EVE Search - PETITION: Stop the Cloak Nerf!!

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

PETITION: Stop the Cloak Nerf!!

» 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 .. 18 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Fabienne Runestar Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.06.02 15:45:00 - [331] /signed Though I think many many many modules designed for frigates - Battleships, should never work on Capitals, including Cloaking Devices. And yes I do fly a carrier with an alt. :) --- Eve has taught me that Evil will always triumph, because Good is mysteriously unable to log in to defend it's assets.
Jomin Herdsy GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.06.13 23:29:00 - [332] /signed I really couldn't care less about prototype cloaks on ships that really shouldn't have them Like BS's, cap ships, and supercaps, but covops vessels need to remain invisible while cloaked. Aside from the high cost of these vessels, being able to remain AFK in enemy territory is essential to the tactical directive of a recon/force recon which are supposed to operate deep behind enemy lines.
Elendar Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.06.14 00:07:00 - [333] I sign this ------------------------------------- Various intellectual quotes that i don't quite understand
Varn Atreties	Posted - 2007.06.14 01:11:00 - [334] Edited by: Varn Atreties on 14/06/2007 01:11:56 The only ones that are going to be able to probe you out are dedicated cov ops players. It removes the cloak from ships that aren't really designed to have it to begin with. Yes, I use cloak on an indy, but this is more in the sprit of cloaking devices. I'll still fly with a cloak and take my chances. - Edit: Almost forgot Force Recon, nerf the cloaking device. Show the love to the Force Recons and other cloakers who rely on the Covert Ops II device. Even if modifiying the ships to allow for the fitting.
Herring Pimpology Free Trade Zone.	Posted - 2007.06.14 02:06:00 - [335] Originally by: Cadela Fria Edited by: Cadela Fria on 28/05/2007 15:12:15 Edited by: Cadela Fria on 28/05/2007 15:10:53 Originally by: hydraSlav Originally by: Grash Freedom first still can't understand how an afk cloaker can harm you anyways, he is afk for the love of god if he is not afk then he is doing his job If an AFK cloaker is so harmless, then why is he there? There is a reason why he is sitting AFK, and that reason is harming the other side. Effortless gameplay needs to go. Like I said, this is not a discussion, but since you kept it civil I'll entertain your argument: You say theres a reason hes sitting AFK...yeah..he's AFK, thats it... How he is harming you? If you're this paranoid, you're the one harmful to yourself, which is not the cloaker's fault. Why is he there? Could be any number of reasons, passing through, doing stuff there later, doing something now just waiting to strike - Or, hes abusing his knowledge that you're paranoid about him being there to his advantage, which is again - YOUR FAULT, not his. The paranoia is not the fault of the victim. If you have a hefty investment like a hulk, you're sure the hell not going to mine where the gomer (what we call afk cloakers) is flying afk all day. The reason for this is that your afk cloaker is sitting there all day so you get used to him being there, then he can login at any time of the day, make a quick scan of the system and kill whatever is convenient for him. Then he cloaks for another 14 hours. If he's competent he has no risk for his reward. He can see everything without being seen. He can psychologically ****** the industry of an entire system without even playing the game. That's what needs to be changed. If anything this nerf is not quite severe enough; the new probes should be able to compute trajectory (based on several scans) so that your true afk cloakers going like 2k/sec can run into something nasty, like a bubble if they're just afk (and not changing heading).
Anehra X-Fire	Posted - 2007.06.14 02:54:00 - [336] Edited by: Anehra on 14/06/2007 02:55:07 Edited by: Anehra on 14/06/2007 02:53:38 Originally by: Ferrosa /unsigned snip I think this is pretty much what most of us meant by signing it. I know I did at least. Currently I have a Myrmidon in hostile space ratting just for the fun of it, completely ridicilous how easy I can get away with it. It should be able to probe it down (and in fairly short time). However, leave my recons and covert ops alone, I invested time and isk (and time to get that isk) to make it valid. Originally by: CCP Fendahl I posted the following in the Game Development forum a while ago, but will repost it here in case you don't frequent that forum: Unfortunately it seems that the cloaking changes won't make it in for the next patch. The code changes have already been made, but got rolled back today because the system didn't work out as intended. However, we still plan to address cloaks in a patch in the near future (without nerfing covert ops of course). Originally by: Mephysto No idea if its been mentioned elsewhere on this thread, but the current situation with cloaks and probes is: Cloaked ships can NOT be probed. * First post said that the change was postponed and it wouldn't affect covert ops cloaks. So far all fine and dandy. * Second post said that 'currently' 'cloaked ships' cannot be probed. That need to be elaborated on. - 'currently', means? Currently as on Tranquility? Or currently on test server? Or currently as in that's the latest plan for all cloaks, including the prototype? - 'cloaked ships', means? prototype, improved, covert ops cloaking d' II? all cloaks? there's no significance between the covert ops ships then and the other? Please elaborate.
Cybrex	Posted - 2007.06.14 07:40:00 - [337] easy solution! ships with covert ops cloak cant be probed , others can , everybodys happy =)
Ashaz Mindstar Technology United Confederation of Corporations	Posted - 2007.06.14 08:51:00 - [338] oh but STOP the whining already! They have already stated that the nerf won't effect recons. =P IMHO even those should be possible to probe out. And this I am saying while I am currently training up for recons. A pilot with brains wouldn't be found anyway even if you could probe them out. Just the AFKers would be effected, and those we could do without. iDrone
Zalathar Minmatar Biometaloid INC	Posted - 2007.06.14 09:00:00 - [339] /signed cloak is for being sfae, and if they are afk, they wont hurt you. If the cloak nolonger makes you safe, what is the point. from the ratters point of vue, the cloak is to hide when hostiles are in system. But the ratter cant do anything, and cant rat and make money. Killing a cloaker should be a challenge, involoving the use of bait, timining, and planning. ~~~~~~ mods, if you think i'm ugly please say "eeek!" ~~~~~~ eeeeeekk - Deckard eeeeee...K -Darth Patches
ghosttr Amarr ARK-CORP FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.14 09:09:00 - [340] As it is now the cloak should be named 'invincibility shield' because thats what it is IF you ss + cloak. I dont think CCPs intentions were ver to make it so that a cloak will make you invulnerable in 0.0. When cloaks were first released they were supposed to be probe-able (or something like that, it been a long time), and CCP has finally realized the mistake they have made. I fly a covert ops, and while i dont like being caught I can realize how unbalanced it is when i can make a 300km spot above a gate, cloak up above an enemy fleet, then go afk for a few hours, and come back in no danger whatsoever. I think that (and 90% of covertops/recon pilots will agree) the people that are whining about this need to grow some balls. If you want to play eve in easy mode go back to empire. Cloaking should provide you some protection, but not complete immunity. It should be up to the pilot to determine his level of safety while cloaked, and we shouldnt have a modules that assures it. At the very least the pos scanning module should be able to detect cloakers. And a skilled prober should be able to find them elsewhere (although to a lesser extent). Make Mining Better
Zalathar Minmatar Biometaloid INC	Posted - 2007.06.14 09:14:00 - [341] there is a MUCH better way of dealing with afk cloakers: DONT ALLOW AUTOREPEAT ON CLOAKS so you can hide, but if you go afk, you can die, as your cloak deactivates after a while. If you are at the comp, you can just reactivate. Give it a ten minute cycle, but if you cancel the cloaking, it cancels immediatly. ~~~~~~ mods, if you think i'm ugly please say "eeek!" ~~~~~~ eeeeeekk - Deckard eeeeee...K -Darth Patches
Richard Aiel Caldari The Funkstars Guild	Posted - 2007.06.14 09:15:00 - [342] Well, before recent events and the announcement of the council thing... Id say CCP never bends to the will of their customers. But now, you never know. However, I wont vote on account of the fact that Im too noob to have this affect me I cant put anything here Im A troublemaker
Trent Angelus Caldari	Posted - 2007.06.14 09:43:00 - [343] Not signed. Legitimate cloak use should not encompass being able to sit indefinitely in a system and be invincible. I know people who leave themselves logged in and cloaked in hostile systems while they are at work, then come home once the inhabitants are used to their name in local and gank them. This is not fair game mechanics. Look at any RTS game over the last 10 years. Every game that has cloaking has a counter-cloaker unit. You just have to be on your toes enough to use them.
NIkis Minmatar W33D Corp. O X I D E	Posted - 2007.06.14 10:22:00 - [344] cloak is fine as it is /signed
Serial Driller	Posted - 2007.06.14 11:37:00 - [345] On the fence with this one... I don't think anything bigger than a cruiser should be able to cloak. Just seems stupid to me. I envision everything above a cruiser as being a "in your face" weapon. Not something that hides in the shadows. I've yet to read a justifiable argument of "why" AFK cloaking is harmful. I think AFK macro-ers are a crime. In most cases, I think AFK "anything" (miners, botters, etc.) that involves accomplishing tasks in an online game while "not actually playing" is wrong. However, someone sitting in space doing nothing but taking up.. ..space? The person isn't doing anything. They're not gathering intel, spying, attacking, defending, and/or accumulating any type of resource. They're just there. So what's the actual impact of that? One argument was that they appear in local for long periods and thus cause others to lower their defensive posture over time. From a "covert" standpoint, other players shouldn't be able to see them in local in the first place. Cloaked ships appearing in local is wrong, but it exists. To then turn around and use the argument that "since they are in local" it should aid us further just compounds the need to remove it. Here's a suggestion (compromise) that I think I can live with. Make cloaked ships using inferior cloaking devices scannable (as is already proposed), but also remove all cloaked ships from local. That seems a fair trade. I'm not signing this petition, because I don't have all the facts. If no one can convince me "why" AFK cloaking is bad, then I may sign at a later point. I like my suggestion, though. Tit for tat. Originally by: K'reemy G'udness I think the kind of person who's going to do well at eve is the autodidact. This game requires self teaching, and what that doesn't cover, pain will do the rest.
Frogzuk Dragonian Freelancers CORE.	Posted - 2007.06.14 11:56:00 - [346] There are two issues here and they both need dealing with in different ways. Firstly i am against probes that will find cloak ships however issue 1 AFK cloaking is borderline harrasment, as in it is NOT acceptable that a player can cloak his / her ship bugger of down the pub, go to work do the washing up and then look in local once in a while to see if there are any juicey targets log inaanother ship into system to wtfpawn the target. Issue 2 Ratting ships that ss and cloak in 0.0. This is a valid tatic and one that protects those players that rat in low sec to boost income. What chance does a ratting set up raven have against a pvp set up raven .. none ! so the ratters will just flock to empire and fllod the overcrowded systems there. So with both theses issues, there is imho only one real solution. That is that cloaks regardless of ship type are time limited. for example Coverts - cloaks indefinately Recons - cloaks for 30 mins before requiring reset stealths - as recons Other ships - 10 mins before reset. The reset should be in the form of either the cloaks require reactivation after a set time. This will remove afk cloaks from game as you need to pysically at the screen to stay safe. This system also allows for increase possibility of locating the farmers / ratters as the 10 min timer on the cloaked raven will be up and they would have a window of 5 mins where they would need to move to stay undeceted. However ... there leaves the problem of log offs.... i think that once a pilot is engaged in a combat situation he/she must not have the log off option .. you fight or flee .. but you cant log off. If you crash, then a suitable petition to the gms with details of crash should suffice. There should also be an option to warn players that use log off as a tatic to avoid combat. For example enter system ratter ss and logs off .. ok it happened live with it first time. COme back to system later same player is there ss and logs off again ... petition that the player is in fact avoiding conflict and said player should be warned of action and his / her log off timer is increased form the useual 15 mins to 30 mins. This timer then increases according to the number of times they logged off in given period ..... Dont nerf those that have skilled in cloaking, cloaks are effective combat tools used properly, probing cloaks is not hte answer its making the ship probable after decloaking. froggy
Xtro 2 Caldari Pre-nerfed Tactics	Posted - 2007.06.14 12:18:00 - [347] signed, for the main reason which is, why should a ship that is nerfed after fitting the module, and is unable to actually do much of anything, why should this get further nerfed by getting scanned down by a bunch of paranoid players that want more carebear waterwings added to the game. Xtro 2 - Tactically Insane Tradesman. Insanity, or madness, is a semi-permanent, severe mental disorder.
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Guardians of the Dawn Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.06.14 12:31:00 - [348] Not signed! The nerf to cloaks must be BIGGER and stronger!!! Limit on 30 minutes cloak!! AND allow special probes (can be quite expensive) to find cloaked ships If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Serial Driller	Posted - 2007.06.14 12:51:00 - [349] Originally by: Frogzuk issue 1 AFK cloaking is borderline harrasment, as in it is NOT acceptable that a player can cloak his / her ship bugger of down the pub, go to work do the washing up and then look in local once in a while to see if there are any juicey targets log inaanother ship into system to wtfpawn the target. What is to stop this person from just logging off to go get a pint and then log back on to check for bogies after he gets back? The point you seem to be trying to make is that he keeps leaving his computer and coming back, but it doesn't change the logic that he's not a threat while he's away. If you're argument is based on the "but I can still see him in local chat" argument then (as I posted in this thread) you shouldn't be seeing him in local in the first place. I still have yet to read how his being cloaked but AFK is a threat "while" he's AFK. As I said, I'm against players doing anything while AFK, but an AFK cloaked ship isn't doing anything. Please don't use the "local chat" argument because that is just stupid. "IF" a ship was able to actually cloak, don't you think they'd also maintain "radio silence"?!?!? Originally by: K'reemy G'udness I think the kind of person who's going to do well at eve is the autodidact. This game requires self teaching, and what that doesn't cover, pain will do the rest.
Alakazam Bob The Builder Breidablik	Posted - 2007.06.14 12:58:00 - [350] /signed 1. I'm signing because cloaking is the same as staying docked afk whole day so why bother.. 2. Done 3. Done
Drizit Amarr Lonely out here Black Sun Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.14 13:13:00 - [351] /signed. Cloaks ar often used by newer in lowsec to avoid player pirates. Allowing them to scan the player down in systems with no stations is as good as preventing new players from entering lowsec. The WTZ was done to help lowsec become a viable place to go as well as get rid of instas. This nerf negates that for many players since a cloak is the only way to remain undetected once you're there if player rats enter the system. --
Ominus Decre The Older Gamers R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.06.14 14:02:00 - [352] Cloaked ships should be able to be probed. I do NOT support this thread. Eliminate AFK cloakers - let them be probed out. If a cloaker doesn't want to be probed out then they'll be required to stay at the keyboard and/or occasionaly change their posistions. We need probes to locate cloaked ships! Perversion:
Shirow Miyazaki Amarr I.Z.U Syndicate	Posted - 2007.06.14 14:08:00 - [353] /signed This has been said before, but its people afraid of afk cloakers watching us wah wah wah. Tbh an increase on all cloaks to use about 10,000tf would make sure that only ships meant to cloak can. But would this be good enough? no. Then they'd want to scan COVERT ships down that aren't meant to be scanned. I imagine most of those wanting this have never flown a stealth bomber, and are unaware how difficult they are to use anyway, without the added sword of damocles hanging above us in the shape of being probed out, plus the sheer isk and skill timesink that they are means that (thankfully) not everyone has a cov ops or force recon.
Chris Stormrider	Posted - 2007.06.14 14:13:00 - [354] Just remove local channel, since many people think it's a bad thing, using local channel as intel. No local, no way of knowing someone is afk cloaked, no problem. Okay, simplistic as hell, but you know that the problem is not cloaking devices running forever. So point the finger elsewhere.
Princess Jodi Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.06.14 14:15:00 - [355] NOT Signed! I've read all the threads about cloaking, and if you can't understand the dangers and abuse of an AFK cloaker in your system, then you obviously have a one-sided opinion on cloaking. I'd prefer to have another means of dealing with the problem, like logging people out of eve if no activity for 30 min. Since Covert Ops cloaks are excluded from this nerf, it really does NOTHING to stop the problem of AFK cloakers. People will just use a Covert Ops ship instead.
Kraven Kor Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.06.14 14:17:00 - [356] Stealth Bombers can't fit Covops cloaks... so will they be scannable??? That would suck if so. I think making cloaked ships scannable is a double-edged sword. Good to stop the ninja farmer, but bad for Stealth Bombers and the recon ships that can't fit CovOps Cloak... So, not signed, but I'm not exactly thrilled over this change in its current form. ----- You're not what you are, you're just what you do! So it ends with their butts and it starts with your shoe! - Awesome Car Fun Maker
Serial Driller	Posted - 2007.06.14 14:49:00 - [357] Edited by: Serial Driller on 14/06/2007 14:52:47 Originally by: Princess Jodi NOT Signed! I've read all the threads about cloaking, and if you can't understand the dangers and abuse of an AFK cloaker in your system, then you obviously have a one-sided opinion on cloaking. I'd prefer to have another means of dealing with the problem, like logging people out of eve if no activity for 30 min. Since Covert Ops cloaks are excluded from this nerf, it really does NOTHING to stop the problem of AFK cloakers. People will just use a Covert Ops ship instead. TO DO WHAT? Edit: Maybe too vague. Clarification: "Since Covert Ops cloaks are excluded from this nerf, it really does NOTHING to stop the problem of AFK cloakers. People will just use a Covert Ops ship instead." = TO DO WHAT? Originally by: K'reemy G'udness I think the kind of person who's going to do well at eve is the autodidact. This game requires self teaching, and what that doesn't cover, pain will do the rest.
Hohenheim OfLight Pegasus Mining and Securities R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.06.14 14:56:00 - [358] singed really whats the point, just leave it alone. ---------------------------------------------- Is mining for a hel mad? or just ambishus?
Christari Zuborov	Posted - 2007.06.14 15:11:00 - [359] NOT Signed! This will NOT change anything for covop ships, or those who warp between safe spots when someone enters local. This DOES change gameplay for individuals who warp to safe spot, cloak and then leave their computer when someone enters local. It's not fair to I have an "I Win" button in hiding, and I'm glad they're doing something to address that. If you are going to be gone for an extended period of time, even for just a couple of minutes, then you should just hit ctl-q and come back when you're done.
Laurens Boekhorst Interstellar Shipyards	Posted - 2007.06.14 15:13:00 - [360] 200% SIGNED! -- A little trust goes a long way - the less you trust, the further you'll go.

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