EVE Search - Sticky:AFK CloakingGäó: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:AFK CloakingGäó: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals

» 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 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 .. 343 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.06 08:21:59 - [5311] - Quote Teckos Yes, it is quite possible that newer players are paying cash so that older players can have Eve funded multiple accounts (though it equally could be plexes dropped from frostline sites). We can call this the pay to lose model if you like. You are seriously trying to argue that established players pay for multiple accounts with real life money? They pay for 1 subscription at best. The rest is Eve funded. Including specifically the account used for afk cloaky camping. Afk cloaky camping is Eve funded multiple account fluff. One of those established entitlements that established players will go to great lengths to defend. As the post tiericide done yesterday by the moderators proves. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Xcom Quantum Vortex Battalion 38	Posted - 2016.01.06 09:37:54 - [5312] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Quote: I have also been part of wormhole corps and I can also put in a note that AFK cloak shenanegans do appear in wormhole space as well. Sometimes assholes cloak up in smaller WH corps after probing down sights and jump people while they try to run said sight. You just end up having to move to another system to do anything with the included risk of getting jumped by a cloaked ship when trying to go through your wormhole. Well, if you can't defend your space.... How are you supposed to defend your space? Probe down the cloaked ship? Its not possible to survive wormhole sight + pvp encounter when your logi is suddenly jammed by a falcon and some other baddys hammering you down. Your forum warrioring really needs a bit more brains and a bit more ingame experience.
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 981	Posted - 2016.01.06 09:58:14 - [5313] - Quote That's some impressive work for "afk" ships. Your complaint is people can bring "unfair" PvP to you. That is the game.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.06 10:08:04 - [5314] - Quote Morrigan Correct. Vulnerability to unsolicited pvp is indeed the game. Thank you for succinctly summing up my argument. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Xcom Quantum Vortex Battalion 38	Posted - 2016.01.06 10:12:09 - [5315] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: That's some impressive work for "afk" ships. Your complaint is people can bring "unfair" PvP to you. That is the game. I'll bite just to level with your stupidity. Its fair pvp when you don't get mauled down like a bug. Its unfair when a ship de-cloaks in his preferred range and position, jams you under 7 seconds. Then have his buddys that were logged out in system warp in on top of you and you didn't see it coming or had any chance to counter the attack in any way possible. No local, no d-scan, no idea your being watched while your opponent had you watch listed and camped the system till you started running your system behind his "AFK cloak". Really good game design, best pvp experience.
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 981	Posted - 2016.01.06 10:13:17 - [5316] - Quote Off topic. AFK cloaked ships cannot fight. Keep to the topic. So are logoff traps. Go whine somewhere else.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.06 10:18:58 - [5317] - Quote Morrigan I reported your post last post. Lets see if the new sheriff is in town. For the snide "whine" comment. AFK cloaked ships are entirely fight capable. That the player controlling it chooses to do other things is really his decision. That he is invulnerable is however a huge game play issue. For reasons repeated ad nauseum in this thread. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 981	Posted - 2016.01.06 10:24:17 - [5318] - Quote Jerghul wrote: Morrigan I reported your post last post. Lets see if the new sheriff is in town. For the snide "whine" comment. AFK cloaked ships are entirely fight capable. That the player controlling it chooses to do other things is really his decision. That he is invulnerable is however a huge game play issue. For reasons repeated ad nauseum in this thread. 1) The guy is crying about logoff traps in wormholes. Could not be further from the "afk cloaking" issue, so called. 2) AFK ships are not fight capable 3) Cloaked ships are NOT fight capable. 4) I'm invulnerable docked in a station yet I am a neut in local you can't touch. 5) You are also invulnerable from me because I cannot activate a single module whilst I am cloaked. 6) You have still not answered my question as to why low sec manages with neuts in your precious local just fine. You certainly did lie a lot about it, generally making things up and ignore it, but have still not managed to ascertain the reason as to why this is only a problem in nullbear space. 7) You're filling this thread with utter lies, off topic sperg and falsehoods at every turn and you have the audacity to complain I'm off topic? Priceless.
Wander Prian Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 160	Posted - 2016.01.06 10:48:31 - [5319] - Quote Xcom wrote: I have also been part of wormhole corps and I can also put in a note that AFK cloak shenanegans do appear in wormhole space as well. Sometimes assholes cloak up in smaller WH corps after probing down sights and jump people while they try to run said sight. You just end up having to move to another system to do anything with the included risk of getting jumped by a cloaked ship when trying to go through your wormhole. Everything about cloaking is broken and only a portion of it is influenced by local. I've lived in womrholes for about 5 years now and in that time I haven't seen very many logoff-traps, unless you are running capitals. You cannot secure your space completely. You just need to get used to the fact that there could be someone watching you, planning to kill you. I like the unknown danger in W-space, that's part of the reason why I live there. I don't think cloaks are an issue. You just need to have enough people to make it safe enough to run the PVE.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.06 10:56:58 - [5320] - Quote Wander I can see why afk cloaky camping is not an issue in wormhole space. Its multifaceted. I am not adverse to nabbing mechanisms from wh-space and importing them to nullsec, but the afk cloaky camping issue is really best dealt with directly. Null-sec should really not be wormhole space in everything but name. It would flatten the game. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Wander Prian Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 160	Posted - 2016.01.06 11:09:31 - [5321] - Quote Jerghul wrote: Wander I can see why afk cloaky camping is not an issue in wormhole space. Its multifaceted. I am not adverse to nabbing mechanisms from wh-space and importing them to nullsec, but the afk cloaky camping issue is really best dealt with directly. Null-sec should really not be wormhole space in everything but name. It would flatten the game. CCP agrees that nullsec shouldn't be the same as W-space and they have said they won't make them have same mechanics.
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 981	Posted - 2016.01.06 11:35:11 - [5322] - Quote Wander Prian wrote: Jerghul wrote: Wander I can see why afk cloaky camping is not an issue in wormhole space. Its multifaceted. I am not adverse to nabbing mechanisms from wh-space and importing them to nullsec, but the afk cloaky camping issue is really best dealt with directly. Null-sec should really not be wormhole space in everything but name. It would flatten the game. CCP agrees that nullsec shouldn't be the same as W-space and they have said they won't make them have same mechanics. Perhaps nullsec should import some of lowsecs features which make it immune to this scourge?
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.06 12:01:12 - [5323] - Quote Morrigan Incursions, burner missions or faction war you were thinking? Sure, why not. Not like there is much else to do in lowsec (the devs can check relative activity levels in different areas if they like). Wander As I point out when people raise the no local in null-sec spectre. Like I said; the issue with afk cloaky camping is best dealt with directly. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Wander Prian Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 161	Posted - 2016.01.06 14:06:17 - [5324] - Quote Jerghul wrote: Morrigan Incursions, burner missions or faction war you were thinking? Sure, why not. Not like there is much else to do in lowsec (the devs can check relative activity levels in different areas if they like). Wander As I point out when people raise the no local in null-sec spectre. Like I said; the issue with afk cloaky camping is best dealt with directly. So breaking cloaks is your idea of a fix? CCP has said before that they want to take the intel-aspect out of local and turn local to a chat-channel like it's supposed to be. They want to move the intel into a structure that you can mess with. This move would allow CCP to make cloaks not show up on intel, unless you are decloakd, which would be balanced by giving you a way to find cloaked ships
ISD Max Trix ISD Community Communications Liaisons 125	Posted - 2016.01.06 14:30:39 - [5325] - Quote Quote: 2. Be respectful toward others at all times. The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others. 12. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited. The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a support ticket under the Community & Forums Category. 27. Off-topic posting is prohibited. Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster. Post and those quoting them were removed. ISD Max Trix Ensign Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department I do not respond to Evemails.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.06 14:33:33 - [5326] - Quote Wander Well, for as long as high sec also gets T3 loot as compensation for becoming wormhole surrogates, then I am sure they will be happy to lose local. Or probably not. It does not seem like good game design somehow to make the server seem empty. But this thread is actually about afk cloaky camping. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4281	Posted - 2016.01.06 14:41:33 - [5327] - Quote Xcom wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: That's some impressive work for "afk" ships. Your complaint is people can bring "unfair" PvP to you. That is the game. I'll bite just to level with you. Its fair pvp when you don't get mauled down like a bug. Its unfair when a ship de-cloaks in his preferred range and position, jams you under 7 seconds. Then have his buddys that were logged out in system warp in on top of you and you didn't see it coming or had any chance to counter the attack in any way possible. No local, no d-scan, no idea your being watched while your opponent had you watch listed and camped the system till you started running your system behind his "AFK cloak". Really good game design, best pvp experience. Cloaked ships are NOT that powerful. Even the stratios which might be a tad OP given that it can cloak and thus lurk up on the unaware ratter in NS is still not that powerful. So if you are getting constantly beaten up by a cloaked gang it seems to me you guys are woefully outmatched and yeah...time to move. Further, let me see if I apprehend the situation correctly.... You have a gang logged off in your wormhole. They are using a cloaked scout to find and tackle the lone guy doing something in system and then kill him. Is that the problem? A group of guys killed one player? Why weren't you using the watchlist? And again, some impressive work for "AFK cloaking" as you put it. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4281	Posted - 2016.01.06 14:48:46 - [5328] - Quote Jerghul wrote: I think we should just agree to disagree on to what degree nominal vulnerability breaks cloaking. My intent is that there be a mechanism that renders afk cloaky camping potentially costly. Yes, and that can and most likely will be done via the observatory array. Further, since CCP is moving/giving players an intel structure it also is reasonable to "move local" into said structure. Nobody is talking about "removing local", but instead simply moving it. Your attempts to use strawmen arguments on this point though are duly noted. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?
Wander Prian Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 164	Posted - 2016.01.06 14:52:27 - [5329] - Quote Jerghul wrote: Wander Well, for as long as high sec also gets T3 loot as compensation for becoming wormhole surrogates, then I am sure they will be happy to lose local. Or probably not. It does not seem like good game design somehow to make the server seem empty. But this thread is actually about afk cloaky camping. I think we should just agree to disagree on to what degree nominal vulnerability breaks cloaking. My intent is that there be a mechanism that renders afk cloaky camping potentially costly. "AFK-cloaking" doesn't exist in a vacuum. There are reasons why it's done and it affects certain things. You cannot just "fix" one thing without having a ripple-effect around it. There is no simple fix to this as you have to think of all the different uses of cloaking before you can say your fix is balanced.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.06 15:09:05 - [5330] - Quote Wander Hence my precision targeting only the afk contribution to the 4/4 (undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe). The impact of an ATK criteria to maintain the current status quo is hardly an outlandish demand. Teckos The whole OA discussion is an off-topic strawman that perhaps is deserving of its own thread, but does not belong in this one. I also did not make a strawman argument as I seriously doubt you meant the local surrogate to be universally deployed and free of cost. It would incidentally also require that gates become player controlled. But that is still a discussion for a completely different thread. None of this is a pre-requisite for changing cloaks, nor a consequence of doing so. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Wander Prian Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 164	Posted - 2016.01.06 15:33:10 - [5331] - Quote Jerghul wrote: Wander Hence my precision targeting only the afk contribution to the 4/4 (undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe). The impact of an ATK criteria to maintain the current status quo is hardly an outlandish demand. Teckos The whole OA discussion is an off-topic strawman that perhaps is deserving of its own thread, but does not belong in this one. I also did not make a strawman argument as I seriously doubt you meant the local surrogate to be universally deployed and free of cost. It would incidentally also require that gates become player controlled. But that is still a discussion for a completely different thread. None of this is a pre-requisite for changing cloaks, nor a consequence of doing so. Edit Here is the thread you are looking for that is a dedicated OA change proposal thread. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=416522 Sigh.. You cannot just try to snipe one part of a mechanic without having it affect other things too. That "fix" of yours would have a seriously bad effects in w-space for example. If you want to fix this "issue", you need to look at cloaking as a whole and that will bring the intel of local into the conversation also.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.06 15:46:24 - [5332] - Quote Wander If a complete audit were required, then it would relate more to reviewing afk behaviour. Given that afk is the target criteria. But the whole point of 6 week release cycles is give leeway for changes without full information on their potential impact. Which is unreachable anyway as emerging player adaptation always changes the evaluation basis. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Wander Prian Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 164	Posted - 2016.01.06 15:53:06 - [5333] - Quote Jerghul wrote: Wander If a complete audit were required, then it would relate more to reviewing afk behaviour. Given that afk is the target criteria. But the whole point of 6 week release cycles is give leeway for changes without full information on their potential impact. Which is unreachable anyway as emerging player adaptation always changes the evaluation basis. Still releasing something you know will break things is bad practice. And even though the 6 week cycle gives you the ability, doesn't mean you should spent your development time in making a bad change just to do it. Why not spend the time in making a well balanced fix tat will be good for all of eve instead of just throwing stuff to the wall and see what sticks
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.06 16:14:00 - [5334] - Quote A mechanism that renders a cloaked ship nominally vulnerable unless the cloaked pilot compensates by doing anything is hardly game breaking Wander. I think the danger is much more on the side of players adapting to keeping afk cloaked invulnerability despite developer intentions, than it is likely to impact on the side of effecting ATK cloaked pilots. Essentially, I think it will take a couple tries to get right in any event. The reason established players are against the proposal has much more to do with wanting to retain afk cloaked camping invulnerability, than it has to do with any unforeseen consequences. I get it. Afk cloaky camping is an established multiple account entitlement. So people defend it. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Wander Prian Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 165	Posted - 2016.01.06 16:57:30 - [5335] - Quote Jerghul wrote: A mechanism that renders a cloaked ship nominally vulnerable unless the cloaked pilot compensates by doing anything is hardly game breaking Wander. I think the danger is much more on the side of players adapting to keeping afk cloaked invulnerability despite developer intentions, than it is likely to impact on the side of effecting ATK cloaked pilots. Essentially, I think it will take a couple tries to get right in any event. The reason established players are against the proposal has much more to do with wanting to retain afk cloaked camping invulnerability, than it has to do with any unforeseen consequences. I get it. Afk cloaky camping is an established multiple account entitlement. So people defend it. Sorry, but you are way off the mark here. I've played for a good 5-6 years by now and I still only have this one guy. I'm not defending AFK-cloaking in any way, but I won't let you break cloaking just because you have a non-issue that you just cannot seem to learn to play around. Yet you want to make a "fix" without any idea how it might affect other things using the same mechanic. If you want to fix "AFK-cloaking" then do it right, not half-ass it and break other parts of cloaking .
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 1114	Posted - 2016.01.06 17:29:24 - [5336] - Quote It's the definition of 'break' that needs addressed. All the stuff Morrigan is so terrified will break without her perfect cloaks isn't a non issue, but almost none of it should be possible from an unassailable position anyway. Doing important things risk free should be broken.
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 983	Posted - 2016.01.06 17:36:15 - [5337] - Quote That's because no-one has yet suggested a way that can catch an active cloaker, but not an afk one just burning into the sunset. At least, not one that DOES break everything. It's not unreasonableness on my part - there just isnt anything (that I am aware of or has been suggested yet) which can catch an afk guy doing 400-500+ m/s but DOESNT break the non covert types. Or indeed actual covert types.
Maria Dragoon Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 81	Posted - 2016.01.06 17:36:15 - [5338] - Quote Mike Voidstar wrote: It's the definition of 'break' that needs addressed. All the stuff Morrigan is so terrified will break without her perfect cloaks isn't a non issue, but almost none of it should be possible from an unassailable position anyway. Doing important things risk free should be broken. So.... We should ramp up the difficulty on nullbears, take away their local and remove ALL cynos from popping up on the overlay for anyone to warp to that not on grid when the cyno is lit. Got'cha.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 3	Posted - 2016.01.06 18:09:02 - [5339] - Quote Wander You are not really the choir I am preaching to. Shall we simply agree to disagree? Morrigan In its simplest form then. A citadel module exists. When activated and after a certain delay: On screen message to cloaked ship: "You have been targeted by a decloaking device. Recalibrate cloak [right click on module to select recalibrate] within 60...59...58 seconds [timer] or cloak will deactivate. Failure to right click causes cloak to deactivate. Ship is no longer both afk and cloaked. It might still be speed tanked or whatever, but that does not concern me. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 4282	Posted - 2016.01.06 20:14:48 - [5340] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: That's because no-one has yet suggested a way that can catch an active cloaker, but not an afk one just burning into the sunset. At least, not one that DOESN'T break everything. It's not unreasonableness on my part - there just isnt anything (that I am aware of or has been suggested yet) which can catch an afk guy doing 400-500+ m/s but DOESNT break the non covert types. Or indeed actual covert types. I think catching an active cloaker should be extremely hard aside from the usual suspects, landing in a bubble on grid with objects such as cans, being decloaked on a gate, a gang of smart bombing BSs, etc. A cloak is to provide considerable stealth, and if you are warping form safe-to-safe you should be as safe maybe even safer than an interceptor doing the same. Depends on how it works in the OA, if it creates a target that one can warp to in any ship then maybe an interceptor or a small group of them. Warp the first time and get close, warp the second time and get really close, burn in the direction you warped the second time and then start orbiting each other at a given distance dropping cans.... As for non-covert type cloaks I see them as last ditch safety measures. You got stuck in a system so you warp to a safe and cloak and hope they go away. The bigger problem of course would be the black ops BS....maybe give them covert ops cloaks? Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 .. 343 :: 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.