| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aeryn Davenport
Claflin Industries
   |
Posted - 2007.02.13 23:03:00 -
[1]
Anyone who has had to deal with these will probably agree that its probably one of the most annoying things ever in the game. Of course there will be those (probably people who do it) who think its a perfectly legitimate thing to do.
Basically, the problem is get people coming into a system, cloaking, and staying there for days and days, weeks and weeks, sitting AFK all day long with their cloak on, and then occassionally popping up to gank someone. Personally, I just think its ridiculous to enable people to permanently occupy a system with absolutely no way of removing them.
At one point CCP suggested they might make it possible to scan out cloakers. I understand the problem this presents because then you jeopardize the legitimate career of being a cov ops for fleet engagements. The cost of cov ops cloaks makes it very obnoxious if you make it too easy to kill those people off.
One solution is possibly creating a unique scanning system that takes a very long time to utilize, therefore making it useless for fleet engagements.
An idea I had was maybe creating a POS add-on that could scan out cloakers. You can have it take maybe 30 minutes to complete a scan and give 30 minute old results. This would prevent it from being useful against anyone who was moving regularly. To go even farther, you could require that the POS owner have sovereignty to even be able to use it. That way people would actually have to control the system in order to prevent this type of activity.
My two cents.
|
Neuromandis
EPSILON TEAM
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2007.02.14 00:01:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Neuromandis on 13/02/2007 23:58:36
Much easier solution: Make the cloaked ships have a normal probe signature, only 5x times better for normal cloaks and 10x times better for recos. It would be a slim, slim chance to find them and quite expensive in probes, but you just need 5-6 people combing the system to find them, and oh the joy of taking out the afk falcon of 300mil...
|
Gorek Loc
|
Posted - 2007.02.14 18:13:00 -
[3]
How about CCP introducing an 'afk-detector.' Windows has it's pause-screens, why can't Eve auto-log, if there has been no activity for...say 2 hours ?
|
Valandril
Caldari
Resurrection
R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.02.14 18:34:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Gorek Loc
How about CCP introducing an 'afk-detector.' Windows has it's pause-screens, why can't Eve auto-log, if there has been no activity for...say 2 hours ?
Touche
--------
New drone ui
|
Neuromandis
EPSILON TEAM
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2007.02.14 19:38:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Neuromandis on 14/02/2007 19:36:25
Edited by: Neuromandis on 14/02/2007 19:36:03
Not bad, but being afk is not the problem. Being CLOAKED afk is the problem because you annoy the hell out of people because there's absolutely no way to remove them.
Don't forget that one of the safest places you can be is afk in a POS, which is by no means even remotely annoying or exploiting or a bug. If the game drops you, though, your attackers get a 2-minute window to probe and kill you. Depending on prober, ship and luck it's doable, so having the game drop you is not a solution...
|
Wardo21
The Arcanum
|
Posted - 2007.02.14 22:45:00 -
[6]
I have an easier solution. Allow everyone to leave the local chat channel. The cloakers want it because they shouldn't be given away by the free intelligence of the chat channel.
I want it because virtually everything sent over that channel is either not for me, or worthless to begin with. I've already turned off blink, and wish I could close the window for good...
It would also solve this problem, in that you wouldn't know the cloaker was there, and therefore wouldn't get upset at not being able to find them...
I do think there should be some sort of countermeasure for cloaked ships, perhaps an active sensor module that looks for the distortions created by the cloak. Mid slot, range limited to a certain degree, like sensor power vs. sig radius of the cloaked ship. I would oppose an absolute range, because there should be some comparason between the sensor and the target. There could be a new class of ships in the EW line, perhaps a frigate version and a cruiser version that are the anti-cloaker "destroyers" against the cloaked "U-boats".
A system scanner add-on for POS or Outposts would work as well. Perhaps with 10 or 15 minute old information.
As to the gankers who stay in system AFK, set a trap with your own cloaked vessels. Strap that miner (the bait) with some tank and scrambler/webber modules and wait to see what happens. A plain cruiser or battleship cloaked nearby can decloak and beatup the intruder once it's caught by the Q-Ship. (Offline the cloak so the penalties go away!)
As a tactical question, what's the AFK status have to do with this tactic? Can't a cloaked ship go to a safe spot and logout with the cloak active, so the 2 minute delay would be covered by the cloak? Login, reactivate cloak, move to attack location, rinse, repeat. If the cloak cancels on logout, then get them just after DT, start the search immediately, hoping to catch the player not logged in just yet (assuming the ship is still vacant floating in space.) You may not be able to pod the player, but you should be able to board or destroy the vacant ship... (I think)
|
Judoman
|
Posted - 2007.02.14 22:49:00 -
[7]
How about this one.
Buy some cloakers yourself. Recons fitted to tackle and kill the offender.
Have an interdictor on standby at a nearby POS, in case he's stabbed.
Set up some bait, for instance a tanked mining barge or hauler.
Wait until the guy takes the bait, pop him and pod him. Problem solved.
Really don't see the need to change the game mechanics, all you need is a little patience.
/Judoman
|
Valandril
Caldari
Resurrection
R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 12:16:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Judoman
How about this one.
Buy some cloakers yourself. Recons fitted to tackle and kill the offender.
Have an interdictor on standby at a nearby POS, in case he's stabbed.
Set up some bait, for instance a tanked mining barge or hauler.
Wait until the guy takes the bait, pop him and pod him. Problem solved.
Really don't see the need to change the game mechanics, all you need is a little patience.
/Judoman
We are talking about AFK cloakers, thanks for not reading topic.
--------
New drone ui
|
Wardo21
The Arcanum
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 21:19:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Wardo21 on 15/02/2007 21:16:08
Originally by: Valandril
We are talking about AFK cloakers, thanks for not reading topic.
We are talking about AFK cloakers who pop in and gank people. Pay attention yourself.
When they uncloak to gank the bait, spring the trap on them...
Also, nobody seems to have commented about what happens after DT, are they vulnerable at that point?
|
Valandril
Caldari
Resurrection
R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 22:16:00 -
[10]
Ur client get disconnected for downtime and u need to log manualy back ?
--------
New drone ui
|
Dravin Dread
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 11:27:00 -
[11]
Just one bit of info - Some of these people are not cloaked. There are still a few deep space safe spots out there.
And honestly, if they are afk and not doing anything, who cares. |
ViolenTUK
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 15:51:00 -
[12]
I think that cloaked players should be able to stay cloaked for as long as they want to. You could add an afk detector but that would be another issue.
www.eve-players.com |
ViolenTUK
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 15:51:00 -
[13]
I think that cloaked players should be able to stay cloaked for as long as they want to. You could add an afk detector but that would be another issue.
www.eve-players.com |
Hellspawn01
Amarr
Imperial Shipment
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 16:12:00 -
[14]
Log out players that are afk for 30mins.
Disconnect from server after 10-15 mins after logging out with the last char.
Ship lovers click here |
Alpine 69
Slacker Industries
Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 16:18:00 -
[15]
meh it should stay like it is now, if theyre afk they wont harm ya aye ;)
eeeeeeek my sig got nerfed again :( |
Elenit
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 18:26:00 -
[16]
2 ideas about this problem:
1) Let the cloak run for 15-30 mins and then the ship auto-decloaks requiring the player to reactivate the module.
2) Implement a POS module that generates a faint signature that, with somebody with decent skills, allow the cloaker to be scanned down. The POS module has a range and multiple POS's provides better coverage of the system.
Idea number 2 doesn't need to be factored in until a probe is launched and a scan for the ship type is performed.
Personally I prefer number 2 as it implements some of the things that have been talked about on the forums - area of effect. It would be a simple and handy implementation to test the idea and would allow the devs to test-drive an implementation.
AFK cloakers are a real PIA IMHO and something needs to be done to even up the score.
There is a legitimate role for cloakers - but sitting at a spot for several hours logged in - I don't think is one of them.
|
ViolenTUK
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 23:30:00 -
[17]
I like the idea that an array capable of detecting the signitures of cloaked ships would be so large that the array could only be fitted to a station. If this array could only be fitted to a player owned station then that would be pretty good.
www.eve-players.com |
Cythe Oman
|
Posted - 2007.02.24 19:50:00 -
[18]
All I here in this is people *****ing that they cant find a cloaked ship.
Well good that's the frelling point of a cloaking device. The ONLY defence a covert ops has is not being seen, most dont even fit a weapon. The ship and modules used in stealth ships are a huge "gold-sink" in the economy already. The covert ops cloak alone is worth as much as a battleship.
The problem is that "local radar" is a unballanceing tool in the game the only reason you know someone is in the system cloaked is because of a chat game mechanic. AFK or not leave the cloak's alone and find someone else to gank.
|
Judoman
|
Posted - 2007.02.24 22:07:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Valandril
We are talking about AFK cloakers, thanks for not reading topic.
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.
It's a valid and interesting game mechanic.
/Judo
|
Frogzuk
Dragonian Freelancers
Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.25 04:07:00 -
[20]
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
|
Lubaduba
|
Posted - 2007.02.25 09:45:00 -
[21]
just make cloacking devices eat cap.
|
Tunajuice
Convergent
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.02.25 17:44:00 -
[22]
I would be happy if they made a line of probes that would find cloakers. Make them take 10-15 mins to run, but when it ends of course give the current results. This way you could get down to an area in a little while. if you can get within 10km or so of them, you could at least fly around and try to uncloak the stupid thing. The whole point of POS and such is a safe place to stay. If you don't have a POS, you shouldn't be safe... you should have to be at the keyboard and active to stay safe.
|
D'onryu Shoqui
Vengeance of the Fallen
Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.25 21:12:00 -
[23]
cloak should become less effective the longer its running, people actually at the game can uncloak/cloak to reset the device.
people afk end up with a slowly rising signature radius that stops once it reaches what the ships signature without a cloak would be.
------------------------------
My opinions are my own and not that of the alliance i belong to. |
Aragonis
Rakeriku
Otaku Invasion
|
Posted - 2007.02.26 00:34:00 -
[24]
Why over-engineer the problem? Just make the cloak effect given by the stargate last for a maximum of 5 or 10 minutes. After the time is up, you automatically uncloak.
---
|
Akinai
Gallente External Trade Organization
|
Posted - 2007.02.26 04:33:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Aragonis
Why over-engineer the problem? Just make the cloak effect given by the stargate last for a maximum of 5 or 10 minutes. After the time is up, you automatically uncloak.
You can't be serious... The post-jump cloak lasts 1 minute.
You do realize that there are actual cloaking devices in game, right?
|
hotgirl933
|
Posted - 2007.02.26 04:59:00 -
[26]
scanning em out with a remotley low chance is best bet
|
R0ot
InNova Tech Inc
Xelas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.26 07:41:00 -
[27]
tbh i think the cloak has been nerfed enough thank you 
___________________________________________________________________
|
Jin Za
Pheonix Arisen
|
Posted - 2007.02.26 11:11:00 -
[28]
Having spent along time training for a falcon, then spending almost 200m on the ship/cloak and modules ( no damage dealing modules btw ) which isnt covered by insurance i feel i need to tell you to...
STFU and deal with it.
Covops are SUPPOSED to be an invisible threat - trying to get them nerfed so you feel "safer" is the stuff of carebear whiners "tbqfh"
I dont spend my time ganking - at most i will scramble/dampen/jam a target for a gang but most of the time i spend giving intel reports to fleets.
Move the nerf bus, its not welcome here.
|
Xryk
|
Posted - 2007.02.26 13:59:00 -
[29]
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.
|
ViolenTUK
|
Posted - 2007.02.26 17:20:00 -
[30]
The cloaking devices dont need nerfing they should be completely undetectable by other ships no matter what the scanner. I had the idea of a very large scanner that could only be used on a player owned station that might just be able to detect cloaked ships but that is all.
www.eve-players.com |
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:/
|
Joiske
|
Posted - 2007.03.03 02:15:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Doctor Dre
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
Kudos to that GM for giving you the cold shoulder. You deserved to be banned for wasting their time.
If there is a hostile in the system you are in, it's not YOUR system. Be wary. Travel in packs, set a trap, use your brain.
It's no different than when rookies fly to a .4 system for the first time, rat or mine while staring at local, and drop whatever it is they are doing the instant someone jumps in because they are scared smart.
You are the excat type of player that eve dosent need, a constructive discussion about claoking tatics in particular afk cloaking and you come into discussion as a high almighty i pawn u all tone, well sorry to burst your bubble but this i am afraid is a lame tatic and one that needs addressing !
Obviously your pvp skills are not too cool as to use such which requires very little, actually hardly any skills. You must be one of these afk cloakers, that sits with an alt in system which is logged off (this alt usually flies a nano domi) then on passing the screen you see activity at a belt you think "oo i am ubber, time for a quick gank before i go to work or go down the pub"
The game is actually badly broken atm, pvp is no longer fun due to some of the lamest tatics ever, this being one, nano ships the other, the combination is deadly worked together especially when employed with another lame tatic of logon killing ! So Doctor Dre be more constructive in your replies in future and remmy this, i am in favour of recons and cloaking hell i fly them myself and they are great fun they are effective in what they do but as with most things in game the issue of AFK cloaking should be address in a mature manner and dealt with accordingly.
|
A'ruhn
Shadow Core
Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.03 03:06:00 -
[62]
I love my bomber to death, I love my sneaky-ass Cov-ops frig.....
What i dont love, is the sniper-thron cloaked in one of my "home" systems 24x7. Restrict cloaks to ships that are DESIGNED for them... I have -NO- problems with recon cruisers, or bombers, or cov-ops being cloaked as long as they like...
But not big fat battleships, or any other "non-stealth" ship.
|
Chukk Solo
|
Posted - 2007.03.03 11:10:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Chukk Solo on 03/03/2007 11:11:36
Signature file size and dimensions to big, please keep it under 400x120 and 24000bytes - Petwraith |
Rich Ames
|
Posted - 2007.04.03 04:44:00 -
[64]
Uhmà I may have an idea here, now I am not looking to nerf cloaks so modify to make it of value.
These ships consume fuel right? So if a ship sis in the same area it would amass a cloud of exhaust, right? So why not make probes able to detect exhaust or energy emissions of ships, the bigger the ship the easier to find. I suggest this not just as a solution to your problem but to make bounty hunting an actual hunt. Now this may be the case already, I donÆt know, I am new to the game having only been here for a month. But in the case of most sci-fi I have read and watched, this is usually how the cloaked ships are found.
The way I see it, this would keep covert ops to covert ops ships having been designed to keep emissions down and allow people to locate the big ships using cloaks.
Rich Ames
That's Colonel Ames, bizatch!
I am new not a noob.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |