open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked I support banning afk cloaking
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8

Author Topic

Diablo Ex
Caldari
The Devil's Reject's
Posted - 2011.03.21 15:52:00 - [151]
 

Originally by: Kaedama Katar
So let me get this straight...

You guys are complaining because people are, in a sense, nullifying your 100% free threat alert a.k.a. local chat by dedicating an entire account to having a cloak-skilled and covops-fitted character online in the system?


^ ^ ^ ^ ^
This....

Chesty McJubblies
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2011.03.21 16:04:00 - [152]
 

Originally by: Cipher Jones
Cloaking while AFK is incredible metagaming at its finest. You will make as much isk per hour as moose burger hands down.


Until he found about your winning ways, then he'd go back and inflate his already inflated income statements so you weren't so winny. But first he'd biomass his char.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.03.21 16:18:00 - [153]
 

Originally by: Kaedama Katar
So let me get this straight...

You guys are complaining because people are, in a sense, nullifying your 100% free threat alert a.k.a. local chat by dedicating an entire account to having a cloak-skilled and covops-fitted character online in the system?
That is exactly what they're doing.

They're very very unhappy that their 100% accurate intel tool has a tiiiiiiiiny counter to it that brings the reliability of that intel down to… oh… 95% or so (just to throw a number out there), and they want a counter to that counter.

Cipher Jones
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.03.21 16:24:00 - [154]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Kaedama Katar
So let me get this straight...

You guys are complaining because people are, in a sense, nullifying your 100% free threat alert a.k.a. local chat by dedicating an entire account to having a cloak-skilled and covops-fitted character online in the system?
That is exactly what they're doing.

They're very very unhappy that their 100% accurate intel tool has a tiiiiiiiiny counter to it that brings the reliability of that intel down to… oh… 95% or so (just to throw a number out there), and they want a counter to that counter.


Which of course can be increased back up to 100% by simply hitting dscan every 2500ms.

Ingvar Angst
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2011.03.21 16:30:00 - [155]
 

Originally by: Cipher Jones
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Kaedama Katar
So let me get this straight...

You guys are complaining because people are, in a sense, nullifying your 100% free threat alert a.k.a. local chat by dedicating an entire account to having a cloak-skilled and covops-fitted character online in the system?
That is exactly what they're doing.

They're very very unhappy that their 100% accurate intel tool has a tiiiiiiiiny counter to it that brings the reliability of that intel down to… oh… 95% or so (just to throw a number out there), and they want a counter to that counter.


Which of course can be increased back up to 100% by simply hitting dscan every 2500ms.


You mean, actually be at the computer?! Then what's the use having the bot in the first place?!

StillBorn CrackBaby
Posted - 2011.03.21 17:17:00 - [156]
 

Man this boring subject has been beaten to death in any numbers of threads. My buddy who introduced me to EVE quit over this. I say cool, more ISK for me to be made then.

If a cloaked ship has you so paralized with fear you can't play the game I'd say you got bigger issues in life to worry about.

Nova Fox
Gallente
Novafox Shipyards
Posted - 2011.03.21 17:27:00 - [157]
 

I am all for the idea of not allowing a cloaking device and a cyno generator to be fitted on the same ship at once.

Nova Fox
Gallente
Novafox Shipyards
Posted - 2011.03.21 17:30:00 - [158]
 

Originally by: StillBorn CrackBaby
Man this boring subject has been beaten to death in any numbers of threads. My buddy who introduced me to EVE quit over this. I say cool, more ISK for me to be made then.

If a cloaked ship has you so paralized with fear you can't play the game I'd say you got bigger issues in life to worry about.



"Sir sonar picked up a ghost, we think its a sub!"
"Leave the peir anyways its not going to get us!"
5 minutes later the carrier sank with six torpedoes into her hull.

fiizzzzzzy
Posted - 2011.03.21 17:44:00 - [159]
 

if 1 afk cloaky in local stops you ratting then you dont deserve to be in 0.0, get a spine and play the game with some risk or go back PS3 games where you can save your efforts when it gets to hard for you until you find a cheat online to help you complete. Eve is not for you i am afriad

Ingvar Angst
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2011.03.21 17:44:00 - [160]
 

Originally by: Nova Fox


"Sir sonar picked up a ghost, we think its a sub!"
"Leave the peir anyways its not going to get us!"
5 minutes later the carrier sank with six torpedoes into her hull.


Option "B"... carrier leaves with anti-submarine escort and all is well.

Stupid captain dead. Smart one vacationing in the Caribbean after the cruise.

Mortigar Crel
Posted - 2011.03.21 17:46:00 - [161]
 

Now I get so confused when people cry about an afk cloaker and how unfair it is because it forces them to dock up and hide... Now I thought 0.0 was suppose to be the hardcore area, I thought this is where you and your alliance members battled it out for supremacy and control, where an attack can come anytime, anywhere, from anyone. However what it seems to be for a lot of players is their personal isk making area. Anyone enters, well quick flee dock up wait for them to leave!!!

When in 0.0 why not use your corp and alliance to help defend your turf? I hear so much about how joining a good corp/alliance is a must, but lets face it, its only a must when you want to blob others who dont stand a chance, when you want to strut around like mr big due to your back up.... However you just want to run around solo making isk all the rest of the time, without any risk of you losing your ship, the only risk should be to the enemy falling at your feet when you stomp them 5-1 in odds...

When a so called "afk" cloaker is in local why not do what so many yap about on the forums and "get back up", why not get those who are bubbling a gate with 20-50 guys waiting for that 1 guy to jump through, get them to move and guard you while you run your mission or rat or mine or pick you nose...

You say its not fair that 1 cloaker can sit afk and stop you from doing your business... well why is it your station can hold you forever docked up so that cloaker has no chance in ganking you? Why dont stations punt you out every 30 min and place a 30 second timer on re-entry on the pilot? If a player is hunting and you hide in a station in safety and he isnt afk wouldnt that make it fair?

Lets face it, when it comes down to the afk cloak sux argument, it boils down to wanting to be able to get that easy kill or be able to dock up hiding from a threat... If it was about a fair fight, then you wouldnt dock up for days on end waiting on the cloaker to leave, you would dock up, amass your forces, head out and bait them... but when you dock up and hide that means your playing solo, want your solo area left alone and dont want anyone to bother you... you want pvp only when the odds are in your favor..

Sibil Vane
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.03.21 18:11:00 - [162]
 

Just find out the cloakers home system and you go do it to them. Train falcon and /afk Profit.


OR just hit dscan and align out while ****ing around at celestials or easy to scan down locations.

War Kitten
Panda McLegion
Posted - 2011.03.21 18:22:00 - [163]
 

I am now cloaking afk in your thread.


Othran
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2011.03.21 18:25:00 - [164]
 

Originally by: Mortigar Crel
Now I get so confused when people cry about an afk cloaker and how unfair it is because it forces them to dock up and hide... Now I thought 0.0 was suppose to be the hardcore area


Carebear area more like.

The average person sitting in the alliance/regional intel channel is more likely NOT to report a neutral/red than they are to report it. The reason is simple - it will disrupt whatever isk-making activity they are engaged in as someone senior in the alliance may tell them to do something.

Perhaps 5% of people go actively looking for fights - and that holds true across high-sec and null. Low-sec is significantly higher percentages looking for a fight as the industrial/manufacturing populations doesn't really exist the way it does in high-sec/null.

The remaining 95% are passive players - they'll perhaps go if someone leads, but more likely they will only go if ordered to do so.

NB - the above applies to sov null. NPC null ranges from happy clappy land to "wtf is PVE?". Sov null is pretty much all the same unless there's a war on in the constellation.

StillBorn CrackBaby
Posted - 2011.03.21 19:01:00 - [165]
 

Originally by: Mortigar Crel
Now I get so confused when people cry about an afk cloaker and how unfair it is because it forces them to dock up and hide... Now I thought 0.0 was suppose to be the hardcore area, I thought this is where you and your alliance members battled it out for supremacy and control, where an attack can come anytime, anywhere, from anyone. However what it seems to be for a lot of players is their personal isk making area. Anyone enters, well quick flee dock up wait for them to leave!!!

When in 0.0 why not use your corp and alliance to help defend your turf? I hear so much about how joining a good corp/alliance is a must, but lets face it, its only a must when you want to blob others who dont stand a chance, when you want to strut around like mr big due to your back up.... However you just want to run around solo making isk all the rest of the time, without any risk of you losing your ship, the only risk should be to the enemy falling at your feet when you stomp them 5-1 in odds...

When a so called "afk" cloaker is in local why not do what so many yap about on the forums and "get back up", why not get those who are bubbling a gate with 20-50 guys waiting for that 1 guy to jump through, get them to move and guard you while you run your mission or rat or mine or pick you nose...

You say its not fair that 1 cloaker can sit afk and stop you from doing your business... well why is it your station can hold you forever docked up so that cloaker has no chance in ganking you? Why dont stations punt you out every 30 min and place a 30 second timer on re-entry on the pilot? If a player is hunting and you hide in a station in safety and he isnt afk wouldnt that make it fair?

Lets face it, when it comes down to the afk cloak sux argument, it boils down to wanting to be able to get that easy kill or be able to dock up hiding from a threat... If it was about a fair fight, then you wouldnt dock up for days on end waiting on the cloaker to leave, you would dock up, amass your forces, head out and bait them... but when you dock up and hide that means your playing solo, want your solo area left alone and dont want anyone to bother you... you want pvp only when the odds are in your favor..

And the players whining about the cloakers are the same players sitting in a gate camp with 25 Battle Ships so they can jump 1 lone player coming through the gate in a Frigate. This is their idea of "hard core"...

Nova Fox
Gallente
Novafox Shipyards
Posted - 2011.03.21 19:29:00 - [166]
 

Just saying that carrier leaving port was a historical event in ww2 a japanses carrier sunk before it even left harbor. But the thing is currenlty in eve its impossible to deter a blob which one cynoing cloaker can easily be the start of. Then again attentive people should be able to gtfo before its too late for them.

I have seen the issues surrounding this sticky topic though the simple fact is the fix for cloak is a broadside shake up, not a simple fix. Because the simple idea of castle vs invader is alot more complex in eve than any board or flash game I know of.

Castles are built to be safe behind.
Invaders are made to break casltes.

If you make a castle to easy to break into why even bother building them?
If you make a castle to hard to break in why bother invading?

Currently AFK Cloaking falls right ontop of the castle wall of breaking into the castle and in the opinion of some makes them to easy to break into. Most from simple cloak nerf to getting cloak all together would not make castles unassailable.

All the remove local and getting rid of any ability to control territory physcially is all along the lines of why even bother building a castle?

At least let me biuld a amarrdamned watch tower for my castle sheesh

Umega
Solis Mensa
Posted - 2011.03.21 19:57:00 - [167]
 

Originally by: Nova Fox

All the remove local and getting rid of any ability to control territory physcially is all along the lines of why even bother building a castle?

At least let me biuld a amarrdamned watch tower for my castle sheesh


AFK.. AFK.. AFK.. let it sink in.

K..

Anyone asking CCP to make 'Castles' that don't need to be manned and offer safe protection should be banned. It is very simple to counter an AFK Cloaker.. ignore him.

Now.. on the topic of an aware/active Cloaker. Bubbles and combat ships and dscan and align. There are plenty of ways to protect ship/space. It is up to the people to implement and do it. Crying for a protective counter measure that doesn't warrant the need for player effort is a push to make bots safer and more reliable to use for players. It is a push for SOV to never change.. which is already a much bigger problem than Cloakers to begin with.

If people want space, they should protect it.. with themselves. Not cry for then hide behind game mechanics that cuddle them.

Cloaks severely gimp a ship. Cov-op ships come gimped in hull form in terms of tank and dps when compared to similiar counterpart hulls.

Turn them into EAFs.. fine. What will happen is a surge of unprobe-able eccm ships. So now people that aren't bots that cringe at a neutral or red in local will have the pleasure of seeing a ship on dscan. Brilliant.. nerf them too?

I really dislike when people push snuggling idiots, morons, robots, newbs, socialistic imbreds of a mind washed in failure n desire that clings to wants undeserving.. the typical phase every MMO encounters, then promptly dies when implemented.

This thread should now be about immediately making Delayed Local in nullsec a reality. Very Happy

Sixtina KL
The Shoop Group
Posted - 2011.03.21 20:05:00 - [168]
 

Hey guys, what's happenin' - so ummmmmmm I'm gonna need you to invent a way to, you know, probe and eventually shoot down a cloaker - if you could do that, that'd be greeeeaaaaaat.

Nova Fox
Gallente
Novafox Shipyards
Posted - 2011.03.21 20:35:00 - [169]
 

Edited by: Nova Fox on 21/03/2011 20:38:48
Castle is a methaphorical term.

Physically in eve it can be small as your ship or as large as your allied territories.

you wouldnt want to make a ship tissue paper thin and unable to discourage attackers of any sort now would you?

Also on a mordern battlefield today a 'castle' is very unmanned and very autonomous, Area of Denial and Phalanx Cannon systems are the new walls of the mordern castle.

A little bit of 'automation' wouldnt hurt anyone though provided both sides get similar tools to defend or attack. How about a seige platform you can deploy and anchor to burn down an outpost?

And by your argument
Attackers shouldnt be able to break castles either without being at the keyboard if the defenders cant do the same to save thier own castles. However there is a lack of tools on the defender side to protect ship movements and the sorts from a cloaker which may nott exactly be afk. either way there is little ways to tell.

Marija Vanszar
Caldari
The Warp Pub
Posted - 2011.03.21 20:43:00 - [170]
 

I really do not understand this...

if you're afraid of a covops.... go back to HS and eat rocks...

This works in W-Space, why is everyone flaming about k-space?
becouse you see someone in local? LOL

in w-space you have no clue if there is noone in the system or 20 guys cloaked somewhere....

Stop flaming, HTFU!

Umega
Solis Mensa
Posted - 2011.03.21 20:49:00 - [171]
 

Originally by: Nova Fox
Edited by: Nova Fox on 21/03/2011 20:38:48
Castle is a methaphorical term.

Physically in eve it can be small as your ship or as large as your allied territories.

you wouldnt want to make a ship tissue paper thin and unable to discourage attackers of any sort now would you?

Also on a mordern battlefield today a 'castle' is very unmanned and very autonomous, Area of Denial and Phalanx Cannon systems are the new walls of the mordern castle.

A little bit of 'automation' wouldnt hurt anyone though provided both sides get similar tools to defend or attack. How about a seige platform you can deploy and anchor to burn down an outpost?

And by your argument
Attackers shouldnt be able to break castles either without being at the keyboard if the defenders cant do the same to save thier own castles. However there is a lack of tools on the defender side to protect ship movements and the sorts from a cloaker which may nott exactly be afk. either way there is little ways to tell.


How is an AFK cloaker doing anything to anyone? The only things they do is strike fear into panzies and shut down macros. Anyone hating AFK cloaker, imo.. is either one of the two.

An aware cloaker might be getting fleet/ship/POS positions.. system activity.. setting up an offensive position. How is there anything wrong with this? Once it uncloaks.. open season just like any other ship, cept in a gimpier hull. When its cloaked.. it can't do anything cept survilliance, hence COVERT OPERATIONS. A pretty valid and widely used military tactic.. since you love to compare rl with a science FICTION video game. They can do nothing else on their own.. the people that become gimped because of a cloaker are the people that don't deserve to operate in the space they are trying to operate in. Seriously.. if people suck so bad cause of a cloaker.. go back to highsec.

And no.. there should not be a full proof safety mechanic implemented that allows unmanned protection to systems and such. The only such move is the correct one.. log off and/or quit. Use the latter if your idea to 'Castle' building must require a flawless safety net defense when no one is home or paying attention to defending their territory.

Sentient Blade
Posted - 2011.03.21 21:10:00 - [172]
 

Repeat after me:

"You cannot be sure if a character is AFK, therefore you must work on the assumption they are not"

What people do when there is a known active threat nearby, and what they do when there is not, are two completely different things.

Akhmed TDT
Posted - 2011.03.21 21:16:00 - [173]
 

Originally by: Flaser
*snip* afk cloaking. *snip* There was a 2 week period in my 0.0 space where the same dude was "always" there, 24 hours day/7 days a week, get a life man!


Pure irony. "afk" people usually are doing something with their life. Noticing someone in system 24 hours a day, 7 days a week is not having a life.

rootimus maximus
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.21 21:22:00 - [174]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Simetriz
That is the root of the cloaker Issue
No. The root of the issue is local.
AFK cloaking is simply a counter to local.

If you want AFK cloaking gone, local needs to go as well, or the AFK cloaking will have to be replaced by something else that makes local (at least) as unreliable.


Actually, local defeats one purpose of cloaking (AFK or otherwise). If you're cloaked, there should be no way for your target to know you're in the system until you decloak 5 meters off their bow and scare the crap out of them.

With regard to the larger AFK cloak argument, can someone explain it to me? If I'm undocked, regardless of the security status of the system, if there's anyone else in local I assume I have at least one cloaked hostile on-grid at all times. In low / nullsec I also assume that hostile is capable of bringing in big ouchies. I conduct myself accordingly and most of the time it works (I still suck something chronic at PvP though).

Sentient Blade
Posted - 2011.03.21 21:59:00 - [175]
 

Summary:

The argument is about the closing down of systems due to sov owners unable to conduct their business out of concern that they'll be hot-dropped or attacked by a previously cloaked enemy, all while giving the system owners no possibility of countering it.

The issue is if it is in the best interests of the game that adversaries should be able to use unattended or otherwise unmonitored perma-cloaked ships to put a system into a defensive posture (and therefore 'locking it down'), all while being completely immune to counter-attack.

Thanks to botting etc, larger alliances could potentially open many dozen accounts to field these cloaked ships throughout entire constellations.

Nobody in their right mind is going to conduct industry, or complexes etc in any ships worth using when they're unable to get even the smallest element of situational awareness on the enemy threat... attempting to do them in a fleet is no benefit either, as the enemy has all the time they want to ready a larger blob before acting.

The end result being a level of unbalanced gameplay where active members lose out, where as people leaving their ships cloaked and unattended risk nothing, and cause significant damage against the enemies economy.

The entire thread comes down to balance, and lack, thereof.

Holdout
Posted - 2011.03.21 22:20:00 - [176]
 

Would training a bunch of cloaking alts and hiring their services out to AFK cloak in systems be a good startup? If so, IPO incoming...

Umega
Solis Mensa
Posted - 2011.03.21 22:23:00 - [177]
 

Originally by: Sentient Blade
Summary:

The argument is about the closing down of systems due to sov owners unable to conduct their business out of concern that they'll be hot-dropped or attacked by a previously cloaked enemy, all while giving the system owners no possibility of countering it.

The issue is if it is in the best interests of the game that adversaries should be able to use unattended or otherwise unmonitored perma-cloaked ships to put a system into a defensive posture (and therefore 'locking it down'), all while being completely immune to counter-attack.

Thanks to botting etc, larger alliances could potentially open many dozen accounts to field these cloaked ships throughout entire constellations.

Nobody in their right mind is going to conduct industry, or complexes etc in any ships worth using when they're unable to get even the smallest element of situational awareness on the enemy threat... attempting to do them in a fleet is no benefit either, as the enemy has all the time they want to ready a larger blob before acting.

The end result being a level of unbalanced gameplay where active members lose out, where as people leaving their ships cloaked and unattended risk nothing, and cause significant damage against the enemies economy.

The entire thread comes down to balance, and lack, thereof.


Explain to everyone exactly how a CLOAKED ship locks down a system, please. The only real answer.. the people do it to themselves.

Quit the bull****. If people are paying attention.. and you know, conduct themselves correctly to protect their best interests when a hostile is in system. They can be rdy to curb stomp. Its not like cynos are hard to spot.

IF.. if.. people are conducting industrial operations in a system, and don't have combat sigments in place or nearby.. why should the aggresser be punished for the defenders inability to defend what they want to do? That again, is bull**** to suggest such a thing should exist.

IF.. if.. people are conducting industrial operations in a system, that means they should be aware and paying attention to the screen a decent percent of the time. Again.. cynos are not hard to spot. The problem tends to be when those conducting operations where they are doing something ingame.. but aren't actually at the screen. Bots.

When a ship is CLOAKED.. it can't do anything cept watch. People crying foul simply because of eyes staring at them is pretty sad.

Sentient Blade
Posted - 2011.03.21 22:35:00 - [178]
 

You're obviously not paying attention... a cloaked ship locks a system down but putting it on a defensive footing, and when you're on the defensive you deploy different assets to when you're not.

The point of defence is to protect your assets by keeping them out of the way of harm.

Do I really need to start quoting Sun Tzu?

Umega
Solis Mensa
Posted - 2011.03.21 22:58:00 - [179]
 

Originally by: Sentient Blade
You're obviously not paying attention... a cloaked ship locks a system down but putting it on a defensive footing, and when you're on the defensive you deploy different assets to when you're not.

The point of defence is to protect your assets by keeping them out of the way of harm.

Do I really need to start quoting Sun Tzu?


I don't give a **** if you start quoting someone other than yourself. But when you do.. make sure you remember everything he has said, so you don't end up making yourself look foolish when a different Tzu method is used against your own.

And do you have any reason why there should not be defensive capabilities to deploy for different situations? Or are you implying when industrial things are in place, there should be no need to imploy defensive counter measures? Really.. not too difficult to drop warp-line bubbles and have a couple combat ships rdy to pounce. If this is too much work for someone to handle.. they don't deserve that system to begin with.

Whats going to stop a cloaky ship from getting into undefended system and liting a cyno immediately? Whats your beef and counter idealogy to that tactic?

Yes the key to defense is to protect assets. That takes effort and work. Do you believe it should not take work to make isk and control space?

It takes effort and work to get a cloaky ship into position.. to do what again? Watch.. cause that's ALL a ship that is cloaked can do. It can not attack, it can not mine, it can not rat, it can not make money. The people letting themselves halt operations and curl up into a ball of tears because someone might be watching them is their own doing.

A cloaked ship, again.. can't do anything. Nothing. Jus' watch. It does not have a module equip'd that stops the other people in the system, doesn't force them to change actions, or logoff, or dump everything for a lone possible maybe not aggressor. The people are doing it to themselves. And they should probably react and do something about it as a precaution.. *****ing for CCP to do something about it for them is being a *****, and I see no reason why they should be in control of any section of space where they can't defend everything their enemies also have to defend.

Sentient Blade
Posted - 2011.03.21 23:04:00 - [180]
 

Originally by: Umega
A cloaky can't do this, a cloaky can't do that


No, it has to wait a whole half second after uncloaking to do them, by which point it's too late and you're screwed because the person uncloaking has already waited until they know they can win, and then done it.

I can grasp this fact quite easily having only been down in nullsec a few months. Which leads me to think you're deliberately ignoring the game balance problem because it works to your advantage.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8

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