EVE Search - Please do NOT nerf cloaking in anyway including scan probes

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Please do NOT nerf cloaking in anyway including scan probes

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 27 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Blue Pixie	Posted - 2007.04.26 07:46:00 - [121] Originally by: Dimitrios Ypsilanti The point is that your cloak sensor timer has expired by the time you're in position. You can lock instantly. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. If I've still got to warp to my "prey," and get into optimal, doing so de-cloaked would be as great (if not possibly greater) a disadvantage as the relatively short sensor recalibration penalty (at least for a Force Recon using a Covert Ops Cloaking Device). Originally by: Dimitrios Ypsilanti Yes. This is the rub. If we know you're there we can protect ourselves. This is why the complaint was made against AKF cloakers. The ones we don't know are there. In this scenario you'll still get kills if your patient or if the inhabitants get sloppy. Define sloppy? You know I'm there. You know I'm not AFK. (For funzies, let's assume I'm taunting you via local.) How's being patient going to help me get kills? Furthermore, just what would I be killing? Originally by: Dimitrios Ypsilanti Never. If you're online, at your computer wasting your time waiting me out then I can be online, at my computer wasting my time waiting you out. It's when I'm wasting my time at my computer and you're walking your dog that I've been complaining about. This again is where I'm getting confused. You're describing a stalemate. You know I'm there. You know I'm not AFK. At what point in this hypothetical situation do your miners/haulers (who also know I'm there & not AFK) just decide to go back to operations ù unescorted ù and give me an opportunity to gank them? Am I missing something here? Originally by: Dimitrios Ypsilanti Same answer. If we know you're there then there's no reason to accuse you of being AFK. You're waiting us out. We're waiting you out. Fair's fair. Again, you're describing a mexican standoff. You're waiting. I'm waiting. At what point do you say, "well, we know you're still there and not AFK, but to heck with it... we're recalling our defense fleet and going back to mining... come blow us up if you still wanna"? P.S.: do you really think "fair is fair" is consistent with the concept of guerilla warfare? Originally by: Dimitrios Ypsilanti No. It'd be in your best interest to actually go AFK for a while. It's after a few hours without an attack that your opponants get sloppy. This is why the AFK cloaker is meta-gaming. Going AFK effectively gives you superior patience compared to your targets. Which brings me to my earlier point. If going AFK for a few hours is the only way to lull my opponents into getting "sloppy" ù how exactly am I going to "get kills" if you don't think I'm AFK? Originally by: Dimitrios Ypsilanti The other point to note is that the cloak is being used in a different way than you might have been thinking originally. It's being used to keep the inhabitants from probing down your safe spots. Nothing else. Which would be taking advantage of my cloak as a DEFENSIVE tool, not as an OFFENSIVE tool (which was my original question). The point I'd like to note is what this boils down to is a contest of who can out meta-game who. You're meta-gaming via the chat tab to detect the presence of a hostile in your system. Your adversary is meta-gaming via AFK cloaking to wear down your patience.
Akita T Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2007.04.26 07:56:00 - [122] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Akita T a) an AFK cloaked ship sitting 23/7 in a system that shows up in local b) a cloaked ship that does NOT show up in local c) nobody in local Now, explain HOW and WHY would you behave any differently in situations b) and c) if situation b) was commonplace instead of a). See, that is exactly the problem. There is no diffence between B and C. but it is not because A becomes like C when you make the change, but because C becomes like A A is part of the problem. Making everything A does not make the problem better, it makes it worse Exactly, C becomes A, but it does so everywhere. In other words, you can expect incoming hostiles at ANY time, anywhere, with a very short notice. Hmm, isn't that somewhat what 0.0 was supposed to be ? On the flipside, even if B wouldn't be common place, what about "D", where a larger enemy fleet *logged off* one by one inside a system they know you do mining ops in, then all log in at once at the same time when system's filled with your miners ? THAT is a reasonable scenario, yet I don't hear anybody whining about IT being overpowered. And it really makes no huge difference either, they're again all the same before the actual attack. 1. Yes, increasing the risk is bad, the risk is already high enough. Its just a different kind of risk. 2. D does not work because you need someone in the system to tell you where the targets are. Its a terrible waste of resources[where a cloaker has the option to leave and return if need be, a logged off ship does not nessesarily have such an easy option unless its fitting a cloak], and it stands a good chance of failing due to the fact that you can see the local spike and enemies will have to wait out their log in/warp in delays, allign on the target and warp. Theoretically, you could pick a system with only one "very good" ore belt that gets mined out regularly, logoff in THAT belt, and have another friend.alt online (even in empire) watch the starmap for "number of persons online in system". Increasing the risk in 0.0 hardly gets close to the risk in lowsec. Do you mean that lowsec SHOULD be more dangerous as 0.0 ? _ MySkills \| Module/Rig stacknerfing explained
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.04.26 08:09:00 - [123] Edited by: Goumindong on 26/04/2007 08:06:22 Originally by: Akita T Theoretically, you could pick a system with only one "very good" ore belt that gets mined out regularly, logoff in THAT belt, and have another friend.alt online (even in empire) watch the starmap for "number of persons online in system". Increasing the risk in 0.0 hardly gets close to the risk in lowsec. Do you mean that lowsec SHOULD be more dangerous as 0.0 ? There are two components of risk. Value, and chance. Lowsec has a higher chance of losing ships[for the most part] than 0.0 due to increased traffic, and increased difficulty in engaging pirates on gates, but it has a lower chance of losing valuable materials for the same reasons. While there is a lower chance of losing ships in 0.0 the value of materials you can lose [and are for the most part nessesary to sustain operations] is much much much higher. And the only reason 0.0 is safer for ships[on your home turf]is because its easier to engage pirates where/when they dont want to be engaged. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Sebroth FinFleet Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2007.04.26 08:44:00 - [124] Ratting The only danger for me when IÆm ratting is a cloaker that plays his cards right. Not lost a single ship when ratting yet and its not to uncommon that cloakers hang around. If he is truly afk then he wonÆt follow you when you change system. He will usually also not know if you moved out or logged when he comes back. Mining OPs You should never have a big mining op without scouts and PvP ships hanging around, thatÆs a fact. A single hostile can't do much to your mining op if you just make sure you have a rook hanging around ready to jam any hostile trying to kill one of the mining ships. IÆm a force recon pilot myself and have been using my rapier since they where given us by ccp(- one month or so)(never been the afk type tho). Yes, they are hard to catch if they donÆt want to even when they move around but itÆs not impossible. If you have an afk cloaker in a system, move to the next and set up a camp with a large bubble. Force recons are slow so they are relatively easy to decloak before they get out of the bubble. Keep trying you will get him sooner or later and then he will die. Of curse you can use other ways to get him like using bait. Best defence is an offence û if you make the hostiles pay with blood every time they try to get an easy gank they will soon stop harassing you. 0.0 should only be as safe as you and your friends make it. We sure donÆt need it safer then it is already. /seb ----- Never knock on Death's door; ring the doorbell and run (he hates that)
wictro	Posted - 2007.04.26 10:35:00 - [125] how about a "im still here" button, that is sized like a module, and appears on random spots for 10 seconds each. maybe in every 10 minutes or 20 w/e. That sould beat the macroers too ^_^
Slythought	Posted - 2007.04.26 11:53:00 - [126] I haven't read all the posts here. But...cloaks should use fuel...simple and effictive solution to AFK cloakers...cloaks work fine they way they are, no need to change what they do, just how they work.
Blue Pixie	Posted - 2007.04.26 12:08:00 - [127] Originally by: Slythought I haven't read all the posts here. But...cloaks should use fuel...simple and effictive solution to AFK cloakers...cloaks work fine they way they are, no need to change what they do, just how they work. Yes, force me to choose between filling up my little stealth bomber frigate's cargo hold up with cruise missiles or cloak juice... because stealth bombers aren't gimpy enough as it is.
jenson karrack	Posted - 2007.04.26 12:26:00 - [128] put an activation duration timer on the cloak, better the cloak, longer the duration time. give covops and recons a bonus per level to duration time, lengthening it. problem solved.
Atreides Horza Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.04.26 12:31:00 - [129] Nerf afk cloaking and leave the rest as is... and ffs boost those stealth bombers.
EMTsNightmare Gekidoku Koroshiya Buntai	Posted - 2007.04.26 12:42:00 - [130] Edited by: EMTsNightmare on 26/04/2007 12:45:37 how do u propose to write code that says someone is AFK? How long would it take to define someone as AFK? Are you going to write EVE code that measures keystrokes and mouse movements the same way your computer does when it tries to figure out when to turn on the screen saver? again....how exactly will you define an AFK cloaker as far as game code is concerned? Now in all honesty it only takes 2 people to counter a AFK cloaker....just go rat together, no recon is gonna engage 2 ratters unless he's either VERY good or very stupid. And lastly......Why should someone get to go AFK in a station but not in space? If there's a way to find cloakers there should be a way for you to get thrown out of a stn. (i have never AFK cloaked for more than a bathroom break or to make dinner, and the locals always knew i was there cause i liked chatting in local. this whole arguement is just stupid though)

Blue Pixie	Posted - 2007.04.26 19:29:00 - [131] Originally by: Dimitrios Ypsilanti Edited by: Dimitrios Ypsilanti on 26/04/2007 18:24:04 Originally by: Blue Pixie You're meta-gaming via the chat tab to detect the presence of a hostile in your system. Actually here we're even. We're both able to use local chat to determine the presence and number of opponants in system. Even? I've invested 9+ months in skill training and 100m ISK or more in equipment to conceal my presence ù just to be thwarted by a chat tab? The only thing my effort avails me of is a form of pseudo-invulnerability, which to paraphrase you, can/should only be used to keep the inhabitants from probing down my safe spots... AND needs to be compromised even further to dissuade people from meta-gaming? So, to go back to my original question (from page 1), guerilla warfare is simply unacceptable in a sovereign system? You only approve of conventional warfare, where it's more "fair" and you have the benefit of time to gather your resources and muster your defenses? You don't/won't accept people using cloaks to their advantage in an offensive manner? What about using cloaks exclusively for reconnaissance, exploration, and maybe fleet support/maneuvers? Is that acceptable?
Ar Inziladun United Technologies	Posted - 2007.04.26 19:36:00 - [132] Originally by: Jayson Lee 1. Does speed reduction really mater when you can use your scanner and warp to the belt you want? I could be way off but does the speed reduction penalty continue even when you de-cloak? I honestly thought it only happened while cloaked 2. If you are using scanner and setting in a safe spot, cant you over come this by waiting 30 seconds before you warp to belt and by equiping mods that reduce look time? Once again I am not sure so if these are stupid questions be kind. 3. 2000m in the overall scheme of things is not really that large of a distance, so is that a real disadvantage? 4. How does this affect what most people are talking about? 5. Cant the cloak drawbacks be overcome with mods to your ship? As for the advantages the one I have a question is the AFK cloaking? Why should this be the only activity that is benificial even when you are not there? I mean if this is how it should be, where is my mod that lets me mine all day without even being home? Or allows me to complete missions while I am at work. If a cloak is supposed to allow you to do your job even when you at not at the terminal shouldnt all professions have this automatic, guarenteed, no worries, no risk module as well? Once again, I am new to this cloaking thing, so if I am off the mark let me know. 1) Speed reduction comes into play when cloaked why I said "Cloaked Speed Reduction" if I am sitting 20km from a belt it would take some time to fly to the individual or to get into my range at a very slow speed say, 99 kms a second. Yes this can be countered by very expensive MODS, but to counter this it removes those slots that could be used for other things. The best cloaking device "Covert Ops Cloaking Device" fitted to aForce Recon Shipis cool but not practical for PVP other then 1-2 smaller ships or defenseless targets. 2) Yes I could sit in a SS, and warp in no cloaked. But then that is no different then not using a cloak at all. The benefit of a cloak is you can decloak right where you need to be in order to attack your enemy. Yes you can fit modules to reduce lock time however, that negates those slots for other uses. That is why the current cloaking setup is already nerfed and fine as it is. To gain another advantage with the cloak you lose an advantage in another area. 3) Yes 2000m is a disadvantage. A Interceptor fitted with a small smart bomb, or frigate can easily break your cloak thus revealing you to everyone. Ideally it should be no radius and only decloak you if you directly make contact with another object. But CCP gave gate campers this ability a long time ago to help them possibly catch cloakers. 4) If I find a ship on my scanner or with a probe, what is more of a surprise? Flying in cloaked and then stomping them or flying in like a normal ship? 1 out of 3 cloaking devices allows this, the rest do not limiting their use ability. That same device can only be fitted on the weak Covert Ops ship and the weaker of the two recon ships. Again giving the enemy the advantage that if I can warp cloaked, my ship will be slightly weaker. 5) No, not everything can be countered by MODS. AFK cloaking is an idle passive ability and is no different then any other passive ability in the game. The cloaking device consumes resources (CAP) and is an active MOD. No different then an Active Shield Hardener or Armor Hardener. I can go AFK in a mission with my Shield Hardener on keeping my resistances high, and keeping me from dieing. A cloaking device is no different. Your comparison of mining & missioning to sitting still in one place is absurd. Mining is an activity requiring you to do something. Being cloaked AFK is not. Continued below.
Ar Inziladun United Technologies	Posted - 2007.04.26 19:37:00 - [133] It is a valuable aspect of the game and has its small notch and place. To further degrade, change, dampen the module and concept of cloaking will make the aspect of the game obsolete. How many further restrictions need to be placed on he module until people are happy? Basically no one likes sneaky people doing sneaky things in their backyard. I think if CCP nerfs cloaking using the provided guidelines some players have posted then they need to seriously reconsider cloaking and the cloaking line of ships. The cloaking ships should be made more durable and lethal if they are to be further gimped. Or just remove the entire aspect of the game and let me put my hard earned skill points towards something else. I digress. Another draw back, you canÆt cloak once locked. Forgot that one.
Blue Pixie	Posted - 2007.04.26 19:53:00 - [134] Originally by: Ar Inziladun ...The cloaking device consumes resources (CAP)... Err... no it doesn't. I'm all for protecting cloaks from nerfage, but let's not fib.
Tsanse Kinske WeMeanYouKnowHarm	Posted - 2007.04.26 20:05:00 - [135] Edited by: Tsanse Kinske on 26/04/2007 20:01:22 I can understand people arguing that Cloaks are too powerful, not powerful enough, or even just right. FWIW, I think they're too powerful on certain ships, and not powerful enough on others. What I can't understand is some people in this thread seriously trying to say they may as well get rid of cloaking entirely if they have to sit at a computer occasionally to use them. I'm sorry, that's hilarious. * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -Douglas Adams, writing about EVE
Icarus Starkiller Minmatar	Posted - 2007.04.26 20:08:00 - [136] I agree... no probes for cloakers. I only want one single modification to cloaks: A timer that is client-independant (i.e. the client has no idea if the cloak is active or not to prevent macros that auto-activate). Make the timer 'somewhat' random between 45 & 60 minutes and no skills to adjust that time. If a player is active and paying attention they'll see that their ship is visible and restart their cloak. If they're afk annoying peeps then they'll likely find themselves in a station when they return to that client. Alternately, allow POS to fit a high-CPU, high-fuel intensive installation that 'pulses' a system when active. The pulse wave makes cloaking for anyone in the system impossible for a certain amount of time (longer for 'non friendlies', shorter for allies)... 15 mins or so. Of course, this only works if the POS belongs to the soverign power in the system, takes a good bit of time to recharge, and only one can be anchored/online in a system. These adjustments will not prevent ships from cloaking and annoying the locals, but gives the locals some ability to strike back. - Life is pain...anyone who says differently is selling something.
ghosttr Amarr ARK-CORP FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.04.26 20:14:00 - [137] The problem is that cloaking AFK 23/7 in a system makes the other players in that system fight against someone who isnt there. The other players in system have to scramble a defense force in their system, to combat someone who isnt actually there. So even though an AFK cloaked ship may not be able to cause much damage directly. He is causing alot of economical damage to his enemy. He is slowing down the enemy's industrial operations (because they all require an escort). As well as making it so that any person that is actively defending the system from an afk player is not making any money. The amount of risk taken should be related to the reward you get. In this situation the reward is indirect, but it is there. And there is no risk to the cloaked player at all, no risk all rewared = no good.
Yilaine Anesis Malicious Intentions Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.04.26 20:20:00 - [138] Originally by: ghosttr The problem is that cloaking AFK 23/7 in a system makes the other players in that system fight against someone who isnt there. The other players in system have to scramble a defense force in their system, to combat someone who isnt actually there. So even though an AFK cloaked ship may not be able to cause much damage directly. He is causing alot of economical damage to his enemy. He is slowing down the enemy's industrial operations (because they all require an escort). As well as making it so that any person that is actively defending the system from an afk player is not making any money. The amount of risk taken should be related to the reward you get. In this situation the reward is indirect, but it is there. And there is no risk to the cloaked player at all, no risk all rewared = no good. Shouldn't the industrial people be escorted anyways? It's not like you need a whole fleet to protect against a cloaker. If you aren't escorting them now, then you are playing Russian Roulette that no one is going to be waiting for you when you jump/warp. Bah, the game should just disconnect you after several hours of complete inactivity (no chat, no movement, etc.) just like other games to conserve bandwidth. If you are legitimately motionless in space for that long, surely you would be playing with your chat/scanner/market, etc.
John Blackthorn Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.04.26 20:34:00 - [139] Originally by: Ariel Dawn Do not remove AFK cloakers. People shouldn't be able to rat/mine completely risk-free in 0.0. If they want the benefits, then they should adequately prepare to defend themselves. Otherwise CCP will continue along their path of making this game like WoW (re. nerfing war decs). - AFK CLOAKERS should not be able to sit in a system afk completely risk-free. -
ghosttr Amarr ARK-CORP FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.04.26 20:38:00 - [140] Originally by: Yilaine Anesis Originally by: ghosttr The problem is that cloaking AFK 23/7 in a system makes the other players in that system fight against someone who isnt there. The other players in system have to scramble a defense force in their system, to combat someone who isnt actually there. So even though an AFK cloaked ship may not be able to cause much damage directly. He is causing alot of economical damage to his enemy. He is slowing down the enemy's industrial operations (because they all require an escort). As well as making it so that any person that is actively defending the system from an afk player is not making any money. The amount of risk taken should be related to the reward you get. In this situation the reward is indirect, but it is there. And there is no risk to the cloaked player at all, no risk all rewared = no good. Shouldn't the industrial people be escorted anyways? It's not like you need a whole fleet to protect against a cloaker. If you aren't escorting them now, then you are playing Russian Roulette that no one is going to be waiting for you when you jump/warp. Bah, the game should just disconnect you after several hours of complete inactivity (no chat, no movement, etc.) just like other games to conserve bandwidth. If you are legitimately motionless in space for that long, surely you would be playing with your chat/scanner/market, etc. The whole point of an allaince is to make it so that a group of players can build their own security systems so we have our own safe spot in 0.0. Why do you think theyre adding constellation sov, gate guns, upgradeable outposts and that type of thing? And like I said in my post they dont always attack, but their reward comes from the losses we take from having to setup defensive measure against an opponent who isn't there.

DaemonBarber	Posted - 2007.04.26 20:48:00 - [141] Originally by: Blue Pixie ... So, to go back to my original question (from page 1), guerilla warfare is simply unacceptable in a sovereign system? You only approve of conventional warfare, where it's more "fair" and you have the benefit of time to gather your resources and muster your defenses? You don't/won't accept people using cloaks to their advantage in an offensive manner? What about using cloaks exclusively for reconnaissance, exploration, and maybe fleet support/maneuvers? Is that acceptable? Guerrilla warfare is entirely acceptable. But if you want to interrupt operations in hostile space, you should have to be online. We're not saying you shouldn't be able to spend 23/7 cloaked in enemy territory, waiting for the chance to strike. What we're saying is you should have to be at your keyboard to do it. An idle timer really is a simple solution, but it's got it's downsides too.
Blue Pixie	Posted - 2007.04.26 20:50:00 - [142] Originally by: Icarus Starkiller I only want one single modification to cloaks: A timer that is client-independant (i.e. the client has no idea if the cloak is active or not to prevent macros that auto-activate). Make the timer 'somewhat' random between 45 & 60 minutes and no skills to adjust that time. So if I'm tooling around in my little, paper-thin Cov Ops frigate (that doesn't even have a weapon fitted... much less a tank), trying to investigate if Big Bad Alliance X is constructing another mothership/titan/whatnot... I might get to experience the thrill of having my cloak go poof? Randomly? Unexpectedly? Without any effort whatsoever by my adversaries? Golly, that sure sounds like fun.
Icarus Starkiller Minmatar	Posted - 2007.04.26 20:54:00 - [143] Originally by: Blue Pixie Originally by: Icarus Starkiller I only want one single modification to cloaks: A timer that is client-independant (i.e. the client has no idea if the cloak is active or not to prevent macros that auto-activate). Make the timer 'somewhat' random between 45 & 60 minutes and no skills to adjust that time. So if I'm tooling around in my little, paper-thin Cov Ops frigate (that doesn't even have a weapon fitted... much less a tank), trying to investigate if Big Bad Alliance X is constructing another mothership/titan/whatnot... I might get to experience the thrill of having my cloak go poof? Randomly? Unexpectedly? Without any effort whatsoever by my adversaries? Golly, that sure sounds like fun. Well if you're actually doing something you'll see your ship suddenly appear... giving you the opportunity to warp, cloak, or (if you got too close to the opposition) die. No fix can be targeted solely against exploiters... we have all seen this in the many, many changes put in place to protect nuubs & curtail macro use (the latter an utter failure). - Life is pain...anyone who says differently is selling something.
Blue Pixie	Posted - 2007.04.26 21:18:00 - [144] Originally by: ghosttr The problem is that cloaking AFK 23/7 in a system makes the other players in that system fight against someone who isnt there. The other players in system have to scramble a defense force in their system, to combat someone who isnt actually there. So even though an AFK cloaked ship may not be able to cause much damage directly. He is causing alot of economical damage to his enemy. He is slowing down the enemy's industrial operations (because they all require an escort). As well as making it so that any person that is actively defending the system from an afk player is not making any money. The amount of risk taken should be related to the reward you get. In this situation the reward is indirect, but it is there. And there is no risk to the cloaked player at all, no risk all rewared = no good. So basically, you're opposed to guerilla warfare and quite possibly espionage too? Here's the problem, ghosttr... (a problem I wish you'd at least recognize, if not address) Via meta-gaming the chat tab, you're able to detect the presence of a potential hostile in your system (even if they are cloaked) with a mere glance. No probes, no skill points, no specialized POS structures or even considerable effort is required. The skill or equipment of your opponent is irrelevant. What options does that leave your cloaked adversary? Short of lulling you into an uneasy feeling of security ù aka: deceiving you into believing they are AFK ù how is the cloaked pilot supposed to convince you to lower your guard? You've forced cloaked pilots to resort to meta-gaming... to defeat your own form of meta-gaming. How else are they to use cloaking to their advantage ù either to ambush your industrial operations or gather intelligence ù if you know with 100% certainty that they are not only in your system, but actively watching you? Don't you see how that kinda defeats the whole purpose of supposedly being "covert"? Again, what this boils down to is you want to compromise (if not outright remove) a cloaked pilot's ability to pick and choose when to engage in battle... so that YOU can pick and choose when to engage in battle... WITHOUT having to fit a cloak yourself. And why? What's your rationale? So you can maximize your profit margin, and not have to defend your system... when you don't want to? Don't you think that's just a wee bit hypocritical?
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.04.26 21:36:00 - [145] Originally by: Blue Pixie what other options? Move fast and use the cloak to your strategic advantage. Ambush people on gates and tie up resources that could better be spent doing other things. Avoid defenders via cloaking and warping or warping and cloaking. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Blue Pixie	Posted - 2007.04.26 21:47:00 - [146] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Blue Pixie what other options? Move fast and use the cloak to your strategic advantage. Ambush people on gates and tie up resources that could better be spent doing other things. Avoid defenders via cloaking and warping or warping and cloaking. What dumbass is going to offer themselves up as an undefended target or provide meaningful intelligence, knowing that an at-the-keyboard hostile is in their system? Your suggestion is wonderful... for ganking n00bs in lowsec. For a presumably competent/organized alliance operating in sovereign space, it's next to worthless.
SeerinDarkness Minmatar Equinox Eternal Enterprises	Posted - 2007.04.26 21:47:00 - [147] well after reading pages and pages of opinions , my opinion is 1 do most of you understand how mutch energy it takes to bend light and the rest of the spectrum around something to cloak it in the first place. 2 if you really want to do something about people who are just Afk cloaking to cause cheap greif. Insert a random timer that starts working after 3 hrs to indacate the cloaking device is degrading and has the possability of device failure/destruction if not shut off for 60 seconds and reactivated. dont need new anything to implement it scan probes or otherwise and the cloaks abilitys are not actually nerfed in any way and specificly targets people doing the afk 23/7 cloak w no possable repercussions. if your going to be gone from the comp for more than 3 hrs u should be logging out anyway, because if you are gone that long but your chars are mineing or whatever then u are macroing and are in violation anyway period.
Dzil	Posted - 2007.04.26 21:54:00 - [148] Ships remaining cloaked for hours in enemy space does seem like a bit much. I think they should either have to decloak after a while (maybe put the cloaking device on it's own battery that recharges while not cloaked), or consume some kind of fuel that, while not overly expensive, restricts the ability to travel far from supply lines and cloak indefinitely. It is true, one's convoys should always be escorted in 0.0, but the ability to perma hide in someone else's sovereign space is a bit broken.
Dimitrios Ypsilanti	Posted - 2007.04.26 22:25:00 - [149] Originally by: Blue Pixie I've invested 9+ months in skill training and 100m ISK or more in equipment to conceal my presence ù just to be thwarted by a chat tab? Groan... I've been in Eve for less than half that time. I've got a cloaked ship and have managed to get to halfway into dreads to boot. If it's really taken you nine months to get into a cloaked ship your problem truely lies elsewhere. Originally by: Blue Pixie So, to go back to my original question (from page 1)... Nope. My interest in this debate ended here: Originally by: Blue Pixie Your adversary is meta-gaming via AFK cloaking to wear down your patience. If you're still confused as to what I and the others here are talking about I outlined a test you can perform a few pages back. If you and your buddies still not convinced after sitting in space and getting pwnd by a single cloaked ship day after day, then there's not much that'll convince you. Or if you're able to predictably counter the technique I've described, by all means come back here and tell us. I'll gladly admit that I was wrong. For everone else, I urge you to try the following: - Get a couple of friends with alts (6 months old or better) - Fit up their ships for regular PvP plus dedicate one high slot to a cloak - Best mix would be: 2 or 3 sniping BS, 1 force recon and 1 interdicter - Also one alt in a 'cepter would be handy Have your 'cepter fly into some deep 0.0 sov space. Doesn't matter where. Fly around and make safe spots and sniping positions. Drop a can full of ammo and spare drones or whatever you're using in one of the safe spots. Cloak up or log off. Send the bulk of your other ships into the same space find one of the safe spots and cloak up. The hardest part will be getting into the system in the first place. For this reason your best off going after a UK-based alliance while on US time or vice versa. Check once a day after down-time to make sure they're online and cloaked. Other than that forget about your ships for a while. Get everyone used to seeing them there in local. They're nearly as safe as they would be docked. Then start hitting them. There are two tactics. One for the single player and one for the coordinated group. For the group: - Sit cloaked at gate at your optimals - Have 'dictor right on the gate (cloaked) - When you see the gate fire the 'dicter uncloaks, drops bubble, warps off - While whatever you've captured is working its way out of the bubble uncloak the snipers - Blast 'em - Warp off and cloak - Go to dinner, walk the dog, do whatever For the single player: - Uncloak at safe spot - Warp to a location (belt, gate, station) - Watch for target - If whatever shows up is too big to take safely run off and cloak, else blast it - Run off and cloak - Go to dinner, walk the dog, do whatever Return to the hidden can to drop loot (if you bother to pick any up) and to re-ammo. Your battleships will be most vulnerable. A point of WCS is advisable if you can overcome the lock penalty with skills and / or mods. In your free time in system keep adding bookmarks in safe spots. People will be watching the directions you take off in. Eventually they'll start to find them so keep changing them up. You should be able to do this indefinitely. So give it a shot. The more people who do it the more who'll complain about it and the sooner it gets fixed.
Blue Pixie	Posted - 2007.04.26 23:26:00 - [150] Originally by: Dimitrios Ypsilanti Groan... I've been in Eve for less than half that time. I've got a cloaked ship and have managed to get to halfway into dreads to boot. If it's really taken you nine months to get into a cloaked ship your problem truely lies elsewhere. You're flying a Force Recon ù competently ù in less than four and a half months since you started playing EVE? You must of had some kickarse implants. Originally by: Dimitrios Ypsilanti Nope. My interest in this debate ended here: How convenient. Your interest in the 'debate' ends after not addressing the original question, nor conceding that you're equally as guilty as the party you're criticizing? What a shocker. Originally by: Dimitrios Ypsilanti If you're still confused as to what I and the others here are talking about I outlined a test you can perform a few pages back. If you and your buddies still not convinced after sitting in space and getting pwnd by a single cloaked ship day after day, then there's not much that'll convince you. Or if you're able to predictably counter the technique I've described, by all means come back here and tell us. I'll gladly admit that I was wrong. Your so-called "test" is more like a testament to the level of disorganization apparent in your own alliance/corporation, not to mention their unwillingness to mount any kind of coordinated defense against a clearly better organized and competent opponent. You trivialize your adversaries' capacity to log in immediately following downtime (something your alliance is apparently incapable of), maneuver a fleet to camp a chokepoint, and somehow (magically I suppose) monitor that chokepoint... while AFK? You know (thanks to local) that there are hostiles in your area ù yet you provide your enemy with targets by sending pilots incapable of defending themselves to belts and through stargates... unescorted or without scouts? Where are your dictor bubbles? Where are your sniping battleships? Where are your tacklers? For christs sakes... you said you fly a cloaked ship yourself, and you can't think of any way to use that to your advantage?? Crazy suggestion here, but maybe you should have spent a little more than just four months skill training before trying to claim sovereignty in 0.0 space? Originally by: Blue Pixie What dumbass is going to offer themselves up as an undefended target or provide meaningful intelligence, knowing that an at-the-keyboard hostile is in their system? I guess I found my answer.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 27 :: 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.