| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 .. 14 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
96
   |
Posted - 2012.01.19 21:22:00 -
[361] - Quote
If you can call on the EULA to get an afk cloaker banned for afk cloaking, please provide evidence and I will give you a cookie. |
Ghost of Truth
State War Academy
Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.19 21:24:00 -
[362] - Quote
Gerrick Palivorn wrote:If you can call on the EULA to get an afk cloaker banned for afk cloaking, please provide evidence and I will give you a cookie.
Prepare the cookie pot then.Becasue that is what i am doing.. |
Ghost of Truth
State War Academy
Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.19 21:31:00 -
[363] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Ghost of Truth wrote:Gerrick Palivorn wrote:If you can call on the EULA to get an afk cloaker banned for afk cloaking, please provide evidence and I will give you a cookie. Prepare the cookie pot then.Becasue that is what i am doing.. No, you're not. If CCP adds an anti-cloaking ship or whatever it is they end up doing, that's well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that it isn't an exploit and hasn't been considered one since the game was first released, no matter how much you're being a whiny crybabby about it.
Please read the previous posts about the features and what constitutes an exploit..Also as I have said numerous time, i dont want new modules, tactic, or nerfing, changing the cloaking.No Fuels, no scanning no nothing.A 3 hour timer, that resets when the ship moves even an inch will suffice.But this is for the thread that proposes things to counter it. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
532
|
Posted - 2012.01.19 21:38:00 -
[364] - Quote
So I'll cloak up and make the ship constantly move in one direction. vOv |
Ghost of Truth
State War Academy
Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.19 21:40:00 -
[365] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:So I'll cloak up and make the ship constantly move in one direction. vOv
True.Thanks for pointing the flaw of my proposal on the problem.
|
Ghost of Truth
State War Academy
Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.19 22:06:00 -
[366] - Quote
Its hilarious when there are 3 simultaneous threads sabout AFK Cloaking, and yet the same 5-6 people always show up and say that WE are the minority.... |
Lord Zim
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
532
|
Posted - 2012.01.19 22:09:00 -
[367] - Quote
What the **** are you on about now? |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
135
|
Posted - 2012.01.19 22:28:00 -
[368] - Quote
If they create a method to decloak ships, they better balance it with the omniscient "local chat" channel. I.E., take away afk cloakers, add a 15second delay before new people appear in local. |
Ghost of Truth
State War Academy
Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.19 22:30:00 -
[369] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
If they create a method to decloak ships, they better balance it with the omniscient "local chat" channel. I.E., take away afk cloakers, add a 15second delay before new people appear in local.
No problem with that by me! YES! |
Lord Zim
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
532
|
Posted - 2012.01.19 22:37:00 -
[370] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:take away afk cloakers
So cloaked ships will be able to run around and gank without impunity, eh?
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:add a 15second delay before new people appear in local.
So you can warp to the anoms and gank people before they have a chance at seeing you, and get safe? |
Ghost of Truth
State War Academy
Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.19 22:43:00 -
[371] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:take away afk cloakers So cloaked ships will be able to run around and gank without impunity, eh? Gizznitt Malikite wrote:add a 15second delay before new people appear in local. So you can warp to the anoms and gank people before they have a chance at seeing you, and get safe?
I didnt say that was the best way to fix Local.But according to a lot of people, its a problem, and ccp should take a look on this, just as i call to look on cloaking. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
533
|
Posted - 2012.01.19 22:54:00 -
[372] - Quote
Anti-afk cloak people: Fixing a broken leg by sawing it off. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
135
|
Posted - 2012.01.19 23:30:00 -
[373] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:take away afk cloakers So cloaked ships will be able to run around and gank without impunity, eh?
The last CSM meetings pretty much announced CCP is going to create a method to scan down cloaked ships. Given that is true, afk cloaking will cease. If you can prevent docking at stations, destroy other people's POS's, and hunt down all afk cloakers, any nullsec system can be made COMPLETELY safe. In my opinion, there should always be risks associated with living in nullsec.
Lord Zim wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:add a 15second delay before new people appear in local. So you can warp to the anoms and gank people before they have a chance at seeing you, and get safe?
This is about balance... currently, there is no delay and anyone and everyone can initiate their warp to safety before a threat even loads the system. Except under very rare conditions (like a belt extremely close to a gate), 15 seconds is not enough time to find and tackle a ship in system. It is enough time to load grid, scan down anomalies, and start a warp to the potential target. Simply warping to an anomaly or belt at range (rather than zero) will easily provide you enough time to warp to safety before you're tackled. And if that's not enough time for your lazy ass, you can bubble the gates!
15 seconds is a fair balanced number.... I can understand your whine if I had suggested 60 seconds, but not 15 seconds... It takes 2 seconds to load grid, 2 seconds to align, 6 seconds to scan down an anomaly... and it takes more than 5 seconds to complete even a short warp. HTFU!!
|
Lord Zim
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
533
|
Posted - 2012.01.20 01:01:00 -
[374] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:15 seconds is a fair balanced number.... I can understand your whine if I had suggested 60 seconds, but not 15 seconds... It takes 2 seconds to load grid, 2 seconds to align, 6 seconds to scan down an anomaly... and it takes more than 5 seconds to complete even a short warp. HTFU!!
So you're giving carebears, say, 5 seconds to notice you pop up in local, initiate warping to a safe spot, get up to speed in the right direction (if he's not perfectly aligned), and enter warp.
Cutting it pretty fine there. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
136
|
Posted - 2012.01.20 01:23:00 -
[375] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:15 seconds is a fair balanced number.... I can understand your whine if I had suggested 60 seconds, but not 15 seconds... It takes 2 seconds to load grid, 2 seconds to align, 6 seconds to scan down an anomaly... and it takes more than 5 seconds to complete even a short warp. HTFU!! So you're giving carebears, say, 5 seconds to notice you pop up in local, initiate warping to a safe spot, get up to speed in the right direction (if he's not perfectly aligned), and enter warp. Cutting it pretty fine there.
Yup.... and if they happen to be scrammed by a rat at the time local goes up, there is a good chance they will be caught.
At the same point in time, I'm pretty sure most nullbears will trade this risk in a heartbeat to have a tool to hunt cloakers in system! Especially, since this risk can be heavily mitigated by intel channels, smart ratting, and bubbles. |
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.01.20 02:23:00 -
[376] - Quote
Ghost of Truth wrote:
So i have to set my whole Corp on line, have Pvers to cover ALL teh miners, and have a pilot do a tedious job all the time, for when and if a frigate pilot wil decide to make a mistake?And even then he can bring instanly a whole alliance right in the middle of my pvp fleet whith so low of a cost?And that sounds balanced?
So having a scanner pilot on duty is less dull than a Rorqual pilot sitting within the POS shield? Or the off-grid CS/SC booster?
If a covert pilot can light a cyno he is no longer AFK?
How many times does this need to be started? For a ship pilot you missed the boat. Safety does not equal immunity or impunity. You want the reward of ABC ores? Accept the Risk.
So, can you enlighten us with any attempts at tactics or counter; or did you just give in?
I am a Recon Pilot, so I do not see a need for a nerf or balance or change. But why I want to need to have to carry to special fuel to remain cloaked. (as some worm suggested) I need that cargo space for the cyno lighter fluid, so your fleet can burn. |
Valea Silpha
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
23
|
Posted - 2012.01.20 03:54:00 -
[377] - Quote
Any substantial change to cloaking as a mechanic would be a massive change to PvP balance as a whole. All the covert cloak ships are not particularly good combat ships (low dps, mostly very fragile) and that because the cloak is a powerful module.
Any of the terrible changes that are bandied around are going to end up hurting everyone in the long run. We all need scouts and we all sometimes need to safe up and cloak. It's just the way of the game. Sure, for those guys who just wanna sit in their station systems and grind out money all day every day, it seems like cloaking is just their to make their lives miserable.
But this is a game that is deeply unforgiving, and if you don't have the luxury of lots of stations and larger PvP groups to keep you safe, a cloak is one of the very few ways to be genuinely safe in eve. It lets you wait out aggression, or avoid hostiles bent on your destruction. A cloak is an ever-present friend in this turbulent game. But the price they come with is pretty high. You can do nothing aggressive while you are cloaked.
You sacrifice all offensive ability (appearing in local and making the locals nervous doesn't count) in exchange for being safe. I think that's a fair trade. Making them need fuel or there being some mechanism to find them (which incidentally means that they aren't actually a cloak, essentially just a safespot) would screw a lot of stuff for a lot of people. Not because they are terrorising your neighborhood, but because they are just playing the game the way that it is played now.
Cloaking has been part of the game for a LONG time now, and frankly people should have learned to deal with it. Cloaking was old when I started my first toon in 04, and nothing about it has been made better or more powerful.
Just apparently the 0.0 bears demand not just an impressive measure of security (that being surrounded by scouts, intel channels, NAP fests and massive PvP fleets brings them) they want PERFECT TOTAL SECURITY.
Would you like some risk with your reward ? No ? Well tough.
This is just not the kind of game where you get to be totally safe. |
L0rdF1end
STA'IN
-affliction-
10
|
Posted - 2012.01.20 10:46:00 -
[378] - Quote
You know they are already contemplating adding a ship designed at hunting down cloaked ships?
Have a read of the recent CSM minutes.
A solution of some kind will come, when and how is yet to be confirmed.
For now, take an alt and go cloak up in their PVE systems. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
104
|
Posted - 2012.01.20 10:59:00 -
[379] - Quote
cloaks are the only tool allowing warfare of any kind against overwhelming amounts of enemies - assymetric warfare.
Cloakers are the only ships which cant be blobbed the **** out of any part of the space, if cloaks would be nerfed, the last bit of danger could just be removed from null just by numbers of people. This cant be right and this is the reason I believe CCP wont nerf cloaks - otherwise people get even more reward for joining giant NAPs. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
533
|
Posted - 2012.01.20 11:34:00 -
[380] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:cloaks are the only tool allowing warfare of any kind against overwhelming amounts of enemies - assymetric warfare.
Titans. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
104
|
Posted - 2012.01.20 11:41:00 -
[381] - Quote
short question: are you dumb?
|
Lord Zim
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
533
|
Posted - 2012.01.20 11:46:00 -
[382] - Quote
No, I'm not. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
104
|
Posted - 2012.01.20 11:50:00 -
[383] - Quote
I dont believe you are not - you are proposing titans for asymmetric warfare after all. If an entity can field a blob if titans (like PL) its a dominating force and doesnt fit in the concept of asymmetric warfare at all. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
533
|
Posted - 2012.01.20 11:58:00 -
[384] - Quote
Funny, because what PL keeps harping on about is how titans are "the one counter to a mass of maelstroms", i.e. the very definition of asymmetric warfare. Few vs many.
And you were saying numbers, yourself. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
104
|
Posted - 2012.01.20 12:14:00 -
[385] - Quote
titan blob vs maelstrom blob = asymmetric warfare, seriously?
Stop trolling.
Maybe I didnt express myself that clear but I really didnt think of PL in a thread about afk cloakers and guerilla warfare. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
533
|
Posted - 2012.01.20 12:26:00 -
[386] - Quote
Fine, redefine "asymmetric" if you want. Doesn't change the fact that they enable a smaller (but titan-heavy) alliance from standing up to a larger (but more subcap-focused) foe. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
104
|
Posted - 2012.01.20 12:30:00 -
[387] - Quote
asymmetric = cant win in a direct confrontation.
guerilla warriors or much veaker smaller opponents.
an alliance which fields a blob of supercapitals worth trillions of ISK doesnt qualify for that.
Stop fu*king trolling!! |
Lord Zim
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
533
|
Posted - 2012.01.20 12:35:00 -
[388] - Quote
Your definition of asymmetric warfare is flawed. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
104
|
Posted - 2012.01.20 12:37:00 -
[389] - Quote
its not. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
533
|
Posted - 2012.01.20 12:43:00 -
[390] - Quote
So titans would not constitute a "technological advantage which outweighs the numerical advantage of the enemy"? |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 .. 14 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |