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 : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (16)

Author Topic

Jack Icegaard
The Omega Project
Posted - 2010.05.15 03:32:00 - [91]
 

Edited by: Jack Icegaard on 15/05/2010 06:46:37
Originally by: Kail Storm
Local should be removed....But no ship should be unscannable...EVER

And the arguments saying the Cloaker is in a huge amount of danger as he enters the system is crap.
You need a Hic/Dic with at least 7-10 Fast Tacklers to get the Cloaky ships consistantly.

When I run gatecamps in my Cloaky`s if enemy has anything less than 7-10 fast tacklers and a Hic/Dic I laugh Jam in opposite direction that I uncloaked at so Tacklers cant hang with me, then even if 1 of them de-cloaks me I am usually past the bubble at this point and usually outside scram range of other supporting tacklers so I can warp off.

So even with a proper gang I`d give myself 60/40 odds and thats even if they knew I was coming.

Also I find it terrible that I cant be scanned down unlinke alot of these Griefer types who want there toys unchanged with no skill involved.

I like conflict, its why I play eve and AFK Cloaking and not being able to scann or probe down something is not that good for the whole safe if you fit 1 mod thing. These are the same guys who suicide gank and then say NO PLACE SHOULD BE SAFE which I agree with, but they also want to be totaly safe in there Cloaky`s....SORRY

TL DR
Take off local already, Make every ship scannable but make some harder than others, if this became a stat that mattered like Scan Res, Lock range ets it would be awesome.

No SHip should ever be 100% safe, and if you are in a safe spot and you warped there Cloaked it is 100% safe so AOE doesnt mean ****.


Lately, cloak antagonists tries hard to sell the idea that if someone is online and undocked they shouldn't be safe. I think that's an empty argument. You don't need a cloak to stay safe in a system. It all depends on what you tries to do. Players without a cloak but with a minimum of situational awareness, will not get caught when all they tries to do is to keep away in the system. If all you tries to do while undocked is to stay safe, then there is no problem, cloak or no cloak. Without a cloak its just more of a hassle.

I think the perpetrators of these weekly nerf-threads most often are people who feel entitled to safe(er) resource-extraction in “their” 0.0 system. That is where cloaking comes in. Cloaks makes it easier o infiltrate hostile territories and pose a threat to resource extractions and logistics. Keeping ship types hidden is important for the latent threat. Everyone can use the stealth disruptive tactic and that's the balance of it. If disruption tactics were made harder, the net-result would most likely be less conflicts. It would be too easy to “monopolize” resources in 0.0, specially for larger alliances. Then it will be much more efficient to sit in your own fortress and dig gold, rather than wasting time on trying to infiltrate hostile territories.

Hannibal Ord
Minmatar
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
Posted - 2010.05.15 16:06:00 - [92]
 

Originally by: Ruhige Schmerz
Originally by: N0N
Originally by: Ruhige Schmerz

This goes against the eve presumption that nobody is "safe" when undocked.


And indeed they are not. When a cloaker decides to interact with someone, then they are as vulnerable as anyone else.
So what's the issue?


I'm finding it hard to believe that some of you are actually this dense.

Does a miner 'decide' to interact with someone when he gets jumped or suicide ganked? A hauler? A mission runner? No.

A cloaking device is the only device in game that requires the user to consent to pvp, even if only in some cases.


You moron.

The Cloak is the counter to probes.

The probes are a counter to anything safed up.

The only 2 other counters to probes are super fast inties or ECCM specialised ships.

There are actually only 2 classes of ships that when fitted with a cloak are acutally a threat to you. The stealth bomber and the Covert Recon. Oh and tech 3.

The stealth bomber is fragile as hell and can easily be killed.

The Covert Recon is fragile as hell and can easily be killed, the only one that is really threatening is the Pilgrim and even then it's a big fat slow tug and you can probably catch it on a gate before it enters system.

The t3 ships are only slightly better than the covert recons, and are very expensive. And can actually be easily killed when fitted with covert ops sub system.

So what you are complaining about is seeing reds in local, who are operating in hostile territory. IT IS THEY WHO need the counter to your probes and your blob. Not the other way around. They are few, in weak ships. You are many.

If you can't rat in 0.0 because of them, then you fail as an eve pilot because you should be able to provide security, have balls and rat with ships that can defeat cloaky recons if engaged.

I'm sorry, you can twist this argument all you want and say it's unfair, but it is not unfair. Unfair would be to have a counter to the cloak, so the many can defeat the few.

Solution to your small balls, remove local.

Zalafas
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.05.16 03:18:00 - [93]
 

This is an odd argument. I spend a fair amount of time in w-space, where I don't even know if there's any hostiles in system for the most part. I can have someone warp in without warning and start tackling me, and then have 6, 7, 8 other ships warp on top of me, without anything showing up in local! That's what happened to my main, yesterday -- no warning at all. It's part of w-space.

I can use directional scan, but I have to keep clicking that repeatedly, and that only works if someone is within 14.4 AU and uncloaked. Dscan also isn't going to show me every ship in the system, only whoever happens to be decloaked (in fact, I'm most likely to only see their probes). So, there could be ten cloaked hostiles, and all I'll know is that there's some combat scanner probes out.

Again, the above is part of operating in w-space. The thing is, I tend to think of nullsec as a step up from w-space, for the most part. You have outposts in nullsec, you have ice mining, you have moon mining, you don't have to scan to find asteroids (or wait for a grav site to spawn, if there aren't any). You can just check local to see if someone's in the system, too. But that's not enough -- you want to be able to probe down cloakers / afk cloakers too, because you just have to have 100% certainty that you won't get ganked. You have so much going for you, and yet, you want to have more safety than people in w-space do! I don't get it.

Indeed, when a w-system connects to nullsec, everyone in the system is on alert, because the people that come out of nullsec usually are in pretty well-fit ships, and tend to operate in sizable groups. But apparently they need even more safety, even more certainty in their home systems.

I can see where you'd want to make cloakers probe-able for other game balance purposes -- there's no Law of Physics that says that a space game must allow you to cloak AFK somewhere. But I don't think the safety of 0.0 ratters/miners is a good rationale. The phrase "safety of 0.0 ratters/miners" is, or ought to be, an oxymoron. :)

N0N
Posted - 2010.05.16 07:38:00 - [94]
 

Edited by: N0N on 16/05/2010 07:39:35
Originally by: Ruhige Schmerz
Originally by: N0N
Originally by: Ruhige Schmerz

This goes against the eve presumption that nobody is "safe" when undocked.


And indeed they are not. When a cloaker decides to interact with someone, then they are as vulnerable as anyone else.
So what's the issue?


I'm finding it hard to believe that some of you are actually this dense.

Does a miner 'decide' to interact with someone when he gets jumped or suicide ganked? A hauler? A mission runner? No.

A cloaking device is the only device in game that requires the user to consent to pvp, even if only in some cases.


Fail more?
You've given the answer in your own fail reply, but as you are not willing to learn......

Backho
Posted - 2010.05.17 12:35:00 - [95]
 

Sorry guys, ive said this many times

If you have trouble with afk cloakers, all you have to do is gather enough people, and scour every inch of every grid of the system at 1,000m/s

Eventually you will bump into the said afk'er and you can kill him.

There is no way cloak is uncounterable. all you have to do is get enough people and hunt him down this way.

Devil tiger
Posted - 2010.05.17 12:48:00 - [96]
 

Originally by: Backho
Sorry guys, ive said this many times

If you have trouble with afk cloakers, all you have to do is gather enough people, and scour every inch of every grid of the system at 1,000m/s

Eventually you will bump into the said afk'er and you can kill him.

There is no way cloak is uncounterable. all you have to do is get enough people and hunt him down this way.



I think we have a real winner here guys... Laughing

Bjartskulyr
Posted - 2010.07.02 20:05:00 - [97]
 

Just add "De-cloak System" to the Territorial Claim Unit with whatever complicated mechanics you see fit. That way, the Corporation that holds a system can make the rules and y'all can stop chattering like yentas.

Artemis Ahab
Caldari
The Inf1dels
SCUM.
Posted - 2010.07.03 04:18:00 - [98]
 

Originally by: Amanda Mor
PS Funny as well how the people who are defending the AFK cloaking mechanic point out that the Pilgrim is a pretty big threat to ratters, which kinda punches a big hole in their "cloaked ships are gimped and useless!!" argument...


If said pilgrim is killing said ratter, he's obviously not afk, now is he? Hmmmm... Also, that pilgrim needs the dps of those rats to even kill that ratter in any decent length of time. Because, lets face it, the pilgrim isn't exactly the king of dps.

Innocent Murderer
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.07.03 04:34:00 - [99]
 

I'm up for the fuel idea. People still get to use their cloaks when they want with existing mechanics, but not for indefinite periods of time. Cloaks would then require *gasp* tactics. Rolling Eyes

(As an aside, rather than nerf existing cargo bays on ships such as Covops frigs implementing a fuel requirement, I suggest that a dedicated fuel bay would be added)

That's my .02 isk. Allow people to hold enough fuel to cloak for a good number of hours, but not AFK-cloak 23.5/7.

Ranka Lee
Amarr
Imperial Academy
Posted - 2010.07.03 07:30:00 - [100]
 


Joe Starbreaker
M. Corp
Posted - 2010.07.03 23:26:00 - [101]
 

This thread is made of failure. For the very idea that you want more safety in 0.0, all proponents of the "nerf cloaks" view should be shamed and humiliated. The solution that would make both sides happy is obvious: replace Local, either with Constellation or with a w-space style Local. So you also fail for persistently refusing to consider the obvious win-win solution.

Innocent Murderer
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.07.03 23:52:00 - [102]
 

Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
This thread is made of failure. For the very idea that you want more safety in 0.0, all proponents of the "nerf cloaks" view should be shamed and humiliated. The solution that would make both sides happy is obvious: replace Local, either with Constellation or with a w-space style Local. So you also fail for persistently refusing to consider the obvious win-win solution.


I don't want more safety. I want to end some safety. Cloaks are a get-out-of-jail-free, unstoppable, unbeatable module. What is the counter to a cloaked person? There is none. There is not a force in the game that can make a person ever decloak aside from downtime. And that is the core issue here. With fuel usage, a person using a cloak can enjoy the same functionality that currently exists, they just can't do it forever without penalty.

Fuel pros: cloaking now requires skill and tactics (and a fuel source).
Fuel cons: no more perma-AFK-cloaking.

Also, this thread is not about local chat, it's about AFK-cloaking and solutions to that. Congratulations on the attempted hijack, though.

Elton Murrow
Posted - 2010.07.04 00:05:00 - [103]
 

Originally by: Innocent Murderer

I don't want more safety. I want to end some safety.


That doesn't make sense. The cloaker can't do much damage and those complaining about the cloaker are already in a big carebear NAP anyhow. What in the world leads you to think a cloak nerf would not make sov null even more rediculously safe?

Xorv
Posted - 2010.07.04 00:23:00 - [104]
 

Originally by: Hannibal Ord

So what you are complaining about is seeing reds in local, who are operating in hostile territory. IT IS THEY WHO need the counter to your probes and your blob. Not the other way around. They are few, in weak ships. You are many.

If you can't rat in 0.0 because of them, then you fail as an eve pilot because you should be able to provide security, have balls and rat with ships that can defeat cloaky recons if engaged.

I'm sorry, you can twist this argument all you want and say it's unfair, but it is not unfair. Unfair would be to have a counter to the cloak, so the many can defeat the few.

Solution to your small balls, remove local.


Yup I think you hit the nail on the head and summed up the anti cloaking posters nicely.

Haven't played this game for years but I come back and see the same old arguments. The whole afk cloaking thing came as a direct result of local chat, it's one cheesy feature to counter another cheesy feature. Remove local chat from nullsec and there likely won't be any afk cloakers, just active ones. Wink



Originally by: Innocent Murderer

Also, this thread is not about local chat, it's about AFK-cloaking and solutions to that. Congratulations on the attempted hijack, though.


The issues are directly related. and as for your argument the same could be said for station docking, I'm sorry not very persuasive.

"I don't want more safety. I want to end some safety. [Docking at a Station is] get-out-of-jail-free, unstoppable, unbeatable. What is the counter to a [docked] person? There is none. There is not a force in the game that can make a person ever [undock] aside from [sheer boredom]. And that is the core issue here."

No the core issue here is local chat mechanics.

GavinGoodrich
Posted - 2010.07.04 03:15:00 - [105]
 

Edited by: GavinGoodrich on 04/07/2010 03:15:36
Hey, it could be worse.

We could have a "dead ringer" cloak that makes people think your ship blew up, like in Team Fortress 2.

Dilligent corp/alliance buds keeping an eye on scan as people jump in/out gives you an idea what to look for/tank for/bait for.

If they have a cyno for a covops hotdrop, so be it. You're gonna get dropped eventually. Make sure you bait/rat with **** that won't break your bank. It's a damn game.

Protip: If you're baiting, don't point rocks like I wound up doing in a hero retriever earlier today. I even called myself out on it 15 mins prior and lived up to the dream Rolling Eyes

Innocent Murderer
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.07.04 05:22:00 - [106]
 

Edited by: Innocent Murderer on 04/07/2010 05:26:25
Edit: fixed for grammammar and spelling.

Originally by: Elton Murrow
The cloaker can't do much damage


Clearly you have not encountered a cloaky Tengu with an interdiction nullifier. I encourage you to experience that wonderful event some time. It's not what they do while cloaked. It's what they do while uncloaked (duh).

Originally by: The Next Guy
The issues are directly related. and as for your argument the same could be said for station docking, I'm sorry not very persuasive.


No, it couldn't. You can shoot a station (in sovereign space, anyways). You can bubble a station and camp the exit. Therefore, a person can kill you while trying to use a station to play docking games, but they can't do so at leisure with no penalties. Fail comparison is fail.

Originally by: The Next Guy

No the core issue here is local chat mechanics.


Local chat mechanics simply allows everyone to see that who is in system, not where they are, what they're in, or anything else. If you take away local, then A: we'd be in WH space with jumpgates, which if everyone wanted they would move to instead of nullsec, and B: then corporations and alliances wouldn't even be able to tell which of their own members were in a system. Removing local would also grant enormous benefits to attackers in nullsec (I have the feeling you'd like that) because a local spike would be undetectable and a covert jump bridge would enable huge fleets to enter with the strong likelihood of no detection (because having probes out covering a solar system and probing 23.5/7 is extremely tiresome and difficult). Fleets could jump in without detection, set a POS into reinforced without allied forces in-system even detecting the attack, and then disappear again. And presuming that AFK-cloaking was not fixed in any way, then the person who did it could just cloak/safe up again and wait for the next opportunity. Repeat this process ad infinitum until somebody runs out of jumpbridge fuel.

And that's just one possibility if local was removed in nullsec.

In short, shut up, grow a pair, and fight like an EVE player instead of whining to get local removed so you can attack someone with impunity. Before you try to turn that quote into an argument against cloaks using fuel, cloaks as they are allow people to choose fights with impunity indefinitely.

My solution is to simply add an eventual time limit to that. So yeah, you can fly in, cloak for x number of hours, and then surprise-PvP boat-violence someone's ship just like you can now, but not for weeks on end without having to leave a system (and thus render yourself vulnerable momentarily).

Start thinking of some cons to this and stop trying to change the subject.

guska Cryotank
Gallente
Void Angels
C0NVICTED
Posted - 2010.07.04 05:45:00 - [107]
 

When I'm cloaky, I am not AFK, I'm just likely to be one-handed...

Removing the targetting delay from Force Recons, be a better fix IMO.

FeralShadow
NME1
Posted - 2010.07.04 07:49:00 - [108]
 

Originally by: Zmorana


3) set a maximum limit on cloak time per 'cycle' for ships carrying weapons regardless of player activity.

Here a 'cloaking capacitor' on a potentially destructive ship needs to recharge before the cloak can be made active again, similar to on-lining a module while undocked (the cap needs to be at 95% before on-line succeeds).

Bots could still keep a combat ship cloaked half of the time while a player is away (despite CCP rules bots still happen) but the more time a destructive ship is cloaked, the more time is required to be uncloaked. Docking should also reset the 'cloak capacitor'.




Amazing suggestion. Out of all the ideas out there, I think this one best balances the utility of cloaking ships with their ability to be completely invulnerable while the player is AFK. No player should be sitting cloaked in a safe spot for more than several hours anyways ( I assume it would take several hours for the capacitor to run out) unless they are AFK or scouting (and if you're scouting I hope you fit no weapons so your capacitor never runs out). I love it and really can see no downside. I'm ignoring all flames and trolls because really AFK cloaking is a huge problem in Eve and if you dont think so, you've never truly been on the receiving end.

-FeralShadow

Amanda Eidolo
The Python Cartel.
The Defenders of Pen Island
Posted - 2010.07.04 10:58:00 - [109]
 

Originally by: FeralShadow
because really AFK cloaking is a huge problem in Eve and if you dont think so, you've never truly been on the receiving end.


Confirming that I have 'truly been on the receiving end' of AFK cloakers and that it is not a huge problem.

Spine up.

Ramiera DaMorre
Posted - 2010.07.04 11:34:00 - [110]
 

Originally by: Innocent Murderer
because a local spike would be undetectable and a covert jump bridge would enable huge fleets to enter with the strong likelihood of no detection


So, covert operations would be really what the name suggests.

Taltine
Posted - 2010.07.04 12:54:00 - [111]
 

Atleast make non cov ops ships probable but make them hard to find but possible and maby a module that has a pulse aera effect that makes cloaked non cov ops ships targetable so u can fist probe em then warp near it and pulse it to make it targetable. maby when u get hit on probes u cant warp in at 0 but make it like 10 or 20 so u need to run around and pulse em out. and cov ops ships only probable afther an afk period

Innocent Murderer
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.07.04 16:28:00 - [112]
 

Originally by: Taltine
Atleast make non cov ops ships probable but make them hard to find but possible and maby a module that has a pulse aera effect that makes cloaked non cov ops ships targetable so u can fist probe em then warp near it and pulse it to make it targetable. maby when u get hit on probes u cant warp in at 0 but make it like 10 or 20 so u need to run around and pulse em out. and cov ops ships only probable afther an afk period



And I always wonder why people flame those who want to end AFK-cloaking. Rolling Eyes

Desigre
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.07.05 06:47:00 - [113]
 

Personally i feel cloak is fine as it is.

If your too scared to afk cloaker then maybe you should go to hello kitty online? Or grow some balls and get friends. Last time i check this was MMO.

If cloaker is afk then he cant hurt you, he cant blow your ship up. If he is online, then you can easy enough set trap on him. If he takes the bait, warp scram, web and rest of your fleet warps in. No more cloaker your so scared.

What is it that makes people think 0.0 should be safe? We all ready have empire region for carebears. Lets not turn 0.0 in another carebear regions.

If you want then maybe we could remove local in 0.0 or make it controllable by sov holder. do they want it or not.. No local, no warning about cloaker and you probably are too damn scared to undock at all.Razz

Khan Dok
Posted - 2010.07.05 07:21:00 - [114]
 

Originally by: Desigre
Personally i feel cloak is fine as it is.

If your too scared to afk cloaker then maybe you should go to hello kitty online? Or grow some balls and get friends. Last time i check this was MMO.

If cloaker is afk then he cant hurt you, he cant blow your ship up. If he is online, then you can easy enough set trap on him. If he takes the bait, warp scram, web and rest of your fleet warps in. No more cloaker your so scared.

What is it that makes people think 0.0 should be safe? We all ready have empire region for carebears. Lets not turn 0.0 in another carebear regions.

If you want then maybe we could remove local in 0.0 or make it controllable by sov holder. do they want it or not.. No local, no warning about cloaker and you probably are too damn scared to undock at all.Razz


With that argument CCP could ruin the whole game by some stupid decision and still have you telling people to go play Kitty Online.

Why do we want to play Cloack Online? Why do we want a game where pvp is near impossible, there hardly is a pvp solution and 0.0 is like a car show of invisible ships?

Take away cloacks, yes, you take them away from me too! Not just you, also me! And we would have a better game, simply.

If to adress AFK cloackers solely I wouldn´t mind if they connected a script to the cloack, maybe lasting 1:30-2 hours or something like that. Plenty enough to get done what you are doing, but making AFK cloackers be forced into pvp, which they should be.

FORCED INTO PVP!

NiiKleagh
Posted - 2010.07.05 07:54:00 - [115]
 

Provide a Titan-only system-wide smart-bombing module.

If the system is organized enough to get everyone out except the titan, and willing to leave the titan alone, it should have the ability to clear out cloakers in, say, one pulse for frigates, and two to four pulses for cloaked cruisers.

Of course the pulse will hurt POS guns and such, too.

Desigre
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.07.05 08:41:00 - [116]
 

Originally by: Khan Dok

With that argument CCP could ruin the whole game by some stupid decision and still have you telling people to go play Kitty Online.

Why do we want to play Cloack Online? Why do we want a game where pvp is near impossible, there hardly is a pvp solution and 0.0 is like a car show of invisible ships?

Take away cloacks, yes, you take them away from me too! Not just you, also me! And we would have a better game, simply.

If to adress AFK cloackers solely I wouldn´t mind if they connected a script to the cloack, maybe lasting 1:30-2 hours or something like that. Plenty enough to get done what you are doing, but making AFK cloackers be forced into pvp, which they should be.

FORCED INTO PVP!


What you fail to understand is those cloaker are engadeing pvp on you. So effectively that your fellows are in forums crying about it. if your too scared to undock when there is one cloaker in local and you have friends in system to over power him. Thats not cloakers fault is it?

0.0 is not safe, it was newer meant to be safe. what little safety you have there is made by players. So stop whining about: OMG theres cloaker in local, we 50 players cant undock now, he might kill all of us... Must ask ccp to nerf cloaks...


Seriously, there are ways to handle cloaker in local, its usually know as fleet and working together.

Besides, ccp owns this game so they are free to do what ever they see nesessary to do about it. We got halfdone PI, halfdone this and that....

And i foolishly tought 0.0 players would be battle hardened and not gindergarden kids. Clearly i was wrong. If one clokaer is enough to disrupt you normal operations, then maybe you should seriously think why you let that happen? Its your own fault if you dont form up fleet and undock to little cloaker hunting.

Voith
Posted - 2010.07.05 14:18:00 - [117]
 

AFK Cloaking is broken and goes against everything Eve and real PvPers stand for: Risk.

It allows a person to assume no risk and to effect the game of others. If you like AFK cloaking you should go back to woW.

AtheistOfFail
AoF Lottery Services
Posted - 2010.07.05 14:27:00 - [118]
 

CCP's final plan

1) Let cloakers have some fun.
2) Sell anti-cloaking pulse (1 billion each)
3) Sell better cloaks (2 billion each)
4) Go to step 1.

I wonder how long people will keep paying xD

Dungheap
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.07.05 15:43:00 - [119]
 

Originally by: Voith
AFK Cloaking is broken and goes against everything Eve and real PvPers stand for: Risk.

It allows a person to assume no risk and to effect the game of others. If you like AFK cloaking you should go back to woW.


who's the real pvp'er? the guy several dozen jumps behind enemy lines, hunting you in a cloaker? or the half-dozen nullbears spinning in the station, crying on forums because 1 (one) player has shut down their entire system?

Voith
Posted - 2010.07.05 16:05:00 - [120]
 

Originally by: Dungheap
Originally by: Voith
AFK Cloaking is broken and goes against everything Eve and real PvPers stand for: Risk.

It allows a person to assume no risk and to effect the game of others. If you like AFK cloaking you should go back to woW.


who's the real pvp'er? the guy several dozen jumps behind enemy lines, hunting you in a cloaker? or the half-dozen nullbears spinning in the station, crying on forums because 1 (one) player has shut down their entire system?

What guy? There is no guy, he is at work while he is cloaked at a safespot.

AFK cloaking isn't PvP, it is Pv"Bad Mechanic"

You would have a point about one player if there wasn't dozens of titan/blops hot drops a day


There is more risk undocking a noob ship in 1.0 than there is Cloaking in 0.0. How can this be justified?


Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : 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