open All Channels
seplocked Warfare & Tactics
blankseplocked AFK stealth bullying - redesigning the cloak
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 : last (16)

Author Topic

159Pinky
Trans-Solar Works
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2010.07.29 07:51:00 - [361]
 

Originally by: Mackenna

If the cool down on the "pulse device" were longer than the current cloaking reactivation delay, this would not be the case. At worst, the cloaked pilot may have to hit the button one more time (than they do now) while motoring away from a gate camp.

I could support this.



Erm? You're wrong here: once you activate this pulse device the ship uncloaks. If you than have a dedicated locking ship the cov ops will be locked in 1-2 secs tops. This is way faster than you could recloak. So this is the perfect weapon for catching everything at gates.

And the cooldown period = the time between using the activation, so even if it is 10 minutes, you'll still be able to catch that cov ops ship because it has been forced to uncloak for a couple of seconds > time to lock it.

Bomberlocks
Minmatar
CTRL-Q
Posted - 2010.07.29 08:33:00 - [362]
 

If anything, the only problem with CovOps cloaks is the lack of targeting delay, which makes them a bit OP. Give CovOps cloaks a small (5 second) targeting delay and things should be fine.

raukosen
Posted - 2010.07.29 11:30:00 - [363]
 

They do have one. Stealth bombers have a bonus that negates it though

Nivada
Posted - 2010.07.30 08:54:00 - [364]
 

Edited by: Nivada on 30/07/2010 09:07:19
I only read the first like 3 pages. As for ratter's being afraid of the cloakies... seriously grow up, but what's amazed me is that noone mentioned how this affects system security in 0.0. The point of having sov in a system is that it's your system, it's a staging area, and industrial base. For the guy that mentioned German U-Boats as an analogy. How many German U-Boats hung around inside British ports with no concern of being caught? The point is if some guy sits in your home system cloaked he can sit there and scan to his heart's content with no concern for his own safety reporting intel on your fleet movements. They can warn their people about all your movements in your own system and there's absolutly nothing you can do about it.

Also everyone is yelling at the ratter's about "OMG you coward it's 0.0 it's not supposed to be safe, nowhere in EVE in safe!!! QQ." but noone is noticing that the at keyboard player in a system they have sov in is endangered by a cloaked vaga in a safe while the AFK vaga is completely and totally safe for hours at a time in an enemy Alliance's soverignty.... seems like a hypocritical argument to me.

Edited:
Forgot to mention that the cloaked bully has the full initiative in all engagements which is really powerful. Meaning he can decide when to engage and when not to. In EVE this is the most powerful weapon because the only real way to win a battle is to engage when you have more force and avoid action when you're outmatched. The cloaked bully can not only engage when he's sure he has the advantage, but he can actually make it impossible to be engaged. He can go afk and wait, while the defenders have to sit at the station twirling their ships waiting for their ratter's to scream bloody murder. Eventually the defenders will have to leave (or get bored and leave) and then he can pounce. It's kind of rediculous how much of an advantage that gives them just for one high slot and a scan res penalty.

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2010.07.30 09:09:00 - [365]
 

cloakies are supposed to be safe, otherwise the sov holder would be too safe. They are safe enough, except for single victims which die to hotdrops or bomber attacks. This is the way 0.0 is working.

Afk cloaking is fine and required for 0.0 alliances being not too safe and able of sealing their systems against any kind of hostiles, currently cloakers are the only ships able to move there without of being blobbed of camped. This is fine.

Nivada
Posted - 2010.07.30 09:38:00 - [366]
 

Edited by: Nivada on 30/07/2010 09:44:58
I'm not saying it should be easy to find and kill a cloaky, only possible. Staying undetected should require constant vigilance (you are in a hostile system after all) and detecting them should require some luck unless they're AFK. Basically, each attempt to catch them at a probed location should require luck. That way the longer they stay the more likely eventually the probers will get lucky and nab the cloaky. Also it means that scouting a hostile system holds some danger when they're actively looking for you. Basically being able to hop in and terrorize a system or grab some intel for a short time isn't a big deal. But being able to leave a scout in a hostile system indefinatly with no concern for safety at all is a bit excessive. Every moment you're in a hostile system should be harrowing to the scout as he has to dodge hostiles trying to find him. Not a lackadaisical stroll through space while you're semi-afk glancing over looking for a target or new intel. The scout's time in the system will be mostly limited by how long they can maintain their focus and not screw up really.

0ne
Gallente
DEFCON.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.07.30 13:51:00 - [367]
 

Originally by: Nivada
I'm not saying it should be easy to find and kill a cloaky, only possible.


Either way, what you're asking for will make it easy.

So then you'll be able to rat in peace, because lets face it, that's what you're after. ugh

Mackenna
Amarr
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.07.30 14:25:00 - [368]
 

Originally by: 0ne
Originally by: Nivada
I'm not saying it should be easy to find and kill a cloaky, only possible.


Either way, what you're asking for will make it easy.

So then you'll be able to rat in peace, because lets face it, that's what you're after. ugh


This is a tired, baseless, inflammatory, and counterproductive argument. It adds nothing to the discussion.

There are a number of ways to react to an afk cloaker -- if all you really did want to do was rat in peace. You could:

  • Go to another system.

  • Avoid doing it alone.

  • Do it in a Snipe loadout with a typical pvp buffer, so that you're not actually tanking rat damage when they drop on you.


Those three options are easy. This is about wanting to kill the low sp alt who has been living in your sov space for weeks (logging in and out from there, never using a gate), reporting intel and scanning for the unwary in complete safety.


Voith
Posted - 2010.07.31 01:12:00 - [369]
 

Originally by: Robert Caldera
cloakies are supposed to be safe, otherwise the sov holder would be too safe. They are safe enough, except for single victims which die to hotdrops or bomber attacks. This is the way 0.0 is working.

Afk cloaking is fine and required for 0.0 alliances being not too safe and able of sealing their systems against any kind of hostiles, currently cloakers are the only ships able to move there without of being blobbed of camped. This is fine.


You do realize that cloak safety works both ways, right?

Cloaking also makes the ratter safer. Hostile in System? SS + Cloak.

Xorv
Posted - 2010.07.31 03:32:00 - [370]
 

Originally by: Voith

You do realize that cloak safety works both ways, right?

Cloaking also makes the ratter safer. Hostile in System? SS + Cloak.


Yup, which takes us right back to Local Chat. Which needs to be removed.

Difference is the ratter often doesn't need a cloak unless they're flying in someone else's Sov. held systems. They simply warp to a friendly POS. So, yeah it's Local Chat Updates that is making them safe not cloaking, unless we're talking about Ninja Ratters, in which case it's both Local and Cloaks, and for them being able to detect cloaked ships or limiting their use via fuel would make their life much harder than the removal of Local Chat, as they would just get blobbed by the resident sov. holding alliance.

Voith
Posted - 2010.07.31 13:06:00 - [371]
 

Originally by: Xorv
Originally by: Voith

You do realize that cloak safety works both ways, right?

Cloaking also makes the ratter safer. Hostile in System? SS + Cloak.


Yup, which takes us right back to Local Chat. Which needs to be removed.

Difference is the ratter often doesn't need a cloak unless they're flying in someone else's Sov. held systems. They simply warp to a friendly POS. So, yeah it's Local Chat Updates that is making them safe not cloaking, unless we're talking about Ninja Ratters, in which case it's both Local and Cloaks, and for them being able to detect cloaked ships or limiting their use via fuel would make their life much harder than the removal of Local Chat, as they would just get blobbed by the resident sov. holding alliance.


Wormholes.
No Local, no Blobs.
Go there.

Jeneroux
Gallente
Posted - 2010.07.31 13:38:00 - [372]
 

Just make local region wide.

Voith
Posted - 2010.08.01 00:00:00 - [373]
 

Originally by: Jeneroux
Just make local region wide.


Why don't we just remove D Scan since that can give someone warning too....

And the overview, since that can warn someone...

and brackets...

Local, et all are tools. They favor those with the skill and smarts to use them better than other players.

If you want to change local it is because you are a bad player, who wants to remove tools because everyone else is smarter than you.

Xorv
Posted - 2010.08.01 04:38:00 - [374]
 

Originally by: Voith


Local, et all are tools. They favor those with the skill and smarts to use them better than other players.

If you want to change local it is because you are a bad player, who wants to remove tools because everyone else is smarter than you.


Now I'm beginning to think your actually an alt of someone in favor of AFK cloaking and the removal of Local Chat. Surely no one genuinely in favor of keeping Local and nerfing cloaks would come up with statements like yours that make their cause go from looking silly to outright ridiculous.

Be fair Voith, Mackenna's arguments are terrible as it is, the Pro Local anti Cloak posters don't need you bringing their position down to further lows.

Voith
Posted - 2010.08.01 05:31:00 - [375]
 

Edited by: Voith on 01/08/2010 05:32:42
Originally by: Xorv
Originally by: Voith


Local, et all are tools. They favor those with the skill and smarts to use them better than other players.

If you want to change local it is because you are a bad player, who wants to remove tools because everyone else is smarter than you.


Now I'm beginning to think your actually an alt of someone in favor of AFK cloaking and the removal of Local Chat. Surely no one genuinely in favor of keeping Local and nerfing cloaks would come up with statements like yours that make their cause go from looking silly to outright ridiculous.

Be fair Voith, Mackenna's arguments are terrible as it is, the Pro Local anti Cloak posters don't need you bringing their position down to further lows.

Halp Halp! I can't deal with cap ships remove from the game!

Halp halp! I can't deal with ganking, remove it from the game!

Help halp! I can't deal with Indutry, remove it from the game!

Halp halp! I can't deal with local, remove it from the game!

Halp Halp! I can't deal with Lasers, remove them from the game!

Halp halp! I can't deal with drones, remove them from the game!

Quixis
Posted - 2010.08.01 08:39:00 - [376]
 

Originally by: Voith
Halp halp! I can't deal with AFK cloaking, remove it from the game!


Null sec is not for you then.

Rostahl Zeffren
Posted - 2010.08.01 09:18:00 - [377]
 

What about getting local to work different instead of removing it completely? (Personally, I don't mind removing it as living in a wormhole for a little while to keep me on my toes and make the experience a little more exciting.)

What if:
1. Cloaked ships pilot did not appear in local.
2. Cloaked ships pilot could not speak in local while the cloak is active.
3. After a pilot chats in local their ship is prevented from cloaking for 2.5 minutes allowing sufficient time to be possibly scanned down, but still five the pilot a chance to avoid getting scanned out.

What this accomplishes:
1. AFK cloaking pilots no longer terrorize ratters / miners.
2. Cloaked ships become truly cloaked and can get the drop on more ratters / miners.
3. Raises awareness about the true risk involved in operating in space in EVE.
4. Stops the whining about AFK cloaked pilots... hopeful but unlikely.

Im not opposed to making the proposed suggestions for nul sec only.

I'm not totally opposed to having a cycle time on cloaks that reset on (non-gang join/leave related) session changes but only if they were something not less than 60 minutes before this happens. My corpmates and I have waited for sometimes hours to try to get good intel and put us in situations to get a good look at other pilots pods (pods are neat to look at) and usually a cloak is a very large part of this. It would not be beneficial to make it impossible to gather this information in this way.

This keeps the precious local to still view the uncloaked ship spikes and for all of that lovely smack talk.

Any suggestions?

Voith
Posted - 2010.08.01 15:27:00 - [378]
 

Originally by: Quixis
Originally by: Voith
Halp halp! I can't deal with AFK cloaking, remove it from the game!


Null sec is not for you then.


I don't want to remove anything from the game.

I want to add a system where Cloaks can be probed out. Obviously with some heavy restrictions.

That is the difference between a good player and a bad player. A good player wants more complexity because they have confidence that they can out smart or out play others with a more complicated system. Bad players want things remove wholesale because despite their bravado on the forums they know most other players are better than them.

Way to walk right into that one chump.

Thayersu
Posted - 2010.08.01 17:33:00 - [379]
 

Originally by: Voith
I don't want to remove anything from the game.

I want to add a system where Cloaks can be probed out.


Not trying to argue with you but if you can probe out cloaked ships, isn't that effectively removing cloaking? Or at least a large aspect of it?

Don't be afraid to ask to remove anything or admit to it either.

I think that there are many changes that can be made to improve EVE... and I even ask for some of them.

Jeneroux
Gallente
Posted - 2010.08.01 18:32:00 - [380]
 

Originally by: Voith
If you want to change local it is because you are a bad player, who wants to remove tools because everyone else is smarter than you.


By your own logic... this is true.

If you want to change cloaking it is because you are a bad player, who wants to remove tools because everyone else is smarter than you.

Learn to play

Voith
Posted - 2010.08.01 20:56:00 - [381]
 

Originally by: Jeneroux
Originally by: Voith
If you want to change local it is because you are a bad player, who wants to remove tools because everyone else is smarter than you.


By your own logic... this is true.

If you want to change cloaking it is because you are a bad player, who wants to remove tools because everyone else is smarter than you.

Learn to play

Black Is white.
1 is 0.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery
Adding a feature is removing a feature.

Orwell called, he wants his idea back.



Originally by: Thayersu
Originally by: Voith
I don't want to remove anything from the game.

I want to add a system where Cloaks can be probed out.


Not trying to argue with you but if you can probe out cloaked ships, isn't that effectively removing cloaking? Or at least a large aspect of it?

Don't be afraid to ask to remove anything or admit to it either.

I think that there are many changes that can be made to improve EVE... and I even ask for some of them.


Does the presence of defenders remove missiles from the game?

Does the presence of Warp Core stabilizers remove scramblers from the game?

Does the presence of jammers remove targeting from the game?

Does the presence of smartbombs remove drones from the game?

Quixis
Posted - 2010.08.02 10:08:00 - [382]
 

Originally by: Voith
Way to walk right into that one chump.


I and many others have no issue with AFK cloakers, we are the good players. We organise ourselves and prepare. We are not weak minded and hold no fear of people not paying the game. We reduce the chance of being caught out.

Bad players come to the forum, whine about some guy not playing, who stops the use of a whole system they say. They don't adapt, they want to nerf cloaking to gain more kills. They wish to rat alone in pve fit ships and blob any lone player that may dare to enter 'their' space.

Next.

Originally by: Voith
Way to walk right into that one chump.

Voith
Posted - 2010.08.02 15:26:00 - [383]
 

Edited by: Voith on 02/08/2010 15:29:42
Originally by: Quixis
Originally by: Voith
Way to walk right into that one chump.


I and many others have no issue with AFK cloakers, we are the good players. We organise ourselves and prepare. We are not weak minded and hold no fear of people not paying the game. We reduce the chance of being caught out.

Bad players come to the forum, whine about some guy not playing, who stops the use of a whole system they say. They don't adapt, they want to nerf cloaking to gain more kills. They wish to rat alone in pve fit ships and blob any lone player that may dare to enter 'their' space.

Next.

Originally by: Voith
Way to walk right into that one chump.



No, you hold a fear of people playing the game.

You make it seem like a way to probe out a cloaker requiring Cov Ops 5, Astro rangefinding 5 and the target being in the same 1AU area would wreck the game.

As I have stated, at least a dozen times in this thread (try reading nubblet), my problem isn't the effect they have, it is that they have no counter.

Everything in the game should have a counter. If not I want the old doomsday back, and mines, and ewar immune no tracking turrets. And missiles with infinite explosion velocity/radius.

See, throwing things back in people's face only works when you bother to read. But much like you play Eve you're bad and lazy at posting. Always ready to copy someone else and being unable to keep up, not smart enough to try something new because you're bad.

I'm honestly starting to feel guilty, beating you guys is so pathetic I'm starting to feel sorry for you. I can't imagine going through life being so stupid.

Now lets see if you walk into the next one as quickly as you nubblets have walked into the last two.

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2010.08.02 15:50:00 - [384]
 

Originally by: Voith

Everything in the game should have a counter.


this is actually, what the whole discussion about cloak boils down to - this fundamental question splits the eve community into 2 blocks.
One, who thinks everything should have counters and the other which accepts lack of them for some things (cloak is not the only uncounterable mechanic).

Thus, there is no real discussion possible, just 2 different opinions, so stop posting already.

Quixis
Posted - 2010.08.02 18:38:00 - [385]
 

Originally by: Voith
Something about nublets.


I have no fear of people playing the game, you are mistaken, much like your ideas.

The whole concept of cloaking would be diminished with your idea.

  • Want to gain a good warp in spot on the enemy fleet, well no you can't they are probing for it.

  • Want to keep tabs on enemy movements, well no you can't they are probing for it.

Your idea will be the de-facto thing for all alliances, removing many reasons for the whole covert op concept.
Yea, I can see you thought that one through really well, I feel sorry for you.

I read well, I see you failing to play the game well and whining about your failure.
I see your failure to understand the consequences, of the changes you are asking for.
I also see the weak minded fear you have, for people who are apparently by conjecture, not playing.

Next.

Originally by: Voith
Way to walk right into that one chump.

Jeneroux
Gallente
Posted - 2010.08.02 19:27:00 - [386]
 

If everything in the game should have counters, then I want rails on my hulk.

Mackenna
Amarr
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.08.02 21:07:00 - [387]
 

Originally by: Quixis
The whole concept of cloaking would be diminished with your idea.


It wouldn't with mine, unless you consider any possible way to discover the location of a cloaked ship to diminish the whole concept, no matter how many hours it might take; with the huge caveat that all of the effort would be wasted if the cloaked pilot were actually there to see a warning on his/her screen.

Originally by: Quixis

  • Want to gain a good warp in spot on the enemy fleet, well no you can't they are probing for it.




Aside from the fact that most SOV home systems that are well developed already have a cyno jammer (thus preventing you from realistically warping your own fleet in, the probing you fear (under my proposal) can and typically would take hours to return a result. Even if you're just talking about a gang hot-drop.. we're talking hours to find you... and only then if you don't move.

read: I don't want to stop you from using a cloak to set up a hot-drop.

Originally by: Quixis

  • Want to keep tabs on enemy movements, well no you can't they are probing for it.




  • Same as above. Want to stop them from probing you down? Warp to another spot as soon as you get a warning that someone has found your frequency.

    Originally by: Quixis

    Your idea will be the de-facto thing for all alliances, removing many reasons for the whole covert op concept.



    You're responding to voith here. Try considering my proposal.

    Originally by: Quixis

    I read well, I see you failing to play the game well and whining about your failure.



    It makes absolutely no sense to say that someone lacks the skill to counter a tactic that cannot, at present, be countered in any way by the person who isn't cloaked.

    Coming to the forums and presenting ideas for game changes is part of the reason these forums are even here. To equate proposals to nothing more than whining (just because you don't like the idea personally) is a load of ignorant hubris.

    After all, here is an example of you voting your affirmative to a proposal and wanting to also change the way Concord Aggression works:

    Quixis: Concord should ignore me when I help criminals in high-sec.

    By your own definition, you came in to whine because you cannot handle Concord's rules.

    Originally by: Quixis

    I see your failure to understand the consequences, of the changes you are asking for.



    It is just as ignorant to require someone to have every possible consequence (we're talking actual consequences here, not just your opinion) accounted for before they can make a proposal. This is a threaded forum, where we can discuss those consequences and perhaps refine the proposal as they are discovered. It's a wonderful tool when used properly. Conversely, it's a waste of time when the bulk of your contributions consist of various juvenile pejoratives.

    Originally by: Quixis

    I also see the weak minded fear you have, for people who are apparently by conjecture, not playing.

    Next.



    We're not afraid of anyone.. it's a game, FFS. But sure, by your own logic (as applied to your posts) you have a weak-minded fear of Concord.

    Quixis
    Posted - 2010.08.02 22:04:00 - [388]
     

    None of my reply was meant for you, but I'll answer you anyway.

    Originally by: Mackenna
    read: I don't want to stop you from using a cloak to set up a hot-drop.


    I never mentioned hot drops, my point was moving into a spot next to an enemy fleet for your fleet to warp too.
    You do know that fleets can be in the same system at the same time, don't you?

    Originally by: Mackenna
    Originally by: Quixis

  • Want to keep tabs on enemy movements, well no you can't they are probing for it.
  • [/list]



    Same as above. Want to stop them from probing you down? Warp to another spot as soon as you get a warning that someone has found your frequency.


    Again you missed my point. I'm sat in a covert ship watching people come and go from a station, or at a pos or at a gate. With this idea, I'd have to move ALL the time, simply with someone having probes out, yea great balance that.

    Originally by: Mackenna
    Originally by: Quixis

    Your idea will be the de-facto thing for all alliances, removing many reasons for the whole covert op concept.



    You're responding to voith here. Try considering my proposal.

    Actually my whole post was in response to voith, but you can feel special if you want.

    Originally by: Mackenna
    Originally by: Quixis

    I read well, I see you failing to play the game well and whining about your failure.



    It makes absolutely no sense to say that someone lacks the skill to counter a tactic that cannot, at present, be countered in any way by the person who isn't cloaked.

    Coming to the forums and presenting ideas for game changes is part of the reason these forums are even here. To equate proposals to nothing more than whining (just because you don't like the idea personally) is a load of ignorant hubris.

    There are already ways and means to avoid being hit by solo cloakers, it's not my fault you don't use them.

    Originally by: Mackenna
    After all, here is an example of you voting your affirmative to a proposal and wanting to also change the way Concord Aggression works:

    Quixis: Concord should ignore me when I help criminals in high-sec.

    By your own definition, you came in to whine because you cannot handle Concord's rules.

    Could you fail much more? My friends are -10, you know pirates, they live in low sec. I'll be sure to let you know, when concord gives us problems there.

    Originally by: Mackenna
    Originally by: Quixis

    I see your failure to understand the consequences, of the changes you are asking for.



    It is just as ignorant to require someone to have every possible consequence (we're talking actual consequences here, not just your opinion) accounted for before they can make a proposal. This is a threaded forum, where we can discuss those consequences and perhaps refine the proposal as they are discovered. It's a wonderful tool when used properly. Conversely, it's a waste of time when the bulk of your contributions consist of various juvenile pejoratives.

    The fact that you cannot see consequences to bad ideas, make me glad you and your ilk are not devs.
    Juvenile pejoratives lol.

    Originally by: Mackenna
    Originally by: Quixis

    I also see the weak minded fear you have, for people who are apparently by conjecture, not playing.

    Next.



    We're not afraid of anyone.. it's a game, FFS. But sure, by your own logic (as applied to your posts) you have a weak-minded fear of Concord.


    Last I heard, concord neither visits low sec or null sec, I find it strange someone wanting to change the game in such a fundamental way, wouldn't know that.

    This thread is built on the weak minded fear of the AFK pilot, have you not read the title?

    Robert Caldera
    Posted - 2010.08.03 00:35:00 - [389]
     

    Originally by: Mackenna
    By your own definition, you came in to whine because you cannot handle Concord's rules.


    so, following that logic, you must be unable to handle 0.0 rules and come here for a whine about cloaks, right?

    Whats about explaining why afk cloaking is bad and reqiores a nerf at all before making suggestions for fixing whats not broken? I havent seen any yet; "I cant rat because of a cloaker in the same system" is not a valid one.

    Lemmy Kravitz
    Minmatar
    Rebirth.
    Posted - 2010.08.03 03:41:00 - [390]
     

    I haven't read all the posts, not going to. I know they are going to be dumb as rocks and complicated as all hell.

    Simple solution. Make a probe launcher that only destroyers can fit. Make a probe that only that probe launcher can use. that probe can only detect cloaked ships. It will not tell you the type of ship that is cloaked. Only that there is a cloaked ship at the location that you finally probed them down too.

    There are plenty of ways to intercept a cloaked ship at a known entry point if you are any good at the game you can get them most of the time. Where cloaks are broken is the AFK part. With this new probe AFK cloaking is a bad idea, just as AFK sitting at a safe spot is a bad idea. Not only that, by implementing my idea we give destroyers another useful thing for them to do.


    Pages: first : previous : ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 : last (16)

    This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


     


    The new forums are live

    Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

    These forums are archived and read-only