open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] AFK Cloakers nerf solutions (no macro can avoid).
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]

Author Topic

Cynoska McNamara
Posted - 2011.08.16 16:55:00 - [121]
 

Edited by: Cynoska McNamara on 16/08/2011 17:00:00
Edited by: Cynoska McNamara on 16/08/2011 16:58:37
Originally by: Mag's
Please stop being dishonest. Of course you want to decloak them, that's why you've set a time limit for the cloak in both your ideas.

6h charge / fuel / Overload damage is sufficient for any mission in covert ops (8h is the same for me). Do not ruin anything. Also I'm not dishonest, because I don't decloak a ship.. but a distracted cloaker decloak itself.

Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2011.08.16 19:40:00 - [122]
 

Originally by: Cynoska McNamara
Edited by: Cynoska McNamara on 16/08/2011 17:00:00
Edited by: Cynoska McNamara on 16/08/2011 16:58:37
Originally by: Mag's
Please stop being dishonest. Of course you want to decloak them, that's why you've set a time limit for the cloak in both your ideas.

6h charge / fuel / Overload damage is sufficient for any mission in covert ops (8h is the same for me). Do not ruin anything. Also I'm not dishonest, because I don't decloak a ship.. but a distracted cloaker decloak itself.
6 hours is not any where near long enough for an active covert ops guy.
You talk as if scouting and intel gathering is always about being there instantly, looking around for a few hours then leaving. Guess what, you're wrong.
Your idea does a great job, of screwing up any reward for long term reconnaissance.

Also what? 8 hours is 6 hours? What?

Of course you ruin the module. You are basically restricting the proper use of the cloak, simple because you're incapable of dealing with a guy showing up in local.

And you are asking for a system to de-cloak him, therefore you want to de-cloak him.
You either don't want him to de-cloak with the timer or you do. So, which is it?

Omara Otawan
Posted - 2011.08.16 20:17:00 - [123]
 

Edited by: Omara Otawan on 16/08/2011 20:20:17
Originally by: Cynoska McNamara

6h charge / fuel / Overload damage is sufficient for any mission in covert ops (8h is the same for me). Do not ruin anything. Also I'm not dishonest, because I don't decloak a ship.. but a distracted cloaker decloak itself.


A covert recon mission in hostile territory can very well take multiple days or even weeks without docking for sov nullsec or w-space.

It is not always about finding a target to hotdrop a few minutes later, but learning the habits and active times of the population of an area, finding weak spots to prepare for a pinpoint strike or a large-scale assault.


Again, I still believe the best thing for all involved parties would be to just remove cloaked ships from the local channel list.

Those that only stay cloaked in your system to scare you into submission and prevent you from grinding will not do anything to you anymore.

Those that genuinely collect intel do not have to stay logged in 23/7 driving up their electricity bill just because the targets immediately know when they are being watched from local otherwise.

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.08.16 23:50:00 - [124]
 

Originally by: Cynoska McNamara
Originally by: Kaelie Onren
Please read again. (sorry if your native language is not english)
My point on the "macro can defeat this" statement was against your statement:
Quote:
Anyway if you move your ship cloacked and be ACTIVE in game, they can't find you with probes too.

In that I meant that any mechanic that tried to detect if you are ACTIVE in the game can be defeated by macros.
Anyway, I think we misunderstood each other.


You're right. I misunderstood.
I understand that the fuel or charges can be a nuisance..
I live in a 0.0 system where a pirate with 5 account stay online 24/7 with cloacked stealth bombers attacking randomly weak ships or destroying drones with bombs. He stay AFK all time e sometimes attack us. We can't change system because we pay a rent for that system only.
For now he has not destroyed any vessel.. we are stronger e well organized, but this harassment is very annoying because we can never find its position. And even if we destroy his ship, he would return more bitter than before. It is probably a crazy sick player because 0 kill in 2 months.
What is the line between RPG and harassment? We only ask a tool or a fix to counter this type of behavior. Ask is a right, even if the CCP answer is NO.


Support the other idea, the one about a destroyer class that can make cloaked ships detectable by combat probes. This will work even if cloaked ships are removed from local (in fact, better! As you really don't know you have a cloaked ship, you need to actively look)

It's a LOT better than any cloak fuel idea. Most of all the opposition to your idea here are coming from people who stand to get disadvantaged just because you have a little bit of discomfort. Well, the right solution is not to make you happy while making many others unhappy. The right solution is giving you a tool to FIX your unhappiness yourself, with EFFORT on your part.

Tachyon Pulse Mods

OMGWTFResearch
Posted - 2011.08.17 10:52:00 - [125]
 

In my opinion the destroyer only module with long scan times with high skills to uncloak people who are AFK is by far the most fair for everyone involved.

If done right and warnings are given to those about to be decloaked. This will only affect those who are AFK and not those who take the time in front of the client to do the damage.

Take the AFK out of the picture. I am sure CCP knows this.

Dub Step
Minmatar
Death To Everyone But Us
Posted - 2011.08.17 11:34:00 - [126]
 

How about they just log out players that are idle for a couple of hours or more. nag boxes telling you someone is probing out out is a really stupid suggestion.

Not that I care and AFK cloaking is only a problem because players are risk averse cowards and can't operate in 0.0 unless they feel they have complete immunity.

Cynoska McNamara
Posted - 2011.08.17 13:37:00 - [127]
 

Originally by: Dub Step
How about they just log out players that are idle for a couple of hours or more. nag boxes telling you someone is probing out out is a really stupid suggestion.

Not that I care and AFK cloaking is only a problem because players are risk averse cowards and can't operate in 0.0 unless they feel they have complete immunity.

The pirate says "coward" to the miner ... like the spider says "coward" to fly ..
*facepalm*

Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2011.08.17 14:03:00 - [128]
 

Originally by: Cynoska McNamara
*facepalm*
Keep avoiding those inconvenient posts youth, it speaks volumes. Wink

OMGWTFResearch
Posted - 2011.08.17 14:16:00 - [129]
 

Edited by: OMGWTFResearch on 17/08/2011 14:17:17
Originally by: Dub Step
How about they just log out players that are idle for a couple of hours or more. nag boxes telling you someone is probing out out is a really stupid suggestion.

Not that I care and AFK cloaking is only a problem because players are risk averse cowards and can't operate in 0.0 unless they feel they have complete immunity.


No need for nag boxes. The indicator could appear just like one for scramming or damage indicator. The reason to have it so you dont suddenly decloak without warning in front of POS guns. That would be unfair to active cloakers. I want the AFK to be risky NOT to active users.

Edit: The log out idea is feasible but I fear for effect on non cloaking activities. Also I think the destroyer idea would add a new layer to gameplay and that is worth the time to implement in my opinion.

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.08.17 15:15:00 - [130]
 

Originally by: OMGWTFResearch

Edit: The log out idea is feasible but I fear for effect on non cloaking activities. Also I think the destroyer idea would add a new layer to gameplay and that is worth the time to implement in my opinion.


I don't think he was being serious with the log out idea. As its about as silly as any auto-logoff idea, for any kind of afk. Afking is fine, this isn't farmville or punch the monkey. It's fine to be away from keyboard as long as you assume the risk that that entails.



OMGWTFResearch
Posted - 2011.08.17 15:32:00 - [131]
 

Originally by: Kaelie Onren
Originally by: OMGWTFResearch

Edit: The log out idea is feasible but I fear for effect on non cloaking activities. Also I think the destroyer idea would add a new layer to gameplay and that is worth the time to implement in my opinion.


I don't think he was being serious with the log out idea. As its about as silly as any auto-logoff idea, for any kind of afk. Afking is fine, this isn't farmville or punch the monkey. It's fine to be away from keyboard as long as you assume the risk that that entails.





Well there has to be risk. And AFK cloaking entails no risk as of this post. The expensive, Time consuming, skill heavy destroyer module would put risk into going AFK while cloaked. This would also protect those who are active and cloaking from other ideas such as fuel bays cuttoff timers and others that would do more harm to them.

Add risk to going AFK. Nothing else folks please.

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.08.17 15:56:00 - [132]
 

Originally by: OMGWTFResearch
Originally by: Kaelie Onren
Originally by: OMGWTFResearch

Edit: The log out idea is feasible but I fear for effect on non cloaking activities. Also I think the destroyer idea would add a new layer to gameplay and that is worth the time to implement in my opinion.


I don't think he was being serious with the log out idea. As its about as silly as any auto-logoff idea, for any kind of afk. Afking is fine, this isn't farmville or punch the monkey. It's fine to be away from keyboard as long as you assume the risk that that entails.





Well there has to be risk. And AFK cloaking entails no risk as of this post. The expensive, Time consuming, skill heavy destroyer module would put risk into going AFK while cloaked. This would also protect those who are active and cloaking from other ideas such as fuel bays cuttoff timers and others that would do more harm to them.

Add risk to going AFK. Nothing else folks please.


Are you preaching to the choir? If I didn't agree with this then why did I post the last 3 posts that I did?

big mod?
You mean heavy expensive tachyon pulse probes right? the mod is just a launcher. Finding the cloaker still needs to be a 'chore' not a walk in the park.


Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2011.08.17 16:13:00 - [133]
 

Originally by: OMGWTFResearch
Well there has to be risk. And AFK cloaking entails no risk as of this post.
So what's the problem, if there is no risk?


Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]

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