open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked An acceptable solution to afk cloaking?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

RtoZ
Posted - 2007.08.28 14:08:00 - [1]
 

How about putting the cloak on a timer... the longer you cloak the more capacitor it uses untill it just breaks the grid and goes offline? This would not have any tactical purpose ingame, as pilots could just turn it off for a second to reset the timer, I do not really think it is necessary to change the current - imo good - cloak game mechanics, but this would address the issue of afk accounts ghosting systems. Would ideally be an exponential system, for exp: after one hour capacitar use suddenly doubles, after 1:30 it quadruples, after 1:45 it is 8 times the original amount and shortly after this it just sucks the grid dry and the ship uncloaks and starts recharging. This would force people to actually be at the helm of a cloaker, besides shorter afks.

Good idea?

Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
Posted - 2007.08.28 14:11:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Celeste Coeval on 28/08/2007 14:13:05
Why are you scared by 1 AFK cloaker?Rolling Eyes surely if he's afk he's no threat? And if he isn't afk he's relaying intel anyway?

I have a solution for you.

Undock?

leyther
KrayZ Dams Inc.
R0ADKILL
Posted - 2007.08.28 14:12:00 - [3]
 

A decent solution to the problem at hand - but I have to question if afk cloakers cause such a problem that a solution is needed.

Sure it can be annoying to have a cloaker endlessly in system but if you're lo-sec/0.0 then you have to be wary regardless of cloakers, and in hi-sec who cares?

Postlatta Mouseanon
Caldari
State War Academy
Posted - 2007.08.28 14:14:00 - [4]
 

For the love of Kernite!

I've never seen one issue in EVE that made both Carebears and PVP people equally whiny.

Amazing.

CCP- don't change a single thing about cloaking please. The entertainment value presented by neurotic miners makes the game *much* better.

*click* <disappears>

Illyria Ambri
SMASH Alliance
Posted - 2007.08.28 14:14:00 - [5]
 

Wow.. did you think this idea up all by yourself? Or did you decide to respam the same whine thats been in the other 500+ cloaking threads?

I'm guessing you were too lazy to try to search and see that its been suggested numerous times.. either that or you actually thought you had an original idea...

RtoZ
Posted - 2007.08.28 14:14:00 - [6]
 

It dosen't affect me in the slightest as I mostly live in empire, but people have complained about it though, and as the current mechanics of local allow it to see everyone who is in system and actually affect gameplay somewhat I consider it abusive for people who have more accounts than time to just sit one in a key system and disrupt the ops of everyone else. It's like having a free spy/threat into enemy activity with 0 effort.

Grendelsbane
Posted - 2007.08.28 14:14:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Grendelsbane on 28/08/2007 14:14:56
I fail to see why this is a problem in the first place. What business is it of yours if someone wants to float in a system all day - afk or not.

Would it make you feel better if they were actually there, watching you?

Edited to add -- it's not "zero effort". You have to get there in the first place.

Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
Posted - 2007.08.28 14:15:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Postlatta Mouseanon
For the love of Kernite!

I've never seen one issue in EVE that made both Carebears and PVP people equally whiny.

Amazing.

CCP- don't change a single thing about cloaking please. The entertainment value presented by neurotic miners makes the game *much* better.

*click* <disappears>


your sarcasm skill only seems to be at lvl 1.

Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
Posted - 2007.08.28 14:16:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: RtoZ
It dosen't affect me in the slightest as I mostly live in empire, but people have complained about it though, and as the current mechanics of local allow it to see everyone who is in system and actually affect gameplay somewhat I consider it abusive for people who have more accounts than time to just sit one in a key system and disrupt the ops of everyone else. It's like having a free spy/threat into enemy activity with 0 effort.


LOL

IBTL


SirMoric
Caldari
State War Academy
Posted - 2007.08.28 14:18:00 - [10]
 

Stop spamming the forums with these threads, the topic is getting very old.

If they don't cloak, they'll just sit docked at stations and you've gained nothing.

And if you're sad you can't find them, get over it, it's low sec and supposed to be dangerous... to all of us.

rgds

Postlatta Mouseanon
Caldari
State War Academy
Posted - 2007.08.28 14:21:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Celeste Coeval
Originally by: Postlatta Mouseanon
For the love of Kernite!

I've never seen one issue in EVE that made both Carebears and PVP people equally whiny.

Amazing.

CCP- don't change a single thing about cloaking please. The entertainment value presented by neurotic miners makes the game *much* better.

*click* <disappears>


your sarcasm skill only seems to be at lvl 1.


Ya... but i'm the only one who has it trained!

RtoZ
Posted - 2007.08.28 14:22:00 - [12]
 

If you are aware that I have made gamemechanic change threads before you are aware that I also propose a change in the mechanics of local in lowsec, and this cloak tweak fits in with those, if they are both implemented a rather lame form of gaming is removed from the game and is replaced by the far more interesting mechanics of dedicated scout ships.

Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
Posted - 2007.08.28 14:24:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Celeste Coeval on 28/08/2007 14:25:12
Originally by: RtoZ
If you are aware that I have made gamemechanic change threads before you are aware that I also propose a change in the mechanics of local in lowsec, and this cloak tweak fits in with those, if they are both implemented a rather lame form of gaming is removed from the game and is replaced by the far more interesting mechanics of dedicated scout ships.


we already have dedicated scout ships. Covert Ops. Ever flown one? If not try it and scout in 0.0 before you want to make changes to cloaking.

And my solution to local is to rmove it and replace it with constellation.

RuleoftheBone
Minmatar
Black Viper Nomads
Posted - 2007.08.28 14:32:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: RuleoftheBone on 28/08/2007 14:33:03
/Slices cheese...puts it on a nice plate with a pleasant garnish and a selection of crackers for future posters in this thread.

Laughing

**Edit**Since when is a crunchy biscuit a naughty word?


Ramlir
0.0 Corp
Posted - 2007.08.28 14:41:00 - [15]
 

I know what you mean, OP. I too spend all my time in Empire space and those mean force recon ships keep afking in Jita and I'm sick of it! Thank god this thread came along so I could voice my Empire opinions on 0.0 matters.

RtoZ
Posted - 2007.08.28 14:42:00 - [16]
 

I love it how a discussion in game mechanics allways ends up with people insinuating that the OP dosen't know his stuff. If that were true you guys would discuss the actual topic instead of making b-lines for what the OP can or cannot do. But, hey, I'll bite:

I can fly caldari ships all the way up to dreads and carriers. I have a recon ship pilot alt that can pratically get me anywhere in eve if I so want to (barring hotspots and gate camps ofc). I can fly 3 of the 4 races up to battlecruiser over 2 accounts. I can fly freighters. I have a 7kms interceptor and a permaboosting cnr. I have trade alts sprinkled around eve. I have been here for a year and a half playing continously. I have been ganked, podded, persued, scanned. I have done the same things also. But hey, I enjoy the pve and trade part of the game more than pew pew pvp, sue me. AND NONE OF THE ABOVE IS RELEVANT TO THE IDEA IN THE ORIGINAL POST. You don't need to consider what I can or cannot do to discuss the validity of the idea (original or not, it dosen't matter, originality is usually a lie anyway, or do you speak with custom words?), as the only real, valid, option is to discuss it rationally and point out logically why it would not work or why it is a bad idea. Something which 80% of the forum posters fail miserably at.

Rawthorm
Gallente
The Establishment
Establishment.
Posted - 2007.08.28 14:43:00 - [17]
 

Solution = Assuming cloaker is hostile and can do damage and thus have an escort. There you go, problem solved.

Lebowske
Nosferatu Security Foundation
Posted - 2007.08.28 15:04:00 - [18]
 

Why this reaction?
Are you looking at local and see a hostile?
What the deal?
Let me allow to point out that 0.0 is not meant to be safe.
For that sake, empire isnt.

Whats this about afk cloakers again?

Even without cloakers, an enemy fleet can jump in on you within 30 seconds of anyone napping in a belt (afk mining eh?). You're dead anyway - afk cloaker in system or someone entering through the gate.

The whole debate is just silly.


Marisal
Posted - 2007.08.28 15:06:00 - [19]
 

Most people that will stoop low enough to ghosting in a system aren't gonna have an issue with using a macro to get around your solution to the problem.

I've been in systems what ghosters that exhibit behaviour that screams macro, around/online 23 hours a day, only actually active within the system during specific periods yet at all times outside of those periods if the user is disconnected from eve they return to the game and cloak up within a couple of minutes.

Maintaining a cloaked presence as a psychological attack is a valid, but it should only be available to those that are willing to pay a price for it by sitting at their alt account rather than leaving it afk. The true underlying issue is that there's no negative effect to the user to set his alt up in a system and leave it afk.

Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
Posted - 2007.08.28 15:12:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: RtoZ
It dosen't affect me in the slightest as I mostly live in empire, but people have complained about it though, and as the current mechanics of local allow it to see everyone who is in system and actually affect gameplay somewhat I consider it abusive for people who have more accounts than time to just sit one in a key system and disrupt the ops of everyone else. It's like having a free spy/threat into enemy activity with 0 effort.


You said it yourself. You live in Empire. Mechanics and problems associated with them are derived from actual experience rather than theory.

I have never feared afk cloakers because they are AFK.

I'd trade 1 cloaker in any system for alliance intel channelsVery Happy

Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
Posted - 2007.08.28 15:14:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Marisal
Most people that will stoop low enough to ghosting in a system aren't gonna have an issue with using a macro to get around your solution to the problem.

I've been in systems what ghosters that exhibit behaviour that screams macro, around/online 23 hours a day, only actually active within the system during specific periods yet at all times outside of those periods if the user is disconnected from eve they return to the game and cloak up within a couple of minutes.

Maintaining a cloaked presence as a psychological attack is a valid, but it should only be available to those that are willing to pay a price for it by sitting at their alt account rather than leaving it afk. The true underlying issue is that there's no negative effect to the user to set his alt up in a system and leave it afk.


If what you say is true then the solution is to undock and ignore them lol?

Steel Tigeress
Gallente
R0GUE ENTITY
Posted - 2007.08.28 17:09:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Lebowske
0.0 is not meant to be safe.



You're absolutly right. 100% spot on......

0.0 isn't supposed to be safe, Not even for AFK cloakers

SiJira
Posted - 2007.08.28 17:11:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Steel Tigeress
Originally by: Lebowske
0.0 is not meant to be safe.



You're absolutly right. 100% spot on......

0.0 isn't supposed to be safe, Not even for AFK cloakers

it isnt safe soon as they uncloak
stop whining

Admiral Nova
Strike Team Nova
Posted - 2007.08.28 17:21:00 - [24]
 

It's not really meant to be played AFK, whether it be by macro or just by being logged in and causing an effect without a human at the keyboard.

Mirirar
Solstice Systems Development Concourse
Posted - 2007.08.28 17:27:00 - [25]
 

Non covert cloaks should use fuel.

That way, combat recons can continue to scare kids like the OP, and people can't rat with no risk in their Ravens deep in 0.0

Fswd
Gallente
Psychotic Sea Monkeys
Posted - 2007.08.28 17:43:00 - [26]
 

Zzzz....BORING

Aaron
Eternal Frontier
Enemy-Fleet
Posted - 2007.08.28 19:49:00 - [27]
 

This idea is pants..

4rc4ng3L
Gallente
C R Y O
Posted - 2007.08.28 19:51:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Steel Tigeress
Originally by: Lebowske
0.0 is not meant to be safe.



You're absolutly right. 100% spot on......

0.0 isn't supposed to be safe, Not even for AFK cloakers


but your missing the god dam point.
WHAT can an afk cloaker do!?!?! except be afk!!

LvxOccvlta
Posted - 2007.08.28 19:52:00 - [29]
 

Hay noob, quit whining and join the par-tay.

Slap an improved cloak II on your Hulk and you can reap the joys of cloaking too.


Illyria Ambri
SMASH Alliance
Posted - 2007.08.28 20:09:00 - [30]
 

Whats the difference between a cloaked ship and a REALLY deep safespot that cannot be reached by probes?

Nothing except the fact that 1 of them dosen't get whined about.


Pages: [1] 2

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