EVE Search - Regarding cloaking ships

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Regarding cloaking ships

» 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)
Jesum Amarr Warmongers	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:02:00 - [1] Is there a way to find cloaked ships without brute forcing? ùùùùùùùù Jesum, CEO of Warmongers: Guns for hire.
Angel DeMorphis Gallente	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:04:00 - [2] There is no way to locate a cloaked ship without something coming within 2,000 m of said ship. My sig taken from this site. [IMAGE REMOVED]
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:07:00 - [3] Originally by: Jesum Is there a way to find cloaked ships without brute forcing? Have you tried yelling: "Marco!" ?
RedMajere	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:14:00 - [4] Polo!
Pans Exual	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:18:00 - [5] I still think they ought to allow smartbombs to decloak ships.
Angel DeMorphis Gallente	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:20:00 - [6] Originally by: Pans Exual I still think they ought to allow smartbombs to decloak ships. /me ponders. Hmm... they don't? I think you have a good point. My sig taken from this site. [IMAGE REMOVED]
Pans Exual	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:23:00 - [7] No, they don't, unfortunately. I maintain that they should, though.
Jesum Amarr Warmongers	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:25:00 - [8] Didn't the devs post something about allowing cloaked ships to be scanned out? What happened in that discussion, if it was ever discussed that is. ùùùùùùùù Jesum, CEO of Warmongers: Guns for hire.
Pans Exual	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:25:00 - [9] It got decided against.
Jesum Amarr Warmongers	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:28:00 - [10] Originally by: Pans Exual It got decided against. On what grounds? ùùùùùùùù Jesum, CEO of Warmongers: Guns for hire.

Pans Exual	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:30:00 - [11] On the grounds that it goes against the whole point of having a cloak. A compromise was suggested, stating that normal and improved cloak users could be probed, while covert ops cloak users could not... but that also got decided against.
Jesum Amarr Warmongers	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:31:00 - [12] I see. Thanks for the replies. ùùùùùùùù Jesum, CEO of Warmongers: Guns for hire.
Call'Da Poleece	Posted - 2008.01.30 22:02:00 - [13] Originally by: Pans Exual On the grounds that it goes against the whole point of having a cloak. A compromise was suggested, stating that normal and improved cloak users could be probed, while covert ops cloak users could not... but that also got decided against. Who did the deciding? was it the usual whorum infested thread where the afkers ganged up on the people talking sense and CCP employees kept well clear? You can attract them by simply saying "nerf" it doesnt matter what you say after that, they spam the hell out of the thread in an attempt to get it locked..... Yes, its a rant.
Pans Exual	Posted - 2008.01.30 22:05:00 - [14] I dunno... ccp discussed it, the forums went back and forth for weeks, and then it was never heard of again.
Pride NL Slacker Industries	Posted - 2008.01.30 22:06:00 - [15] I once read that they where planning decloaking 'smart' 'bombs'. Dunno where that idea went. Should be a specialised ship to be able to decloak ships. Arrive. Raise Hell. Leave.
Surfin's PlunderBunny Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2008.01.30 22:07:00 - [16] finding cloaked ships at a gate is easy (If it's a ship not meant to cloak). The cloak slows down the ship to near 0 and a good gatecamper uses the overview. Select them in the 2 seconds they're visible and hit approach... if you have a MWD you can hit their position in a few seconds and then they're yours and you can find out what they're trying to hard to protect (I nmy last case it was about 750K oxygen isotopes). Granted there have been a few cases where I was too slow and they got away, but the tactic is sound Originally by: Sharupak When you go to vote, you are voting on whether you want to bend over or get on your knees.
Pans Exual	Posted - 2008.01.30 22:10:00 - [17] Yep. I think the whole finding cloaked ships thing was mostly about afk cloaking lurkers.
Hannobaal Gallente Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.01.30 22:11:00 - [18] Originally by: Pride NL I once read that they where planning decloaking 'smart' 'bombs'. Dunno where that idea went. Should be a specialised ship to be able to decloak ships. Yeah, let's make it absolutely impossible for a cloaking ship to get through gate camps, thus rendering them virtually useless. Great idea.
Vadimik	Posted - 2008.01.30 22:25:00 - [19] Originally by: Pans Exual Yep. I think the whole finding cloaked ships thing was mostly about afk cloaking lurkers. And since all "problems" with "afk cloakers" directly result from players abusing local in a way it was never intended to be used, it was logically ruled out that all problems with "afk cloakers" only exist because some people decided that their metagaming tactic should for some reason be reliable. Thus, "afk cloakes" we deemed a non-issue and left to be.
Estephania Independent Political Analysts	Posted - 2008.01.30 22:36:00 - [20] I think that cloaked ships should be visible on scanner and could be probed. This should not apply to ships that are supposed to fit a cloak i.e. cov-ops, recons, black-ops. I think also that as we have a penalty that punishes turret ships if they fit a cloak, similar penalty should apply for missile boats (30% reduction in missile launcher ROF for example). This penalty should also not apply to recons, cov-ops etc.

Marcus TheMartin Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2008.01.30 22:44:00 - [21] As a sneaky pilot I enjoy my cloaking devices so I would prefer that I could not be found by dropping a probe or aoe weapons. What I can tolerate is something that takes a good 5 minutes to scan so I at least have a chance to get away.
Marine HK4861 Caldari Radical Technologies	Posted - 2008.01.30 23:05:00 - [22] Originally by: Estephania I think also that as we have a penalty that punishes turret ships if they fit a cloak, similar penalty should apply for missile boats (30% reduction in missile launcher ROF for example). You want an additional penalty to the scan resolution and speed reduction (and locking delay time on non-stealth bomber ships)? What sort of penalty would you have for cloaking ships with non-hardpoint weapons, like drone boats or weapons like smartbombs?
Orb Lati Minmatar Cold-Fury Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.30 23:19:00 - [23] Ideally what i think should happen is that scanning probing should pick up all ships including cloakers, but cloak decreases accuracy so much that on average you'll be landing 100km away from any cloaked ship, very rarely landing close to them. For detection a mid slot module (or even a custom t2? sensor booster script) with a limited range (say 40-50km) which allows you (and only that person with the module) to see a cloaked ship within range when active (but not target), meaning you still need to get within 2km to decloak your target to engage it. The module would need to be active so that covert cloak ship would need to de-cloak in order to see another cloaked ship. This should allow players to both hunt for cloaked ships/scouts, and give also give cloaked ships a chance to evade the hunters. "We worship Strength because it is through strength that all other values are made possible"
Dr Saitek	Posted - 2008.01.30 23:36:00 - [24] Edited by: Dr Saitek on 30/01/2008 23:38:16 Originally by: Estephania I think that cloaked ships should be visible on scanner and could be probed. This should not apply to ships that are supposed to fit a cloak i.e. cov-ops, recons, black-ops. I think also that as we have a penalty that punishes turret ships if they fit a cloak, similar penalty should apply for missile boats (30% reduction in missile launcher ROF for example). This penalty should also not apply to recons, cov-ops etc. Whoa, Nelly! We thought you were dead! Assuming it wouldn't break things and wouldn't change the current game mechanics, I would suggest requiring each ship to fit a non-covert ops cloaking device appropriate for the ship type (small, medium, large, extra-large aka capital) with the fitting requirements that are roughly the same percentage of the current devices to a standard T1 frigate (to make it fair). But that suggestion has probably shown up in the billions and billions of threads already.
Reem Fairchild Minmatar Military Industrial Research	Posted - 2008.01.31 02:40:00 - [25] Originally by: Estephania This should not apply to ships that are supposed to fit a cloak i.e. cov-ops All ships in Eve that can fit a cloak are "supposed to" fit a cloak if the pilot wants to fit one. With thinking like this, why not just completely do away with the Eve ship fitting system entirely?
Cosmos Serendipity BRAHMA CORP	Posted - 2008.01.31 03:55:00 - [26] Originally I was against being able to find cloaked ships, but now that I've witnessed the afk cloakers for days on end I do agree that something should be done, that won't effect cloaks too much.
Kyra Felann Gallente Noir.	Posted - 2008.01.31 04:00:00 - [27] Originally by: Cosmos Serendipity Originally I was against being able to find cloaked ships, but now that I've witnessed the afk cloakers for days on end I do agree that something should be done, that won't effect cloaks too much. How exactly do people cloaked and AFK affect you in any way?
Reem Fairchild Minmatar Military Industrial Research	Posted - 2008.01.31 04:09:00 - [28] Originally by: Cosmos Serendipity Originally I was against being able to find cloaked ships, but now that I've witnessed the afk cloakers for days on end I do agree that something should be done, that won't effect cloaks too much. If it's unfair to you that they be able to scare you with their presence even while AFK, don't you think it's unfair to them that you are able to even know that they are in the system at all even though they are cloaked?
Kessiaan	Posted - 2008.01.31 04:34:00 - [29] Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny finding cloaked ships at a gate is easy (If it's a ship not meant to cloak). The cloak slows down the ship to near 0 and a good gatecamper uses the overview. Select them in the 2 seconds they're visible and hit approach... if you have a MWD you can hit their position in a few seconds and then they're yours and you can find out what they're trying to hard to protect (I nmy last case it was about 750K oxygen isotopes). Granted there have been a few cases where I was too slow and they got away, but the tactic is sound While this works against people who just jumped through the gate it doesn't do anything to people like me who sit 150kms off a gate and just watch (and report all the comings and goings back to their corp). Unless I said something you'd never even know I was there. The cloak system does seem to have changed though recently. I have to do something (such as change direction) at least once every 15 minutes or so or I get disconnected now. This DC only happens when I'm cloaked (I can sit in a POS or a station forever and not get booted) so I can only assume it's to combat AFK-cloakers. ----- My in Eve Profile My BattleClinic Page
Ursula LeGuinn Versus Gloria Omnis	Posted - 2008.01.31 04:36:00 - [30] People have been *****ing about this for years. The forum was full of it when I first played during Revelations I, and here it still is now. Frankly, it makes me LOL. "Hardcore" nullsec folks should be able to continue their operations, even if their space isn't 100% secure. So there's a cloaked guy in your system? Oh, well. Continue your operations and keep a sharper eye out than usual. People whining about cloaked ships not being detectable reminds me of the carebears whom THEY laugh at for not wanting pirates to steal their salvage or flip their cans. They want to put up their blockades and mine and rat in peace, with no risk and a 100% ability to ensure there may not be any potential cyno field generators in their systems. WAHHHHHHH. Don't grow complacent in the nullsec havens you've made for yourselves. ________________

Reem Fairchild Minmatar Military Industrial Research	Posted - 2008.01.31 05:04:00 - [31] Originally by: Kessiaan While this works against people who just jumped through the gate it doesn't do anything to people like me who sit 150kms off a gate and just watch (and report all the comings and goings back to their corp). Which is exactly how things are supposed to work.
Ho HsienKo Delictum 23216	Posted - 2008.01.31 05:10:00 - [32] Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny finding cloaked ships at a gate is easy (If it's a ship not meant to cloak). The cloak slows down the ship to near 0 and a good gatecamper uses the overview. Select them in the 2 seconds they're visible and hit approach... if you have a MWD you can hit their position in a few seconds and then they're yours and you can find out what they're trying to hard to protect (I nmy last case it was about 750K oxygen isotopes). Granted there have been a few cases where I was too slow and they got away, but the tactic is sound You can do beter than that... if you hit "Orbit" at a nice close range before they cloak... you still travel straight to them after they cloak and start orbiting them. Of course they usually go pop before you do one revolution because you break their cloak soon as you get to 2K
Cosmos Serendipity BRAHMA CORP	Posted - 2008.01.31 06:54:00 - [33] Edited by: Cosmos Serendipity on 31/01/2008 06:55:15 Originally by: Reem Fairchild If it's unfair to you that they be able to scare you with their presence even while AFK, don't you think it's unfair to them that you are able to even know that they are in the system at all even though they are cloaked? Oddly enough I don't remember saying they "Scared me" but for some reason you make the assumption. ] Originally by: Cosmos Serendipity Originally I was against being able to find cloaked ships, but now that I've witnessed the afk cloakers for days on end I do agree that something should be done, that won't effect cloaks too much. Nope didn't mention "Scared" any place....try again. Seems I also think that if they do anything about claoks, that they don't over do it
Ursula LeGuinn Versus Gloria Omnis	Posted - 2008.01.31 07:03:00 - [34] Originally by: Cosmos Serendipity Nope didn't mention "Scared" any place....try again. Perhaps not "scared", but everyone knows why people whine about AFK cloakers. You can't scan them out, so you don't necessarily know what kind of ship they're in. Could be anything, but even if it's "just" a CovOps frigate, they might have a cyno field generator equipped. I'm not sure why people think they should have the God-given right to find people simply because they want to. I'm not sure why people think they have the God-given right to be 100% safe and secure. Some things are simply impossible in EVE. Finding and killing a cloaked ship in a safespot is one of those things. ________________
Duke Val'Doom The Watchers Society	Posted - 2008.01.31 07:36:00 - [35] Edited by: Duke Val''Doom on 31/01/2008 07:36:19 _____________________________________________ I Survived Bootini and all they gave me was this stupid forum post
Cosmos Serendipity BRAHMA CORP	Posted - 2008.01.31 07:39:00 - [36] Originally by: Ursula LeGuinn Perhaps not "scared", but everyone knows why people whine about AFK cloakers. You can't scan them out, so you don't necessarily know what kind of ship they're in. Could be anything, but even if it's "just" a CovOps frigate, they might have a cyno field generator equipped. I'm not sure why people think they should have the God-given right to find people simply because they want to. I'm not sure why people think they have the God-given right to be 100% safe and secure. Some things are simply impossible in EVE. Finding and killing a cloaked ship in a safespot is one of those things. Wasn't whining..as you put it. I like flying around cloaked as much as the next person, but as you said.... Originally by: Ursula LeGuinn I'm not sure why people think they have the God-given right to be 100% safe and secure. Don't you think it should work both ways?
Paulo Damarr	Posted - 2008.01.31 07:51:00 - [37] Here we go with the ships that "are not meant to be cloaked" argument, please provide one scratch of evidence that certain ships are not supposed to able to use cloaking devices. Because a limited few ships have bonuses that enhance the cloaks abilities or allow the use of a special cloaking device does not mean that other ships are "not supposed to use them" In fact by this shaky logic most of the ships in EVE are not supposed to fit most of the modules in the game. Indeed the Megathron shouldn't be able to use MWD only the Thorax can and the Raven shouldn't be able to Shield mods because they don't have bonuses for those modules? you could create such a list for every ship in the game but it would be as nearly as stupid as claiming that cloaks are not supposed to fitted to non bonused ships. Fail logic is fail.
elorran Minmatar Department of Defence Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.31 10:02:00 - [38] Edited by: elorran on 31/01/2008 10:02:49 Originally by: Ho HsienKo You can do beter than that... if you hit "Orbit" at a nice close range before they cloak... you still travel straight to them after they cloak and start orbiting them. Of course they usually go pop before you do one revolution because you break their cloak soon as you get to 2K That would come under exploits probably. If you can move to their decloaking proximity its one thing, but using a set approach that will never miss is quite another (one that should be fixed if true). On a separate note, I do think there should be some way to detect cloaked ships. Though any method employed should be balanced and carefully thought out before being deployed in game. I like my covert ops and recons, but admittedly there are times when cloaking is to powerful a mechanic (especially some of the more conventional cloaks). - - Department of Defence - Hydra Alliance
Gorefacer Caldari Resurrection	Posted - 2008.01.31 10:09:00 - [39] Originally by: Ursula LeGuinn Originally by: Cosmos Serendipity Nope didn't mention "Scared" any place....try again. Perhaps not "scared", but everyone knows why people whine about AFK cloakers. You can't scan them out, so you don't necessarily know what kind of ship they're in. Could be anything, but even if it's "just" a CovOps frigate, they might have a cyno field generator equipped. I'm not sure why people think they should have the God-given right to find people simply because they want to. I'm not sure why people think they have the God-given right to be 100% safe and secure. Some things are simply impossible in EVE. Finding and killing a cloaked ship in a safespot is one of those things. Not only does your argument project the sense that anyone is "afraid" (ridiculous concept in video game I might add) but you also seem to avoid the issue altogether. It's NOT about being safe all the time, it's also NOT about "people thinking they should have the God-given right to find people simply because they want to". It's the fact that these ships have a negative effect on system operations (whether you take extra precautions or not) that can be accomplished while AFK. Cloaking to interrupt operation in a system or creating targets of opportunity is a great strategy. I look down on this going on AFK for the same reason I look down on AFK mining. The main disparity between the 2 that I see, is that one isn't supported by game mechanics and must use scripting/macros to circumvent this, and one is currently supported by game mechanics. Reasonable work arounds that have been suggested of which I feel any would work are: - While cloaked every X minutes a refresh button must be pressed or you logout/decloak - After X minutes AFK ship dissapears from local but reappears as soon as any function is activated in game - Cloaking requires X type + amount of fuel etc. All of these ideas make AFK cloaking more difficult / impossible while not changing the way cloaks work (or changing their effectiveness). Some think that creating target of opportunity or reducing enemy systems PVE effectiveness while AFK is perfectly fine. I don't agree, at this point it's just a matter of opinion. Theoretically speaking for the sake of the argument of course. It's not a huge issue in my mind and wouldn't be upset if they changed/fixed other things first. Also, because I've seen this same topic a few times before, I'm sure someone will respond with the "how can you tell if they are AFK or not" argument. If you make the game mechanics behave in such a way, that AFK cloakers can't exist, it makes that argument a moot point. So it's really a non-argument against implementing any of the ideas listed above (or others). Hopefully this better defines what the issues with AFK cloaking are so that we don't have to hear all the "your just like empire noobs", "you don't know if he's AFK", "Haha your scared of someone that isn't there", "If he's AFK he can't DO anything to you", "0.0 shouldn't be safe" etc. posts that don't really apply to the discussion at all. Another "solution" could be to remove local altogether. This is an entirely different discussion though. My post applies to current EVE with local the way it is now. Removing local could be good or bad for the game depending on how it would be implemented, I can't judge what exactly would be needed to be added to make it work so I won't comment on it. "You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus
Cosmos Serendipity BRAHMA CORP	Posted - 2008.01.31 10:49:00 - [40] They could also have a log out timer that works with cloaks where it measures time between mouse movements and/or key strokes, I've seen it work in other games, but have no idea how the programming works.

Misanth The Graduates Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.01.31 10:59:00 - [41] Originally by: Call'Da Poleece Originally by: Pans Exual On the grounds that it goes against the whole point of having a cloak. A compromise was suggested, stating that normal and improved cloak users could be probed, while covert ops cloak users could not... but that also got decided against. Who did the deciding? was it the usual whorum infested thread where the afkers ganged up on the people talking sense and CCP employees kept well clear? You can attract them by simply saying "nerf" it doesnt matter what you say after that, they spam the hell out of the thread in an attempt to get it locked..... Yes, its a rant. I'm too lazy to dig up the thread now, but it went this way: Alot of people whined about cloaks, eventually CCP decided to make it possible to probe cloaked people out. Can't recall seeing CCP post about the 'compromise', but I remember a statement where it was supposed to be 'easier' to scan those with the prototype/improved cloaks. A while later CCP announced that it was being tested on test server, but that it was too buggy and messed with other programming so they decided to just drop it. Some of the posts from CCP were made in threads like this one in the general forums, some in the testserver section, if I recall right.
Cheap Dude	Posted - 2008.01.31 11:02:00 - [42] Cloaks need to be undetectable.. I mean... I can't risk being discovered when I am off to get some foods or drinks :D
Reem Fairchild Minmatar Military Industrial Research	Posted - 2008.01.31 11:06:00 - [43] Edited by: Reem Fairchild on 31/01/2008 11:06:12 Originally by: Cosmos Serendipity Edited by: Cosmos Serendipity on 31/01/2008 06:55:15 Originally by: Reem Fairchild If it's unfair to you that they be able to scare you with their presence even while AFK, don't you think it's unfair to them that you are able to even know that they are in the system at all even though they are cloaked? Oddly enough I don't remember saying they "Scared me" but for some reason you make the assumption. ] Originally by: Cosmos Serendipity Originally I was against being able to find cloaked ships, but now that I've witnessed the afk cloakers for days on end I do agree that something should be done, that won't effect cloaks too much. Nope didn't mention "Scared" any place....try again. Seems I also think that if they do anything about claoks, that they don't over do it You're not afraid of being attacked because there is a person in your system cloaked and possibly/but maybe not afk. Fine. Then what exactly is the problem?
Cosmos Serendipity BRAHMA CORP	Posted - 2008.01.31 11:43:00 - [44] Originally by: Reem Fairchild If it's unfair to you that they be able to scare you with their presence even while AFK, don't you think it's unfair to them that you are able to even know that they are in the system at all even though they are cloaked? Originally by: Reem Fairchild You're not afraid of being attacked because there is a person in your system cloaked and possibly/but maybe not afk. Fine. Then what exactly is the problem? You seemed to miss several posts above.....but will show you where to start... Originally by: Cosmos_Serendipity Wasn't whining..as you put it. I like flying around cloaked as much as the next person, but as you said.... Originally by: Ursula LeGuinn I'm not sure why people think they have the God-given right to be 100% safe and secure. Don't you think it should work both ways? TBH I could go either way on this subject, but I think there is a legitimate complaint about some people abusing cloaks. If there isn't a good way of dealing with it, then I say leave it as it is, I don't want to see cloaking nerfed to hell and back, but I also hate seeing people abusing a game mechanic just because they can. AFK cloaking wasn't intended, here is a quote to back that up.... Originally by: GM Panzer 1. Dont play the game in AFK mode. This game is not designed with this kind of playing style in mind and you should NEVER consider your ship and character safe while being away from your computer. GM Panzer You can argue your point all day long, but for someone to be cloaked 23-7 weeks and even months at a time, they are playing afk alot of that time, which, clearly by this quote, shows that it isn't an intended.
Vadimik	Posted - 2008.01.31 11:49:00 - [45] Edited by: Vadimik on 31/01/2008 11:50:25 sigh I said it once, I'll keep saying it until every single cloak whiner learns it by heart. The only, The only, The only reason why you know there is someone cloaked is cause you used local chat is intelligence tool. Local chat was never supposed to be used this way. It's metagaming. Now, the irony: "afk cloakers" just counter-metagame and spoil your "perfectly good" local. That's it. All that afk cloaker does is foil your metagaming tactic. Afk cloaking has no implication outside of players who rely on local is the main intelligence tool. Thus, it's a non-issue, since you choose to use local as a intelligence tool at your own peril.
Reem Fairchild Minmatar Military Industrial Research	Posted - 2008.01.31 11:57:00 - [46] Edited by: Reem Fairchild on 31/01/2008 11:57:47 Originally by: Cosmos Serendipity You seemed to miss several posts above.....but will show you where to start... Originally by: Cosmos_Serendipity I also hate seeing people abusing a game mechanic just because they can. AFK cloaking wasn't intended, here is a quote to back that up.... Originally by: GM Panzer 1. Dont play the game in AFK mode. This game is not designed with this kind of playing style in mind and you should NEVER consider your ship and character safe while being away from your computer. GM Panzer You can argue your point all day long, but for someone to be cloaked 23-7 weeks and even months at a time, they are playing afk alot of that time, which, clearly by this quote, shows that it isn't an intended. If you seriously believe that that quote is to be taken completely literally and applying to all forms of play, then I await your posts about the evil of players "abusing" game mechanics by going afk while docked and being 100% safe. The truth of the matter is that as far as anyone in a particular system is concerned, the one and only difference between a person who is cloaked and afk in the system and a person who is logged out in the system is that you can see the former in local chat. So, maybe you should ask yourself if it's right that you abuse game mechanics by using local as a recon tool when it was never intended to be one?
Cosmos Serendipity BRAHMA CORP	Posted - 2008.01.31 12:17:00 - [47] Edited by: Cosmos Serendipity on 31/01/2008 12:17:57 Originally by: Reem Fairchild If you seriously believe that that quote is to be taken completely literally and applying to all forms of play, then I await your posts about the evil of players "abusing" game mechanics by going afk while docked and being 100% safe. The truth of the matter is that as far as anyone in a particular system is concerned, the one and only difference between a person who is cloaked and afk in the system and a person who is logged out in the system is that you can see the former in local chat. So, maybe you should ask yourself if it's right that you abuse game mechanics by using local as a recon tool when it was never intended to be one? If they log me out while I'm sitting afk in a station, no big deal, might just cut back on the lag in some of these systems if they do that.
Reem Fairchild Minmatar Military Industrial Research	Posted - 2008.01.31 12:34:00 - [48] Originally by: Cosmos Serendipity Edited by: Cosmos Serendipity on 31/01/2008 12:17:57 Originally by: Reem Fairchild If you seriously believe that that quote is to be taken completely literally and applying to all forms of play, then I await your posts about the evil of players "abusing" game mechanics by going afk while docked and being 100% safe. The truth of the matter is that as far as anyone in a particular system is concerned, the one and only difference between a person who is cloaked and afk in the system and a person who is logged out in the system is that you can see the former in local chat. So, maybe you should ask yourself if it's right that you abuse game mechanics by using local as a recon tool when it was never intended to be one? If they log me out while I'm sitting afk in a station, no big deal, might just cut back on the lag in some of these systems if they do that. Remove local as a recon tool and pretty much the exact same can be said about someone being cloaked and afk somewhere. That is, it won't matter in the least if he is disconnected.
Duke Val'Doom The Watchers Society	Posted - 2008.01.31 12:38:00 - [49] Originally by: Reem Fairchild Remove local as a recon tool and pretty much the exact same can be said about someone being cloaked and afk somewhere. That is, it won't matter in the least if he is disconnected. I don't think it would hurt anything if they removed local all together, it's only used for spamming purposes anyways. Even the "macro hunters" don't bother to try to talk to you any more before they try to gank you. _____________________________________________ I Survived Bootini and all they gave me was this stupid forum post
Cosmos Serendipity BRAHMA CORP	Posted - 2008.01.31 12:44:00 - [50] Originally by: Duke Val'Doom I don't think it would hurt anything if they removed local all together, it's only used for spamming purposes anyways. Even the "macro hunters" don't bother to try to talk to you any more before they try to gank you. That and smack talk. /signed

Hori To NorCorp Security	Posted - 2008.01.31 12:45:00 - [51] Originally by: elorran Edited by: elorran on 31/01/2008 10:02:49 Originally by: Ho HsienKo You can do beter than that... if you hit "Orbit" at a nice close range before they cloak... you still travel straight to them after they cloak and start orbiting them. Of course they usually go pop before you do one revolution because you break their cloak soon as you get to 2K That would come under exploits probably. If you can move to their decloaking proximity its one thing, but using a set approach that will never miss is quite another (one that should be fixed if true). Maybe, but then again, if I choose to hit orbit, and the person I want orbit wants to hit his cloak, it's sorta not my fault, and should not be an exploit in the usual sense of the word (petitionable). It should be fixed though. AFK cloakers can be fixed by removing local, but that's another can of worms right there :)
SiJira	Posted - 2008.02.02 15:20:00 - [52] Originally by: Duke Val'Doom Originally by: Reem Fairchild Remove local as a recon tool and pretty much the exact same can be said about someone being cloaked and afk somewhere. That is, it won't matter in the least if he is disconnected. I don't think it would hurt anything if they removed local all together, it's only used for spamming purposes anyways. Even the "macro hunters" don't bother to try to talk to you any more before they try to gank you. local is the only reason people even whine about cloaks Trashed sig, Shark was here


Pages: 1 2 :: [one 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.