open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Enemy Stealth Bombers in a mining system. A becomming curse.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : last (13)

Author Topic

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.10.01 08:16:00 - [211]
 

Originally by: flummox
and the rest of you guys need to stop the Remove Local debate. it's been going on for years. and it's not even a solution for anything but your paranoia. the local channel is generated by the stargate that you use to jump in (kinda assuming this, but). if you want no local channel, then go to W-Space. as long as you are in a system that can have sovereignty, you'll have local.

DEAL !
But only if coming into any system without using a stargate makes me NOT show up in local.
Twisted Evil

NewGit
Caldari
Posted - 2010.10.01 09:28:00 - [212]
 

Originally by: Talaan Stardrifter
This topic is being trolled, but for my final words:
Cloak is a counter to Probes
Cloak can be disabled by proximity (2000m)


I would have to disagree (in part). Yes, a cloak could be considered counter to probes, but "proximity" is not a counter to cloak. You have a better chance of popping a dread with an Ibis than you do of decloaking someone by proximity (for those that are smart enough to sit far enough away to avoid random traffic). The chances of getting a probe within 2.5kms of a cloaked ship, in the trillions of square kms that make up each system ? My bet is on the Ibis.
I regularly set up safe spots that are millions of kms away from anything. If the cloaker sits at one of those spots, what are the chances he will be decloaked by proximity ? I think lag will be a long forgotten nightmare before anyone was able to get within 2.5km of him.
(Yeah, he wouldn't be of much use to his corpies sitting out there, but it does cause havoc for the locals. And if he's bored and decides to actually play that 'toon, he can simply warped cloaked to other safe spots that are more "useful", content in the knowledge that it would be virtually impossible to find him.)

Originally by: Talaan Stardrifter

Active cloak removes all capability of user to interact with the world, including other ships.
(exceptions are pre-fired probes, and d-scan)
Active cloak removes all capability for world to interact with the user, except proximity.


So the cloaker can't scout/spy/(verbally) designate targets and when the time is ripe, drop a covert cyno and hot-drop a few friends in ? (I'll know better about the cyno in 16 days, 23 hours) :-)

We have tried on numerous occasions to track down lone cloakers. Squads of inties, HICs, drones, warp bubbles, FPS "scanning". About the only method that worked was "bait ship".
Some poor sucker out there in a juicy target, hoping the fleet will be able to warp in before the cloaker can cyno his buddies in and pop him. Not always effective as usually the cloaker just cloaks up and disappears again.

(Note: I use cloaky ships a lot. SBs, Cranes, Buzzards. Probably try out some Recons and BO ships soon, maybe in another 16+ days.)

Doddy
Excidium.
Executive Outcomes
Posted - 2010.10.01 10:58:00 - [213]
 

So, instead of having 10 mining accounts could you not have 9 mining accounts and 1 pvp account and not have a problem? Of course it is a lot harder to automate a claw than a hulk isn't it?

Also 50 warrior 2s will murder a stealthbomber quite satisfyingly.

Final point is that the player is quite possibly not afk, but is just waiting and watching. If he is not afk why should he be penalised just for being patient?

Doddy
Excidium.
Executive Outcomes
Posted - 2010.10.01 11:00:00 - [214]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: flummox
and the rest of you guys need to stop the Remove Local debate. it's been going on for years. and it's not even a solution for anything but your paranoia. the local channel is generated by the stargate that you use to jump in (kinda assuming this, but). if you want no local channel, then go to W-Space. as long as you are in a system that can have sovereignty, you'll have local.

DEAL !
But only if coming into any system without using a stargate makes me NOT show up in local.
Twisted Evil



This, by flummox's logic entering a system through cyno, covert cyno or wormhole should not make you show in local, which would be fine by me.

Doddy
Excidium.
Executive Outcomes
Posted - 2010.10.01 11:11:00 - [215]
 

The solution of course is to extend the cycle time of cloaks and remove auto-repeat. If the cloaker has to reactivate the cloak every 5 or 10 mins he isn't afk.

Of course in the interest of fairness the autorepeat function would also be removed from all mining lasers to ensure they aren't afk either.Twisted Evil

MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.10.01 11:54:00 - [216]
 

Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 01/10/2010 11:55:05
Originally by: Doddy
The solution of course is to extend the cycle time of cloaks and remove auto-repeat. If the cloaker has to reactivate the cloak every 5 or 10 mins he isn't afk.

Of course in the interest of fairness the autorepeat function would also be removed from all mining lasers to ensure they aren't afk either.Twisted Evil
This is actually a sensible idea. It gets rid of AFKers from all directions. I like.


heheheh
Phoenix Club
Posted - 2010.10.01 11:57:00 - [217]
 

If your too afk to spot the cyno then thats your fault.

Alara IonStorm
Caldari
Posted - 2010.10.01 12:00:00 - [218]
 

Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
This is actually a sensible idea. It gets rid of AFKers from all directions. I like.


Cept AFK Sentry Domi's!

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.10.01 12:45:00 - [219]
 

Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 01/10/2010 11:55:05
Originally by: Doddy
The solution of course is to extend the cycle time of cloaks and remove auto-repeat. If the cloaker has to reactivate the cloak every 5 or 10 mins he isn't afk.

Of course in the interest of fairness the autorepeat function would also be removed from all mining lasers to ensure they aren't afk either.Twisted Evil
This is actually a sensible idea. It gets rid of AFKers from all directions. I like.




Luckily, it is literally unthinkable that anyone would use some kind of automated device or application to evade this restriction.

Oh wait I just thought of it. Oh well, back to the drawing board. What about this old favourite: CCP should double the rate at which subscribed time is used up when you're cloaked LOL!

MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.10.01 13:02:00 - [220]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Luckily, it is literally unthinkable that anyone would use some kind of automated device or application to evade this restriction.

Oh wait I just thought of it. Oh well, back to the drawing board. What about this old favourite: CCP should double the rate at which subscribed time is used up when you're cloaked LOL!
You realize that there is a difference between AFK play and macro play, dontcha? And that even though this "fix" would do nothing against macroers it could curb AFK play, even if a little bit?


Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.10.01 13:14:00 - [221]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 01/10/2010 13:16:47
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Originally by: Doddy
The solution of course is to extend the cycle time of cloaks and remove auto-repeat. If the cloaker has to reactivate the cloak every 5 or 10 mins he isn't afk.
Of course in the interest of fairness the autorepeat function would also be removed from all mining lasers to ensure they aren't afk either.Twisted Evil
This is actually a sensible idea. It gets rid of AFKers from all directions. I like.

giantdoubletacticalfacepalm.jpg

Yes, it is oh-so-sensible to have to be forced to decloak even for a split second while, say, you're watching a gatecamp, because we all know how friendly everybody seems to be in such a situation.
It's also something nobody would ever think to automate either, because clicking a button when something very specific and easily observed happens.
Oh, indeed, extremely sensible. Why didn't anybody think of that before ?
Rolling Eyes

Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
You realize that there is a difference between AFK play and macro play, dontcha? And that even though this "fix" would do nothing against macroers it could curb AFK play, even if a little bit?

Oh, hey, yeah, SURE, let's make it so that in order to make a valid gameplay style continue working properly without having everybody on edge about that damn automatic deactivation we basically almost BEG all people that use a cloak to start using macros so they won't periodically be caught with their pants down.

MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.10.01 13:41:00 - [222]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Oh, hey, yeah, SURE, let's make it so that in order to make a valid gameplay style continue working properly without having everybody on edge about that damn automatic deactivation we basically almost BEG all people that use a cloak to start using macros so they won't periodically be caught with their pants down.
God forbid cloakers are exposed to any risk. Wouldn't want that PVP flag to force them into PVP without they first consenting to it Rolling Eyes.


Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.10.01 14:15:00 - [223]
 

Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Originally by: Akita T
Oh, hey, yeah, SURE, let's make it so that in order to make a valid gameplay style continue working properly without having everybody on edge about that damn automatic deactivation we basically almost BEG all people that use a cloak to start using macros so they won't periodically be caught with their pants down.
God forbid cloakers are exposed to any risk. Wouldn't want that PVP flag to force them into PVP without they first consenting to it Rolling Eyes.

Yup, yup, hey, while you're at it, why don't we have guns deactivating randomly without running out of ammo, why don't we have all ewar mods (ESPECIALLY warp scramblers) not allow autorepeat either, and how about having to reanchor bubbles every 1 hour or else they stop working ? You know what, just REMOVE the "autorepeat" option altogether, have everybody have to push a button every time anything runs a cycle ! Any more brilliant ideas ?

MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.10.01 14:19:00 - [224]
 

Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 01/10/2010 14:45:30
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Originally by: Akita T
Oh, hey, yeah, SURE, let's make it so that in order to make a valid gameplay style continue working properly without having everybody on edge about that damn automatic deactivation we basically almost BEG all people that use a cloak to start using macros so they won't periodically be caught with their pants down.
God forbid cloakers are exposed to any risk. Wouldn't want that PVP flag to force them into PVP without they first consenting to it Rolling Eyes.

Yup, yup, hey, while you're at it, why don't we have guns deactivating randomly without running out of ammo, why don't we have all ewar mods (ESPECIALLY warp scramblers) not allow autorepeat either, and how about having to reanchor bubbles every 1 hour or else they stop working ? You know what, just REMOVE the "autorepeat" option altogether, have everybody have to push a button every time anything runs a cycle ! Any more brilliant ideas ?
Hey, while you're on your way to Slippery Slope Land what exactly do you have against CCP logging you off automatically after being AFK for 30/60 minutes in space?


Henri Rearden
Gallente
VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD
Black Star Alliance
Posted - 2010.10.01 14:43:00 - [225]
 

Part of the reason this presents is a problem is corp/alliance policy. In an effort to curb lossmails, a lot of corps/alliances make it manditory to safe-up when neuts/reds are in-system. We've had a lot of cloakers (often three at a time) in our primary systems lately, and it gets annoying. I'm not sure that they've actually gotten any kills, but they're fulfilling their role very well. At any rate, my playtime is too short and valuable to run around the system trying to find a safed-up cloaker, and so I usually end up switching to a Thrasher and running low-end anomalies. I log in to actively play and make progress, not to sit and wait as bait for someone who probably won't come or wait in station til somebody gets more bored than I am. That's not fun, that sucks. This is one of the many reasons why I'm seriously looking at Star Wars: The Old Republic as an alternative to EVE when it comes out, I just don't have time for stuff like this.

NOTE: Just for the trolls...I didn't say it should be changed - I said it's not fun. I know it's a valid military tactic and I respect that, as much as I also respect those so learned in modern history that they are able to make comparisons to submarine warfare. That being said, I don't like it and don't want to waste my limited time on it.

Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2010.10.01 14:43:00 - [226]
 

Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
what exactly do you have against CCP logging you off automatically after being AFK for 30/60 minutes?


You do realise I can bypass this real easy and not even break the EULA.

Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
Posted - 2010.10.01 14:45:00 - [227]
 

Omg, the ammount of 0.0 carebear tears in here is huge.

HTFU folks, an SB is no threat if you got any kind of brains.

Jodi Goulsti
No Salvation
War.Pigs.
Posted - 2010.10.01 14:52:00 - [228]
 

Originally by: Henri Rearden
Part of the reason this presents is a problem is corp/alliance policy. In an effort to curb lossmails, a lot of corps/alliances make it manditory to safe-up when neuts/reds are in-system. We've had a lot of cloakers (often three at a time) in our primary systems lately, and it gets annoying.
It sounds like you need a new corp/alliance.

MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.10.01 14:52:00 - [229]
 

Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 01/10/2010 14:59:40
Originally by: Mag's
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
what exactly do you have against CCP logging you off automatically after being AFK for 30/60 minutes?


You do realise I can bypass this real easy and not even break the EULA.
I'm sure this change won't end up curing cancer. I'm not suggesting it will. But it will make it just that much more difficult for lazy AFK cloakers to do it. Yes, some will go the macro route. These are the types of players (the ones usually *****ing about macro miners, by the way Rolling Eyes) to cheat and take the easiest route possible to "collect tears". But it will end up discouraging some as well. It's a start and would help a bit. Another idea would be to automatically decloak them after being AFK for 30-60 minutes. But alas, the tears would prolly deafen the forums.

I'm sure AFK cloakers and their mains will be up in arms about not being able to go AFK for days at a time Rolling Eyes. And they'll complain how CCP is adding risk to them when they feel "all their risk are belong to their prey!11", not themselves. But as they spew, Eve is a game of risk. It's about time they faced some.


Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2010.10.01 14:58:00 - [230]
 

Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Seemingly in a rage and missing my point.

I said it could be bypassed very easily, without breaking the EULA.

MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.10.01 15:00:00 - [231]
 

Originally by: Mag's
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Seemingly in a rage and missing my point.

I said it could be bypassed very easily, without breaking the EULA.
And I said that's fine. It won't discourage EVERYONE to stop doing it. But it will still help a bit.


Marli Khan
Posted - 2010.10.01 15:17:00 - [232]
 

Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 01/10/2010 14:59:40
Originally by: Mag's
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
what exactly do you have against CCP logging you off automatically after being AFK for 30/60 minutes?


You do realise I can bypass this real easy and not even break the EULA.
I'm sure this change won't end up curing cancer. I'm not suggesting it will. But it will make it just that much more difficult for lazy AFK cloakers to do it. Yes, some will go the macro route. These are the types of players (the ones usually *****ing about macro miners, by the way Rolling Eyes) to cheat and take the easiest route possible to "collect tears". But it will end up discouraging some as well. It's a start and would help a bit. Another idea would be to automatically decloak them after being AFK for 30-60 minutes. But alas, the tears would prolly deafen the forums.

I'm sure AFK cloakers and their mains will be up in arms about not being able to go AFK for days at a time Rolling Eyes. And they'll complain how CCP is adding risk to them when they feel "all their risk are belong to their prey!11", not themselves. But as they spew, Eve is a game of risk. It's about time they faced some.



I'm so confused. You're upset because someone who is AFK faces zero risk? You realize that someone who is AFK also poses zero threat, right?

MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.10.01 15:26:00 - [233]
 

Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 01/10/2010 15:31:05
Originally by: Marli Khan
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 01/10/2010 14:59:40
Originally by: Mag's
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
what exactly do you have against CCP logging you off automatically after being AFK for 30/60 minutes?


You do realise I can bypass this real easy and not even break the EULA.
I'm sure this change won't end up curing cancer. I'm not suggesting it will. But it will make it just that much more difficult for lazy AFK cloakers to do it. Yes, some will go the macro route. These are the types of players (the ones usually *****ing about macro miners, by the way Rolling Eyes) to cheat and take the easiest route possible to "collect tears". But it will end up discouraging some as well. It's a start and would help a bit. Another idea would be to automatically decloak them after being AFK for 30-60 minutes. But alas, the tears would prolly deafen the forums.

I'm sure AFK cloakers and their mains will be up in arms about not being able to go AFK for days at a time Rolling Eyes. And they'll complain how CCP is adding risk to them when they feel "all their risk are belong to their prey!11", not themselves. But as they spew, Eve is a game of risk. It's about time they faced some.



I'm so confused. You're upset because someone who is AFK faces zero risk? You realize that someone who is AFK also poses zero threat, right?
You're confused because your definition of an AFK cloaker isn't complete.

An AFK cloaker isn't someone that just cloaks up and goes AFK, end of story. If this were the case there wouldn't be any problem whatsoever. An AFK cloaker is someone that cloaks up, goes AFK with the intention of returning back (1 or 2 days later, sometimes more) to look for miners and ratters that have given up searching for him while he was AFK. He forces everyone else to remain vigilant and with risk (since no one knows when he'll be back from being AFK) while he himself isn't influenced by anything. So an AFK cloaker gets to influence how others play (perfectly legitimate) while he himself isn't influenced by any decision any player makes. THIS is what is questionable gameplay.

By the way, while I agree that miners and ratters should ALWAYS be on their toes while in space that same principle should apply to the AFK cloaker. As it is now an AFK cloaker can go watch a movie, go to sleep, or go to school, while keeping the rest of the system on alert while he himself doesn't need to be AT ALL. THAT isn't balance. That's just one side lulzing while the other side is forced to remain vigilant.


baltec1
Posted - 2010.10.01 15:30:00 - [234]
 

Edited by: baltec1 on 01/10/2010 15:32:04
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Originally by: Akita T
Oh, hey, yeah, SURE, let's make it so that in order to make a valid gameplay style continue working properly without having everybody on edge about that damn automatic deactivation we basically almost BEG all people that use a cloak to start using macros so they won't periodically be caught with their pants down.
God forbid cloakers are exposed to any risk. Wouldn't want that PVP flag to force them into PVP without they first consenting to it Rolling Eyes.




Clearly you have never tried to solo in a bomber. Anything with a dronebay capable of launching 5 light drones is a massive threat to a bomber. Last time I looked, just about every ship in EVE falls into that catagory. The cloak is the only advantage I get while you have insta intel local, buffer, drones and more than likely guns/missiles on top of that as well as whoever else is in local to call in for help.

You have so much going for you there is no way a single bomber should be able to get away with kills. The fact that us bomber pilots do get away with it is simply because of your own incompetence and us taking massive risks.

MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.10.01 15:37:00 - [235]
 

Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 01/10/2010 15:39:55
Originally by: baltec1
Clearly you have never tried to solo in a bomber. Anything with a dronebay capable of launching 5 light drones is a massive threat to a bomber. Last time I looked, just about every ship in EVE falls into that catagory. The cloak is the only advantage I get while you have insta intel local, buffer, drones and more than likely guns/missiles on top of that as well as whoever else is in local to call in for help.

You have so much going for you there is no way a single bomber should be able to get away with kills. The fact that us bomber pilots do get away with it is simply because of your own incompetence and us tanking massive risks.
1. I'm not just talking about lone stealth bombers. If that were the case, yes, I'd agree that their use would be very limited. But it can be a group of 2,3,4, etc, all safed up and AFK wearing down a system.

2. Bombers aren't the only class of cloakers. Other cloakers are quite capable of taking down a better variety of ships. Add 2 or 3 alt cloakers into the mix and yes, they can be quite dangerous, and surprise surprise, with no risk to themselves. Cloakers choose the engagement. They choose where they fight, how they fight, when they fight, etc. It's like a PVP flag... You know the kind... The one PVPers hate because it makes PVP consensual? Wink

3. Covert cynos. I'm not against these. Just sayin' they carry quite the sting in favor of cloakies.


baltec1
Posted - 2010.10.01 15:38:00 - [236]
 

Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
1. I'm not just talking about lone stealth bombers. If that were the case, yes, I'd agree that their use would be very limited. But it can be a group of 2,3,4, etc, all safed up and AFK wearing down a system.

2. Bombers aren't the only class of cloakers. Other cloakers are quite capable of taking down a better variety of ships. Add 2 or 3 alt cloakers into the mix and yes, they can be quite dangerous.

3. Covert cynos. I'm not against these. Just sayin' they carry quite the sting in favor of cloakies.




So set a trap?

AFK Master
AFK Chartered System Management
Posted - 2010.10.01 15:42:00 - [237]
 

So what you're saying is, you've lost the argument and now want to talk about gangs of AFK pilots and cynos.

This all boils down to fear and intelligence. You fear me in local and are not clever enough to use another system.

Feyona
Time Bandits.
Posted - 2010.10.01 15:44:00 - [238]
 

A new take on the old 'afk cloakers' troll... I like it! Laughing

MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.10.01 15:51:00 - [239]
 

Originally by: baltec1
So set a trap?
This only works the for the minutes they decide to actually pay attention to the screen. An AFK cloaker AFK for 2 or 3 days, you don't know when he'll make the attack, but rest assured HE WILL. Do the math. You're forcing players to spend time on a trap for someone that may or may not take the bait. Why should active players at the keyboard PAYING FULL ATTENTION be the only ones to have to work to try and mitigate the influence of a player that isn't paying attention and that eventually WILL attack? Why shouldn't the cloaker have to put in some work too?

If yo'ure logged in and in space then you should either have to face some risk like everyone else or be automatically logged off.


Hauling Hal
The Black Ops
Posted - 2010.10.01 15:54:00 - [240]
 

Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Originally by: baltec1
So set a trap?
This only works the for the minutes they decide to actually pay attention to the screen. An AFK cloaker AFK for 2 or 3 days, you don't know when he'll make the attack, but rest assured HE WILL. Do the math. You're forcing players to spend time on a trap for someone that may or may not take the bait. Why should active players at the keyboard PAYING FULL ATTENTION be the only ones to have to work to try and mitigate the influence of a player that isn't paying attention and that eventually WILL attack? Why shouldn't the cloaker have to put in some work too?

If yo'ure logged in and in space then you should either have to face some risk like everyone else or be automatically logged off.




Err, so you can do your activities with no risk? See the irony here?


Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : last (13)

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