tried doing it to us and we continue ratting as if they weren't there. If we need to know we log on cloaky eyes in their briding systems and have a look see. If we think they are going to hotdrop we form a counter drop fleet. ratting is too safe in null already. cloaky hot drops are the only thing that provides any risk for the average nullbear and this is somehow broken in favour of the hunters? Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85 |
Kaerakh
Surprisingly Deep Hole
226
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 21:11:00 -
[46] - Quote
Silvetica Dian wrote:
have you considered having cloaky eyes in the systems they will drop from? We cloaky camp some people and they stay docked all day. They tried doing it to us and we continue ratting as if they weren't there. If we need to know we log on cloaky eyes in their briding systems and have a look see. If we think they are going to hotdrop we form a counter drop fleet. ratting is too safe in null already. cloaky hot drops are the only thing that provides any risk for the average nullbear and this is somehow broken in favour of the hunters?
Wow, this guy is suggesting a proactive solution, imagine that. You'd think from all these AFK cloaking threads there was nothing they could do. Oh, that's right there's a whole lot of things they can do. They just won't lift a finger to save themselves.
Too bad nullbears will never consider it. They want nullsec to be highsec. Pure and simple, and wholly incompatible with how nullsec is intended to work. |
Gigan Amilupar
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
257
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 21:19:00 -
[47] - Quote
As promised. |
Mag's
the united
17297
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 21:20:00 -
[48] - Quote
Bland Inquisitor wrote:Bland Indeed.
Reported for redundancy and/or reopened thread.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Kaerakh
Surprisingly Deep Hole
228
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 21:39:00 -
[49] - Quote
That reminds me of my completely serious and opposing argument for these threads. Schrodinger's Hot Dropper |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
2777
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 21:45:00 -
[50] - Quote
Mmm. Yet more solutions to something that's not a problem. Rifterlings pirate corporation is now recruitng members for lowsec PvP operations. Newbie friendly, free T1 frigate and dessy hangar, solo tutoring and PvP classes for new members. Join our in game channel 'weflyrifters' and speak to a recruiter today. |
|
Bohneik Itohn
Periphery Bound
202
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 21:47:00 -
[51] - Quote
I just want to say that I, deep in my soul, truly feel a bit of sympathy for the people I have "cloaky camped" (finished cooking dinner in their system, or watched an episode of some demented anime, or whatever. BTW thanks to the guys from the Alliance in Syndicate whose name I can't remember for a spot on the couch while I watched the fanfest livestream, and I'm not including you in this criticism.).
Well, I would.... If they weren't so incapable that they couldn't check my Bio and my Corp to see that there was no chance of me hot-dropping them.
Seriously.... You're that bad at using this as an excuse.... Freyya:
Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?! |
Marsha Mallow
772
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 22:19:00 -
[52] - Quote
Chunk, have a look here and you'll see why afk cloaky proposals don't really generate constructive feedback. Or here for removing local (take note of the thread title). It's been done to death, you'll probably see your own ideas somewhere on those lists in another form.
Proposals like this tend to get locked if you didn't bother to search for an existing thread. If you let it spiral into circular arguments over whether it's a legitimate complaint, you may as well just put an advert up inviting more afk cloakers to your space.
btw TO THE RIPARDMOBILE! |
Willmahh
53
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 22:42:00 -
[53] - Quote
for the record...when i say remove local, i mean make it like WH space. Don't show people unless they talk. |
Kaerakh
Surprisingly Deep Hole
230
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 22:43:00 -
[54] - Quote
Willmahh wrote:for the record...when i say remove local, i mean make it like WH space. Don't show people unless they talk.
People commonly refer to that as delayed mode I believe. Schrodinger's Hot Dropper |
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1429
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 23:13:00 -
[55] - Quote
While you proposal might have some merits, it is also a proposal that has been discussed at length many times before.
Thread locked.
The rules: 16. Redundant and re-posted threads will be locked.
As a courtesy to other forum users, please search to see if there is a thread already open on the topic you wish to discuss. If so, please place your comments there instead. Multiple threads on the same subject clutter up the forums needlessly, causing good feedback and ideas to be lost. Please keep discussions regarding a topic to a single thread.
ISD Ezwal Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |