Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kittamaru
Northstar Cabal Important Internet Spaceship League
4
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 18:42:00 -
[1] - Quote
PREFACE - I just typed this out... and then the forums ate my post... goddamnit... so I'm retyping it as best as I can.
Okay, so, some people want a way to detect AFK/BOT cloaked ships, yet we need to make sure we don't disrupt legitimate players using cloaks.
So, lets set the guidelines we need to follow:
A system that can detect an AFK cloak, or a ship sitting unattended, cloaked, in space. A system that will NOT disrupt spying, stalking, transport, or other active-use cloak functions. A system that does no punish players for using a cloak.
So, to that end, here's my thoughts.
Covert Ops ships get a new "bonus/function" - High Energy Scans. Essentially, they utilize their system scanner to search for and give a rough estimate on the location of a cloaked ship. Now, this scan would run for ~30-60 seconds, depending on skills, requires at least 75% capacitor charge to initiate, and fully drains the ships capacitor. Oh, and because of the amount of raw power you are putting out, your ship shows up on everybody's overview as a high power energy source and can be locked onto by warp drives, giving any actively playing cloakers ample time to GTFO of dodge.
After the scan completes, you get a red circle that is 10AU in radius - within this circle is the cloaked ship. At this point you would warp into that circle and drop a series of high energy probes - at this point things work similar to normal probing, except that the tightest lockon you can get simply puts you on grid with the cloaked vessel (within 150km).
Once you warp to the on-grid point, you re-scan with the high energy scan (again, draining capacitor and all other effects), but on a much smaller scale. What this does is place a "blip" on the tactical overlay, showing where the ship is.
Now, I hear you screaming "BUT THIS WILL BREAK CLOAKS AT GATE CAMPS" - no, no it won't. And here's why:
It takes a minimum of 30 seconds to run the scan. Then you have to recharge your capacitor. Then it takes another 30 seconds to run the scan (and the blip only shows up at the end of the scan, but the blip shows where the ship was at the START of the scan).
Now, for a ship sitting dead in space, it's easy to pinpoint their location and go decloak them by bumping them.
For a ship in motion, you need to scan at LEAST twice in order to determine their direction and rough velocity, at which point you can simply swing in behind them and follow the vector to decloak them.
HOWEVER, if the person is actually at the controls, it will be virtually impossible to locate them... as long as they aren't stupid. Al they have to do is change direction now and then. They get a BIG, obvious visual clue when you start your scan, so all you have to do is change direction now and then. Battleship with T1 Prototype cloaks MIGHT have an issue getting far enough away, but that should be about it. Even so, you could align, decloak+warp and hide somewhere else, making them start the whole process over again.
Yes, it's time consuming - I'd wager no less than 10 minutes even with the best of condition and skills... and that's on an immobile AFK ship.
I figure you could also use this to help hunt down the deep SS + Cloak auto-farm/auto-mine bots as well... and it might add a LITTLE bit of tactical suspense into spying on a system, though it would be so incredibly easy to avoid getting caught.
DISCUSS! |
Epofhis
StarFckers Inc. The Jagged Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 19:08:00 -
[2] - Quote
+1 to this. Any system that requires WORK on the parts of the hunted and the hunter makes for tension, excitement and most importantly, game play. Less "I win" buttons, more pilot vs pilot solutions. |
Ninevite
Shiva
8
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 19:12:00 -
[3] - Quote
Can someone please tell me what is wrong with afk cloaking besides making it hard for the wee little carebears to PvE without being careful? |
Epofhis
StarFckers Inc. The Jagged Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 19:21:00 -
[4] - Quote
Macro ratters? |
Kittamaru
Northstar Cabal Important Internet Spaceship League
5
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 19:34:00 -
[5] - Quote
AFK Cloaks are generally just a PITA. Especially since, if done right, they can be setup to do a hotdrop at any time, meaning you never know if that guy is actually AFK or is just waiting for the system to clear out to bring in a massive invasion force.
Likewise, Macro's that rely on cloaked SS's will get pwned by this... at least until they adapt.
Honestly, I don't see a reason why this system would affect legitimate players at all :) |
Velicitia
Open Designs
195
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 19:50:00 -
[6] - Quote
I like. However, it should NOT be able to break gate cloak, since that's just cover for the session timer anyway. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
730
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 20:37:00 -
[7] - Quote
Kittamaru wrote:PREFACE - I just typed this out... and then the forums ate my post... goddamnit... so I'm retyping it as best as I can.
Okay, so, some people want a way to detect AFK/BOT cloaked ships, yet we need to make sure we don't disrupt legitimate players using cloaks.
So, lets set the guidelines we need to follow:
A system that can detect an AFK cloak, or a ship sitting unattended, cloaked, in space. A system that will NOT disrupt spying, stalking, transport, or other active-use cloak functions. A system that does no punish players for using a cloak.
So, to that end, here's my thoughts.
Covert Ops ships get a new "bonus/function" - High Energy Scans. Essentially, they utilize their system scanner to search for and give a rough estimate on the location of a cloaked ship.
And... you failed.
You are breaking cloaks by breaking the ability for someone to be in a system completely undetected and undetectable performing intel. We have dedicated people that will spend hours a day, days on end in a wormhole system cloaked up and just observing, taking notes, planning the attack.
Your scan gives away the knowledge that a cloaked ship is in system.
Therefore you failed to avoid breaking cloaks.
In addition, you have the same effect as everyone else of changing the wormhole meta... these would become required in wormhole systems. Wormholes don't need to be made safer or have their gameplay changed because you see someone scary in local in null space. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Xtover
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
26
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 20:46:00 -
[8] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:Kittamaru wrote:PREFACE - I just typed this out... and then the forums ate my post... goddamnit... so I'm retyping it as best as I can.
Okay, so, some people want a way to detect AFK/BOT cloaked ships, yet we need to make sure we don't disrupt legitimate players using cloaks.
So, lets set the guidelines we need to follow:
A system that can detect an AFK cloak, or a ship sitting unattended, cloaked, in space. A system that will NOT disrupt spying, stalking, transport, or other active-use cloak functions. A system that does no punish players for using a cloak.
So, to that end, here's my thoughts.
Covert Ops ships get a new "bonus/function" - High Energy Scans. Essentially, they utilize their system scanner to search for and give a rough estimate on the location of a cloaked ship. And... you failed. You are breaking cloaks by breaking the ability for someone to be in a system completely undetected and undetectable performing intel. We have dedicated people that will spend hours a day, days on end in a wormhole system cloaked up and just observing, taking notes, planning the attack. Your scan gives away the knowledge that a cloaked ship is in system. Therefore you failed to avoid breaking cloaks. In addition, you have the same effect as everyone else of changing the wormhole meta... these would become required in wormhole systems. Wormholes don't need to be made safer or have their gameplay changed because you see someone scary in local in null space.
I think that's cool. Can we change it so I can hot drop your corpmates in W-space?
It's only fair.
I couldn't care less about cloaking people in space. Hell I do it too and honestly a couple reds/neuts in local is just another day to me. I just think your logic is broken since warfare in W-space is completely different and shouldn't be used "against" someone in K-space.
|
Feligast
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
471
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 20:52:00 -
[9] - Quote
At least you gave it some thought. Ingvar has a point about W-space concerns, and I still vehemently disagree that AFK cloaking is any kind of problem at all, but I give you credit for coming up with something beyond the usual. |
Ninevite
Shiva
8
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 20:54:00 -
[10] - Quote
Kittamaru wrote:AFK Cloaks are generally just a PITA. Especially since, if done right, they can be setup to do a hotdrop at any time, meaning you never know if that guy is actually AFK or is just waiting for the system to clear out to bring in a massive invasion force.)
That's the whole god damn point. They are working as intended |
|
Max Von Sydow
Droneboat Diplomacy
83
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 21:42:00 -
[11] - Quote
I like it since with this I could have caught an orca that intruded in the WH system I lived in. Stayed for about a week and never seemed to log of. Also contained all kind of sleeper loot and sometimes a T3 cruiser since the guy was running sites with his other account. Was getting really annoyed with having a huge loot pi+Ķata sitting afk in the system without me being able to do squat about it. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
14
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 23:02:00 -
[12] - Quote
No your idea fails.
Even if your idea only effected afk cloakers it still fails
Why? Because AFK cloaking isn't a "problem"
Why isn't AFK cloaking a problem you may ask? Because it's the symptomatic imperfect response to the real problem, flawless 100% effortless Intel from Local Chat.
Forget the symptoms, cure the disease, remove Local Chat Intel! |
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
40
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 05:31:00 -
[13] - Quote
If you remove local, you remove the reason to be AFK in the first place.
If you want to 'cure' AFK Cloaking, this is the easiest and fastest way to do it. The simplist answer is usually the correct one...
Instead of implementing new anticloaking mechanics, put your brainpower to start thinking of improving d-scan so that it'll be more useful, or coming up with a new way to gather intel actively.
There is no problem with AFK Cloaking, Remove guaranteed intel and you remove the reason that people AFK Cloak in the first place, which is to defeat the idea of 100% security. |
Montevius Williams
Eclipse Industrial Inc
163
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 06:04:00 -
[14] - Quote
Xorv wrote:No your idea fails.
Even if your idea only effected afk cloakers it still fails
Why? Because AFK cloaking isn't a "problem"
Why isn't AFK cloaking a problem you may ask? Because it's the symptomatic imperfect response to the real problem, flawless 100% effortless Intel from Local Chat.
Forget the symptoms, cure the disease, remove Local Chat Intel!
I dont agree with this - While I am all for the removal of local in 0.0, I also think there should be ships/tools in place to scan down cloaked ships - adds more gameplay opportunity which is always a good thing. |
Icarus Helia
Fine Goods for Fine Gentlemen
35
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 08:00:00 -
[15] - Quote
I like the concept but I'm not so sure about the execution. I like the idea of being able to kill cloaking macro ratters, or at least force them to log off completely once they have cloaked, but I do not like the fact that it creates certainty in systems with no local chat (which should be delayed anywhere that isn't highsec, and also delayed if in war in highsec.)
that having been said; here's a counter-proposal.
Step 1 - All ships for their duration in space, regardless of system travel and downtimes should be assigned a static signature ID (we'll say that the RP reason for this is related to the ship's own functions and that they are automatically changed for security when docked in any station or maintenance array hmmm?).
Step 2 - allow there to be an overview setting that shows this Id, and also show this ID on D-scans (passive buff to regular PVP probing).
Step 3 - include a new Dscan exclusive to covops, T3, and force recons which will allow you to force a search for a specific sig, cloaked or not. This scan should take about 5 seconds and yield sig-specific results that are otherwise exactly identical to normal dscan. This scan should not result in a warp to beacon showing up on overviews like a cyno, but should show a notification to cloaked ships, or send a graphic through the system indicating that a high energy scan is being run. (think active vs passive sonar)
Step 4 - Include a manual warp system that would allow us to warp towards the camera direction over a custom set distance in km. such that the range function on d-scan gains much more value, and allows us to warp to stationary objects and ships as long as they sit still long enough. in order not to render combat probes obsolete, or unnecessary - force this warp to be initiated and completed in a non-cloaked state. (cloaked warping requires a firm lock on destination blah blah?). this should encourage covops to use probes if they wish to not have their ship show up on grid when warping.
this should allow vigilant people to observe all incoming or uncloaked ships and keep systems relatively secure, while allowing truly sneaky people to get in unseen and still be able to AFK cloak. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
72
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 11:32:00 -
[16] - Quote
Kittamaru wrote: Okay, so, some people want a way to detect AFK/BOT cloaked ships
some want, some dont.
the ability to find cloaked ships (whether afk or not) would break the game. afk cloaking is viable, legal and even required tactic due to local. HTFU
didnt read the rest. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
291
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 12:09:00 -
[17] - Quote
I see no reason why cloaking can't be a module that consumes some sort of material to keep going. That way you can keep cloaking for a few hours, say, but you need to prepare by loading up on cloaking fuel, and you can't AFK cloak for days on end.
Whatever system would be designed to replace the current cloak mechanics would have to make sure things like recons and stealth bombers aren't nerfed in their primary role, it should only be something that makes camping systems through cloaks something that requires some effort on the camper's side.
If he has a fuel truck with plenty of fuel, then he can stay there quite a while still, I have no problem with that. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
732
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 12:57:00 -
[18] - Quote
Xtover wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:Kittamaru wrote:PREFACE - I just typed this out... and then the forums ate my post... goddamnit... so I'm retyping it as best as I can.
Okay, so, some people want a way to detect AFK/BOT cloaked ships, yet we need to make sure we don't disrupt legitimate players using cloaks.
So, lets set the guidelines we need to follow:
A system that can detect an AFK cloak, or a ship sitting unattended, cloaked, in space. A system that will NOT disrupt spying, stalking, transport, or other active-use cloak functions. A system that does no punish players for using a cloak.
So, to that end, here's my thoughts.
Covert Ops ships get a new "bonus/function" - High Energy Scans. Essentially, they utilize their system scanner to search for and give a rough estimate on the location of a cloaked ship. And... you failed. You are breaking cloaks by breaking the ability for someone to be in a system completely undetected and undetectable performing intel. We have dedicated people that will spend hours a day, days on end in a wormhole system cloaked up and just observing, taking notes, planning the attack. Your scan gives away the knowledge that a cloaked ship is in system. Therefore you failed to avoid breaking cloaks. In addition, you have the same effect as everyone else of changing the wormhole meta... these would become required in wormhole systems. Wormholes don't need to be made safer or have their gameplay changed because you see someone scary in local in null space. I think that's cool. Can we change it so I can hot drop your corpmates in W-space? It's only fair. I couldn't care less about cloaking people in space. Hell I do it too and honestly a couple reds/neuts in local is just another day to me. I just think your logic is broken since warfare in W-space is completely different and shouldn't be used "against" someone in K-space.
OK, so basically you only care about your own little corner of carebear null and don't give a rat's ass about where else you may break. This is why you fail.
No, we can't make it so you can "hot drop" (via cyno) in wormholes... wormholes are all out of range of each other and empire. Also you'd break the mass limitations wormhole systems have to deal with by being able to go around the wormholes with cynos. Imagine cynoing in a fleet of supers into a C1? Completely breaks the system. But... you knew that, you were simply suffering a self-delusion of cleverness, weren't you?
Your proposal breaks a significant portion of the game (significant for many at least) unnecessarily. You break cloaks, which your OP alleged you didn't intend to do. It is necessary and required for cloaks to be able to function continually to allow you to remain completely undetected and undetectable (at least in wormhole space). We don't want these horribly ill-conceived ideas nerfing wormholes to make them safer. That's what null is for. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
732
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 12:58:00 -
[19] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:I see no reason why cloaking can't be a module that consumes some sort of material to keep going. That way you can keep cloaking for a few hours, say, but you need to prepare by loading up on cloaking fuel, and you can't AFK cloak for days on end.
Whatever system would be designed to replace the current cloak mechanics would have to make sure things like recons and stealth bombers aren't nerfed in their primary role, it should only be something that makes camping systems through cloaks something that requires some effort on the camper's side.
If he has a fuel truck with plenty of fuel, then he can stay there quite a while still, I have no problem with that.
It's been explained many times why this fails and how you break wormhole intel gathering completely with such a poorly thought out idea. That doesn't even go into the issue of covops ships needing to carry extra fuels and such... Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
292
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 13:30:00 -
[20] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:It's been explained many times why this fails and how you break wormhole intel gathering completely with such a poorly thought out idea. That doesn't even go into the issue of covops ships needing to carry extra fuels and such... Really? How would it break wormhole intel gathering? By making the covops be visible while it refuels? |
|
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
50
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 13:40:00 -
[21] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Really? How would it break wormhole intel gathering? By making the covops be visible while it refuels?
They have to be mobile. Apperantly that is a bad thing The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't. |
Nariya Kentaya
Celestial Ascension
91
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 13:45:00 -
[22] - Quote
Really? How would it break wormhole intel gathering? By making the covops be visible while it refuels?[/quote] refuel? from WHERE? all this does, whetehr talking about fuel or ways to scan out cloaked ships, uis guarantee that ANYONE who uses a cloaked ship WILL DIE either the second they enter local and get scanned, or the second they run out of fuel and have to fly all the way out of hostile space and HOPE they survive long enough tor efuel.
*edit*= hit the wrong reply button, hehe |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
292
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 13:57:00 -
[23] - Quote
We have transports that can be brought in to act as refuelling bases, and I have no problems with ships being able to keep enough fuel to keep camping a system for, say, a few days if he wants to. The only thing I want to get to grips with, is the fact that AFK cloakers are exactly that, AFK. I've done it myself, all I do is get in a system and cloak up, and I never touch that client again until downtime. I think this is a silly part of the mechanic.
As for running out of fuel, well, if you manage to run out of f.ex a few days' worth of fuel (or whatever they would decide to allow if they were to do any changes to cloaking), I'd say you're playing it wrong and should prepare more.
The other alternative that I've seen in this forum, anti-cloaker probes, sounds OP to be honest. Just make the act of actually cloaking up in a system for an extended period of time something which requires vigilence from the cloaker, not just the guys in the system the cloaker chose, and I think that'll suffice. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
75
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 17:57:00 -
[24] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:We have transports that can be brought in to act as refuelling bases, and I have no problems with ships being able to keep enough fuel to keep camping a system for, say, a few days if he wants to. The only thing I want to get to grips with, is the fact that AFK cloakers are exactly that, AFK. I've done it myself, all I do is get in a system and cloak up, and I never touch that client again until downtime. I think this is a silly part of the mechanic.
As for running out of fuel, well, if you manage to run out of f.ex a few days' worth of fuel (or whatever they would decide to allow if they were to do any changes to cloaking), I'd say you're playing it wrong and should prepare more.
The other alternative that I've seen in this forum, anti-cloaker probes, sounds OP to be honest. Just make the act of actually cloaking up in a system for an extended period of time something which requires vigilence from the cloaker, not just the guys in the system the cloaker chose, and I think that'll suffice.
What next, a tool to boot afk pilots out of a station???
Seriously, AFK cloaking is NOT an issue. Let a pilot hang out in system for 10 days.... the pilots in that system need to learn how to cope with the constant pressence of danger!!! That's part of life in nullsec. If you can remove the cloaker, then you can remove all the danger in system... if you feel like you aught to be able to do this, then go back to hisec!!!!!!
"Oh... but hotdrops..." Perhaps this means there is a problem with hotdrops.... it is NOT a problem with cloakers!!!! |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
295
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 08:38:00 -
[25] - Quote
There is a constant pressure of danger, it's called "roaming gangs", and it involves "paying attention to eve online: a bad game". vOv |
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
51
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 14:29:00 -
[26] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Seriously, AFK cloaking is NOT an issue. Let a pilot hang out in system for 10 days.... the pilots in that system need to learn how to cope with the constant pressence of danger!!! That's part of life in nullsec.
Yet it is completely ok for a player to travel to a system and be completely safe for the same ten days. Where is the presence of danger for that player?
The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't. |
Averyia
3
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 14:47:00 -
[27] - Quote
Anti-Cloak that doesn't break the game is an oxymoronic statement. The real solution to AFK cloaking is to remove local or remove cloaked ships from local unless the pilot has posted something in local. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
299
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 15:02:00 -
[28] - Quote
Or make the cloaker have to do something to remain cloaked for an extended period of time. |
1Of9
The Circle Inver Brass
4
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 15:22:00 -
[29] - Quote
+1. like the base idea. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
78
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 16:16:00 -
[30] - Quote
Lucien Visteen wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Seriously, AFK cloaking is NOT an issue. Let a pilot hang out in system for 10 days.... the pilots in that system need to learn how to cope with the constant pressence of danger!!! That's part of life in nullsec. Yet it is completely ok for a player to travel to a system and be completely safe for the same ten days. Where is the presence of danger for that player?
Where is the sense of danger to the docked pilot?? Should there be a tool to boot people out of stations too???
A cloaked ship represents potential danger, nothing more until it decloaks. It's the potential danger you want to remove, that way you don't have to deal with the true dangers realized when the ship decloaks. Cloaking is an AWESOME Mechanic, in that it prevents people from completely removing all forms of danger from a system. By cloaking in a system, one character can insure there is always a potential danger to other characters. Hotdrops are the only tool that unbalances the scale... and they do so in more gameplay areas than cloaky campers. Cloaking is fine!! |
|
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
51
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 17:09:00 -
[31] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Where is the sense of danger to the docked pilot?? Should there be a tool to boot people out of stations too???
A cloaked ship represents potential danger, nothing more until it decloaks. It's the potential danger you want to remove, that way you don't have to deal with the true dangers realized when the ship decloaks. Cloaking is an AWESOME Mechanic, in that it prevents people from completely removing all forms of danger from a system. By cloaking in a system, one character can insure there is always a potential danger to other characters. Hotdrops are the only tool that unbalances the scale... and they do so in more gameplay areas than cloaky campers. Cloaking is fine!!
As low-sec and zero-sec players have said before. When you undock you consent to pvp, unconditional or not (see exscuses for ganking). Fitting that a player with a cloak on is excempted from that rule since he can effectively remove himself from danger for how long he pleases by traveling to a safe spot and cloak up.
A player is also doing pvp when he is in a station, unless I am horribly misinformed. They are just doing another form of pvp, so they too are in essence not safe even if they are in a station.Also it is their turf. Why should they not be entiteled to better security, atleast for the time their alliance is represented as the system owner.
But I agree there is nothing wrong with cloak modules, they are indeed awesome tools, and it is to my belief that they will contunie to create said fear, and be the awesoma tools that they are currently even if players will have a way to defend their space.
A big issue I have is that it is used wrong. One lone player should not be able to sit in space for how long he pleases while not worrying about his own safety.
I have a question for you. You and others againts cloak changes say that you have no way of getting to the players that dock up when a cloakie enters the system. If they had a way to deal with the cloakie do you think they would stay docked? Would not that then be a win-win for you? You want to prevent players from docking up and you want to pvp against others. By letting them hunt you you are getting what you want. is it not? The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
3193
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 17:45:00 -
[32] - Quote
Why do people insist on messing with and breaking cloaks, instead of looking at the cause of AFKing?
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. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
299
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 18:19:00 -
[33] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Why do people insist on messing with and breaking cloaks, instead of looking at the cause of AFKing? I don't know about you or the others, but personally I'd rather get at the AFK part, than the cloak part. |
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
51
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 18:24:00 -
[34] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Mag's wrote:Why do people insist on messing with and breaking cloaks, instead of looking at the cause of AFKing? I don't know about you or the others, but personally I'd rather get at the AFK part, than the cloak part.
yep, that afk thing is something I would like to see very mutch gone The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
2067
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 18:36:00 -
[35] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Mag's wrote:Why do people insist on messing with and breaking cloaks, instead of looking at the cause of AFKing? I don't know about you or the others, but personally I'd rather get at the AFK part, than the cloak part. GĮŠand that part is simple: fix local, and AFK ceases to exist. GĮĢIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GĮĨ
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
300
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 18:48:00 -
[36] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Mag's wrote:Why do people insist on messing with and breaking cloaks, instead of looking at the cause of AFKing? I don't know about you or the others, but personally I'd rather get at the AFK part, than the cloak part. GĮŠand that part is simple: fix local, and AFK ceases to exist. Fix, how? |
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
51
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 18:49:00 -
[37] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Mag's wrote:Why do people insist on messing with and breaking cloaks, instead of looking at the cause of AFKing? I don't know about you or the others, but personally I'd rather get at the AFK part, than the cloak part. GĮŠand that part is simple: fix local, and AFK ceases to exist.
Does this fix to local include a way to drive cloakers out of a system if they are found, or will players have to dock up since they can't catch them anyway? The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
2067
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 19:01:00 -
[38] - Quote
Lucien Visteen wrote:Does this fix to local include a way to drive cloakers out of a system if they are found Yes. Or, well, no, because the means to do so already exists and doesn't need to be included in the fix.
Quote:or will players have to dock up since they can't catch them anyway? Why would they have to dock up? They don't even have to do that now, so why would they have to when the situation is improved?
GĮĢIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GĮĨ
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
51
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 19:04:00 -
[39] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Yes. Or, well, no, because the means to do so already exists and doesn't need to be included in the fix.
And what is the means to drive a cloaker out of the system that requires the same amount of effort as the cloaker uses to stay cloaked? I am honestly curious The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
3193
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 19:09:00 -
[40] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Mag's wrote:Why do people insist on messing with and breaking cloaks, instead of looking at the cause of AFKing? I don't know about you or the others, but personally I'd rather get at the AFK part, than the cloak part. Then suggest a package of changes to replace local, the reason for AFKing.
The fact that you can AFK and gain the same psychological effects without a cloak, points to the issue being elsewhere.
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. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
2068
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 19:11:00 -
[41] - Quote
Lucien Visteen wrote:And what is the means to drive a cloaker out of the system that requires the same amount of effort as the cloaker uses to stay cloaked? I am honestly curious F1. GĮĢIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GĮĨ
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
300
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 19:16:00 -
[42] - Quote
Mag's wrote:The fact that you can AFK and gain the same psychological effects without a cloak, points to the issue being elsewhere. What do you mean, same psychological effects without cloak while AFK? |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
3193
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 19:16:00 -
[43] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Mag's wrote:The fact that you can AFK and gain the same psychological effects without a cloak, points to the issue being elsewhere. What do you mean, same psychological effects without cloak while AFK? So you don't know why people AFK in systems for days?
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. |
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
51
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 19:31:00 -
[44] - Quote
And then? I have not driven him out yet The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
735
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 19:34:00 -
[45] - Quote
Lucien Visteen wrote:Tippia wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Mag's wrote:Why do people insist on messing with and breaking cloaks, instead of looking at the cause of AFKing? I don't know about you or the others, but personally I'd rather get at the AFK part, than the cloak part. GĮŠand that part is simple: fix local, and AFK ceases to exist. Does this fix to local include a way to drive cloakers out of a system if they are found, or will players have to dock up since they can't catch them anyway?
In wormholes, you assume there's someone cloaked up watching you. We don't stay docked up. Without that level of paranoia and preparation you're going to fail... and if you're afraid to fail you don't belong outside of high sec anyhow. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
301
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 19:37:00 -
[46] - Quote
Mag's wrote:So you don't know why people AFK in systems for days? I know why people AFK in systems for days, while cloaked. It's the "without cloak" that eludes me. |
Feligast
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
475
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 19:41:00 -
[47] - Quote
Lucien Visteen wrote:And then? I have not driven him out yet
Lock pod. F1.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
2068
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 19:45:00 -
[48] - Quote
Lucien Visteen wrote:And then? I have not driven him out yet Then? F1 again.
GĮĢIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GĮĨ
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
51
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 19:47:00 -
[49] - Quote
Feligast wrote:Lucien Visteen wrote:And then? I have not driven him out yet Lock pod. F1.
Though I would like to, a pod don't have a cloak. Oh well, was hoping that there was a simple solution that would end this discussion whitch has been going on for as long as I've been playing. The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
2068
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 19:49:00 -
[50] - Quote
Lucien Visteen wrote:Though I would like to, a pod don't have a cloak. GĮŠand that is why F1 is all you need. Oh, I suppose you might need F2 as well, if you're a bit slow, but meh GĮö same difference.
Quote:Oh well, was hoping that there was a simple solution that would end this discussion whitch has been going on for as long as I've been playing. There is. The problem is that the solution solves the actual problem, rather than the made-up one people like to wave around as a diversion while trying to sneak in a nerf to something that isn't a problem at allGĮŠ GĮĢIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GĮĨ
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
|
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
735
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 19:52:00 -
[51] - Quote
Lucien Visteen wrote: Though I would like to, a pod don't have a cloak. Oh well, was hoping that there was a simple solution that would end this discussion whitch has been going on for as long as I've been playing.
There is one... I call it The Ultimate Guide to Life, the Universe and Cloaking. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
3194
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 19:59:00 -
[52] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Mag's wrote:So you don't know why people AFK in systems for days? I know why people AFK in systems for days, while cloaked. It's the "without cloak" that eludes me. Ahh my bad.
You can still fit your ship to be very hard to probe. Only those fit with relevant implants are successful in probing down. There is also the speed way of avoiding capture, this has been used to good effect many times.
The point is you can still gain the same psychological effect with anything that allows you to AFK for some time. Heck even sitting in a station has the same effect. Kinda points to something else being used to create it.
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. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
301
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 20:06:00 -
[53] - Quote
Tippia wrote:There is. The problem is that the solution solves the actual problem, rather than the made-up one people like to wave around as a diversion while trying to sneak in a nerf to something that isn't a problem at allGĮŠ Yes, your solution is turning nullsec into wormhole space.
Actually, you know what? **** it, I'd like to see just what would happen to nullsec if that was done. Let's do this. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
2069
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 20:09:00 -
[54] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Yes, your solution is turning nullsec into wormhole space. Nope.
That's, what? Your 687th straw man? Good lord, manGĮŠ GĮĢIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GĮĨ
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
301
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 20:11:00 -
[55] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Mag's wrote:So you don't know why people AFK in systems for days? I know why people AFK in systems for days, while cloaked. It's the "without cloak" that eludes me. Ahh my bad. You can still fit your ship to be very hard to probe. Only those fit with relevant implants are successful in probing down. There is also the speed way of avoiding capture, this has been used to good effect many times. The point is you can still gain the same psychological effect with anything that allows you to AFK for some time. Heck even sitting in a station has the same effect. Kinda points to something else being used to create it. Ahh of course.
It's not exactly the same, though, as it can be probed down, and as such they can't be really AFK, and there is a counter. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
301
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 20:15:00 -
[56] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Yes, your solution is turning nullsec into wormhole space. Nope. That's, what? Your 687th straw man? Good lord, manGĮŠ Sigh. I forgot to add "basically". You're saying that we should turn nullsec into would basically be Wormhole space, as in "no local". Adding mass limitations as well would do irreperable damage to nullsec, so I kind of assumed that would be left out of the equation.
My bad. |
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
51
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 20:15:00 -
[57] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Lucien Visteen wrote:Though I would like to, a pod don't have a cloak. GĮŠand that is why F1 is all you need. Oh, I suppose you might need F2 as well, if you're a bit slow, but meh GĮö same difference. Quote:Oh well, was hoping that there was a simple solution that would end this discussion whitch has been going on for as long as I've been playing. There is. The problem is that the solution solves the actual problem, rather than the made-up one people like to wave around as a diversion while trying to sneak in a nerf to something that isn't a problem at allGĮŠ
If the solution you talk about is flying with others for added security, then yes I agree. Players that live in zero-sec systems that refuse to play with others is being, well, dumb.
If the problem you speak of is the afk, then the waving about is two-fold. "Carebears" complain that they can't do anything to the neut or red that decides to place himself in a system and then do whatever he wants away from the keyboard, and that it will be solved with only cloak detection. The pvp-bears say that afk is a viable tactick to prevent income and to distill fear, that players that dont want to defend a system dont deserve to live there and that all those problem will go away once local is killed. So in my opinion both parties hides behind it.
The problem is that both parties usually wants the exreme of one end. To kill cloak and leave local, and to kill local and leave the cloak. What so dificult about the middleground? Why is it so dificult to compromise?
edit: omg, a lot of typos here The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't. |
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
51
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 20:17:00 -
[58] - Quote
Mag's wrote:You can still fit your ship to be very hard to probe. Only those fit with relevant implants are successful in probing down. There is also the speed way of avoiding capture, this has been used to good effect many times.
But here he has to be at the keyboard. And pay attention to his surroundings
Ingvar Angst wrote:There is one... I call it The Ultimate Guide to Life, the Universe and Cloaking.
And I like it, it is a good idea. If you look back on the post you will see that I was the first to support it. The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
735
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 20:23:00 -
[59] - Quote
Lucien Visteen wrote: The problem is that both parites usually wants the exreme of one end. To kill cloak and leave local, and to kill local and leave the cloak. What so dificult about the middleground? Why is it so dificult to compromise?
The middle ground is easy.
1. Remove cloaked ships from local. 2. Remove access to local from cloaked ships. If you want intel while cloaked, go get it. 3. Add a delay in being able to fire a cyno (Length TBD). This should be long enough to prevent abuse of hot dropping out of absolute nowhere. Possible exemption to Black Ops ships.
Local remains for the majority that want it. Cloaks actually cloak. The "afk cloak" issue dies... you won't see a cloaked ship in local sitting there for days on end. Null space retains the bit of danger it's meant to have instead of being nerfed to be even softer. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
301
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 20:26:00 -
[60] - Quote
Lucien Visteen wrote:The problem is that both parites usually wants the exreme of one end. To kill cloak and leave local, and to kill local and leave the cloak. What so dificult about the middleground? Why is it so dificult to compromise? All I wanted to do was make the act of fagging up a system more effort, because I'm thinking being able to just sit there while doing nothing was too cheap. In essence I was aiming for the middle ground.
But on the other hand, it would be hilarious to see how nullsec would turn out without local at all. Call it an experiment. |
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
3194
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 20:27:00 -
[61] - Quote
Lucien Visteen wrote:Mag's wrote:You can still fit your ship to be very hard to probe. Only those fit with relevant implants are successful in probing down. There is also the speed way of avoiding capture, this has been used to good effect many times. But here he has to be at the keyboard. And pay attention to his surroundings Not at all, depends on the set up and situation. The point is they still have the same effect and use local to achieve it.
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. |
Torin Corax
Zebra Corp BricK sQuAD.
4
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 20:28:00 -
[62] - Quote
Ingvar, if you were to add.. 4. Remove all standing flags from local chat. ...you'd get another "like" :) |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
3194
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 20:31:00 -
[63] - Quote
Torin Corax wrote:Ingvar, if you were to add.. 4. Remove all standing flags from local chat. ...you'd get another "like" :) IIRC the reason they were added, was due to a large alliance using a method to produce much the same thing back in the day. I'm not sure how they could remove this, without the same method being used again. But then I'm no programmer, so.....
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. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
735
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 20:32:00 -
[64] - Quote
Torin Corax wrote:Ingvar, if you were to add.. 4. Remove all standing flags from local chat. ...you'd get another "like" :)
That's not something I felt was related to the AFK cloaking non-issue, but I'd support that.
Pirates would freak out with joy... the parties would be worth seeing. Standings should mean nothing anyhow once you're outside of high sec, so really there's nothing lost for anyone. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
51
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 20:34:00 -
[65] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Lucien Visteen wrote:Mag's wrote:You can still fit your ship to be very hard to probe. Only those fit with relevant implants are successful in probing down. There is also the speed way of avoiding capture, this has been used to good effect many times. But here he has to be at the keyboard. And pay attention to his surroundings Not at all, depends on the set up and situation. The point is they still have the same effect and use local to achieve it.
Again, now I am intrigued. How does the speed way involve not being by the computer. A bot?
And the night impossible to probe setup can still be probed by the right people. So if he don't pay attention he will most likely loose a ship. Or will the search take so long that he can sit in a system for days on end without fear? The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't. |
Torin Corax
Zebra Corp BricK sQuAD.
4
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 20:35:00 -
[66] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Torin Corax wrote:Ingvar, if you were to add.. 4. Remove all standing flags from local chat. ...you'd get another "like" :) IIRC the reason they were added, was due to a large alliance using a method to produce much the same thing back in the day. I'm not sure how they could remove this, without the same method being used again. But then I'm no programmer, so.....
Not familiar with that method...some form of bot/ recognition software? Bannable offence if caught? Certainly hope so. Would be curious if it was simply easier to add the flags than to create a system that would make whatever that Alliance used non-functioning.
Quote:Again, now I am intrigued. How does the speed way involve not being by the computer. A bot?
With sufficient speed, travelling non-aligned, by the time a prober gets a lock and warps to you you will be off-grid. Doesn't always work though, killed a dram trying this who wasn't quite fast enough. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
3194
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 20:48:00 -
[67] - Quote
Torin Corax wrote:Mag's wrote:Torin Corax wrote:Ingvar, if you were to add.. 4. Remove all standing flags from local chat. ...you'd get another "like" :) IIRC the reason they were added, was due to a large alliance using a method to produce much the same thing back in the day. I'm not sure how they could remove this, without the same method being used again. But then I'm no programmer, so..... Not familiar with that method...some form of bot/ recognition software? Bannable offence if caught? Certainly hope so. Would be curious if it was simply easier to add the flags than to create a system that would make whatever that Alliance used non-functioning. It was a method of changing the picture of enemies with something else, so as to show good from bad. It didn't change the client per se but had the desired effect in-game.
Torin Corax wrote:Quote:Again, now I am intrigued. How does the speed way involve not being by the computer. A bot? With sufficient speed, travelling non-aligned, by the time a prober gets a lock and warps to you you will be off-grid. Doesn't always work though, killed a dram trying this who wasn't quite fast enough. Basically.
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. |
Zachis
TBC
7
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 21:08:00 -
[68] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Tippia wrote:There is. The problem is that the solution solves the actual problem, rather than the made-up one people like to wave around as a diversion while trying to sneak in a nerf to something that isn't a problem at allGĮŠ Yes, your solution is turning nullsec into wormhole space. Actually, you know what? **** it, I'd like to see just what would happen to nullsec if that was done. Let's do this.
This "experiment" has already been tried. Local got nuked in one of the previous patches, long ago, and the 0.0 community was less than amused or happy with the change.
On the issue of AFK cloaking, it's not an issue. Using Local as an intel too is the issue. I really like the middle ground idea of removing cloaked ships from local and removing local from cloaked ships. Then again, I live in a WH so local seems odd to me these days. |
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
51
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 21:18:00 -
[69] - Quote
Torin Corax wrote:With sufficient speed, travelling non-aligned, by the time a prober gets a lock and warps to you you will be off-grid. Doesn't always work though, killed a dram trying this who wasn't quite fast enough.
Yes. I got the basic of how it works. or what you need to do. but it also involves you being "at the keyboard" and playing the game. It is fun chasing players like this simply because you can. You might loose or you might win. The gist of it is that it involves both parties. I think it could be, note could be, fun to have the same sort of interaction against a cloaker. It would be a lot more dificult to find the damn rat. But I think it would be more fun than going out in a bait ship and hope he bites.
Some players might find that sort of activity fun aswell, I'm no judge. But I havent heard anyone saying it yet though. The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
301
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 21:19:00 -
[70] - Quote
Zachis wrote:This "experiment" has already been tried. Local got nuked in one of the previous patches, long ago, and the 0.0 community was less than amused or happy with the change.
On the issue of AFK cloaking, it's not an issue. Using Local as an intel too is the issue. I really like the middle ground idea of removing cloaked ships from local and removing local from cloaked ships. Then again, I live in a WH so local seems odd to me these days. The problem with this, though, is that it doesn't really change anything. The only thing it really changes is that people have even less time to notice the fact that someone has come into local, fired off a probe, cloaked up and scanned down all sanctums and havens, and are now warping around, looking for an easy kill. They don't really need local past the initial jump in, if at all.
But honestly, I keep seeing threads proclaiming how awesome the PVP would turn out in nullsec with small gangs engaging left right and centre, and it'd be hilarious to see what happened when those who were depending on local had moved out (or at least moved their moneymakers out into hisec). I have a few theories about what'll happen, but just this once I'm inclined to indulge them, just to see what actually happens over an extended period of time. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
2071
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 21:55:00 -
[71] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Sigh. I forgot to add "basically". GĮŠand even if you had, it would still be just as much of a straw man. So still nope.
Quote:The only thing it really changes is that people have even less time to notice the fact that someone has come into local, fired off a probe, cloaked up and scanned down all sanctums and havens, and are now warping around, looking for an easy kill. In other words, it changes quiet a lot, and in very good ways. It completely removes AFK cloaking, for instance, and at the same time lets active cloakers do their job while allowing for counters to be set up.
Lucien Visteen wrote:Torin Corax wrote:With sufficient speed, travelling non-aligned, by the time a prober gets a lock and warps to you you will be off-grid. Doesn't always work though, killed a dram trying this who wasn't quite fast enough. Yes. I got the basic of how it works. or what you need to do. but it also involves you being "at the keyboard" and playing the game. No, it's just as AFK-able as cloaking GĮö once you've set it up (a double click and a key press, not much different from the single key-press of AFK cloaking), no further input is needed and you're now having the same effect as an AFK cloaker without using a cloakGĮŠ
GĮŠwhich leads back to the obvious conclusion that cloaking has nothing to do with the problem people claim they want to solve. GĮĢIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GĮĨ
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
79
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 21:58:00 -
[72] - Quote
Lucien Visteen wrote:I have a question for you. You and others againts cloak changes say that you have no way of getting to the players that dock up when a cloakie enters the system. If they had a way to deal with the cloakie do you think they would stay docked? Would not that then be a win-win for you? You want to prevent players from docking up and you want to pvp against others. By letting them hunt you you are getting what you want. is it not?
There are ways to make your ship very safe from being hunted: POS up, Dock up, or cloak. Currently, with the all-powerful intel tool of local, it is TRIVIALLY EASY to get safe before any incoming pilot can find a target. Travelers just want to shoot stuff... and if the locals bothered to come out an play, afk cloaking wouldn't happen. The dirty truth is, most nullsec alliances are overwhelmingly populated with carebears that just want to milk the land, and are terribly afraid of losing any ship. As such, its common to see locked down systems, where neutrals can't dock, their POS's are removed, and gate travel is hindered by bubble farms. The only way to introduce danger to the locals in these systems is with afk cloakers. The call for cloak ship detection is not coming from PvPers, but from the carebears that want to FURTHER lock down their system. It's about removing all potential threats from a system, thereby creating completely safe nullsec systems.
I think an cloaker-hunter role would be an interesting development to the game, but a nullsec system should NEVER be COMPLETELY safe, and until the all-powerful intel tool of local gets changed, an anti-cloaker mechanic is game-breakingly BAD!!!!
|
Zachis
TBC
7
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 22:18:00 -
[73] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:But honestly, I keep seeing threads proclaiming how awesome the PVP would turn out in nullsec with small gangs engaging left right and centre, and it'd be hilarious to see what happened when those who were depending on local had moved out (or at least moved their moneymakers out into hisec). I have a few theories about what'll happen, but just this once I'm inclined to indulge them, just to see what actually happens over an extended period of time.
If I recall correctly, and it's been a while since the patch that nuked Local, what happened was everyone docked or sat in their POS shields until Local came back. Sure, D-Scan still worked, but you had no idea how many ships were friendly, neutrals, or an enemy fleet. Somewhere the old forums must have the threads it caused... |
Torin Corax
Zebra Corp BricK sQuAD.
5
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 22:37:00 -
[74] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Lucien Visteen wrote:Torin Corax wrote:With sufficient speed, travelling non-aligned, by the time a prober gets a lock and warps to you you will be off-grid. Doesn't always work though, killed a dram trying this who wasn't quite fast enough. Yes. I got the basic of how it works. or what you need to do. but it also involves you being "at the keyboard" and playing the game. No, it's just as AFK-able as cloaking GĮö once you've set it up (a double click and a key press, not much different from the single key-press of AFK cloaking), no further input is needed and you're now having the same effect as an AFK cloaker without using a cloakGĮŠ GĮŠwhich leads back to the obvious conclusion that cloaking has nothing to do with the problem people claim they want to solve.
In all fairness, using the speed method is not quite as "safe" as cloaking. If you are not 100% certain that you are in the fastest ship available going AFK for any length of time is risky. A good prober and a very fast tackler/ warp in provider, will ruin the day of a speed afk'er who doesn't occasionally check to see if he's being hunted. If you are the fastest ship available however, then yes it is just as effective. |
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
51
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 22:42:00 -
[75] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:I think an cloaker-hunter role would be an interesting development to the game, but a nullsec system should NEVER be COMPLETELY safe, and until the all-powerful intel tool of local gets changed, an anti-cloaker mechanic is game-breakingly BAD!!!!
Atleast you are open to suggestions, thank you. And I agree, change one aspect of this gameplay without affecting the other is not a good option. The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
79
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 22:55:00 -
[76] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:But honestly, I keep seeing threads proclaiming how awesome the PVP would turn out in nullsec with small gangs engaging left right and centre, and it'd be hilarious to see what happened when those who were depending on local had moved out (or at least moved their moneymakers out into hisec). I have a few theories about what'll happen, but just this once I'm inclined to indulge them, just to see what actually happens over an extended period of time.
There needs to be a balanced Intel tool. Balancing it to be fair fair to the hunters and hunted is pretty difficult; at the moment it's overwhelmingly in favor of the hunted. I think WH local is overwhelmingly in favor of the hunters, but the low traffic, sleeper AI, and high rewards make it worthwhile. Nullsec truly needs a middle ground between WH local and the instant all-knowing local we have now. I'd prefer a truly delayed local on the order of 30 seconds, but this has problems too. |
Jade Mitch
The Scope Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 23:00:00 -
[77] - Quote
How do you even know when a cloaked ship is in system?
That's what needs to be fixed. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
79
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 23:04:00 -
[78] - Quote
Torin Corax wrote:Tippia wrote:Lucien Visteen wrote:Torin Corax wrote:With sufficient speed, travelling non-aligned, by the time a prober gets a lock and warps to you you will be off-grid. Doesn't always work though, killed a dram trying this who wasn't quite fast enough. Yes. I got the basic of how it works. or what you need to do. but it also involves you being "at the keyboard" and playing the game. No, it's just as AFK-able as cloaking GĮö once you've set it up (a double click and a key press, not much different from the single key-press of AFK cloaking), no further input is needed and you're now having the same effect as an AFK cloaker without using a cloakGĮŠ GĮŠwhich leads back to the obvious conclusion that cloaking has nothing to do with the problem people claim they want to solve. In all fairness, using the speed method is not quite as "safe" as cloaking. If you are not 100% certain that you are in the fastest ship available going AFK for any length of time is risky. A good prober and a very fast tackler/ warp in provider, will ruin the day of a speed afk'er who doesn't occasionally check to see if he's being hunted. If you are the fastest ship available however, then yes it is just as effective.
You can also snipe an AFK speedster... |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
17
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 00:17:00 -
[79] - Quote
Montevius Williams wrote:Xorv wrote:No your idea fails.
Even if your idea only effected afk cloakers it still fails
Why? Because AFK cloaking isn't a "problem"
Why isn't AFK cloaking a problem you may ask? Because it's the symptomatic imperfect response to the real problem, flawless 100% effortless Intel from Local Chat.
Forget the symptoms, cure the disease, remove Local Chat Intel! I dont agree with this - While I am all for the removal of local in 0.0, I also think there should be ships/tools in place to scan down cloaked ships - adds more gameplay opportunity which is always a good thing.
Assuming Local Chat's Intel aspect was removed, I wouldn't be entirely against this if it was somehow possible not to ruin what cloaked ships are meant to be able to do by adding such an ability. There's a number issues with the ability to detect or scan down a cloaked ship that makes me think it is not possible.
Cloaks & stealth in general benefits in all games like this is to avoid superior forces and numbers and to be able to ambush surprise attack chosen targets. The cost of this is usually lack of tanky defense or being able to sustain oneself in a prolonged fight,.. It's the perfect tool for soloers and small groups, not just a scouting tool for larger groups.
Make it possible to detect cloaks (local or some new idea with the removal of Local) takes away the offensive advantage of cloaks to ambush. Give the ability to find and detect a cloaked ship you also take away it's advantage to avoid superior forces. It doesn't matter how high skills it takes or how much of a specialized ship, because regardless of the requirements large organized groups will have one (because of Alts so too will some solo players).
So if everyone can see me and organized groups can detect and find me, why would I or anyone else want to use a CovOps ship that comes pre-gimped over say a Combat Recon, HAC or most likely a Battlecruiser? Short answer being we wouldn't, and cloaked ships would be completely obsolete.
|
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
302
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 00:20:00 -
[80] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:There needs to be a balanced Intel tool. Balancing it to be fair fair to the hunters and hunted is pretty difficult; at the moment it's overwhelmingly in favor of the hunted. I think WH local is overwhelmingly in favor of the hunters, but the low traffic, sleeper AI, and high rewards make it worthwhile. Nullsec truly needs a middle ground between WH local and the instant all-knowing local we have now. I'd prefer a truly delayed local on the order of 30 seconds, but this has problems too. 30 seconds? Might as well just go all the way and remove local then, 30 seconds is more than enough to jump in, spawn a probe, scan down sanctums, fleetwarp your fleet to one of them and proceed ganking. Hell, if you're quick enough you can even pass through entire systems without being spotted at that rate.
Honestly, though, people who thinks intel is an infallible intel tool needs to remember the fact that there's almost always at least one guy in a system not paying attention to local or the intel channel for a few seconds, which sometimes ends up being enough.
I've strong predictions on what'll happen if local is turned off for any types of ships without a replacement system, and it's pretty opposite of what tons of the people who wants to exclude some or all ships/pilots. A lot of them probably just wants easier ganking of nullsec carebears, and some of them probably thinks no local will make nullsec an exciting PVP heaven. I think all it'll end up doing is driving even more carebears out of nullsec.
I'm becoming increasingly interested in seeing who's right. |
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
17
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 00:39:00 -
[81] - Quote
The idea that removing Local Intel will drive many from Null to Empire High Sec seems to miss that many for PvE purposes have already been driven there. Removing Local Chat Intel from Null and perhaps Low Sec is just one necessary change of this game. Another is the removal of all the better ISK sources out of High Sec or making it much more dangerous through other means, Pre P. alliance nerf wardecs and/or involuntary Faction War. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
302
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 00:56:00 -
[82] - Quote
Many, yes. Lots of them because anoms were nerfed and incursions had been added, but there's still a few that's left. I see a lot of what I can only assume is renter alliances in and around ncdot/raidendot's space. I'm not convinced they'd stick around after a few weeks or months of no local, and all the extra work that entailed. It'll be interesting to see who's right. |
Esunisen
Les Tueurs de Killer Une Pour Tous
29
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 01:00:00 -
[83] - Quote
Bot detects this thingy in overview and automagically change direction. Useless. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
79
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 05:42:00 -
[84] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:There needs to be a balanced Intel tool. Balancing it to be fair fair to the hunters and hunted is pretty difficult; at the moment it's overwhelmingly in favor of the hunted. I think WH local is overwhelmingly in favor of the hunters, but the low traffic, sleeper AI, and high rewards make it worthwhile. Nullsec truly needs a middle ground between WH local and the instant all-knowing local we have now. I'd prefer a truly delayed local on the order of 30 seconds, but this has problems too. 30 seconds? Might as well just go all the way and remove local then, 30 seconds is more than enough to jump in, spawn a probe, scan down sanctums, fleetwarp your fleet to one of them and proceed ganking. Hell, if you're quick enough you can even pass through entire systems without being spotted at that rate.
First off, session change timer is currently 30 seconds, so you'll always show up in local for a brief moment. Its one of the aspects of local that I think really needs reconsidering... Currently the only way to hide a force is by titan/BO dropping... something that is both broken and yet an awesome mechanic, would it be a bad thing if a fleet of 5 frigates could quickly traverse a system and never show up in local? I could see potential problems with fleets of cruisers doing this, but I think it could bring a new aspect to hornet gangs if they could.
Next, I understand that 30 seconds seems like a long time... but it is NOT. I'm willing to wager isk that within 30 seconds you can't consistently land on grid with me while I'm "ratting" in a belt or anomaly (assuming a reasonably sized & populated system)!! Omg, you mean ratting in the only sanctum in system means you're likely to be the first warp-to target? Its not hard to adapt to this... 1.) dont rat at zero on a belt or anomaly... 2.) Align while ratting... 3.) Have a real intel network/channel, rather than local... This is game changing, but its not the omg-****-a-carebear free-for-all that completely removing local would create. Currently, Nullsec is currently MUCH, MUCH safer than hisec, and that's just wrong!!! |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
302
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 07:34:00 -
[85] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Currently, Nullsec is currently MUCH, MUCH safer than hisec No, it isn't. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
3199
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 17:57:00 -
[86] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Currently, Nullsec is currently MUCH, MUCH safer than hisec No, it isn't. Oh but it is, for one simple reason. Local works far better in null sec, than in high sec.
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. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
304
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 20:19:00 -
[87] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Currently, Nullsec is currently MUCH, MUCH safer than hisec No, it isn't. Oh but it is, for one simple reason. Local works far better in null sec, than in high sec. No, it isn't, for one simple reason. In nullsec, even blues might shoot you. |
Lucjan
R-E-D
7
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 20:22:00 -
[88] - Quote
NO. How about an AFK timer instead. Tells you how long the character has been without any input.
|
Spork Witch
Soul-Strike
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 20:32:00 -
[89] - Quote
Down-vote.
There's really two very simple, highly effective solutions. One doesn't break anything, and the other makes cloaking even spiffier, so either works, really.
Solution 1) Cloaked ships don't show in local. Period. No other changes. Now the carebears can't see that there's an AFK cloaker, so they have nothing to cry about. If he's there, and they undock, they're buggered. If he's AFK, and they undock, they're fine. Life goes on.
Solution 2) Bring mates. If you're afraid of that AFK cloaker, bring mates. You are playing an MMO. This MMO is not WoW. If the cloaker is there, and you have mates, you might kill him before he calls in a hotdrop, or he might not have enough mates of his own to threaten your group (game working as intended.) If he's AFK, you go about your business.
They fixed the only broken thing about AFK cloaking in the last patch, that whole business about plexes. There's nothing else that needs doing. The only thing that lets an AFK cloaker work are the people that aren't willing to take any risks at all, or do what's necessary to mitigate those risks.
It reminds me of the game PlanetSide: one person with a grenade launcher using plasma (lots of splash + damage over time) grenades could hold a stairway against 20-30 people, and that's not an exageration. Want to know why it worked? Because everyone was so terrified for their kill/death ratio that they didn't comprehend that rushing the one guy would mean none of them die, they take the stairs, and the guy with the grenades dies. Instead, they bunch up, one or two trickle in, get slaughtered, and all the splash from the grenades slowly chips at people, and they die because they can't back up or someone can't reach to heal them.
The AFK cloaker is that guy in the stairs with the grenade. Call his bluff. Bring your mates. If it's just one guy (the cloaker is AFK), you win, and you go about your business. If he's got mates, you make sure you have enough to defend yourself, and you work together. But the only way he wins is if you let him.
Again, down-vote, there's nothing wrong or broken with AFK cloaking. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
304
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 21:43:00 -
[90] - Quote
I literally can't wait to see every roam being nothing but cloaky ships. |
|
Spork Witch
Soul-Strike
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 21:50:00 -
[91] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:I literally can't wait to see every roam being nothing but cloaky ships. I think it'd be hilarious lol. Can you imagine the panic you could instill? lol For all they know, it's a fleet of BlackOps lol. You goons have the numbers, how about putting one of those famous blobs to work! Teach the nubtards to just undock and stop letting the AFK cloaker scare them too much to undock. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
3199
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 21:57:00 -
[92] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Mag's wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Currently, Nullsec is currently MUCH, MUCH safer than hisec No, it isn't. Oh but it is, for one simple reason. Local works far better in null sec, than in high sec. No, it isn't, for one simple reason. In nullsec, even blues might shoot you. Sure, if you like.
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. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
304
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 22:30:00 -
[93] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Lord Zim wrote:No, it isn't, for one simple reason. In nullsec, even blues might shoot you. Sure, if you like. I'm not sure if you don't believe me, or if you mean that awoxers are as prevalent in empire as they are in nullsec. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
84
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 23:37:00 -
[94] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Mag's wrote:Lord Zim wrote:No, it isn't, for one simple reason. In nullsec, even blues might shoot you. Sure, if you like. I'm not sure if you don't believe me, or if you mean that awoxers are as prevalent in empire as they are in nullsec.
For those of us who don't have blues.... and For those whom only set positive standards to players/corps that don't shoot us, and For those of us with the Sec Status to travel through hisec,
Nullsec is much safer than Hisec. I'm' not calling hisec dangerous, I'm just saying that identifying threats in nullsec is easier, and hence its safer! Just becuase this isn't true for your specific corp, doesn't make it untrue for the majority of Nullsec residence.
Local allows you to instantly know if there is a potential threat in system, meaning you can almost always get safe if you're so risk-adverse. In Hisec, there are usually so many neutrals that identifying threats is much more difficult. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
305
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 23:42:00 -
[95] - Quote
Hisec neutrals are the nullsec blues. You can't know they're friendly, you can only assume. |
Spork Witch
Soul-Strike
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 23:45:00 -
[96] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Mag's wrote:Lord Zim wrote:No, it isn't, for one simple reason. In nullsec, even blues might shoot you. Sure, if you like. I'm not sure if you don't believe me, or if you mean that awoxers are as prevalent in empire as they are in nullsec. For those of us who don't have blues.... and For those whom only set positive standards to players/corps that don't shoot us, and For those of us with the Sec Status to travel through hisec, Nullsec is much safer than Hisec. I'm' not calling hisec dangerous, I'm just saying that identifying threats in nullsec is easier, and hence its safer! Just becuase this isn't true for your specific corp, doesn't make it untrue for the majority of Nullsec residence. Local allows you to instantly know if there is a potential threat in system, meaning you can almost always get safe if you're so risk-adverse. In Hisec, there are usually so many neutrals that identifying threats is much more difficult. Overall I agree, but with one caveat: trustworthy blues or not, friendly fire incidents do occur. Whether it's because someone tweaked a setting wrong, someone misclicked, whatever, they do occur. I lost a pod once after an engagement because I sat too long on the far side of the gate (manning POS guns on another character), because I saw nothing but blues. Well, one of them decided that 300m worth of clone would be a nice juicy target; an overview bug caused me not to show as blue when I should have. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
305
|
Posted - 2011.12.17 00:21:00 -
[97] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Hisec neutrals are the nullsec blues. You can't know they're friendly, you can only assume. Also, not only can you only assume they're friendly, you also have to be vigilant at all times. It doesn't take many seconds of inattentiveness before a true hostile has joined the system, found you and pinned you down.
Nullsec isn't safer than hisec, it's inherently less safe. There are tons of tools available right now to help mitigate that risk, true, but it still takes vigilence to and effort to mitigate that risk. In hisec, unless you're running around with very expensive cargo or mods, or mine ice in gallente space (and maybe just mine in general in and around the ice belt systems when there's nobody to gank in there), chances are you're safe, and you can leave to go take a pee, make dinner etc with your ship in space. I autopilot freighters and ships between market hubs every now and again, and I've yet to be ganked.
In fact, I've yet to be ganked on any char in hisec since 2005. vOv |
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
48
|
Posted - 2011.12.17 06:22:00 -
[98] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Hisec neutrals are the nullsec blues. You can't know they're friendly, you can only assume. Also, not only can you only assume they're friendly, you also have to be vigilant at all times. It doesn't take many seconds of inattentiveness before a true hostile has joined the system, found you and pinned you down. Nullsec isn't safer than hisec, it's inherently less safe. There are tons of tools available right now to help mitigate that risk, true, but it still takes vigilence to and effort to mitigate that risk. In hisec, unless you're running around with very expensive cargo or mods, or mine ice in gallente space (and maybe just mine in general in and around the ice belt systems when there's nobody to gank in there), chances are you're safe, and you can leave to go take a pee, make dinner etc with your ship in space. I autopilot freighters and ships between market hubs every now and again, and I've yet to be ganked. In fact, I've yet to be ganked on any char in hisec since 2005. vOv
Autopilot a full Iteron 5 between Amarr and Jita and tell me what happens.
You mitigate risk by choosing ships that are less gankable and generally take a group effort to gank. A person or group wanting to stall financial gain in an area realizes that it's to easy. They park cloaky bomber alt in a ratting system and play another game, this has the effect without any effort on there end, maybe an attack every once in a while to keep the locals on there feet. But it is to easy to scare the crap out of everyone in a system, all you have to do is show up.
Now lets remove local, it removes the necessity for them to be afk. Now to gain the same effect as before they actually have to attack ratters, they have to actively engage a target to get noticed. Which in turn would encourage safer ratting practices and gate security as well as active intel rather than passive local. Its lazy to expect 100% accurate intel delivered on silver platter. |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
24
|
Posted - 2011.12.17 07:54:00 -
[99] - Quote
Ok a simple fix for AFK Cloaking, REMOVE LOCAL :D |
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
51
|
Posted - 2011.12.17 09:12:00 -
[100] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:I literally can't wait to see every roam being nothing but cloaky ships.
Oh god, I hope not. While a more unpredictable local could be more interresting, seeing everyone running around with a cloak on will be no fun at all. Some from of defence against them needs to happen too.
A probing game, or a fuel based system is the two most likely scenarios. The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't. |
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
3202
|
Posted - 2011.12.17 16:52:00 -
[101] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Mag's wrote:Lord Zim wrote:No, it isn't, for one simple reason. In nullsec, even blues might shoot you. Sure, if you like. I'm not sure if you don't believe me, or if you mean that awoxers are as prevalent in empire as they are in nullsec. For those of us who don't have blues.... and For those whom only set positive standards to players/corps that don't shoot us, and For those of us with the Sec Status to travel through hisec, Nullsec is much safer than Hisec. I'm' not calling hisec dangerous, I'm just saying that identifying threats in nullsec is easier, and hence its safer! Just becuase this isn't true for your specific corp, doesn't make it untrue for the majority of Nullsec residence. Local allows you to instantly know if there is a potential threat in system, meaning you can almost always get safe if you're so risk-adverse. In Hisec, there are usually so many neutrals that identifying threats is much more difficult. This basically.
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. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
307
|
Posted - 2011.12.17 17:48:00 -
[102] - Quote
Gerrick Palivorn wrote:Autopilot a full Iteron 5 between Amarr and Jita and tell me what happens. Done that plenty of times. vOv
Doesn't make hisec less safe than nullsec, if you have to make basically every bad move in the book to get ganked, whereas in nullsec all you have to do is not pay attention for a few seconds at the wrong time.
Gerrick Palivorn wrote:A person or group wanting to stall financial gain in an area realizes that it's to easy. They park cloaky bomber alt in a ratting system and play another game, this has the effect without any effort on there end, maybe an attack every once in a while to keep the locals on there feet. But it is to easy to scare the crap out of everyone in a system, all you have to do is show up.
Now lets remove local, it removes the necessity for them to be afk. Now to gain the same effect as before they actually have to attack ratters, they have to actively engage a target to get noticed. Which in turn would encourage safer ratting practices and gate security as well as active intel rather than passive local. Its lazy to expect 100% accurate intel delivered on silver platter. Actually, and I thought I'd made this clear, what removing local (or removing certain ships from local) means is that while the cloakers don't have to be AFK, they also don't have to be present. The locals will have to basically have someone watching all the gates and wormholes all day, every day, and when (not if) they let someone cloaky through, they have no way of knowing whether or not that guy is gone, afk, or even logged out, or even if that one guy is actually multiple guys which have accumulated over time/slipped past the guards etc.
This doesn't matter to me, since I just go on fleet ops, so there can be as many cloakers as they can fit in the solar system, but I'm seeing it from the viewpoint of those who don't have hisec alts making tons of money in hisec, but try to actually make a living out there, and if they're going to have to put in as much effort just to keep safe as they would've done in a wormhole system, then they might as well move to wormhole systems and get some proper rewards for their risk. Or they can do what a lot of other former nullsec guys did, and go back to hisec and earn the same/more there. Which means an even emptier null than before it'll turn into cloakroam online.
Which is precisely why I'd love to see this change happen, precisely so I can point at these posts and say "See? told you so."
Mag's: I'm just going to point to my response to his post. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
18
|
Posted - 2011.12.17 21:34:00 -
[103] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: Actually, and I thought I'd made this clear, what removing local (or removing certain ships from local) means is that while the cloakers don't have to be AFK, they also don't have to be present. The locals will have to basically have someone watching all the gates and wormholes all day, every day, and when (not if) they let someone cloaky through, they have no way of knowing whether or not that guy is gone, afk, or even logged out, or even if that one guy is actually multiple guys which have accumulated over time/slipped past the guards etc.
Well if you removed everyone from Local, that cloaker doesn't know how many friends his potential target has without probing/Dscaning the same system and adjacent systems, which in turn will allow his potential targets to possibly see the probes if he uses those and know that there is someone active in the system. Even with probes and DScan the Cloaker doesn't know if his potential targets have cloaked friends themselves, or are equipped with a cyno, or have set up a log on trap. Basically there's lots of uncertainty on ALL sides.
Should players in Nullsec have 100% certainty of safety assuming they're paying even the slightest attention to what's going on around them?
|
Kolya Medz
Kolya Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.17 21:56:00 -
[104] - Quote
How about creating anti cloaking probes that require 2 or more players to use? These probes would be skill intensive and slower than regular probes.
Scanning a cloaked ship would become easier with more players scanning, and more difficult with fewer.
Cov ops would still be just as useful.. except you would no longer be perma cloaked and invincible. Stay too long in the same place and someone will eventually find you. This would get rid of lamer afk cloakers, and make using a cov ops require much more thinking and strategy. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
19
|
Posted - 2011.12.17 22:08:00 -
[105] - Quote
Kolya Medz wrote:How about creating anti cloaking probes that require 2 or more players to use? These probes would be skill intensive and slower than regular probes.
Scanning a cloaked ship would become easier with more players scanning, and more difficult with fewer.
No, Cloaks ought to be a tool for the few to outplay the many, your suggestion puts the power back in the hands of the many.
Also, when you call cloakers invincible do you mean that in the same way as someone docked in a Station is invincible or Can CovOps Frigates single handedly decimate whole fleets now type invincible?
|
Kolya Medz
Kolya Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.17 22:52:00 -
[106] - Quote
Xorv wrote:Kolya Medz wrote:How about creating anti cloaking probes that require 2 or more players to use? These probes would be skill intensive and slower than regular probes.
Scanning a cloaked ship would become easier with more players scanning, and more difficult with fewer.
No, Cloaks ought to be a tool for the few to outplay the many, your suggestion puts the power back in the hands of the many. Also, when you call cloakers invincible do you mean that in the same way as someone docked in a Station is invincible or Can CovOps Frigates single handedly decimate whole fleets now type invincible?
I meant invincible as in "might as well be docked" invincible.
Said probes would need to be very skill intensive, only characters with beefy maxed scanning skills should be able to scan for cloaks. |
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
50
|
Posted - 2011.12.17 23:28:00 -
[107] - Quote
Doesn't matter how skill intensive it is, it will start becoming a requirement to live in 0.0, something that would have a negative impact on population.
While anti-cloaking techniques introduced in the form of scanning and probing sounds like a good idea, the more you try to make it fair the more it becomes unbalanced with the whole of the rest of the community. AFK Cloaking only happens in SOV 0.0, thats it, no one afk cloaks in a wormhole, theres no real point. If they are cloaked they are gathering intel, actively.
NPC Null is the same way, the locals want to fight you and so AFK Cloaking is useless, if they want to make isk they move systems. Lowsec is at extremely low populations right now anyway so no reason to afk cloak there either.
The strategy of AFK Cloaking is localized to Sov Nullsec only, so why apply a solution to all sections of new eden when only a localized solution is needed. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
737
|
Posted - 2011.12.17 23:46:00 -
[108] - Quote
Lucien Visteen wrote:Lord Zim wrote:I literally can't wait to see every roam being nothing but cloaky ships. Oh god, I hope not. While a more unpredictable local could be more interresting, seeing everyone running around with a cloak on will be no fun at all. Some from of defence against them needs to happen too. A probing game, or a fuel based system is the two most likely scenarios.
You worry too much.
If they all have cloaks on, you won't see them. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
309
|
Posted - 2011.12.17 23:58:00 -
[109] - Quote
Xorv wrote:Well if you removed everyone from Local, that cloaker doesn't know how many friends his potential target has without probing/Dscaning the same system and adjacent systems, which in turn will allow his potential targets to possibly see the probes if he uses those and know that there is someone active in the system. Even with probes and DScan the Cloaker doesn't know if his potential targets have cloaked friends themselves, or are equipped with a cyno, or have set up a log on trap. Basically there's lots of uncertainty on ALL sides. The cloakers have this uncertainty now, nothing has changed there. The only thing removing local would change is give cloakers a huge boost, and inhabitants a huge nerf, and the combination of uncertainty, danger and the increase in effort they have to do will drive a lot of carebears back to hisec.
Those unironically in favor of removing local are wholly focused on just their experience, instead of looking at the bigger picture. The only reason I'm currently voicing support for removing local, is so we can get a real demonstration of what happens when you make huge changes to balance without thinking.
Actually, we have seen what happens when you do that. It's called supercaps.
Xorv wrote:Should players in Nullsec have 100% certainty of safety assuming they're paying even the slightest attention to what's going on around them? No, and they aren't. It's not as if they're safe if they pay attention to local once every half hour or so, it takes constant vigilence. And if someone's been cloaked in a system for hours or days, they'll have to just not undock like a big scared babby, ignore him, or bring an escort. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
19
|
Posted - 2011.12.18 00:46:00 -
[110] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: The cloakers have this uncertainty now, nothing has changed there. The only thing removing local would change is give cloakers a huge boost, and inhabitants a huge nerf, and the combination of uncertainty, danger and the increase in effort they have to do will drive a lot of carebears back to hisec.
Right, exactly my point cloakers have a lot risk already if they don't choose to just remain cloaked and do nothing. Changing Local Chat is about correctly balancing the game. the only "nerf" is to those that want 100% safe PvE in nullsec, which just shouldn't be in the first place. It isn't just a buff to cloakers it's also a buff to a player in any ship that wants to sneak about for surprise attack or avoidance. If anything removing Local Chat Intel opens up more ship types and player types to Nullsec.
I hate using the word "Carebear" it doesn't have any universal meaning, just more of an insult. If you mean players that want consensual or no PvP, think PvE should be free from any sort of PvP, that would like to see EVE become more Themepark and WoW like, then why consider them at all? They don't belong in a game that is supposedly a Sandbox type and PvP focused game. If they do come, which they always do, then it is they who must adapt, not the game. So let them go back to Empire, let them leave the game if they want, with appropriate changes EVE should attract more appropriate players to replace them.
I also don't know why you assume those that want Local changed haven't thought of the bigger picture or also supported changes in other aspects of the game that could be effected. Most want something to partially replace Local intel like an improved DScan, something that isn't 100% and effortless like Local, but is still useful, more so than the current DScan. As to Empire flooded with your "Carebear" refugees, personally I support heavy nerfs to Highsec ISK income that doesn't come with it's own set of risks like Faction Warfare. In terms of simplicity for CCP coders a Wardec nerf reversal and a huge tax hike on NPC corps would put the risk and a good dose of sandbox back into Empire.
|
|
Teddy Ruckspin
Guerillaz
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.18 01:25:00 -
[111] - Quote
Wouldn't a much simpler solution be "no input from user (eg move ship) after X amount of time means... ship decloaks"? |
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
52
|
Posted - 2011.12.18 01:29:00 -
[112] - Quote
Teddy Ruckspin wrote:Wouldn't a much simpler solution be "no input from user (eg move ship) after X amount of time means... ship decloaks"?
So I just set a direction and speed and go. Also if you mean changing direction, easy enough to set up a program to stop my ship and set it to full speed again every so often. Bad idea's are bad no matter what spin you put on them. |
Teddy Ruckspin
Guerillaz
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.18 01:42:00 -
[113] - Quote
Gerrick Palivorn wrote:Teddy Ruckspin wrote:Wouldn't a much simpler solution be "no input from user (eg move ship) after X amount of time means... ship decloaks"? So I just set a direction and speed and go. Also if you mean changing direction, easy enough to set up a program to stop my ship and set it to full speed again every so often. Bad idea's are bad no matter what spin you put on them.
You can use a macro for original idea as well which is why I agree with you! I was just making the point that there are quicker and easier ways to achieve the exact same thing as the original idea |
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
52
|
Posted - 2011.12.18 01:50:00 -
[114] - Quote
Teddy Ruckspin wrote:Gerrick Palivorn wrote:Teddy Ruckspin wrote:Wouldn't a much simpler solution be "no input from user (eg move ship) after X amount of time means... ship decloaks"? So I just set a direction and speed and go. Also if you mean changing direction, easy enough to set up a program to stop my ship and set it to full speed again every so often. Bad idea's are bad no matter what spin you put on them. You can use a macro for original idea as well which is why I agree with you! I was just making the point that there are quicker and easier ways to achieve the exact same thing as the original idea
Gingers Rock! Now on to something less important.
It's good that some people realize how rediculously easy it is to set up something to defeat there anti-cloaking ideas.
Ambushes, and tactics are needed to kill an afk cloaker...
Oh and more patience than them. |
Spork Witch
Soul-Strike
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.18 11:55:00 -
[115] - Quote
Lucien Visteen wrote:Lord Zim wrote:I literally can't wait to see every roam being nothing but cloaky ships. Oh god, I hope not. While a more unpredictable local could be more interresting, seeing everyone running around with a cloak on will be no fun at all. Some from of defence against them needs to happen too. A probing game, or a fuel based system is the two most likely scenarios. Or, you know, undock and call their bluff?
You being an idiot or a coward and letting one person lock your system down is _your_ problem, not theirs. I can achieve the same result if you just didn't happen to have any probes in-system.
|
Kittamaru
Northstar Cabal Important Internet Spaceship League
10
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 15:50:00 -
[116] - Quote
For those worried about this being used in W-Space - simple solution - make it not function in W-Space due to spatial distortions or something.
I'm all for removing local IF you allow for some form of self defense scanning - I'm talking about the ability to actively watch what is going on in exchange for a chance to see incoming hostiles. A possibility for this would be a high-slot module that actively pings the system every other second or so - issue being it's such a high powered pulse that anyone's warp drive can lock onto it, meaning it's also easier to get to you before you can escape. Adds more flavor to the game in that you need someone else scanning the system for you (which canbe fun if you set them just outside a POS shield - hostile warps to em and BAMF) |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
748
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 16:09:00 -
[117] - Quote
Kittamaru wrote:For those worried about this being used in W-Space - simple solution - make it not function in W-Space due to spatial distortions or something.
I'm all for removing local IF you allow for some form of self defense scanning - I'm talking about the ability to actively watch what is going on in exchange for a chance to see incoming hostiles. A possibility for this would be a high-slot module that actively pings the system every other second or so - issue being it's such a high powered pulse that anyone's warp drive can lock onto it, meaning it's also easier to get to you before you can escape. Adds more flavor to the game in that you need someone else scanning the system for you (which canbe fun if you set them just outside a POS shield - hostile warps to em and BAMF)
We have one of these magical systems you talk about already in wormholes. I could get in trouble for sharing this with the non-wormhole community, so please PLEASE don't share this with ANYONE.
We call it... D-Scan. Granted it's not active, you actually have to do it yourself, but it's really easy and quite powerful when actually used. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
316
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 16:19:00 -
[118] - Quote
And gives you how many seconds' advance warning before you're tackled? |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
749
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 16:23:00 -
[119] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:And gives you how many seconds' advance warning before you're tackled?
Considering it has a 14AU range and that, living in wormholes you've taken precautions for that very event, plenty. Of course, for the more significant ops you'll also have someone in hole with combats out at max range keeping an eye on the entire system for any new ships that appear, or new sigs that could indicate a new K162 opened.
However no system, by design, is infallible. Eve would be pretty damned boring if it was totally safe. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
316
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 16:29:00 -
[120] - Quote
Even if we're talking about a cloaked ship warping to a bookmark they made earlier? |
|
Kittamaru
Northstar Cabal Important Internet Spaceship League
10
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 16:33:00 -
[121] - Quote
*shrugs* even if you remove local, I don't like the idea that any single module has absolutely no counter... if you go AFK in space without docking or pos'ing up, you should be able to be found and killed. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
749
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 16:33:00 -
[122] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Even if we're talking about a cloaked ship warping to a bookmark they made earlier?
Then they've earned the kill and hats off to them if they catch me with my pants down. It happens. It's an accepted risk. This is why my haulers in there for PI tend to be tanked and stabbed... gives me a fighting chance to escape.
Funny thing that... you actually don't have to fit a hauler for max cargo capacity... part of that whole "adapting" thing. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Kittamaru
Northstar Cabal Important Internet Spaceship League
10
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 16:54:00 -
[123] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Even if we're talking about a cloaked ship warping to a bookmark they made earlier? Then they've earned the kill and hats off to them if they catch me with my pants down. It happens. It's an accepted risk. This is why my haulers in there for PI tend to be tanked and stabbed... gives me a fighting chance to escape. Funny thing that... you actually don't have to fit a hauler for max cargo capacity... part of that whole "adapting" thing.
Exactly my point - this setup would allow cooperation between players to help hunt cloaks but would also give a reason to not go AFK. I mean, why is it that anyone should be able to be 100% safe while undocked for any reason? Even in a POS shield, they could, potentially, down the POS... if you're AFK long enough :) |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
749
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 16:58:00 -
[124] - Quote
Kittamaru wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Even if we're talking about a cloaked ship warping to a bookmark they made earlier? Then they've earned the kill and hats off to them if they catch me with my pants down. It happens. It's an accepted risk. This is why my haulers in there for PI tend to be tanked and stabbed... gives me a fighting chance to escape. Funny thing that... you actually don't have to fit a hauler for max cargo capacity... part of that whole "adapting" thing. Exactly my point - this setup would allow cooperation between players to help hunt cloaks but would also give a reason to not go AFK. I mean, why is it that anyone should be able to be 100% safe while undocked for any reason? Even in a POS shield, they could, potentially, down the POS... if you're AFK long enough :)
This set up breaks wormhole intel, which requires being able to remain undetected in a system.
You're failing to consider the ripple effects. You break another entire aspect of the game simply because you're afraid of the stranger in local. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1364
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 17:10:00 -
[125] - Quote
you all are dumb and your ideas are dumb, stop posting
any bullshit "fixes" to local will just lead to an even more broken nullsec, where roaming gangs have the advantage over the residents of the space. it will make travel impossible, with cloaked hictors camping jump bridges and cyno arrays with impunity. your dumb "fixes" will allow cloakers to observe an area (staging POS, cyno array/JB POS, etc.) and gather intel with zero chance of detection.
tl;dr: local works as intended, AFK cloaking works as intended, you're all dumb |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1364
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 17:12:00 -
[126] - Quote
stop breaking the game, idiots |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
316
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 17:40:00 -
[127] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Even if we're talking about a cloaked ship warping to a bookmark they made earlier? Then they've earned the kill and hats off to them if they catch me with my pants down. It happens. It's an accepted risk. This is why my haulers in there for PI tend to be tanked and stabbed... gives me a fighting chance to escape. So, compare that with nullsec where local is changed so it's either gone or excludes cloaked ships. You jump in, safe up, wait a few hours or days and start scanning for anoms. You then jump around at random, and if you see someone in a sufficiently juicy ship being attacked by enough NPCs, you slowboat over to them and tackle them and shoot them. And the only real defense against this is eternal vigilence.
And all this to "fix afk cloaking". Heh.
Ingvar Angst wrote:You're failing to consider the ripple effects. Heh. |
Kittamaru
Northstar Cabal Important Internet Spaceship League
10
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 18:09:00 -
[128] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:Kittamaru wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Even if we're talking about a cloaked ship warping to a bookmark they made earlier? Then they've earned the kill and hats off to them if they catch me with my pants down. It happens. It's an accepted risk. This is why my haulers in there for PI tend to be tanked and stabbed... gives me a fighting chance to escape. Funny thing that... you actually don't have to fit a hauler for max cargo capacity... part of that whole "adapting" thing. Exactly my point - this setup would allow cooperation between players to help hunt cloaks but would also give a reason to not go AFK. I mean, why is it that anyone should be able to be 100% safe while undocked for any reason? Even in a POS shield, they could, potentially, down the POS... if you're AFK long enough :) This set up breaks wormhole intel, which requires being able to remain undetected in a system. You're failing to consider the ripple effects. You break another entire aspect of the game simply because you're afraid of the stranger in local.
And you're failing to read - I said you can simply make this not work in wormhole space via spatial distortion and what not
|
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
761
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 18:54:00 -
[129] - Quote
Kittamaru wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:Kittamaru wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Even if we're talking about a cloaked ship warping to a bookmark they made earlier? Then they've earned the kill and hats off to them if they catch me with my pants down. It happens. It's an accepted risk. This is why my haulers in there for PI tend to be tanked and stabbed... gives me a fighting chance to escape. Funny thing that... you actually don't have to fit a hauler for max cargo capacity... part of that whole "adapting" thing. Exactly my point - this setup would allow cooperation between players to help hunt cloaks but would also give a reason to not go AFK. I mean, why is it that anyone should be able to be 100% safe while undocked for any reason? Even in a POS shield, they could, potentially, down the POS... if you're AFK long enough :) This set up breaks wormhole intel, which requires being able to remain undetected in a system. You're failing to consider the ripple effects. You break another entire aspect of the game simply because you're afraid of the stranger in local. And you're failing to read - I said you can simply make this not work in wormhole space via spatial distortion and what not
If the system is bad enough that you need to build exceptions into it to try to prevent it from breaking things it's probably not worth implementing in the first place. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
3323
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 19:03:00 -
[130] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:Kittamaru wrote:And you're failing to read - I said you can simply make this not work in wormhole space via spatial distortion and what not
If the system is bad enough that you need to build exceptions into it to try to prevent it from breaking things it's probably not worth implementing in the first place. Not only that bud, but it fails to address the reason for AFKing and adds even more power on top of the already powerful local intel tool.
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. |
|
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
316
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 19:52:00 -
[131] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:If the system is bad enough that you need to build exceptions into it to try to prevent it from breaking things it's probably not worth implementing in the first place. I've yet to see a good objection to just making cloaked ships unprobable when they're running silent/without any mods online. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
762
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 20:22:00 -
[132] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:If the system is bad enough that you need to build exceptions into it to try to prevent it from breaking things it's probably not worth implementing in the first place. I've yet to see a good objection to just making cloaked ships unprobable when they're running silent/without any mods online.
Simple. You nerf the ship excessively. They're already unable to do anything while cloaked (save operate probes), now you'll make them unable to do anything when decloaking. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1366
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 20:48:00 -
[133] - Quote
A solution requires a problem to exist to begin with, and there is no problem from what I'm seeing. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
319
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 21:00:00 -
[134] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:Simple. You nerf the ship excessively. They're already unable to do anything while cloaked (save operate probes), now you'll make them unable to do anything when decloaking. And your idea makes nullsec even more of a desert than it already is. |
Kittamaru
Northstar Cabal Important Internet Spaceship League
10
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 13:49:00 -
[135] - Quote
Except there is a very simple issue here - virtually any ship can slap on a cloak and a cyno generator and hide in a system for virtually unlimited amounts of time, completely and utterly undetectable. Not only does this disrupt the lesser-prepared players, it is a bane to even well prepared ones because you have that threat of a hotdrop at any time, knowing that you can do NOTHING to prevent it - at best, you can escape with your ship, but the chances of actually eliminating the cyno-gen before his buddies come through is virtually zero.
And besides, give one good reason why you should be able to sit, completely afk and cloaked in a hostile system for days on end without ever moving with zero chance of being discovered... nothing else gives you such impunity whilst out in space... and honestly, there's no need for it. Hell, I'm all for taking away local - none the less, being able to hide forever is just broken, at least for non-covops ship. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Important Internet Spaceship League
50
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 14:11:00 -
[136] - Quote
AFK cloaking is NOT active gameplay and as such I'm against it being used systematically (we all have to go afk from time to time) Nothing wrong with people preferring to be permantly cloaked, but they should be flying their ship. And not leave it cloaked while going at work, visitting friends or sleeping. Not without a serious risc of getting caught.
Pinky |
Caliph Muhammed
inderpendent manufacturing operations Amen Anera
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 15:26:00 -
[137] - Quote
Not one person in this thread has proven anyone to be AFK and cloaking. Its a term made up to cover for the attempt at having safe PVE in dangerous areaas. Harden the **** up you pussies. You will not have safe pve in your alliance strongholds, not even if you make 20000 posts about it. On the other hand you are likely to lose local eventually as it is the biggest deterent to pvp actively happening in losec. So suffer you pathetic candyass trammies. |
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
57
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 16:20:00 -
[138] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Not one person in this thread has proven anyone to be AFK and cloaking. Its a term made up to cover for the attempt at having safe PVE in dangerous areaas. Harden the **** up you pussies. You will not have safe pve in your alliance strongholds, not even if you make 20000 posts about it. On the other hand you are likely to lose local eventually as it is the biggest deterent to pvp actively happening in losec. So suffer you pathetic candyass trammies.
I would say the same to you, Man up and fly without a cloak on. If you want pvp invite to it instead of hiding behind a module. The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't. |
Caliph Muhammed
inderpendent manufacturing operations Amen Anera
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 08:11:00 -
[139] - Quote
You are free to say whatever you want, the game is balanced around cloaking ships existing. Cloaked ships even with max cloaking skill have a serious delay in targeting. They give up a high slot to equip it. They can not attack while cloaked. The can only observe.
Its that simple. You do not have a right to safety while generating ISK. You do have a right to safety if you aren't.
So cloak up or dock up and be safe or uncloak and undock and take the risk.
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
22
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 09:25:00 -
[140] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote: [...] You do not have a right to safety while generating ISK. You do have a right to safety if you aren't.
Very key point made here for this and many other discussions,...
Generating significant ISK should come hand in hand with risk and competition from other players. PvE should not be firewalled from PvP in a Sandbox MMO. This is a principle that CCP should vigorously apply to every aspect of their game, would fix much that is currently wrong with EVE.
|
|
Jack Tronic
borkedLabs
19
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 09:33:00 -
[141] - Quote
Two scenarios Cloaky is a bomber 1. You are jewing in a belt 2. Bomber tackles you 3. You abandon any current drones and launch light drones 4. Laugh as he gets ripped apart
Cloaky is anything else 1. You are jewing in a belt 2. Cloaky decloaks 3. Warp off as he has 15 second delay until he can start target locking
I don't see anything wrong. If he has a cyno fit well only the bomber can insta tackle you and even then cyno jam the system or just get a free bomber kill anyway if you are going to die. |
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
57
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 11:36:00 -
[142] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:You are free to say whatever you want, the game is balanced around cloaking ships existing.
Not in a sence I feel is correct. If it was only the cov-ops ships that could use the cloaks to full effect I wouldn't have any problem with it. The fact that any ship can have a cloak and see everything going on around it is not a good balance. If the ships could get a limit to their field of view then I wouldn't have had any problems with it either.
The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
323
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 11:43:00 -
[143] - Quote
Jack Tronic wrote:Two scenarios Cloaky is a bomber 1. You are jewing in a belt 2. Bomber tackles you 3. You abandon any current drones and launch light drones 4. Laugh as he gets ripped apart
Cloaky is anything else 1. You are jewing in a belt 2. Cloaky decloaks 3. Warp off as he has 15 second delay until he can start target locking
I don't see anything wrong. If he has a cyno fit well only the bomber can insta tackle you and even then cyno jam the system or just get a free bomber kill anyway if you are going to die. Third scenario: 1. You are jewing in a belt or anom 2. A bomber tackles you. 3. The rest of the gang uncloaks and rips you a new one.
Also, you realize how blackops cynos work, yes?
|
Caliph Muhammed
inderpendent manufacturing operations Amen Anera
3
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 12:20:00 -
[144] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Jack Tronic wrote:Two scenarios Cloaky is a bomber 1. You are jewing in a belt 2. Bomber tackles you 3. You abandon any current drones and launch light drones 4. Laugh as he gets ripped apart
Cloaky is anything else 1. You are jewing in a belt 2. Cloaky decloaks 3. Warp off as he has 15 second delay until he can start target locking
I don't see anything wrong. If he has a cyno fit well only the bomber can insta tackle you and even then cyno jam the system or just get a free bomber kill anyway if you are going to die. Third scenario: 1. You are jewing in a belt or anom 2. A bomber tackles you. 3. The rest of the gang uncloaks and rips you a new one. Also, you realize how blackops cynos work, yes?
And if you are solo and they have a gang prepared with a solid gameplan, you should die. Simple as that.
It's not changing Lord Zim. There isn't going to be a fix that allows you to safely warp around nullsec in a multi billion dollar ship farming endlessly with minimal risk. You are Goonswarm. To hear this from one within a corp with the absolute best chance at forming defensive fleets is sad. (The unity of the Swarm is awe inspiring)
I honestly lose respect I have for Goonies when I find multiple posts from every page with this transparent approach and opinion. Someone from your corp needs to tell you to harden the **** up and come back to reality. You have no right to safety and that's that. It doesn't require proof or validation. So i'm not going to waste time doing so. If you want safety, leave the Swarm and go back to hisec.
Stating the obvious intended mechanics in a question phrased to imply it's not as it should be doesn't make for a solid argument. I mean that as respectfully as it can be made while at the same time telling you sternly to stop crying. |
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
57
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 12:45:00 -
[145] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:It's not changing Lord Zim. There isn't going to be a fix that allows you to safely warp around nullsec in a multi billion dollar ship farming endlessly with minimal risk. You are Goonswarm. To hear this from one within a corp with the absolute best chance at forming defensive fleets is sad. (The unity of the Swarm is awe inspiring)
I honestly lose respect I have for Goonies when I find multiple posts from every page with this transparent approach and opinion. Someone from your corp needs to tell you to harden the **** up and come back to reality. You have no right to safety and that's that. It doesn't require proof or validation. So i'm not going to waste time doing so. If you want safety, leave the Swarm and go back to hisec.
Stating the obvious intended mechanics in a question phrased to imply it's not as it should be doesn't make for a solid argument. I mean that as respectfully as it can be made while at the same time telling you sternly to stop crying.
He don't care about PvE, he has said as mutch, he just wants juzy targets. And if local gets removed altogether without any form of added security or incentives to the PvE'ers in null-sec, they will leave, simple as that.
I also do believe he don't give a damn about any afk cloakers either.
The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
773
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 12:53:00 -
[146] - Quote
Lucien Visteen wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:You are free to say whatever you want, the game is balanced around cloaking ships existing. Not in a sence I feel is correct. If it was only the cov-ops ships that could use the cloaks to full effect I wouldn't have any problem with it. The fact that any ship can have a cloak and see everything going on around it is not a good balance. If the ships could get a limit to their field of view then I wouldn't have had any problems with it either.
Well, the cloaked ship would be limited to what it can see on DScan, with probes (that advertise his presence), or through the eyeball method, so there's the balance. They can't see local or use that as intel. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
773
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 12:57:00 -
[147] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Jack Tronic wrote:Two scenarios Cloaky is a bomber 1. You are jewing in a belt 2. Bomber tackles you 3. You abandon any current drones and launch light drones 4. Laugh as he gets ripped apart
Cloaky is anything else 1. You are jewing in a belt 2. Cloaky decloaks 3. Warp off as he has 15 second delay until he can start target locking
I don't see anything wrong. If he has a cyno fit well only the bomber can insta tackle you and even then cyno jam the system or just get a free bomber kill anyway if you are going to die. Third scenario: 1. You are jewing in a belt or anom 2. A bomber tackles you. 3. The rest of the gang uncloaks and rips you a new one. Also, you realize how blackops cynos work, yes?
If that many ships put in the effort and teamwork to locate you covertly, move into position and spring the trap... in nullsec... well, kudos to them. Tip your hat to a well executed trap, pull your next discount ratting ship (or covetor if you're mining) out of your pocket and try again later. You should not be invulnerable to that degree of concerted effort if you're out and about doing something like ratting or mining. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
323
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 13:00:00 -
[148] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:And if you are solo and they have a gang prepared with a solid gameplan, you should die. Simple as that.
It's not changing Lord Zim. There isn't going to be a fix that allows you to safely warp around nullsec in a multi billion dollar ship farming endlessly with minimal risk. You are Goonswarm. To hear this from one within a corp with the absolute best chance at forming defensive fleets is sad. (The unity of the Swarm is awe inspiring)
I honestly lose respect I have for Goonies when I find multiple posts from every page with this transparent approach and opinion. Someone from your corp needs to tell you to harden the **** up and come back to reality. You have no right to safety and that's that. It doesn't require proof or validation. So i'm not going to waste time doing so. If you want safety, leave the Swarm and go back to hisec.
Stating the obvious intended mechanics in a question phrased to imply it's not as it should be doesn't make for a solid argument. I mean that as respectfully as it can be made while at the same time telling you sternly to stop crying. Sigh.
I've said this multiple times, I PVP in nullsec, my carebearing is in hisec because I judge the risk/reward to be much more conductive in hisec. I'm not arguing this for me, I'm arguing this for the carebears who are currently trying to make a living in nullsec, who will be the most affected by this. And when they're affected, so will the roamers because they'll have even fewer targets to choose from because the carebears who are less lazy than me will have moved their carebear alts to hisec as well.
Also, what I'm arguing isn't that there should be complete safety (there is none in nullsec, despite what many people will argue to get rid of local, it takes just a bit of inattentiveness at the wrong time to lose a ship, even if there are intel channels and local), what I'm arguing is that changes which will make the act of keeping even half the safety they have now take 10x as much work, without adding to the disadvantages the roamers/system campers have to endure, are unbalanced as ****. You'd go from the inhabitants having a slight advantage, to the roamers/system campers having a huge advantage. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
773
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 13:03:00 -
[149] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: Sigh.
I've said this multiple times, I PVP in nullsec, my carebearing is in hisec because I judge the risk/reward to be much more conductive in hisec. I'm not arguing this for me, I'm arguing this for the carebears who are currently trying to make a living in nullsec, who will be the most affected by this. And when they're affected, so will the roamers because they'll have even fewer targets to choose from because the carebears who are less lazy than me will have moved their carebear alts to hisec as well.
Also, what I'm arguing isn't that there should be complete safety (there is none in nullsec, despite what many people will argue to get rid of local, it takes just a bit of inattentiveness at the wrong time to lose a ship, even if there are intel channels and local), what I'm arguing is that changes which will make the act of keeping even half the safety they have now take 10x as much work, without adding to the disadvantages the roamers/system campers have to endure, are unbalanced as ****. You'd go from the inhabitants having a slight advantage, to the roamers/system campers having a huge advantage.
No... what you'd have is the bots going from operating with absolute safety, being able to dock up as soon as a stranger enters local, to bots becoming vulnerable to planned operations.
But... you're a Goon. You know this.
Now your opposition makes sense. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
323
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 13:08:00 -
[150] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:If that many ships put in the effort and teamwork to locate you covertly, move into position and spring the trap... in nullsec... well, kudos to them. Tip your hat to a well executed trap, pull your next discount ratting ship (or covetor if you're mining) out of your pocket and try again later. You should not be invulnerable to that degree of concerted effort if you're out and about doing something like ratting or mining. Doesn't really take much coordination when it's just a matter of warping to belts or anoms and seeing what they can catch there.
I've said this multiple times, and I'll say it again, not giving inhabitants any way of noticing that they're being stalked just means that cloaked ships will become the roaming gang ship of the future, and carebears will leave for hisec, and nullsec will become even emptier and devoid of targets, which would benefit ... who? |
|
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
323
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 13:09:00 -
[151] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:No... what you'd have is the bots going from operating with absolute safety, being able to dock up as soon as a stranger enters local, to bots becoming vulnerable to planned operations.
But... you're a Goon. You know this.
Now your opposition makes sense. Oh, so now I'm a botter, is that it? |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
773
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 13:31:00 -
[152] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:No... what you'd have is the bots going from operating with absolute safety, being able to dock up as soon as a stranger enters local, to bots becoming vulnerable to planned operations.
But... you're a Goon. You know this.
Now your opposition makes sense. Oh, so now I'm a botter, is that it?
You tell us. You're defending a system that would benefit the bots the most. People will make implilcations. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
324
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 13:37:00 -
[153] - Quote
So we are definitely into ad hominems, are we?
Why don't you report me as a botter, then? Go ahead, I won't mind. You can tell them to look through my wallet history for my other accounts and check those as well. |
Caliph Muhammed
inderpendent manufacturing operations Amen Anera
4
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 09:27:00 -
[154] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:And if you are solo and they have a gang prepared with a solid gameplan, you should die. Simple as that.
It's not changing Lord Zim. There isn't going to be a fix that allows you to safely warp around nullsec in a multi billion dollar ship farming endlessly with minimal risk. You are Goonswarm. To hear this from one within a corp with the absolute best chance at forming defensive fleets is sad. (The unity of the Swarm is awe inspiring)
I honestly lose respect I have for Goonies when I find multiple posts from every page with this transparent approach and opinion. Someone from your corp needs to tell you to harden the **** up and come back to reality. You have no right to safety and that's that. It doesn't require proof or validation. So i'm not going to waste time doing so. If you want safety, leave the Swarm and go back to hisec.
Stating the obvious intended mechanics in a question phrased to imply it's not as it should be doesn't make for a solid argument. I mean that as respectfully as it can be made while at the same time telling you sternly to stop crying. Sigh. I've said this multiple times, I PVP in nullsec, my carebearing is in hisec because I judge the risk/reward to be much more conductive in hisec. I'm not arguing this for me, I'm arguing this for the carebears who are currently trying to make a living in nullsec, who will be the most affected by this. And when they're affected, so will the roamers because they'll have even fewer targets to choose from because the carebears who are less lazy than me will have moved their carebear alts to hisec as well. Also, what I'm arguing isn't that there should be complete safety (there is none in nullsec, despite what many people will argue to get rid of local, it takes just a bit of inattentiveness at the wrong time to lose a ship, even if there are intel channels and local), what I'm arguing is that changes which will make the act of keeping even half the safety they have now take 10x as much work, without adding to the disadvantages the roamers/system campers have to endure, are unbalanced as ****. You'd go from the inhabitants having a slight advantage, to the roamers/system campers having a huge advantage. I understand the subtle difference but it would still essentially make cloakers a non issue to an alliance with covert ops hunters which will inevitably cut down on those who use covert ops which will inevitably lead to ISK farmers in alliances farming ISK risk free. And while it takes discipline to do the fact is it will happen which is unacceptable. |
Jaigar
Mom 'n' Pop Ammo Shoppe Transmission Lost
15
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 09:55:00 -
[155] - Quote
Xorv wrote:No your idea fails.
Even if your idea only effected afk cloakers it still fails
Why? Because AFK cloaking isn't a "problem"
Why isn't AFK cloaking a problem you may ask? Because it's the symptomatic imperfect response to the real problem, flawless 100% effortless Intel from Local Chat.
Forget the symptoms, cure the disease, remove Local Chat Intel!
This, and don't rat in your 3 bil isk machariel, just use a drake or raven or something if you are worried.
Most C5/C6 Wholers have come to terms with unexpected surprises. You just need to do damage control. That saying, "Only fly what you can afford to lose"... |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
329
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 12:14:00 -
[156] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:I understand the subtle difference but it would still essentially make cloakers a non issue to an alliance with covert ops hunters which will inevitably cut down on those who use covert ops which will inevitably lead to ISK farmers in alliances farming ISK risk free. And while it takes discipline to do the fact is it will happen which is unacceptable. You're assuming that there will actually be people who find it fun to roam around an entire region, looking for invisible people who may or may not be there, 23.5/7. They may come through gates, they may come through wormholes, they may log in from a day before, they don't know, but they have to run around and look, all day, every day.
How long do you really think that'd go on before they just say **** it, go do l4s if you must make money? |
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
57
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 16:57:00 -
[157] - Quote
Jaigar wrote:This, and don't rat in your 3 bil isk machariel, just use a drake or raven or something if you are worried.
Most C5/C6 Wholers have come to terms with unexpected surprises. You just need to do damage control. That saying, "Only fly what you can afford to lose"...
Please don't assume to know what we fly around in. It will in most cases be wrong anyway.
To my understanding, damagecontrolling in C5/C6 class w-holes includes closing of entrances. Too bad we can't close a warpgate.
Don't fly what we can't afford to loose. Yeah, why are so many people worried about something that won't ruin it for any clever guy out there. I've been told that the effect of afk'ing is psycological warfare, and I've been told that it can be done just as easily without a cloak. So again, why are som many people worried about something that won't affect any active player in any way.
If you decide that parking a ship in the middle of a busy null-sec area swarming with hostiles, you also should not really care what happens to your ship. So if you leave it for 23 hours and you come back to find yourself in some station, then obviosly it wasn't a big loss to you anyway. The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't. |
Caliph Muhammed
inderpendent manufacturing operations Amen Anera
4
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 17:03:00 -
[158] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:I understand the subtle difference but it would still essentially make cloakers a non issue to an alliance with covert ops hunters which will inevitably cut down on those who use covert ops which will inevitably lead to ISK farmers in alliances farming ISK risk free. And while it takes discipline to do the fact is it will happen which is unacceptable. You're assuming that there will actually be people who find it fun to roam around an entire region, looking for invisible people who may or may not be there, 23.5/7. They may come through gates, they may come through wormholes, they may log in from a day before, they don't know, but they have to run around and look, all day, every day. How long do you really think that'd go on before they just say **** it, go do l4s if you must make money?
I think they would do it until they reversed the change. Alliances would start by securing one system that couldnt be penetrated by cloakers. They would boost the alliance tax rate. The tax would pay for even more ships and security which would then be used to secure a second secure farming area. This would continue on until the insanity was stopped. And yes im positive "the Swarm" has contemplated this. Im all for a good plan, but cloaking is the trump card against 100% security and to make it an inconvenience that can be dealt with would have severe consequences.
"Renting secure null sec farming space, 5 billion per month, convo me!" |
Caliph Muhammed
inderpendent manufacturing operations Amen Anera
4
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 17:08:00 -
[159] - Quote
Lucien Visteen wrote:Jaigar wrote:This, and don't rat in your 3 bil isk machariel, just use a drake or raven or something if you are worried.
Most C5/C6 Wholers have come to terms with unexpected surprises. You just need to do damage control. That saying, "Only fly what you can afford to lose"... Please don't assume to know what we fly around in. It will in most cases be wrong anyway. To my understanding, damagecontrolling in C5/C6 class w-holes includes closing of entrances. Too bad we can't close a warpgate. Don't fly what we can't afford to loose. Yeah, why are so many people worried about something that won't ruin it for any clever guy out there. I've been told that the effect of afk'ing is psycological warfare, and I've been told that it can be done just as easily without a cloak. So again, why are som many people worried about something that won't affect any active player in any way. If you decide that parking a ship in the middle of a busy null-sec area swarming with hostiles, you also should not really care what happens to your ship. So if you leave it for 23 hours and you come back to find yourself in some station, then obviosly it wasn't a big loss to you anyway.
As someone with level 5 cloaking I dont want a fuel cost, a timer or a movement check. All are unnecessary changes that only serve to benefit those who want rock solid farming security.
Or perhaps we can make a trade. Ill take the ability to be probed down if I can attack while cloaked. That way if I can absolutely be found, then you absolutely have to have the right equipment to find me. Deal? |
Jaigar
Mom 'n' Pop Ammo Shoppe Transmission Lost
15
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 17:27:00 -
[160] - Quote
Lucien Visteen wrote:Jaigar wrote:This, and don't rat in your 3 bil isk machariel, just use a drake or raven or something if you are worried.
Most C5/C6 Wholers have come to terms with unexpected surprises. You just need to do damage control. That saying, "Only fly what you can afford to lose"... Please don't assume to know what we fly around in. It will in most cases be wrong anyway. To my understanding, damagecontrolling in C5/C6 class w-holes includes closing of entrances. Too bad we can't close a warpgate. Don't fly what we can't afford to loose. Yeah, why are so many people worried about something that won't ruin it for any clever guy out there. I've been told that the effect of afk'ing is psycological warfare, and I've been told that it can be done just as easily without a cloak. So again, why are som many people worried about something that won't affect any active player in any way. If you decide that parking a ship in the middle of a busy null-sec area swarming with hostiles, you also should not really care what happens to your ship. So if you leave it for 23 hours and you come back to find yourself in some station, then obviosly it wasn't a big loss to you anyway.
With C5 And C6 holes, you can reroll them within 5-6 minutes, meaning someone else can reroll them in 5-6 minutes to find you as well. Since there are only 113 C6s, theres a pretty high chance someone will roll into you. And also sleepers scram. So if your crew is running a site and someone rolls a hole into you, you gotta clear the wave as you try jump out before the next wave scrams you or you can just leave somebody. But good scouts and prepared groups can roll into your plexing system and find you in under a minute easily, and theres nothing you can do about it.
And the 3 bil isk ratting machs, yeah, seen alot of those in shadow of death space. Thats all they do besides losing poorly fit carriers and helping strange brew lose a Nyx to a wormhole corp.. |
|
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
58
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 17:53:00 -
[161] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:As someone with level 5 cloaking I dont want a fuel cost, a timer or a movement check. All are unnecessary changes that only serve to benefit those who want rock solid farming security.
Would only become boring, I'm not out to make the game boring.
Quote:Or perhaps we can make a trade. Ill take the ability to be probed down if I can attack while cloaked. That way if I can absolutely be found, then you absolutely have to have the right equipment to find me. Deal?
Dependant on ship type, in both cases. And only for attacking, if you want to capture or well, web, then you need to uncloak. Discuss. (edit, doubt I will find many agreeing on me on this one)
This is actually what I thought having a cloak meant when I started playing. Covert attacking. I also thought they could only be used on cov-ops ships The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't. |
Caliph Muhammed
inderpendent manufacturing operations Amen Anera
4
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 18:33:00 -
[162] - Quote
Lucien Visteen wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:As someone with level 5 cloaking I dont want a fuel cost, a timer or a movement check. All are unnecessary changes that only serve to benefit those who want rock solid farming security. Would only become boring, I'm not out to make the game boring. Quote:Or perhaps we can make a trade. Ill take the ability to be probed down if I can attack while cloaked. That way if I can absolutely be found, then you absolutely have to have the right equipment to find me. Deal? Dependant on ship type, in both cases. And only for attacking, if you want to capture or well, web, then you need to uncloak. Discuss. This is actually what I thought having a cloak meant. Covert attacking. I also thought they could only be used on cov-ops ships
Lol. I was being facetious. No probes & no hostile while cloaked.
The game isn't going to become more tame or easier to farm in safety. It lowers the demand for items because there is less loss incurred. The greater the loss, that typical gameplay can't recover, the greater the incentive to buy and resell plex for ISK. The greater number of plex sold the lower the ISK price goes which leads to more being purchased on the market. More being purchased raises the price back up. An equilibrium is found. Fights occur more often and tension is created. Compelling gameplay develops. More plex sold means more cash for the company.
Safer space means more isk is available to throw around but the need to do so is lessened. If you do not incur loss you do not need to replace ships. The market stagnates. Combat stagnates. More isk will drive the price of plex up temporarily but the dulling of the overall game will see demand for plex go down as fewer people subscribe. Sales of plex decrease as the price begins to bottom out. The company loses money.
Can breaking cloak and potentially creating impenetrable strongholds have this effect? In time, I would say absolutely. |
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
58
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 18:39:00 -
[163] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Lucien Visteen wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:As someone with level 5 cloaking I dont want a fuel cost, a timer or a movement check. All are unnecessary changes that only serve to benefit those who want rock solid farming security. Would only become boring, I'm not out to make the game boring. Quote:Or perhaps we can make a trade. Ill take the ability to be probed down if I can attack while cloaked. That way if I can absolutely be found, then you absolutely have to have the right equipment to find me. Deal? Dependant on ship type, in both cases. And only for attacking, if you want to capture or well, web, then you need to uncloak. Discuss. This is actually what I thought having a cloak meant. Covert attacking. I also thought they could only be used on cov-ops ships Lol. I was being facetious. No probes & no hostile while cloaked. The game isn't going to become more tame or easier to farm in safety. It lowers the demand for items because there is less loss incurred. The greater the loss, that typical gameplay can't recover, the greater the incentive to buy and resell plex for ISK. The greater number of plex sold the lower the ISK price goes which leads to more being purchased on the market. More being purchased raises the price back up. An equilibrium is found. Fights occur more often and tension is created. Compelling gameplay develops. More plex sold means more cash for the company. Safer space means more isk is available to throw around but the need to do so is lessened. If you do not incur loss you do not need to replace ships. The market stagnates. Combat stagnates. More isk will drive the price of plex up temporarily but the dulling of the overall game will see demand for plex go down as fewer people subscribe. Sales of plex decrease as the price begins to bottom out. The company loses money. Can breaking cloak and potentially creating impenetrable strongholds have this effect? In time I would say absolutely.
And that is where I beg to differ since I don't see how it can break cloak, pluss it will make the "carebears" more courageous thus inviting to more pvp.
The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't. |
Caliph Muhammed
inderpendent manufacturing operations Amen Anera
4
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 18:44:00 -
[164] - Quote
Lucien Visteen wrote:[And that is where I beg to differ since I don't see how it can break cloak, pluss it will make the "carebears" more courageous thus inviting to more pvp.
There is no incentive you can offer to a person who tricks out a multi billion isk ship for missions who is risk adverse to pvp. Absolutely nothing. It has to be forced upon them. And no one likes to be forced to do anything but unfortunately its required for the game to work.
Allowing cloakers to be probed out will mean the pvers stay docked up until the cloakers are probed out. Period. And at that point cloaking becomes completely useless and the strongholds of isk plantations begin to run risk free. |
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
58
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 18:50:00 -
[165] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Lucien Visteen wrote:[And that is where I beg to differ since I don't see how it can break cloak, pluss it will make the "carebears" more courageous thus inviting to more pvp.
There is no incentive you can offer to a person who tricks out a multi billion isk ship for missions who is risk adverse to pvp. Absolutely nothing. It has to be forced upon them. And no one likes to be forced to do anything but unfortunately its required for the game to work. Allowing cloakers to be probed out will mean the pvers stay docked up until the cloakers are probed out. Period. And at that point cloaking becomes completely useless and the strongholds of isk plantations begin to run risk free.
Then become mobile. You can without a cloak I've been told, with minimum effort, what makes it so infinately more difficult to stay mobile with a cloak module on? The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't. |
Caliph Muhammed
inderpendent manufacturing operations Amen Anera
4
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 19:07:00 -
[166] - Quote
Lucien Visteen wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Lucien Visteen wrote:[And that is where I beg to differ since I don't see how it can break cloak, pluss it will make the "carebears" more courageous thus inviting to more pvp.
There is no incentive you can offer to a person who tricks out a multi billion isk ship for missions who is risk adverse to pvp. Absolutely nothing. It has to be forced upon them. And no one likes to be forced to do anything but unfortunately its required for the game to work. Allowing cloakers to be probed out will mean the pvers stay docked up until the cloakers are probed out. Period. And at that point cloaking becomes completely useless and the strongholds of isk plantations begin to run risk free. Then become mobile. You can without a cloak I've been told, with minimum effort, what makes it so infinately more difficult to stay mobile with a cloak module on?
Its not hard at all. I can grab a kitsune, warp to something in system, bookmark mid warp, then warp back 100km from said point. Repeating as necessary to create a deep safe spot. From there I sail off in one direction with an afterburner, uncloaked and never be found. Try and probe out a 39m ship (Kitsune might be smaller ICR) able to move 1km per second. It would serve the same purpose as afk cloaking. (Subversion of local)
So the breaking of cloaking wouldn't fix the issue that bothers PVEr's and merely serve as an unnecessary annoyance to those who chose to specialize in scouting. What if im stationary in a asteroid belt waiting for a hapless miner to come through. Extra movement means I spend more time navigating an asteroid belt instead of waiting to spring the trap.
We can go back and forth until the end of time, there is only one reason people want cloaking changed and that's so they can be 100% risk free in lo and nullsec. If they see someone in local they will then probe and see if the guy is in station, at a farm spot or in a safe spot. Depending on that they will alter what they do to avoid all risk. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page] |