EVE Search - Idea about AFK cloakers

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Idea about AFK cloakers

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Doctor Dre	Posted - 2007.02.26 18:28:00 - [31] Originally by: Xryk Edited by: Xryk on 26/02/2007 14:00:52 but if forbid charging capacitor in cloak? example: 350 units capacitor. cloak comsumes 2 units in 5 sec = 0.4 units at second. cloak works (350/0.4)/60=14 minutes. So then the cloaked ship has to sit uncloaked for the duration of their cap's recharge time? During which time they can't warp or fight because of no cap? No.
Xryk	Posted - 2007.02.26 19:04:00 - [32] but can: 1. come out of cloak before empty capacitor. 2. fiting the modules for speedup rechargin capacitor.
Kifrile Lezrenack GreenLight	Posted - 2007.02.26 22:57:00 - [33] Originally by: Doctor Dre Originally by: Xryk Edited by: Xryk on 26/02/2007 14:00:52 but if forbid charging capacitor in cloak? example: 350 units capacitor. cloak comsumes 2 units in 5 sec = 0.4 units at second. cloak works (350/0.4)/60=14 minutes. So then the cloaked ship has to sit uncloaked for the duration of their cap's recharge time? During which time they can't warp or fight because of no cap? No. No. -------------------
Kifrile Lezrenack GreenLight	Posted - 2007.02.26 23:00:00 - [34] Originally by: Frogzuk Edited by: Frogzuk on 25/02/2007 04:08:44 I have posted on this subject before, but i agree afk cloaking is actually a 'harassments tactic' so far to say that a GM has responded to a complaint that i put forward with the 'so what attitude' To prevent, we dont need a probe to be able to probe cloaked ships out, that would devalue the purpose of a cloaked ship... what is really needed is some form of mechanism that requires reactivation of cloaking device after set time, cloaked ship is presented with a 'ship will uncloak' warning thus the pilot must reactivate the cloak within 5 mins of receipt of said warning. This system would prevent afk cloaking and give an element to a possibility of locating the uncloaked ship should the pilot not reactivate the cloak. I think and ideal timer for this would be every 20-30 mins. It would spoil the role of the cloak by having probes with the ability to scan them out tbh "I did. Like all other aspects of PVP in eve, setting a trap on an afk cloaker will require patience. It's no different than camping a gate or a station for hours to try and trap some war targets." how much patience do you have ? would you wait 12 hours for someone to finish work, go down the pub and return to the screen ? no i doubt it, i have known for afk cloakers to sit claoked in system for 5 days solid, yes 5 days i'll be damned if i am going to sit at my computer to trap the son of a *****, and before you say 'dt' i work during DT so no not possible ! some people just dont have a clue and think they are so bloody ubber in this game, my bet is you are the kind of person that uses the afk cloak tatic, bet you also use a lame nano bs alt as well that is a nasty combination to fight against ..... froggy I think this is a good idea, but let me extend this amd make it even better, how about we make it that a cloak lasts lets say 20minutes, BUT the module deactivates after 15 minutes, this allows you a 5 minute buffer (change the times around to balance, maybe only give them 30 seconds or a minute or w/e, my numbers are just pulled out of a hat) to re activate the cloak. Nice, simple and solves the problem of afk'ers while alloweing non afkers to scare the masses (maybe make the time before the cloak module deactivates random, but managable with skills making it more percise) -------------------
Doctor Dre	Posted - 2007.02.27 02:16:00 - [35] As far as the OP goes, making a POS add-on is a bad call. Does anyone realize that in a small system (80 au) there is over 268,000 AU of space? Finding something that is 150m big in a space that size is just dumb, ESPECIALLY when it is made to not be found. Its a RECON ship, its designed to do exactly what youre complaining about. If these pilots are getting to you so much, spend the training time and ISK they spent to get into a ship they cant kill. Better yet, get some friends.
Mainreh Rhonaki Jazz Associates R i s e	Posted - 2007.02.27 12:58:00 - [36] The prolem is that one AFK cloaker will block the economic resources of an entire system. No smallscale mining ops, no one-char ratting. Even a quick hauler trip may be dangerous. This is because the cloaker will alert his two friends who will log in. Dealing with one cloaking raven is one thing. Dealing with 3 cloaking ravens is a different thing entirely. Yes, you could bait and kill them, but it requires a 6-man gang on stand-by for 2-3 evenings playing. That is not my definition of fun. I think the long-term solution is to add a much wider meaning to the concept of sovereignity including, among many other things, the ability to detect cloakers. This is however a non-trivial issue that requires lots of design and testing. It's not going to happen tomorrow. I don't beleive in logging out inactive players because in many combat situations, waiting is the name of the game. People would be accidentally logged off when patiently camping gates. Also, logoff in space is so complex already that adding additional logoff causes risk aggravating the issue further. I think the best proposal is to add overheating to cloaks. You can run them for a while, but eventually they need to cool off for a few minutes. This would make total AFK dangerous, but a careful pilot with well prepared safespots could still do harassment. I think this would add some interesting dynamics to traditional fleet ops in that even your forward scouts need to be a little careful after getting into a system. = Putting sentry guns on outposts, having POSes that can actually hurt anyone, replacing local chat with POS array detectors, being able to anchor defensive bubbles anywhere, etc. Entering a system system of hostile sovereignity is supposed to be dangerous, dammit!
Atreides Horza Soar Angelic	Posted - 2007.02.27 13:03:00 - [37] Edited by: Atreides Horza on 27/02/2007 13:04:32 Edited by: Atreides Horza on 27/02/2007 13:02:20 I agree with OP on the problem at hand. My corp have been wardecced for months by a shy 2-man corp whose CEO regularly parks his cloaked falcon in system while being afk at work, etc - and even smacks about it in local. No fights, no engagements. Just sits there. While I recognize the need for recon pilots getting some "bang for the buck", I fail to see how this is nothing more than harassment. If done on a grander scale and more coordinated by someone with more than half a brain, this could disrupt corp ops of all sizes in a really big way at minimum cost and risk. My suggestions to get rid of this problem would be: 1). Design a special probe and skill for detecting the "low-frequency emissions radiated by cloaking devices" or whatever, albeit it at highly reduced chances. This would also help stealth bombers become more attractive given that they would be able to find recon ships faster, hence be less vulnerable to attack while scanning. This would at least force the pilot to move around with regular intervals which, honestly, can't be too much of a hassle for a ship with the ability to warp cloaked. Finally, it would add an element of recon warfare to the game that would, IMO, make it much more interesting (sortta like the old WWII subhunter movies) 2). Make the cloaking devices more cap demanding so that they, eventually, will run out of cap. Not my favourite solution since this would seriously nerf cloaked ships in combat situations. 3). Introduce a POS size mod that temporarily uncloaks cloaked ships. Horrible solution IMO. This will render recon ships practically useless in fleet engagements and having to build a billion ISK POS to get rid of an afk recon pilot is nothing short of a joke. 4). Set the time it takes a recon ship to cloak to 10-15 seconds. While it won't really mess with the nuisance factor once in system, it WILL make it possible to watch the gates for incoming recons and get a shot at them during system entry. This will nerf covops ships though (perhaps set cloak time to 3-5 seconds on small ships?) 5). Increase forced uncloak range. Increase the distance needed to force an uncloak to as much as 10.000 metres, but add an option for recon pilots to set/transmit bookmarks at distance to gangmembers. This will wreck havoc at gates, but it's a viable option. Kindda sux though... Of the above, No. 1 and 4 - or a combo of both - would work the best, I think. Either way, something's gotta be done about this.
Doctor Dre	Posted - 2007.02.27 15:58:00 - [38] Name: Helios Hull: Maulus Class Role: Covert Ops Frigate Designed for commando and espionage operation, its main strength is the ability to travel unseen through enemy territory and to avoid unfavorable encounters. So people are saying this ship's main strength, when used properly, is too much? Name: Absolution Hull: Prophecy Role: Field Command Ship Command ships are engineered specifically to wreak havoc on a battlefield of many. Sporting advanced command module interfaces, these vessels are more than capable of turning the tide in large engagements. Field command ships are geared more towards out-and-out combat than their fleet command counterparts, though both ships can hold their own in battle. Then why not toast Command Ship's strengths? Name: Claw Hull: Slasher Class Role: Interceptor Interceptors utilize a combination of advanced alloys and electronics to reduce their effective signature radius. This, along with superior maneuverability and speed, makes them very hard to target and track, particularly for high caliber turrets. Let's face it, T2 ships are SUPPOSED to be extremely effective ships when trained for properly. Interceptors tackle like no other. Command Ships show up with insane tanking ability. Recon Ships pick their fights.
Doctor Dre	Posted - 2007.02.27 16:05:00 - [39] Originally by: Mainreh Rhonaki Dealing with one cloaking raven is one thing. Dealing with 3 cloaking ravens is a different thing entirely. Ravens can't warp while cloaked. Something pops up on your overview, leave. Or put a cloaking device on your own ship. Obviously everyone here is mad at this issue which is occuring in less than .5 space. Don't forget lowsec and nosec are called that for a reason. Go back to mining scordite in empire.
Atreides Horza Soar Angelic	Posted - 2007.02.27 17:13:00 - [40] Edited by: Atreides Horza on 27/02/2007 17:10:16 Originally by: Doctor Dre Name: Helios Hull: Maulus Class Role: Covert Ops Frigate Designed for commando and espionage operation, its main strength is the ability to travel unseen through enemy territory and to avoid unfavorable encounters. So people are saying this ship's main strength, when used properly, is too much? Name: Absolution Hull: Prophecy Role: Field Command Ship Command ships are engineered specifically to wreak havoc on a battlefield of many. Sporting advanced command module interfaces, these vessels are more than capable of turning the tide in large engagements. Field command ships are geared more towards out-and-out combat than their fleet command counterparts, though both ships can hold their own in battle. Then why not toast Command Ship's strengths? Name: Claw Hull: Slasher Class Role: Interceptor Interceptors utilize a combination of advanced alloys and electronics to reduce their effective signature radius. This, along with superior maneuverability and speed, makes them very hard to target and track, particularly for high caliber turrets. Let's face it, T2 ships are SUPPOSED to be extremely effective ships when trained for properly. Interceptors tackle like no other. Command Ships show up with insane tanking ability. Recon Ships pick their fights. You are missing the point. The AFK recon thing is, in my opinion, a breach in the game mechanics relying on the local channel 'misinforming' the other players. The player is shown as present without actually being present. This can be abused in a ton of ways that I won't describe here - but it cries for a whack with the nerf bat. By the same standards, we all know that field command ships have the extraordinary ability to tank vast amounts of damage. They're not, however, designed for infiny-tanking. Everyone, I think, would agree that wouldn't be a good idea... The point of this debate is to prevent recon pilots from parking their ship in a system and go to work for 8 hours while the rest of Eve is huddling away in stations. That, in my opinion, makes no sense. No more sense than it'd make to have the US navy deploy empty submarines in the Barendt sea while their crews were having coffee at a Starbucks in Reykjavik... All this having been said, tell me what the recon pilot loses from being forced to move every 5-10 minutes to avoid detection in a ship that renders him invisible even while on the move?
Atreides Horza Soar Angelic	Posted - 2007.02.27 17:22:00 - [41] Edited by: Atreides Horza on 27/02/2007 17:20:47 Oh, and just thought of another solution that won't really hurt the recon pilots who are actually present and flying their ship. Give cloaking devices a cycle time of 30 minutes or so. Everytime the cycle finishes, the ship uncloaks and the mod will have to be reactivated in order for the ship to remain cloaked. There. Problem solved. The recon ship is visible for 3 seconds, while being impervious to probing and invisible to the naked eye the remaining 260.997 seconds. Now someone make me that damn baloon giraffe!
Doctor Dre	Posted - 2007.02.27 17:46:00 - [42] Originally by: Atreides Horza Edited by: Atreides Horza on 27/02/2007 17:20:47Give cloaking devices a cycle time of 30 minutes or so. Everytime the cycle finishes, the ship uncloaks and the mod will have to be reactivated in order for the ship to remain cloaked. There. Problem solved. The recon ship is visible for 3 seconds, while being impervious to probing and invisible to the naked eye the remaining 260.997 seconds. All this having been said, tell me what the recon pilot loses from being forced to move every 5-10 minutes to avoid detection in a ship that renders him invisible even while on the move? Then, while a recon pilot is sitting on top of an enemy force providing info, the cycle finishes. Our recon pilot is lost since our opponents are smart and employ automated targeting systems, because you whined about getting attacked in lowsec. The point is, you can't prove anyone is AFK. So implementing some rubbish to detect that is not valid. If the guys bugging the local channel you are in sit in anything other than recon, scan them out the second they move. If they are in a recon ship, fly with a buddy. Why do you insist on being safe in lowsec? It's the foundation of the entire game.
Igor Epocci	Posted - 2007.02.27 17:49:00 - [43] ok, time for my $.02 So bleeding WHAT if it's harassment? Isn't he whole point of this game to be colonizing low sec space? Isn't low-sec space SUPPOSED to be dangerous? If you want happy-happy-joy-joy games, go hit Nick.com. Eve is supposed to be a dangerous game to play, and serious things happen in dangerous places, and not all of those things are going to be fun. If you don't want to deal with the issue, there are corporations out there who would be happy to deal with the problem for you if the price it right. Hell, take out a contract on them. My point is that this game tries to be realistic. If you can't deal with the issue on your own or you cannot be bothered to do it, hire a professional. These guys (and gals) who have been posting on how to take care of the problem w/o changing the game may be willing to take the bastard out for you. Indeed, use the game mechanics to solve the problem, just realize that there are a crap-ton of game mechanics, and not all of them involve direct fire.
Atreides Horza Soar Angelic	Posted - 2007.02.27 17:53:00 - [44] Edited by: Atreides Horza on 27/02/2007 17:55:21 Originally by: Doctor DreThen, while a recon pilot is sitting on top of an enemy force providing info, the cycle finishes. Our recon pilot is lost since our opponents are smart and employ automated targeting systems, because you whined about getting attacked in lowsec.[/quote Anyone who can't get around that problem by quickly changing position after recloaking or warping elsewhere to "recycle" doesn't deserve to fly a 200m+ T-2 ship. Alternatively, make the cycle 60 minutes instead. Even with this restriction, the recon ship is vastly powerful and excels in what it's good at. Originally by: Igor Epocci ok, time for my $.02 So bleeding WHAT if it's harassment? Isn't he whole point of this game to be colonizing low sec space? Isn't low-sec space SUPPOSED to be dangerous? The problem is NOT that low sec becomes more danger. I can handle danger. I can handle recon ships attacking me too whether I know they're there or not. That is NOT the problem... The problem is that local screams danger while there is none. I'm sitting around with mates of mine for WEEKS - I repeat, WEEKS - before the recon pilot afk'ing from his computer at work graces us with his presence in the splitsecond it takes him to jump out of system. And I'm the lucky one, I guess, since I hope the halfwit will grow a pair and actually attack. The unlucky one is the guy who has played the game for a month and won't stand a snowball's chance in hell against a recon - and knowing that has to dock and stare at local chat for hours on end... That has nothing to do with danger. That's abuse of the game mechanics, IMO...
Doctor Dre	Posted - 2007.02.27 17:57:00 - [45] Originally by: Atreides Horza The point of this debate is to prevent recon pilots from parking their ship in a system and go to work for 8 hours while the rest of Eve is huddling away in stations. All this having been said, tell me what the recon pilot loses from being forced to move every 5-10 minutes to avoid detection in a ship that renders him invisible even while on the move? The rest of eve does not tuck away when you get outplayed. What system are you in? I will load my hauler full of tissues because there seems to be a shortage there. Recon pilots lose their freedom when you force them to do anything. These points you are bringing up are getting stupid, why not force a mining laser off after 30 cycles while we are at it? Or even better, force a hardener to be re-activated when it's cycle is up.
Atreides Horza Soar Angelic	Posted - 2007.02.27 18:03:00 - [46] Edited by: Atreides Horza on 27/02/2007 18:02:08 Edited by: Atreides Horza on 27/02/2007 17:59:51 I have a better idea. Why don't you bend over and I'll show you where to park that hauler. Smack aside, like I said above. I'm not really too bothered about recon ships. In a cpl of weeks, it'll be my turn to fly one and "outplay" whoever I wage war against... All I'm trying to do here is think a little bit further than my own d*mn nose. Woe to the industrial corp that figures out you can create a one-man sister corp and harass the competition out by parking recon pilots 23/7 in whatever system they want the solo rights to... As for your smack below - I can't be bothered, m8. Im trying to bring in constructive criticism and solutions - and it seems to me that you're more concerned with saving your ship from the nerf stick. Whatever be the case, I wish you the best of luck.
Doctor Dre	Posted - 2007.02.27 18:03:00 - [47] Originally by: Atreides Horza Anyone who can't get around that problem by quickly changing position after recloaking or warping elsewhere to "recycle" doesn't deserve to fly a 200m+ T-2 ship. The problem is NOT that low sec becomes more danger. I can handle danger. I can handle recon ships attacking me too whether I know they're there or not. The problem is that local screams danger while there is none. With that sort of logic you dont deserve to fly a rookie ship. Youre nuts for asking a specialized pilot to go through idiotic methods to retain his hard earned abilities because you are too inept to solve your own problems. You can't handle danger. You can't handle recon ships attacking you. Being in a system which allows you to be attacked 'screams danger' for just being there.
Sailon	Posted - 2007.02.27 18:08:00 - [48] simple solution if they are afk more than 2hours with cloak eve should auto disconnect them and everyone is happy. Also someone mentioned that reactivation module i think its bad idea you dont know when your cloak ends when you have started and coming visibility front of enemy camp i think its wrong. My english sucks
Doctor Dre	Posted - 2007.02.27 18:08:00 - [49] Originally by: Atreides Horza In a cpl of weeks, it'll be my turn to fly one and "outplay" whoever I wage war against... Good. Maybe then you will shut your yap about this. But that's just wishful thinking. You'll pilot your recon like a retard and get popped. Then you'll come back and cry that you should be able to cloak while targeted or some nonsense.
Doctor Dre	Posted - 2007.02.27 18:12:00 - [50] Originally by: Atreides Horza Edited by: Atreides Horza on 27/02/2007 18:02:08 Edited by: Atreides Horza on 27/02/2007 17:59:51 I have a better idea. Why don't you bend over and I'll show you where to park that hauler. Smack aside, like I said above. I'm not really too bothered about recon ships. In a cpl of weeks, it'll be my turn to fly one and "outplay" whoever I wage war against... All I'm trying to do here is think a little bit further than my own d*mn nose. Woe to the industrial corp that figures out you can create a one-man sister corp and harass the competition out by parking recon pilots 23/7 in whatever system they want the solo rights to... As for your smack below - I can't be bothered, m8. Im trying to bring in constructive criticism and solutions - and it seems to me that you're more concerned with saving your ship from the nerf stick. Whatever be the case, I wish you the best of luck. Homie was right for telling you to go to nick.com happy happy joy joy I'm not trying to save a ship, im trying to save a module. Youve made no valid points here and have resorted to amazingly weak attempts at insults.
Atreides Horza Soar Angelic	Posted - 2007.02.27 19:41:00 - [51] How old are you, Dr Dre? Five?
Vincent Almasy Gallente The Underground	Posted - 2007.02.28 02:56:00 - [52] Looking over this topic shortly I think there is a definition complict. AFK means Away From Keyboard, if the cloaked ships is afk then he can not do anything so no problem. There done, end of topic needed. Now as many are mad about people cloaked and stacking a gate, it's called a small scale gate camp. The person is there waiting for someone to come by to hunt and kill. Please tell me where something is broken or need to be changed. I see the unit being used as it was intended or am I missing a key detail?
Atreides Horza Soar Angelic	Posted - 2007.02.28 11:32:00 - [53] Edited by: Atreides Horza on 28/02/2007 11:32:26 I see your point - and I do agree that cloaking is the whole purpose of this ship. However, the Local chat channel is misinforming the remaining players in system. That is the problem at hand. I would almost prefer to lose the local chat (different discussion though) if it wasn't for the fact that it would render the covops **** a flying I-win button. Local chat tells you that there is a clear and present danger in the system, although that danger has done nothing more than park up his sh*t and leave. The remaining players in system will then have to devise their in-game strategies in accordance with a guy who is off doing everything else but flying his ship, much less playing the game. To the individual player - like you, me or Mr Braniac above - it does not pose the biggest of threats... but to an organization or corporation conducting operations, it becomes a factor that will HAVE to be addressed. Nothing wrong with that either... again, that's the purpose of the ship - IF the pilot is in it. But having a good 5-10 guys at the ready for hours to find and kill (as if?) a guy who is out shopping with his kids is, in my opinion, abusive of the game mechanics. It's a great offensive weapon to have your enemy allocate considerable ressources while you're afk at work - but it's hardly the way wars should be won, if you ask me. It's all cool with me, if one side spends days looking for another pilot who is cloaked and actually present in his ship. That's a fair deal. That's the recon pilot sweating it out at the bottom of the sea while nervous destroyer crews combs the sea for the invisible assasion... That's cool... That's warfare... That's Eve. The other thing is just a free ride. Nothing more. I realize how my sentiments might tick off a fair few recon pilots, but PLEASE respect that this is my opinion whether you agree or not - and I am NOT the only with this opinion. It has nothing to do with teenistic, e-Peen related banter about ownage and being l33t enough to deal with the real. It's an issue that is a nuisance to a growing number of customers.
pet dallin	Posted - 2007.02.28 13:45:00 - [54] IMHO a player in a cloaked recon ship should simply not show up in local - UNLESS he types a message there - and should disapear again after a few mins - his role is suposed to be covert after all....
Atreides Horza Soar Angelic	Posted - 2007.02.28 15:59:00 - [55] Originally by: pet dallin IMHO a player in a cloaked recon ship should simply not show up in local - UNLESS he types a message there - and should disapear again after a few mins - his role is suposed to be covert after all.... Then local would have to go entirely, which would be fine with me. If local goes, there has to be a ship class capable of at least detecting the presence of cloaked ships. Otherwize everyone would fly recons...
Xryk	Posted - 2007.02.28 17:11:00 - [56] But if add the scanning probes which find the cloak ships? Let they search for long time 60-120 minutes. Let they find only that cloak ships which did not change its positions for this time. Let their accuracy will beside 10-30 km. Problemma AFK invisible mans think will is solved. Mechanics of the play does not damage. The Nave has a reactor charging capacitor. The Selecting heat. The scan probes - search for this heat. If reactor does not select the heat.... capacitor is not recharged
Xryk	Posted - 2007.02.28 17:23:00 - [57] and 0.02$ We shall visualize the noiseless submarine ( the ship in cloak), in ocean and scanning around itself space - ping...ping...ping...ping... Hope the analogy comprehensible?
Xryk	Posted - 2007.02.28 17:39:00 - [58] Originally by: pet dallin IMHO a player in a cloaked recon ship should simply not show up in local - UNLESS he types a message there - and should disapear again after a few mins - his role is suposed to be covert after all.... only cloaked? all in local!!!!!
Xryk	Posted - 2007.02.28 18:01:00 - [59] In principle even will never mind, find someone such "anti-cloak probe" ship or no :) if they will be in play - an amount AFK (23/7) cloak will decrease. excuse me, for me english not native language.
jade ronin	Posted - 2007.02.28 18:23:00 - [60] the cloke does what its supose to as it is. it the guy is afk then hes not doing anything but floating in space.... hes not making isk hes not killing your haulers. if you are in 0.0 then you should be able to take one recon ship when he decides to come back and start something. imo the cloke should drop you out of the local too but i guess thats a way of balancing out the fact you cant scan them down at least you know they are there:/

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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