open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked A simple yet elegant fix to afk cloaking
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6

Author Topic

darius mclever
Posted - 2010.07.20 15:32:00 - [121]
 

Originally by: Abuta Beki
I had a similar idea and I think the concept is not bad. It is a bit one sided, though.

I'd refine it like this:

Make a POS module that works in a similar way as described in the OP.

Make a module which only capital ships can fit. Carriers, Dreadnaughts, Rorquals, Titans. Said module can only be used while the ship is in siege/deployed mode. When it is activated, it disrupts cloaks for all ships on the same grid. The module runs one cycle, then it deactivates with a few minutes cooldown. While it is running, re-cloaking is not possible on the same grid.

This would not only have the advantage of allowing corp and alliance fleets to actively hunt cloakers, but it would also give cloakers that are not afk a reasonable chance to completely evade it. Since it only affects cloakers on grid, searching a system requires a resonable fleet doing it. Since it is a ship module, it can be used both offensively and defensively and since it requires the ship employing it to go into siege mode, it also carries a risk for the user, as he will not be able to quickly move away after using it.

This mobile module version would not be useful against cloakers sitting on a safespot. Yet cloakers on safespots are much less dangerous than cloakers who have visual of their target. It would be of mixed usefulness against different kinds of cloakers. Fleets could use it as a defense measure against bombers, yet it would only work if it was used en masse, or if the enemy bombers act slow and clumsy. Swiftly conducted bombing runs and perceptive recons would be reasonably safe.

For the POS module version, I would suggest not having it just decloak everything once for a few seconds. Make it one minute during which no cloaking whatsoever is possible in the system, but give the module a cooldown of several hours. That way alliances could conduct hunting seasons on cloakers, but the cloakers could still evade by constantly warping from one safespot to another for a reasonable amount of time. So active cloakers that know what they are doing are still able to operate, while afk cloakers, clumsy cloakers or overly bold cloakers may be found and destroyed.


the ship module sounds reasonable. the pos module doesnt.

Daenosa
Ghost Festival
Posted - 2010.07.20 15:36:00 - [122]
 

I love these threads, value comedy

AFK cloakers are out to get me!!!!
Well if hes AFK he cant move or shoot or even look at the screen.

They come back and drop a cyno on me and i die!
Well they aint AFK then.

But they spend all day AFK and only come back for 2 mins to drop cap ships on me!!
So a fleet of people are dumb enough to spend all day waiting around for 1 kill?



Besides you cant stop a determined cyno alt.
He comes into your system, logs out.
Logs on, checks the situation, logs out.
Logs on and repeats.
Finally finds a group of you and then he drops the cyno.

The defence to that? nothing.


CCP should remove local just to stop threads like these

taque
Posted - 2010.07.20 15:50:00 - [123]
 

Quote:
You seem to be confusing an active cloaker, with an afk cloaker.


we need to get rid of the whole 'afk-cloaker'-concept. its a ridiculous term
there is no such mechanism as forcing players to play the game and not to go afk because they are in a cloaked ship.

the reason this topic was started is to encounter the problem of cloakers that are camping in null sec systems. the topic starter introduced a new module that is able to 'decloak' all cloaked ships for a 30 seconds untill that player activates his/her cloak device again so you filter out who is afk and who is not.

in short it is just that. its the only thing you would like to know. forcing players to react on what you do with this module.

but will it stop players to camp? they usually pick on weak players that make themself an easy target.


























Black Dranzer
Caldari
Posted - 2010.07.20 15:52:00 - [124]
 

Okay, so I've read the whole thread.

Let me start by saying that I would absolutely love to see local removed, and I'm the kind of guy who flies cloaked ships. I dislike the way that local gives me away, and I also dislike the way that I can't tell the difference between a target I can hunt and a target I can't. Flying through nullsec should give me the same feeling as wandering through the woods alone at night. Local is a big glowing sign that says "HERE THERE BE DRAGONS". Ruins the feel for me. Just sayin'.

Secondly, I understand the theory that cloaked AFKers can be threatening (even if they aren't a threat), but here's what it comes down to:

It's nullsec.

It's the badlands, it's the isolated wastelands, it's where no man goes for fear of encountering wandering pirates, oh but it's really kind of scary and I just want to be able to pew pew these NPC rats in peace please uguuuu~ ;_;

Man, screw that. If you're ratting alone in nullsec, you should be scared. At all times. If you're not sitting there going "oh **** oh **** there could be cloakers all around me oh god I bet there's like fifty dudes waiting off the scanner waiting to molest me oh christ" then you are doing it wrong.

Daenosa
Ghost Festival
Posted - 2010.07.20 15:56:00 - [125]
 

Originally by: taque
Quote:
You seem to be confusing an active cloaker, with an afk cloaker.




A person choses to pay his subscription and sit cloaked 24/7 and do nothing apart from an odd 2 minutes and that's wrong?

If he is there all the time then warping between a load of safespots would give the same troubles a cloaked ship would.

taque
Posted - 2010.07.20 16:24:00 - [126]
 

well, im not against this module. infact i embrace a good improvement that adds something good to the gameplay.

its just that those reasons. this module will not prevent gatecamping nor it will prevent from being invaded by a group of black ops f.e.

i like the latest post about the implemention of this module though.

Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2010.07.20 16:32:00 - [127]
 

Originally by: taque
Quote:
You seem to be confusing an active cloaker, with an afk cloaker.


we need to get rid of the whole 'afk-cloaker'-concept. its a ridiculous term
there is no such mechanism as forcing players to play the game and not to go afk because they are in a cloaked ship.

the reason this topic was started is to encounter the problem of cloakers that are camping in null sec systems. the topic starter introduced a new module that is able to 'decloak' all cloaked ships for a 30 seconds untill that player activates his/her cloak device again so you filter out who is afk and who is not.

in short it is just that. its the only thing you would like to know. forcing players to react on what you do with this module.

but will it stop players to camp? they usually pick on weak players that make themself an easy target.

I'm guessing you first language isn't English, it was hard to decipher your post.

He was mixing an afk situation, with a non afk situation.
Cloakers don't bother me either afk or not, but lets face it, saying someone cloaked is afk is pure conjecture.

This idea is just another in the line of bad ideas. To placate the weak minded 0.0 dwellers and give them something that they don't actually need.
I could tell them what they need, but they seem to be paralysed with fear and unable to move.

This idea is bad for all cloakers, whether you assume they are afk or not.

Nephilius
Caldari
Pillage and Plunder Salvage Co.
Posted - 2010.07.20 18:36:00 - [128]
 

Originally by: Party Scout
Are you a fortune cookie? Do you know that what you just said is completely pointless? Saying an unmanned cloaked ship is no threat is like saying an unmanned titan is no threat. It's perfectly true, but completely useless information unless you know if it is manned or not.

A cloaked ship is a potential threat. At any moment he can move and drop a Cyno.

There is no way to tell if the ship is manned or not, no way to counter it, so the ship is a potential threat as long as he is in the system.


This thread is making my head hurt in ways that no persons head should hurt. Seriously, you might as well be discussing the politics of religion.

I choose this one because it embodies both the spirit and the stupidity of this entire thread. No offense to the poster.

If there is a cloaked ship in your system, you must assume it is a threat whether the person controlling the ship is at the keyboard or not. To do otherwise is to invite disaster...it's called complacence. Stay aligned if possible, keep your head on a swivel and be ready for fight or flight.

What this thread has really boiled down to is personal convenience. These cloakers, AFK or not, impinges on what you believe is your right to mission run or leap and frolic through asteroid fields unmolested. Guess what? YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS ABOVE OR BEYOND ANY OTHER PLAYER. CCP isn't here to wipe your butt and make sure you are totally comfortable. They are not going to boot down other people's doors just to ensure that player is at the computer "playing" the game. they provide a game, and as long as no player is using or abusing a mechanic, it's all fair game. So this whole thread really is nothing more than 5 pages of sniveling because you are consumed by fear. You will lose a ship, you will emorage and you will either get over it or not. But you really better get it through your head that there are millions of other people playing, none of whom are getting their way every step either. Why should someone playing a mindgame (which is just another form of PVP, like it or not) be penalized because you have a little terror poop in your batman funderoos? They shouldn't. Man up.

Jesus f'n Christ in an f'n cartoon, of all the problems with this game, and this is what some people devote their time to?

Black Dranzer
Caldari
Posted - 2010.07.20 19:17:00 - [129]
 

Originally by: Nephilius
But you really better get it through your head that there are millions of other people playing

I agree with pretty much everything you said, but I felt the need to point out that this is actually wrong; There are hundreds of thousands of people playing eve, not millions.

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Posted - 2010.07.20 19:36:00 - [130]
 

Originally by: Nephilius

What this thread has really boiled down to is personal convenience. These cloakers, AFK or not, impinges on what you believe is your right to mission run or leap and frolic through asteroid fields unmolested. Guess what? YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS ABOVE OR BEYOND ANY OTHER PLAYER. ...<snip>...

So this whole thread really is nothing more than 5 pages of sniveling because you are consumed by fear. ... <snip>...

Why should someone playing a mindgame (which is just another form of PVP, like it or not) be penalized because you have a little terror poop in your batman funderoos? They shouldn't. Man up.

Jesus f'n Christ in an f'n cartoon, of all the problems with this game, and this is what some people devote their time to?


*golfclap* Smile

Good sir... you win one free internet.

taque
Posted - 2010.07.20 19:53:00 - [131]
 

Quote:
I'm guessing you first language isn't English, it was hard to decipher your post. He was mixing an afk situation, with a non afk situation. Cloakers don't bother me either afk or not, but lets face it, saying someone cloaked is afk is pure conjecture.


hehe, good guess :)
but i do agree with you for the full 100%

nullsec is dangerous. everyone that you don't know is considered hostile. if you can't life with that then move your ship and business to high sec :) and voila, this whole module won't be needed.

suspisious
Posted - 2010.07.21 07:39:00 - [132]
 

Originally by: Nephilius
Guess what? YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS ABOVE OR BEYOND ANY OTHER PLAYER. CCP isn't here to wipe your butt and make sure you are totally comfortable.

Except cloakers. How come everytime the harsh/hostile argument is used, it is only applied to one side?

Originally by: Nephilius

Jesus f'n Christ in an f'n cartoon, of all the problems with this game, and this is what some people devote their time to?

1. So you admit its a problem?
2. it is a minor problem. But I believe eve is full of em. and lots of small problems do stack up :( . The only thing you can do is fix em one at a time.

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2010.07.21 08:37:00 - [133]
 

Edited by: Robert Caldera on 21/07/2010 08:38:01
Originally by: suspisious

Except cloakers. How come everytime the harsh/hostile argument is used, it is only applied to one side?


*sigh* the same question every page of thread..

The fact you cant force cloakers to fight does not mean they are invulnerable. As they make a move, even if its just jumping through a gate, you can kill him.

Cloakers shoud not be huntable because of http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1353430&page=4#116

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Posted - 2010.07.21 09:48:00 - [134]
 

Edited by: ShahFluffers on 21/07/2010 09:53:46
Originally by: suspisious

Except cloakers. How come everytime the harsh/hostile argument is used, it is only applied to one side?



I've said it before, but I'll say it again; the risk to cloaking ships is in flying the ship itself. Covert-ops, Recons, and Black-ops are "specialty" ships and, unlike HACs, are generally quite weak combat-wise against ships they are not designed to destroy, if even that (aside from E-war, ever wonder why Falcons are always primaried? Here's a hint: they are shield tankers and ECM mods use medium slots).

Taking in their inherent weaknesses in direct combat, there is also the risk of getting into populated enemy systems themselves.
Large bubbles with an interceptor or two orbiting around them are the worst for recons. One MWD pulse isn't going to help Recon ships get completely clear from the bubble and competent Interceptor pilots will usually try to make a run for the cloaking ship's general area to decloak them.

But, if having a dedicated patrol to lock down the gates is too much effort to keep YOUR system safe then you really shouldn't be complaining about baddies hanging around anyways.

Honestly, take a page out of the FW and Wormhole living handbooks; learn to fly defensively and live a life under constant threat.

Q429
Posted - 2010.07.25 03:59:00 - [135]
 

Originally by: Ishina Fel
At no point in my post did I demand a counter to cloaking to be implemented.


Earlier that day...

Originally by: Ishina Fel
I propose a hopefully well-balanced addition to the game, which should effectively counter a cloaked ship whose owner is afk, without actually changing anything about how cloaks work at all, and without impacting those players that actively fly cloaked ships.


whats that?


Originally by: Ishina Fel
which should effectively counter a cloaked ship


Originally by: Ishina Fel
which should effectively counter a cloaked ship


Originally by: Ishina Fel
which should effectively counter a cloaked ship



Rolling Eyes

Mara Rinn
Posted - 2010.07.25 04:38:00 - [136]
 

IMO the risk of cloakers is not that they're scary ghosts, but that they can light a cyno which allows an enemy fleet to arrive on top of you in seconds.

One option is to forget about "decloaking AFK cloakers" and think about adding a time delay to a cyno. Either bigger ships take longer to jump, or a cyno has to be lit longer for bigger ships to lock on to it, or the beacon only becomes visible at the end of the cycle (cycle will of course have to be reduced from 10min to something sensible like 60 seconds).

Mamba Lev
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2010.07.25 09:04:00 - [137]
 

Superb and well thought idea, not overpowered and has a nice balanced feel to it.

Anyone against this with no suggestions or a well thought out argument is likely one of the plebs with and AFK cloaking ALT..

FullNelson Mandella
Posted - 2010.07.26 02:49:00 - [138]
 

Originally by: Mamba Lev
Superb and well thought idea, not overpowered and has a nice balanced feel to it.

Anyone against this with no suggestions or a well thought out argument is likely one of the plebs with and AFK cloaking ALT..


The argument has been made over and over again.

AFK cloakers cannot hurt you. You're just hurting yourself.
Cloakers can be decloaked easily. I personally kill 50 per week.
The proposed solution affects non-AFK cloakers as well.

But it's not really about AFK cloakers, is it? It it were, you would have asked for a module that would give you an indication of whether the toon was afk or not.

LT

Gray Pawn
Posted - 2010.07.26 07:07:00 - [139]
 

Originally by: Ishina Fel
Frankly, while I am firmly of the opinion that EVE would be more fun without the cloaking feature existing at all, I recognize it as a game mechanic, and if people wish to spend their time annoying ratters by sitting around cloaked, then by all means, let them have at it.


You would remove cloaking entirely just for the sake of giving you peace of mind in 0.0 where there's not supposed to be any? Your suggestion is selfish and lazy. It appears that you'd be happier playing a different MMO - one that doesn't subject you to psychological intimidation and material loss among other things.


Ishina Fel
Caldari
Terra Incognita
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2010.07.26 11:31:00 - [140]
 

Edited by: Ishina Fel on 26/07/2010 11:32:06
Originally by: Gray Pawn
You would remove cloaking entirely just for the sake of giving you peace of mind in 0.0 where there's not supposed to be any? Your suggestion is selfish and lazy. It appears that you'd be happier playing a different MMO - one that doesn't subject you to psychological intimidation and material loss among other things.


Nope. I would remove cloaking entirely so that there would be some actual combat once in a while that doesn't involve capital ships and POSes. Cloaking allows total evasion of combat. In EVE, gameplay outside of highsec revolves entirely around player conflict. The mere existence of cloaking devices lowers the amount of pew pew that goes around, simply because every random gang can decide that, nope, we don't feel comfortable engaging without a three to one advantage in numbers, so we'll just cloak up and sneak out with no obligation to defend ourselves.

In my ideal vision of EVE (which is entirely subjective, of course), every ship should be detectable and engagable at any time. I don't mind if there are scout ships that excel at being extremely hard to track down, as long as it is still possible with the right tools.

The only thing more boring than mining in EVE is two cloaked gangs of roughly equal size. At least with mining, you're making some sort of progress, no matter how slowly Laughing

Still, that is entirely irrelevant to the issue and the suggestion presented. Cloaking exists in EVE in many forms, and as a game mechanic is here to stay. Therefore discussing its removal is a pretty moot point, don't you think?

darius mclever
Posted - 2010.07.26 12:07:00 - [141]
 

there is plenty of combat going on that doesnt involve a single capital. maybe you are doing something wrong when your pvp always involves capitals?

the irony is that the cloak is one of the tools to escape those large blobs with capitals. and you want to add a tool that allows the blob to kill the lone wolf.

think outside of the "lets blob everyone who enters our space" box. maybe you get a bit more fun then.

Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2010.07.26 12:32:00 - [142]
 

Originally by: darius mclever
think outside of the "lets blob everyone who enters our space" box. maybe you get a bit more fun then.


Let's face it bud, the cloak whiners will never get it. They want to make isk alone, but blob everything else.
Cloaking stops them doing both and we can't have that now can we.

SemiCharmed
Clans of the Sanctums
Posted - 2010.07.26 13:02:00 - [143]
 

Edited by: SemiCharmed on 26/07/2010 13:03:08

I say CCP make a drone that costs 1 billion isk to make and fly's right to a cloaked ship at 4000kmp/s and detonates, if its a frig class ship and doesn't warp off, its gets destroyed, cruiser upwards, obviously just damaged and de-cloaked until he can re-cloak. if the cloaked ship see's the drone and warps off and there is no other cloaked ship nearby on grid for the next 2min, it self destructs, thus waste of 1 billion isk and its a counter to the counter cloak, everyone's happy, now give me my 1 trillion isk because my idea is the best and most fair.

Sigras
Gallente
Conglomo
Posted - 2010.08.01 23:34:00 - [144]
 

I had an epiphany the other day. . . The problem isn't the cloak, its the cyno!

If it were just one ship then all of the admonitions to "rat in groups" or "rat in pvp ships" would be valid; its the fear that at any point you could have a nyx shoved up your space your 5 man group of ratters who were ratting in groups and in pvp ships get annihilated with no chance of defending themselves.

My solution is to leave cloak the way it is and introduce a T2 tier 2 battlecruiser with a new cyno scrambling module which, when un-scripted prevents cynos from being popped on grid but does nothing to cynos already open and when scripted it prevents ships from jumping through an already open cyno by targeting the ship popping the cyno.

Ofc the un-scripted version of this module would have the same penalties as the warp disruption field generator.

Suggestions? Comments?

Grarr Dexx
Amarr
Kumovi
The G0dfathers
Posted - 2010.08.02 00:09:00 - [145]
 

Have you considered claiming the system and jamming it? Laughing

chopper14
Posted - 2010.08.02 06:05:00 - [146]
 

The local and cloaking is a catch 22. On one side you can see me, therfore as a solo ganker I'm going to have to stalk you and lull you into a false sence of security. Especially in low sec where I can't even use bombs.

I have to figure out which system you prefere because if I pretend to be afk and then follow you from place to place it destroys the illusion.

Finnally, could be a week if your skittish it might be a month. You will finally say " oh he's always here afk ". Your buddys will log and you will continue ratting, mining, sniper gate camping. Doesn't matter. You will be alone and I will get you.


On the otherhand, you remove local or at least cloaked ships from it. I buy a ton of bombs, and pettitions from care bears ensue.

I say pull them from local keep them on d-scan as anomolies.
It would make it possible to run them down.
You would know to clench your cheeks when you ran a 360 at 50km and the anomaly was still there.

T1 cloakers would be screwed jumping in and cloaking on a gate but t2 and 3's would be ok. Unless you found a way to balance it.

As for your idea op I think it's awesome I'd make it expensive to use only usable a couple times a day.

Lemmy Kravitz
Minmatar
Rebirth.
Posted - 2010.08.02 06:57:00 - [147]
 

Simple elegant solution. make a new probe launcher that only destroyers can equip. make new probes that only new probe launcher can equip. probes can probe down cloak. it won't tell you the ship type only that there is a cloaked ship at the probed location.

Gives Dessie pilots something else to do. Makes destroyers more usefull. People can no longer AFK cloak.

Everyone should be afraid of being AFK in space in eve. yeah you can still AFK cloak if you want to. But it's not the smartest thing to do. And if you post on forums. "OMG I came back from AFK and found myself in a pod" people will laugh at you like they usually do.

Arklan1
Dunedain Rangers
Posted - 2010.08.02 11:06:00 - [148]
 

supported. verily.

AtheistOfFail
AoF Lottery Services
Posted - 2010.08.02 20:21:00 - [149]
 

Originally by: Ishina Fel
Whine, Whine, Whine!


Bite me.

Zeredek
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2010.08.02 21:58:00 - [150]
 

Have you tried living in High-sec instead?


Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6

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