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

Author Topic

Alara IonStorm
Caldari
Posted - 2010.10.03 16:08:00 - [331]
 

Fun Fact: Rigged Stealth Bombers can hit with Javilin Torps out to 114km!

That makes them Snipers!


baltec1
Posted - 2010.10.03 16:19:00 - [332]
 

Originally by: Acer Lorenz

I think what he means is that the miner sacrifices earnings and having to beef up security in order to stay alive. The cloaker seems to sacrifice nothing other than a lost opportunity for a kill.




Miners are earning more than the AFK guy.

This whole thread is a fine example of why removing local as an intel tool is a good thing to do. Cant hold up a system full of bears for days on end if they have no idea you are even there. And unlike the changes others in here want, removing local will hurt the marco ravens too.

MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.10.03 16:50:00 - [333]
 

Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 03/10/2010 16:51:58
Originally by: baltec1
Miners are earning more than the AFK guy.
And that exonerates the AFKer from risk why exactly? A cloaker is accomplishing his goal, keeping the system on his toes and quite possibly halting productivity in the millions, billions, or trillions even. And there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with this. The problem I have is when the system is on its toes but the predator is AFK at the movies eating popcorn keeping everyone else vigilant and alert while he himself doesn't need to be and no one having even a slim chance of catching and finding him. There is something fundamentally wrong with this. An AFK cloaker should have to face some consequences if he's not paying attention.

Quote:
This whole thread is a fine example of why removing local as an intel tool is a good thing to do. Cant hold up a system full of bears for days on end if they have no idea you are even there. And unlike the changes others in here want, removing local will hurt the marco ravens too.
Go ahead and remove local. But it still doesn't add risk to the AFK CLOAKER. Remove local and change the mechanics so that if you're AFK'ing while forcing a system to be in alert that you yourself are exposed to risks of losing your ship and your pod.


Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2010.10.03 16:56:00 - [334]
 

Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Go ahead and remove local. But it still doesn't add risk to the AFK CLOAKER. Remove local and change the mechanics so that if you're AFK'ing while forcing a system to be in alert that you yourself are exposed to risks of losing your ship and your pod.
If there was no local, the whole point of him being AFK would be gone, and he'd have to expose himself to risk in order to force people to be alert.

baltec1
Posted - 2010.10.03 17:30:00 - [335]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Go ahead and remove local. But it still doesn't add risk to the AFK CLOAKER. Remove local and change the mechanics so that if you're AFK'ing while forcing a system to be in alert that you yourself are exposed to risks of losing your ship and your pod.
If there was no local, the whole point of him being AFK would be gone, and he'd have to expose himself to risk in order to force people to be alert.


This. Your AFK cloakies problem is fixed and my issues with afk macro ravens ratting in near perfect safety is fixed.

MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.10.03 17:44:00 - [336]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Go ahead and remove local. But it still doesn't add risk to the AFK CLOAKER. Remove local and change the mechanics so that if you're AFK'ing while forcing a system to be in alert that you yourself are exposed to risks of losing your ship and your pod.
If there was no local, the whole point of him being AFK would be gone, and he'd have to expose himself to risk in order to force people to be alert.
This isn't true and you know this. The issue STILL EXISTS, mainly that the system inhabitants remain vigilant and alert for any potential threats (cloakers that may be in the system) while the AFK cloaker STILL CANNOT BE CAUGHT UNLESS HE CHOOSES TO BE CAUGHT. The cloaker can STILL CHOOSE to go AFK for days and weeks while the rest of the system needs to stay vigilant.

Removing local does not in any way add any risk to the AFK cloaker keeping a system on its toes, even after local has been removed. I'm sorry, but your argument just doesn't hold.


baltec1
Posted - 2010.10.03 17:48:00 - [337]
 

Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Go ahead and remove local. But it still doesn't add risk to the AFK CLOAKER. Remove local and change the mechanics so that if you're AFK'ing while forcing a system to be in alert that you yourself are exposed to risks of losing your ship and your pod.
If there was no local, the whole point of him being AFK would be gone, and he'd have to expose himself to risk in order to force people to be alert.
This isn't true and you know this. The issue STILL EXISTS, mainly that the system inhabitants remain vigilant and alert for any potential threats (cloakers that may be in the system) while the AFK cloaker STILL CANNOT BE CAUGHT UNLESS HE CHOOSES TO BE CAUGHT. The cloaker can STILL CHOOSE to go AFK for days and weeks while the rest of the system needs to stay vigilant.

Removing local does not in any way add any risk to the AFK cloaker keeping a system on its toes, even after local has been removed. I'm sorry, but your argument just doesn't hold.




Tell me how would people know he was there? And why would anyone waste their time going AFK cloaking in a system for days on end if the locals cannot see that he is there?

Balsak
Minmatar
Friends of Bigfoot
Posted - 2010.10.03 17:52:00 - [338]
 

Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Go ahead and remove local. But it still doesn't add risk to the AFK CLOAKER. Remove local and change the mechanics so that if you're AFK'ing while forcing a system to be in alert that you yourself are exposed to risks of losing your ship and your pod.
If there was no local, the whole point of him being AFK would be gone, and he'd have to expose himself to risk in order to force people to be alert.
This isn't true and you know this. The issue STILL EXISTS, mainly that the system inhabitants remain vigilant and alert for any potential threats (cloakers that may be in the system) while the AFK cloaker STILL CANNOT BE CAUGHT UNLESS HE CHOOSES TO BE CAUGHT. The cloaker can STILL CHOOSE to go AFK for days and weeks while the rest of the system needs to stay vigilant.

Removing local does not in any way add any risk to the AFK cloaker keeping a system on its toes, even after local has been removed. I'm sorry, but your argument just doesn't hold.




Do you even stop to hear yourself and what you are saying ? I'm guessing not because if you did you would realize exactly how stupid what you say actually is.

dankness420
Posted - 2010.10.03 17:58:00 - [339]
 

i dont see what the big deal is... even a rifter can kill a stealth bomber

Goremageddon Box
Posted - 2010.10.03 18:00:00 - [340]
 

this troll seriously made it 10+ pages?


you guys are noobs

kasiloth
Posted - 2010.10.03 18:33:00 - [341]
 

Originally by: dankness420
i dont see what the big deal is... even a rifter can kill a stealth bomber


Please come to my system find this cloaked SB and kill him with a rifter. If u ever find him. All big talks. The reality is far more different.

kasiloth
Posted - 2010.10.03 18:39:00 - [342]
 

Originally by: Balsak
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Go ahead and remove local. But it still doesn't add risk to the AFK CLOAKER. Remove local and change the mechanics so that if you're AFK'ing while forcing a system to be in alert that you yourself are exposed to risks of losing your ship and your pod.
If there was no local, the whole point of him being AFK would be gone, and he'd have to expose himself to risk in order to force people to be alert.
This isn't true and you know this. The issue STILL EXISTS, mainly that the system inhabitants remain vigilant and alert for any potential threats (cloakers that may be in the system) while the AFK cloaker STILL CANNOT BE CAUGHT UNLESS HE CHOOSES TO BE CAUGHT. The cloaker can STILL CHOOSE to go AFK for days and weeks while the rest of the system needs to stay vigilant.

Removing local does not in any way add any risk to the AFK cloaker keeping a system on its toes, even after local has been removed. I'm sorry, but your argument just doesn't hold.




Do you even stop to hear yourself and what you are saying ? I'm guessing not because if you did you would realize exactly how stupid what you say actually is.


What is stupid man? Actually what is written above is the plain truth not understandable by most pvpers like u that use this tactic.


kasiloth
Posted - 2010.10.03 18:51:00 - [343]
 

Actually what is written so far by the pvpers is nothing of value. Even pvpers cannot propose a solution for the afk cloaked cause simply the dont have any. And they dont have any cause there isnt any solution at all. They have the advandange and they use it. What they afraid more is to lose their advantage on that. To be unbitable all the way. But this is not fair. And CCP after all this debate here has to seriously consider of this.

Alara IonStorm
Caldari
Posted - 2010.10.03 18:59:00 - [344]
 

Originally by: kasiloth
Actually what is written so far is nothing of value.

Fix'ed!

ModeratedToSilence
Posted - 2010.10.03 19:02:00 - [345]
 

Originally by: Alara IonStorm
Originally by: kasiloth
Actually what is written so far is nothing of value.

Fix'ed!



Please refrain from posting unless they contain content or are positioned to be first in the page as per the prescription of the popular 1996 internet meme commonly known as sniping.

Alara IonStorm
Caldari
Posted - 2010.10.03 19:06:00 - [346]
 

Originally by: ModeratedToSilence
Originally by: Alara IonStorm
Originally by: kasiloth
Actually what is written so far is nothing of value.

Fix'ed!



Please refrain from posting unless they contain content or are positioned to be first in the page as per the prescription of the popular 1996 internet meme commonly known as sniping.

I don't think you understand madam I am a Swiss Army Meme Generator!

I am like the Dominix of Forum spam, but give me a good well thought out non rant OP and I will bring gold to the forum!

I hasn't happened on General!

Herzog Wolfhammer
Gallente
Sigma Special Tactics Group
Posted - 2010.10.03 19:12:00 - [347]
 

Why oh why...


Just about any networked system, when having no activity from a client login, will eventually log the user out for inactivity. No input from client after a given time, means an automatic logout.

What's wrong with having that? There is a difference between using a cloak to gather intel or pressure and enemy, but yes being able to walk away and go out leaving the cloaked ship there for endless hours is poor mechanics.

What's worse is that they are using bandwidth that everybody pays for, and there are players who think it's only enough to dock, and also never log out.

No input from client - log out. Better yet make it smarter: same repeating input from client = BOT and log them out and BAN them too.

Evidently CCP drops the ball on this one.

As for there being some way to defeat cloaks, no. The killmail addicts and Jan Bradys of Eve need to lighten up. A cloaked ship is harmless and there are many who use them because there are a lot of systems that are like the parking lot of the shopping mall from "Dawn of the Dead". The minute you "pop up" (thanks to local - which should be removed), it's like getting swarmed by zombies. As Matrix once said in C&P: "You guys won lowsec. Now you have no targets. Enjoy". And that fact is that many systems are inhabited by people who are docked up and surfing four-chan or pron and having nothing better to do except gank anyone who shows up. This is why there are many tales of T1 frigs being ganged up on by 6 or more battleships. One cloak can defeat that style of game play (which is not really play - it's just a chat room and a random chance to act like they are upsetting someone).


flummox
Posted - 2010.10.03 19:30:00 - [348]
 

Edited by: flummox on 03/10/2010 19:35:38
who the **** are you and why the **** do you care what i am doing?

if i want to go to the mall (i don't) while afk who the **** are you to tell me i can't? it's my money and i'll play the game as i see fit.

yeah, let's have more code written to check if players are not afk or giving input to the server. as if lag wasn't enough problems. also, any software that monitors my computer like that would be a huge violation of their own EULA. if CCP were able to do that, then i'd be able to do it back at them. and trust me, you don't want players to have that ability.

and stop whining about Local. "remove local, waah. remove local, wah!" are you that dense to realize that CCP gave you two ways to avoid the Local threat: close the chat or go to a system that has no local channel, like wormholes.

Local chat is the balance to the carebear areas of 0.0.


Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2010.10.03 19:34:00 - [349]
 

Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
This isn't true and you know this. The issue STILL EXISTS, mainly that the system inhabitants remain vigilant and alert for any potential threats
No. The issue is made moot by the fact that the inhabitants must remain vigilant and alert regardless of whether or not cloakers even existed in the game. AFK cloaking simply ceases to be an issue because the (supposed) treat they represent becomes universal.
Quote:
while the AFK cloaker STILL CANNOT BE CAUGHT UNLESS HE CHOOSES TO BE CAUGHT. The cloaker can STILL CHOOSE to go AFK for days and weeks while the rest of the system needs to stay vigilant.
…and the difference is that the only wait said cloaker could instil any additional fear above what a non-local environment would yield would be if he made his presence abundantly clear. This means exposing himself. This means putting himself at risk.
Quote:
Removing local does not in any way add any risk to the AFK cloaker keeping a system on its toes, even after local has been removed. I'm sorry, but your argument just doesn't hold.
It adds risk because the role of the AFK cloaker is removed from the game. To fulfil the role of psychological warfare, he must risk his hide.

dankness420
Posted - 2010.10.03 19:49:00 - [350]
 

Originally by: kasiloth
Originally by: dankness420
i dont see what the big deal is... even a rifter can kill a stealth bomber


Please come to my system find this cloaked SB and kill him with a rifter. If u ever find him. All big talks. The reality is far more different.



hey genius... in order for him to hurt you he has to uncloak...

MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.10.03 19:59:00 - [351]
 

Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 03/10/2010 20:17:05
Originally by: flummox
Edited by: flummox on 03/10/2010 19:35:38
who the **** are you and why the **** do you care what i am doing?

if i want to go to the mall (i don't) while afk who the **** are you to tell me i can't? it's my money and i'll play the game as i see fit.

yeah, let's have more code written to check if players are not afk or giving input to the server. as if lag wasn't enough problems. also, any software that monitors my computer like that would be a huge violation of their own EULA. if CCP were able to do that, then i'd be able to do it back at them. and trust me, you don't want players to have that ability.

and stop whining about Local. "remove local, waah. remove local, wah!" are you that dense to realize that CCP gave you two ways to avoid the Local threat: close the chat or go to a system that has no local channel, like wormholes.

Local chat is the balance to the carebear areas of 0.0.




Your argument is very weak. A player mining in 0.0 and AFK would suffer dire consequences if caught. No one cares where he is IRL because he can be killed for his stupidity in-game. No one cares where you are IRL except that you are logged in excerting influence on a system while that system can have no influence on you.


Voith
Posted - 2010.10.03 21:29:00 - [352]
 

Originally by: baltec1
Originally by: Acer Lorenz

I think what he means is that the miner sacrifices earnings and having to beef up security in order to stay alive. The cloaker seems to sacrifice nothing other than a lost opportunity for a kill.




Miners are earning more than the AFK guy.

This whole thread is a fine example of why removing local as an intel tool is a good thing to do. Cant hold up a system full of bears for days on end if they have no idea you are even there. And unlike the changes others in here want, removing local will hurt the marco ravens too.


No, it won't hurt macro ravens, they'll have a cloaked ship on the gate that sends the "dock up" singnal. It will have 0 effect on macroers.

Perfect stealth is massively stupid. More and more PvP games are going away from having any stealth because it just doesn't work.

If they're going to have a cloaking type device it should just hide you from local (and hide local from you), but leave you scannable. It lets the hunters hunt and prevents lame **** like flooding systems with Trial accounts in AFK cloaked Rifters.

Balsak
Minmatar
Friends of Bigfoot
Posted - 2010.10.03 22:49:00 - [353]
 

Originally by: kasiloth
Actually what is written so far by the pvpers is nothing of value. Even pvpers cannot propose a solution for the afk cloaked cause simply the dont have any. And they dont have any cause there isnt any solution at all. They have the advandange and they use it. What they afraid more is to lose their advantage on that. To be unbitable all the way. But this is not fair. And CCP after all this debate here has to seriously consider of this.



This is nothing about pvper vs bear, this about stupidty for the sake of stupidity itself at this point. The so called pvpers don't need to propose a fix because there is nothing that needs fixing other than the perceived threat of someone who may or may not be afk.

Solutions to a possible bomber attack have been posted numerous times but people like you and Matrix simply choose to ignore those options in favor of something not needed.

Seriously, you people are whining about someone not at their keyboard being a threat. And if they weren't at their keyboard and actually attacked you there are defensive tactics you can use but choose not to.

Are these afk cloakers messing up those macros that auto log people when a hostile enters local maybe ?

MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.10.04 00:05:00 - [354]
 

Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 04/10/2010 00:27:50
Originally by: Balsak
Originally by: kasiloth
Actually what is written so far by the pvpers is nothing of value. Even pvpers cannot propose a solution for the afk cloaked cause simply the dont have any. And they dont have any cause there isnt any solution at all. They have the advandange and they use it. What they afraid more is to lose their advantage on that. To be unbitable all the way. But this is not fair. And CCP after all this debate here has to seriously consider of this.



This is nothing about pvper vs bear, this about stupidty for the sake of stupidity itself at this point. The so called pvpers don't need to propose a fix because there is nothing that needs fixing other than the perceived threat of someone who may or may not be afk.

Solutions to a possible bomber attack have been posted numerous times but people like you and Matrix simply choose to ignore those options in favor of something not needed.

Seriously, you people are whining about someone not at their keyboard being a threat. And if they weren't at their keyboard and actually attacked you there are defensive tactics you can use but choose not to.

Are these afk cloakers messing up those macros that auto log people when a hostile enters local maybe ?
What you continuously fail to realize or comment on is the lack of repercussions to the AFK cloaker. It isn't about protecting oneself against AFK cloakers. It has been pointed out numerous times that the inhabitants of a system can buddy up, tank their hulks, keep their intel channels open and alert, stop mining/ratting if it gets too dangerous, etc, etc, etc. This is all great advice. And you know what? It is fair play and part of living in 0.0. It comes with lots of risk.

Now, explain to me what kind of threat can someone impose on a cloaker that is able to potentially keep a system on high alert? NONE. In fact, their own risk is so great they are able to park their ships cloaked for DAYS and WEEKS without EVER being at risk. EVER! Heh, so much for 0.0 being a scary place. And sure, you can keep him from NOT attacking you, but for pete's sake at least be honest and admit that isn't a risk to the cloaker.

In the mean time, guess who are still expected to be on high alert Rolling Eyes? That's right, the system's inhabitants. And you know what? They should be in high alert. Because 0.0 is supposed to be about risk and danger. And you know what else? The cloaker, ESPECIALLY the AFK cloaker, who by the way, isn't paying attention to his gameplay, should have to face some consequences for not paying attention as well.

So explain to me why these so-called PVPers cry, kick, and scream whenever someone proposes that players that are not at the keyboard paying attention be exposed to a bit of risk? These are the same PVPers that ***** and whine that Eve isn't hardcore enough for their targets.

baltec1, one of these "hardcore" PVPers, was complaining that him having to shift from safe once in a while is too much work for him to have to remain safe Laughing. I guess he being able to pose a potential threat on a system while he himself can go take a nap is fair game to him :P But is it really? Every time I propose adding risk to these cloakers they come out in droves insulting, bashing, trolling, throwing names like "coward!1" "grow sum balls!1!" "carebear" "gb2wow", etc, when they in fact are the ones wanting it easy. Anything to distract from the fact that while they can and do pose a potential threat on a system they themselves remain tucked in their comfty safe blanket ready only to come out on their term.

This isn't what Eve is or should be about and it needs some serious looking over.


Voith
Posted - 2010.10.04 00:23:00 - [355]
 

Originally by: Balsak
Originally by: kasiloth
Actually what is written so far by the pvpers is nothing of value. Even pvpers cannot propose a solution for the afk cloaked cause simply the dont have any. And they dont have any cause there isnt any solution at all. They have the advandange and they use it. What they afraid more is to lose their advantage on that. To be unbitable all the way. But this is not fair. And CCP after all this debate here has to seriously consider of this.



This is nothing about pvper vs bear, this about stupidty for the sake of stupidity itself at this point. The so called pvpers don't need to propose a fix because there is nothing that needs fixing other than the perceived threat of someone who may or may not be afk.

Solutions to a possible bomber attack have been posted numerous times but people like you and Matrix simply choose to ignore those options in favor of something not needed.

Seriously, you people are whining about someone not at their keyboard being a threat. And if they weren't at their keyboard and actually attacked you there are defensive tactics you can use but choose not to.

Are these afk cloakers messing up those macros that auto log people when a hostile enters local maybe ?


Your solution to 1 guy is to get 9 other guys.

If it takes a 10:1 ratio to coutner how is that not the definition of overpowered?

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Posted - 2010.10.04 01:01:00 - [356]
 

Originally by: Voith

Your solution to 1 guy is to get 9 other guys.

If it takes a 10:1 ratio to coutner how is that not the definition of overpowered?


Our solution is to make yourself as unattractive a target as possible. You don't need nine guys... just one that will make the stealth bomber/recon think twice. Any fast-locking sniper ship will accomplish this. Hell, even a logistics ship like a Scimitar or Onerios will accomplish this task.
Honestly... risk adversity works both ways and it doesn't take much to make a fragile SB feel a situation is too risky.

Jodie Amille
Knighthood of the Merciful Crown
Posted - 2010.10.04 01:11:00 - [357]
 

You could be a bit proactive and change one of your 10(!) accounts into a sniping zealot and sit it with your mining op. I'm pretty sure that will be deterrence enough for a stealth bomber.

X Dead
Posted - 2010.10.04 01:28:00 - [358]
 

Some clarifying points, made clear in possibly every other of these "nerf cloaks" threads:

1. Cloaking is not the only mechanism in which a ship becomes unscannable (do a bit of research).
2. If CCP were to remove the cloaking mechanism, your enemies will shift to another mechanism or tactic to achieve their goals as they will adapt.
Originally by: Voith

If they're going to have a cloaking type device it should just hide you from local (and hide local from you), but leave you scannable. It lets the hunters hunt and prevents lame **** like flooding systems with Trial accounts in AFK cloaked Rifters.

3. Re the above, you can't train Cloaking on trial accounts so the above specific tactic is moot.

Voith
Posted - 2010.10.04 04:07:00 - [359]
 

Cloaking comes down to one fundamental question.


Should you ever be perfectly safe in Eve Online?


The Cloaking carebears say "Yes", then scream at how everyone else is a carebear for wanting it changed. People who bother to think realize that being perfectly safe is dumb.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.10.04 04:23:00 - [360]
 

Originally by: Voith
Cloaking Docking comes down to one fundamental question.


Should you ever be perfectly safe in Eve Online?


The Cloaking Docking carebears say "Yes", then scream at how everyone else is a carebear for wanting it changed. People who bother to think realize that being perfectly safe is dumb.


Hey, fixed that for you.

-Liang


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