EVE Search - Sorting AFK cloakers

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sorting AFK cloakers

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Max Godsnottlingson Amarr Freelancing Corp Confederation of Independent Corporations	Posted - 2008.01.22 11:58:00 - [1] One of the most annoying things with Eve is the tactic of AFK cloakering. I can live with any amount of tactics being used against me, both fair and not so fair, so long as the foe player is there. I do object to having my game effected because a player is not playing the game. So as a suggestion. Cloaks need to be fueled to run a cycle. Use Cap boosters, fitted as you would place ammo in a weapon. one 800 will give you 30 seconds of cloak and no auto reload. Yes you can camp a systen cloaked but to stay so you have to attend to your computer every couple of minutes. Obviously dedicated Cov Ops and Black Ops get a huge bonus, say needing smaller CAP boosters, they get the same effect for just using CAP 10's or they still have to use 800's but get say 5 mins a charge. That's just a suggestion. For me I have no real problems with cloakers camping a system, but we do need a system to make sure that the player has to stay at thier computer while they do
JERIC0 NailorTech Industries	Posted - 2008.01.22 12:33:00 - [2] I think that is a major hit on cloaking. I see where you are comming from as most recon ship pilots will just sit in a SS and leave there computer for hours / days on end. There could be an extra option to cloaks which is a Stability rating. so for example say Prototype Cloaking Device - 50% Stability Improved Clocking Device II - 60% Stability Covert Ops Cloaking Device II - 70% Stability So when the ship is idelling, the ship automatically reduces power consumption and there is a chance the cloak could fail. This would be determained by the stability rating. Which gives people who idle for long peroids the risk of decloaking and being scanned down. There could also be a skill which increases the stability of the cloak. I think this would work a bit better as it wouldnt hit the scouts etc but the cloaking ravens who sit in systems and recons who camp systems all day would have that extra risk factor.
Ellaine TashMurkon CBC Interstellar The Unseen Company	Posted - 2008.01.22 13:14:00 - [3] Edited by: Ellaine TashMurkon on 22/01/2008 13:16:09 Cloak should work for at least 5-10 minutes without aby problems, for people who need to attend real life in the middle of very long fights.
Weirana Gatorna Gallente Internal Revenue Service	Posted - 2008.01.22 13:34:00 - [4] Edited by: Weirana Gatorna on 22/01/2008 13:35:03 Cloaking is fine as it is right now. They should not require fuel, nor should they turn off after a period of time. The fact you think it's annoying is testament to how CCP have nailed it. Quote: I do object to having my game effected because a player is not playing the game. That's the thing, you wouldn't know if the player is there, afk or sleeping. The penalties of having a cloaking device fitted does include not being able to target anything, and what is so unfair about that. What is not being said, and what has rarely been said by people who advocate changing cloaking, is the real reason they want it changed - because it does not work to their advantage. As a non-alliance player, with no ambitions of becoming another rank'n'file trooper in some megalomaniacs imaginary empire, I think cloaking might be the only reason I have kept on playing eve. It allows me to evade and escape hostiles, and it allos me to maintain a constant vigil on my potential targets. I can park myself overnight in any system and lull my enemy into a false sence of security - then strike! The fact of the matter is that cloaking, like most other things in eve, is very unfair. Like docking an alt in an NPC station in "NPC 0.0", or being able to gank freighters in high-sec empire. There are a hundred little things like that, that I could bring up, but all in all, the game is actually balanced and fair. If you think cloakers are a problem, you need to assign a few people to keep an eye on the scanner, so you dont get jumped. Learn to live with the fact that any system in eve is vulnerable to spying, that is the way the game is, and how it should be IMO.
Shinori GoonFleet	Posted - 2008.01.22 13:40:00 - [5] Originally by: Weirana Gatorna Edited by: Weirana Gatorna on 22/01/2008 13:35:03 Cloaking is fine as it is right now. They should not require fuel, nor should they turn off after a period of time. The fact you think it's annoying is testament to how CCP have nailed it. Quote: I do object to having my game effected because a player is not playing the game. That's the thing, you wouldn't know if the player is there, afk or sleeping. The penalties of having a cloaking device fitted does include not being able to target anything, and what is so unfair about that. What is not being said, and what has rarely been said by people who advocate changing cloaking, is the real reason they want it changed - because it does not work to their advantage. As a non-alliance player, with no ambitions of becoming another rank'n'file trooper in some megalomaniacs imaginary empire, I think cloaking might be the only reason I have kept on playing eve. It allows me to evade and escape hostiles, and it allos me to maintain a constant vigil on my potential targets. I can park myself overnight in any system and lull my enemy into a false sence of security - then strike! The fact of the matter is that cloaking, like most other things in eve, is very unfair. Like docking an alt in an NPC station in "NPC 0.0", or being able to gank freighters in high-sec empire. There are a hundred little things like that, that I could bring up, but all in all, the game is actually balanced and fair. If you think cloakers are a problem, you need to assign a few people to keep an eye on the scanner, so you dont get jumped. Learn to live with the fact that any system in eve is vulnerable to spying, that is the way the game is, and how it should be IMO. Well said. Don't change a thing.
Max Godsnottlingson Amarr Freelancing Corp Confederation of Independent Corporations	Posted - 2008.01.22 14:17:00 - [6] Sorry. I disagree wholeheartedly with the ability to sit there all night while you sleep. You are supposed to be playing the game! My suggestion might not be a good one, it's something that come off the top of my head. I don't mind you camping a system for hours on end, 'lulling people into a sense of security' before you strike. But I want you at your computer playing the game while you do, not sleeping, not watching TV, not getting laid, not doing a thousand other things. It's not a case of if it works or not. It's a case of forcing player to be in the game if they are doing anything to effect another players game. And yes, I know you can do exactly the same thing by docking in a station if you can. However, then your location is know and people can keep an eye on things
Vadimik	Posted - 2008.01.22 14:44:00 - [7] Edited by: Vadimik on 22/01/2008 14:45:25 To the OP: the only thing afk cloakers are effecting is "local chat as intelligence tool". Guess what ? Local chat was never intended to be used that way. If you choose to use it this way, be prepaired that other players will use cloak in a way they deem fit to counter it. Long story short: unintended use of cloak is used to counter unintended use of local. Ironic, isn't it ?
Flesh Necrosis	Posted - 2008.01.22 16:13:00 - [8] Originally by: Max Godsnottlingson But I want you at your computer playing the game while you do, not sleeping, not watching TV, not getting laid, not doing a thousand other things. It's not a case of if it works or not. It's a case of forcing player to be in the game if they are doing anything to effect another players game. Enforced by? Ninjas?
Exlegion Caldari New Light Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.22 16:23:00 - [9] Originally by: Vadimik Edited by: Vadimik on 22/01/2008 14:47:40 Edited by: Vadimik on 22/01/2008 14:45:25 To the OP: the only thing afk cloakers are effecting is "local chat as intelligence tool". Guess what ? Local chat was never intended to be used that way. If you choose to use it this way, be prepaired that other players will use cloak in a way they deem fit to counter it. Long story short: unintended use of cloak is used to counter unintended use of local. Ironic, isn't it ? P.S. Yes, there is nothing else (but local) that an afk cloaker is effecting. He does not show on any other type of scan, and, since he is afk, he can't do anything at all. Damn you ! I was about to post in support of the OP when I read your reply, and quite frankly it makes perfect sense. As much as I hate AFK cloakers, you're totally right. But should two wrongs make a right? I mean, perhaps local chat is being misused, meta-gamingly speaking (if there's even such a word). But it still doesn't mean AFK-cloaking is right either. This topic reminds me to the use of alts for meta-gaming purposes, such as countering gate camps. Wrongs being used to counter wrongs. It's a bit complicated. One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Guru
Vadimik	Posted - 2008.01.22 16:36:00 - [10] Edited by: Vadimik on 22/01/2008 16:38:21 Originally by: Exlegion Damn you ! I was about to post in support of the OP when I read your reply, and quite frankly it makes perfect sense. As much as I hate AFK cloakers, you're totally right. But should two wrongs make a right? I mean, perhaps local chat is being misused, meta-gamingly speaking (if there's even such a word). But it still doesn't mean AFK-cloaking is right either. This topic reminds me to the use of alts for meta-gaming purposes, such as countering gate camps. Wrongs being used to counter wrongs. It's a bit complicated. Well, afk cloaking serves no other purpose but foiling local. So, if we (in theory) remove local, afk cloaking would disappear per se. It sounds kind of counter-productive to "fix" a tactic that only exist to lessen the effect of some other tactic that long since needs a fix of it's own. I mean, afk cloaking was born as a natural balance against local abuse... Removing this balance will only make matters with local worse.
Selene Le'Cotiere Amarr I-Omniscient-I	Posted - 2008.01.22 16:38:00 - [11] Now if only cloaking removed you from Local, including the gate safety cloak... *** "Some would call me a Demon. Others, a Vampire. But if the truth be told, I'm a child of the moon and a Goddess among men." Free pint of blood for the Dev who agrees
Ellaine TashMurkon CBC Interstellar The Unseen Company	Posted - 2008.01.22 16:44:00 - [12] AFK cloaking DOES serve other purposes - putting kids to bed, making dinner, recieving phonecalls, ordering pizza (...) If You are in a gang fight, and You suddenly have to go AFK, You can; -log off -be reday for that case, go to safespot and cloak. If You log off, You have to ask for fleet and loose chatlogs. So cloaking is better for people who have too much real life :)
Ellaine TashMurkon CBC Interstellar The Unseen Company	Posted - 2008.01.22 16:50:00 - [13] No way of playing that that conforms EULA is wrong. If some tactics are bad for general enjoyment of game (like login traps, blobs, snipers, nanos, cloaks, alts, using local whatever you happen to hate), its CCPs job to rebalance game, not players obligation to play "right". We fight to kill people, so they have one less ship, not to gain ethical advantage over them :)
Marcus TheMartin Gallente Tuxedo.	Posted - 2008.01.22 16:56:00 - [14] Remove cloaked players from local problem solved
Vadimik	Posted - 2008.01.22 17:16:00 - [15] Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon AFK cloaking DOES serve other purposes - putting kids to bed, making dinner, recieving phonecalls, ordering pizza (...) If You are in a gang fight, and You suddenly have to go AFK, You can; -log off -be reday for that case, go to safespot and cloak. If You log off, You have to ask for fleet and loose chatlogs. So cloaking is better for people who have too much real life :) That's not "afk cloaking", that's "turning your cloak on and going afk". "afk cloaking" is when you cloak with the purpose of using your presence in local for something, that's the part they complain about.
Richard Ridddick Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.01.22 21:50:00 - [16] I understand how someone afk while cloaking in a system can put people on high alert. What I don't want is to be out on a scouting op sitting some odd distance from a station and have to warp away every 5-10 minutes to keep from having my cloak 'wear off' and giving away my position. That will make gathering intel a royal pain in the arse and it will make you miss important details that need to be gathered. I don't see how an afk cloaker can affect you, other than making you watch your overview and making sure that you are aligned. If it does then you need some anxiety meds and not fly something that you can't afford to loose.
ViolenTUK Gallente Vindicated Exiles 101010 Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.22 22:46:00 - [17] There is no afk-cloaking problem. Cloaking devices work just fine as they are and donÆt need changing in any way. All arguments for changing cloaking devices generally come from pirates who want risk free pirating knowing that someone who wants to legitimately hide from pirates wont be able to if cloaks are changed. As for sovereignty holders if you have someone who is possibly afk cloaking and he is holding up your operations then all that tells us is you simply donÆt have the resources to hold that system. Nothing else. www.eve-players.com
duckmonster GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.01.23 00:15:00 - [18] I agree, but cloaking nerfs should only apply to ships like Ravens and haulers. These where never designed to be cloaky boats and this needs to be fi Covops and Recons work exactly as designed. -----------
Stevens III ELEMENTS VENOM Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.23 00:33:00 - [19] Easy solution that has nothing do with cloaks. You should log off after being afk for a certain period. Problem solved.
NightF0x Gallente Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.01.23 01:05:00 - [20] Originally by: duckmonster I agree, but cloaking nerfs should only apply to ships like Ravens and haulers. These where never designed to be cloaky boats and this needs to be fi Covops and Recons work exactly as designed. If that were true then they wouldn't have release the non-cov ops cloaks
NightF0x Gallente Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.01.23 01:05:00 - [21] Originally by: Stevens Easy solution that has nothing do with cloaks. You should log off after being afk for a certain period. Problem solved. and who decides if you are gathering intel or afk?
ViolenTUK Gallente Vindicated Exiles 101010 Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.23 01:25:00 - [22] Cloaking devices were designed to work on any ships that will fit them. Covops ships are ships that are designed to give extra benefits whilst using cloaks or specific cloaks. Cloaks can be legitimately used on any ship. A raven or any other ship can gather Intel by watching an area and this may involve long periods will little or no computer peripheral activity. It would be difficult for the devs or anyone participating on this forum to determine who is afk or not. www.eve-players.com
Stevens III ELEMENTS VENOM Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.23 01:33:00 - [23] Originally by: NightF0x Originally by: Stevens Easy solution that has nothing do with cloaks. You should log off after being afk for a certain period. Problem solved. and who decides if you are gathering intel or afk? I don't know about you but I can't just sitting at a screen for a half hour gathering intel. You are probably watching things happen and reporting it back to someone. You maybe move your camera around or move your ship to avoid detection. Doing something would make you be not afk.
Buttford Minmatar Absolute Destruction Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.23 11:07:00 - [24] Ok, heres a thought - how about if you engage your cloak then you are removed from local list but you also loose your view of local as well, local just goes blank. That way if you are at your pc hunting targets you will have to scan and probe for them to even find out if anyone is still in local? Then AFK cloakers no longer cause a big issue and if they want to engae you then they will have to drop cloak to either scan or warp and therefore re-appear in local. Just a thought
joshmorris Silver Snake Enterprise SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.23 11:25:00 - [25] I think cloaks should be nerfed on non-dedicated ships like .. ravens say. How ? Make cloaking devises decease your sig radius NOT make u totally invisible (to teh radar / probes ) obviously still cloaked though. So say improved II gives a 80% reduction in sig radius. Cov ops cloak gives 99%. Then all dedicated cloaking ships get like a extra bonus to make the sig reduction alot more. So basically a raven could have a cloak on but his sig is still quite big .. so he can be probed out and de-cloaked. Whereas dedicated ships can still go afk for hours cloaked but there is a chance for a very skilled prober to find them. So really the game mechanics arnt changed or totally nerfed ... it just adds a risk to cloaking and going afk. But dedicated cloaking ships like stealth bombers and recons arnt effected greatly if they are at there computers. Uber idea solves all !!
Vadimik	Posted - 2008.01.23 12:16:00 - [26] Edited by: Vadimik on 23/01/2008 12:25:30 Originally by: joshmorris I think cloaks should be nerfed on non-dedicated ships like .. ravens say. ... What exactly are you trying to solve ? Cloaking isk farmers ? They will logoff instead. People that cloak to attend real life issues ? Pretty much noone has problems with that. Evil "Afk cloaker" terrorizing poor souls in local when not even atk ? That's the problem of some players relaying on chat tab too much, not the problem of cloak.
ViolenTUK Gallente Vindicated Exiles 101010 Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.23 13:38:00 - [27] Originally by: joshmorris So basically a raven could have a cloak on but his sig is still quite big .. so he can be probed out and de-cloaked. Whereas dedicated ships can still go afk for hours cloaked but there is a chance for a very skilled prober to find them. So really the game mechanics arnt changed or totally nerfed ... it just adds a risk to cloaking and going afk. But dedicated cloaking ships like stealth bombers and recons arnt effected greatly if they are at there computers. This is a contradiction. This does change game mechanics. Ravens or any other non-covert ops ships would be probable whilst cloaked. This would be if they are afk or not. Cloaking devices are should make you totally undetectable no matter what ship you are in. We should not give Pirates their way by making cloaked ships probable. You havenÆt given us a single reason why you should fundamentally change game mechanics to make cloaked ships probable. Cloaking devices were designed to make you totally undetectable by any possible means and it should stay that way. www.eve-players.com
Zarch AlDain The Establishment Establishment	Posted - 2008.01.23 15:29:00 - [28] Actually changing cloaks would be bad for pirates. After all we are the ones who normally end up with 3 people camped in by 30 because we kicked the local alliance a bit too hard. Most ratters log off the second I enter system anyway - they don't bother with cloaks. Zarch AlDain
Xaen Caldari Black Podding	Posted - 2008.01.23 15:59:00 - [29] AFK cloaking is awesome. It adds intrigue, strategy and surprise to the game. Are they really AFK? Are they in a mining ship or a ratting battleship? Or a carrier or some crazy nasty ship? Unless they're in a recon or a covops, they're not going to do anything to you cloaked so quit whining. And if they're not, they're going to have lol-locktime on you so what's the problem? -- Support fixing the EVE UI \| Suggest Jita fixes
joshmorris Silver Snake Enterprise SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.24 06:24:00 - [30] Originally by: ViolenTUK Originally by: joshmorris So basically a raven could have a cloak on but his sig is still quite big .. so he can be probed out and de-cloaked. Whereas dedicated ships can still go afk for hours cloaked but there is a chance for a very skilled prober to find them. So really the game mechanics arnt changed or totally nerfed ... it just adds a risk to cloaking and going afk. But dedicated cloaking ships like stealth bombers and recons arnt effected greatly if they are at there computers. This is a contradiction. This does change game mechanics. Ravens or any other non-covert ops ships would be probable whilst cloaked. This would be if they are afk or not. Cloaking devices are should make you totally undetectable no matter what ship you are in. We should not give Pirates their way by making cloaked ships probable. You havenÆt given us a single reason why you should fundamentally change game mechanics to make cloaked ships probable. Cloaking devices were designed to make you totally undetectable by any possible means and it should stay that way. Yes they would be probable but it would be alot harder to probe them out. cloaking devises were designed ? In all the sci-fi programs i have seen there is always a way for the other guys to find cloaking fluxuations and or a small signature to find the cloaked ship. cloaking is totally invisible to the naked eye and simple scanning but it SHOULDN'T be totally undetectable to launched probes which scan an area thoroughly. The suggestion i made was for the cloaking moduals to make any ship they are on invisible to the naked eye but only reduce part of the ships signature radius. So massive ships like titans cloaked are still easy to find but smaller ships like the stealth bomber wouldnt be as they already have a tiny sig. Recon ships wouldnt be effected hardly as the cov ops cloak would have a very good signature reduction bonus compared to the other cloaks. Cloaks atm are a i-win no loose situation if ur in a SS. If ur scared of evwil piwates go to empire or learn if u stay at ur computer u can easily create safe spots and warp around constantly and never be probed out. Uber idea solves all !!

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.