These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

A possible solution to AFK cloaky alts

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
The Apostle
Doomheim
#481 - 2011-10-14 01:19:08 UTC
Morganta wrote:
the argument that nobody should be 100% safe is complete crap

Can you please repeat that?

I'd like it preseved for posterity when I discuss that we need x, y and z and it's blown to hell and back.....

because NO-ONE in Eve should be 100% safe....

[i]Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo![/i]
Endeavour Starfleet
#482 - 2011-10-14 01:21:27 UTC
Actually game mechanics get changed all the time. Its called balance. And I don't advocate an AFK timer I want a set of long skill and long scan time probes that can decloak someone who remains on the same grid for a long period of time (Half an hour hour or so) Using a random point so the location of the cloaker is not revealed and he has plenty of time to warp off grid to reset the point. Only the ones who go inactive on their client will be put in serious risk.

Damn I just need to make that pictorial post already.
Morganta
The Greater Goon
#483 - 2011-10-14 01:23:04 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
Morganta wrote:
the argument that nobody should be 100% safe is complete crap

Can you please repeat that?

I'd like it preseved for posterity when I discuss that we need x, y and z and it's blown to hell and back.....

because NO-ONE in Eve should be 100% safe....


I'll rephrase

the idea that cloaks should be nerfed because they make only cloakers 100% safe is complete crap

my bad for not being more specific
KrakizBad
Section 8.
#484 - 2011-10-14 01:36:40 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
KrakizBad wrote:
Adequately defend your space and a cloaked ship has plenty of risk. If you're so lazy you don't have gatecamps 23/7 into your ratting systems, why should the cloaker be penalized?

Link the kills where you've managed to stop a recon getting into PXF and I'll believe everything you say henceforth.

AFK cloakies are there for area denial as much as you're here promoting reality denial.


http://www.fatal-ascension.com/killboard/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=48204

What's that? A carebear ship defending itself? Gee thought that wasn't possible. Now kindly explain why AFK cloakies are a problem again? Seems to me your argument (as usual) boils down to "AFK cloakies are a problem for me"
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#485 - 2011-10-14 01:40:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Grath Telkin
Rhinanna wrote:

Remember PL posted a video showing it been done and working on players, I think he only caught a few of our miners that way however... damm miners ;) I kept telling them to fit warp stabs, but do they, noo......



You can thank Hubris for that, hes our video editor.


Sorry but there never was a no local exploit, we have a LOT of programer nerds in PL who have taken apart bot programs, the 'no local' exploit only ever caught botters, because it exploited a hole in the bot programing, not the EVE client.


It was funny to watch people like you sperge out over something you actually never saw happen yourself, and the ones who claimed him not to be in local are on a list of known botters that we have filed (you can check the forum dump from us about 9 months ago if you don't believe me, its all in print).

Basically at this point you sound like an angry bot farmer that knows if you whitelist the AFK guy in your system your screwed, and you don't want to do that, but you also really REALLY want your bot to run.


KrakizBad wrote:

http://www.fatal-ascension.com/killboard/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=48204

What's that? A carebear ship defending itself? Gee thought that wasn't possible. Now kindly explain why AFK cloakies are a problem again? Seems to me your argument (as usual) boils down to "AFK cloakies are a problem for me"


Easy on posting facts like that, it makes the weak and cowardly agitated.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Jee'ta
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#486 - 2011-10-14 01:40:50 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Actually game mechanics get changed all the time. Its called balance. And I don't advocate an AFK timer I want a set of long skill and long scan time probes that can decloak someone who remains on the same grid for a long period of time (Half an hour hour or so) Using a random point so the location of the cloaker is not revealed and he has plenty of time to warp off grid to reset the point. Only the ones who go inactive on their client will be put in serious risk.

Damn I just need to make that pictorial post already.


People understand it. But CCP thinks ganks = goodfights and lots of people enjoy being able to *** up a system with near zero risk, so they choose not to understand it. The "he's cloaked so he can't hurt you" being perhaps the stupidest counter (you have to assume a cloaker is active) though removing local is thankfully dumb enough it's not going to happen.

Easier to adapt. Either try and bait it (only works if they're bad), do some PvP or take it as a hint to go play something else (my steam backlog is massive). That way you can have a system with AFK ships and logged out players seeing who gets bored first.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#487 - 2011-10-14 01:43:15 UTC
Jee'ta wrote:
That way you can have a system with AFK ships and logged out players seeing who gets bored first.




Actually for me, when the prey logs or docks up I run their sanctums for them.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
The Apostle
Doomheim
#488 - 2011-10-14 01:46:17 UTC
KrakizBad wrote:
The Apostle wrote:
KrakizBad wrote:
Adequately defend your space and a cloaked ship has plenty of risk. If you're so lazy you don't have gatecamps 23/7 into your ratting systems, why should the cloaker be penalized?

Link the kills where you've managed to stop a recon getting into PXF and I'll believe everything you say henceforth.

AFK cloakies are there for area denial as much as you're here promoting reality denial.


http://www.fatal-ascension.com/killboard/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=48204

What's that? A carebear ship defending itself? Gee thought that wasn't possible. Now kindly explain why AFK cloakies are a problem again? Seems to me your argument (as usual) boils down to "AFK cloakies are a problem for me"

You're the second person to try linking a non-HD SB kill on a bait.

It's not even the topic. We're talking about the guys who are non-active, not noobs that baitfail.

Albeit I did ask for a recon kill at a gatecamp as you were proposing everybody can do unless they're "lazy".

(I can gladly say I have a Rapier kill on a set bait but it's STILL not the issue at hand.)

[i]Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo![/i]
KrakizBad
Section 8.
#489 - 2011-10-14 01:49:57 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
/snip whine


I'm still waiting for the killmail from someone who is AFK. You show me yours and I'll show you mine.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#490 - 2011-10-14 02:31:09 UTC
The Apostle wrote:

It's not even the topic. We're talking about the guys who are non-active, not noobs that baitfail.

Albeit I did ask for a recon kill at a gatecamp as you were proposing everybody can do unless they're "lazy".



Unless people started gate camping with hulks I think you've made a mistake.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Renan Ruivo
Forcas armadas
Brave Collective
#491 - 2011-10-14 02:59:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Renan Ruivo
The Apostle wrote:
KrakizBad wrote:
The Apostle wrote:
KrakizBad wrote:
Adequately defend your space and a cloaked ship has plenty of risk. If you're so lazy you don't have gatecamps 23/7 into your ratting systems, why should the cloaker be penalized?

Link the kills where you've managed to stop a recon getting into PXF and I'll believe everything you say henceforth.

AFK cloakies are there for area denial as much as you're here promoting reality denial.


http://www.fatal-ascension.com/killboard/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=48204

What's that? A carebear ship defending itself? Gee thought that wasn't possible. Now kindly explain why AFK cloakies are a problem again? Seems to me your argument (as usual) boils down to "AFK cloakies are a problem for me"

You're the second person to try linking a non-HD SB kill on a bait.

It's not even the topic. We're talking about the guys who are non-active, not noobs that baitfail.

Albeit I did ask for a recon kill at a gatecamp as you were proposing everybody can do unless they're "lazy".

(I can gladly say I have a Rapier kill on a set bait but it's STILL not the issue at hand.)



I thought that by now you'd have learned that its counter-productive to ask for a "fix" for "AFK Cloakers". Its a battle that is not worth waging because you cannot win it. AFK people are not a problem, because they are AFK. =)

If you wanna talk, talk cloaks in general. So far i'm yet to find someone that will convince me that cloaked ships should remain completely uncounterable. You wanna roll in EVE's space, you accept that there should be no completely safe place to hide other than stations.

The world is a community of idiots doing a series of things until it explodes and we all die.
KaarBaak
Squirrel Team
#492 - 2011-10-14 03:11:09 UTC

Anyone afraid of cloaked afk non-blues must be running a bot. It's the only answer that makes sense when reading the posts from people demanding a change to cloaking mechanics.

Hopefully CCP is monitoring this thread and noting which accounts are pushing for this change.

Dum Spiro Spero
Skunk Gracklaw
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#493 - 2011-10-14 03:12:56 UTC
KaarBaak wrote:

Anyone afraid of cloaked afk non-blues must be running a bot.

Good point. Anyone willing to cry about it for 25 pages sounds like somebody running a whole fleet of bots.
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#494 - 2011-10-14 03:14:02 UTC
AFK cloaking is a legitimate income denial tactic. Get lost.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Renan Ruivo
Forcas armadas
Brave Collective
#495 - 2011-10-14 03:26:09 UTC
Andski wrote:
AFK cloaking is a legitimate income denial tactic. Get lost.


How so?

Hes AFK ffs.

The world is a community of idiots doing a series of things until it explodes and we all die.
Rhes
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#496 - 2011-10-14 03:34:15 UTC
If afk cloaking keeps The Apostle out of nullsec it should be buffed.

EVE is a game about spaceships and there's an enormous amount of work to do on the in-space gameplay before players (or developers) are ready to sacrifice it for a totally new type of gameplay - CCP Rise
Renan Ruivo
Forcas armadas
Brave Collective
#497 - 2011-10-14 03:40:04 UTC
Rhes wrote:
If afk cloaking keeps The Apostle out of nullsec it should be buffed.


You know that doing that will keep him in here, right?

The world is a community of idiots doing a series of things until it explodes and we all die.
Endeavour Starfleet
#498 - 2011-10-14 04:19:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Endeavour Starfleet
Be aware if you are violating the forum TOS with your posts in here. There is a flag above your post that can be hit to report you. Keep that in mind when trying to use Libel, Trolling or other TOS violating tactics to try to derail this topic and others.

In case you are not aware of the rules http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Forum_rules Note rules 4-7 in particular.

Now can we focus on discussing ways to provide risk for those who are cloaked while not active in their client? IE the topic?
Jee'ta
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#499 - 2011-10-14 05:24:52 UTC
KrakizBad wrote:
The Apostle wrote:
/snip whine


I'm still waiting for the killmail from someone who is AFK. You show me yours and I'll show you mine.


It's much easier to find killmails for someone who had been AFK, possibly for many hours, before the kill. Which is of course why you need to treat hostiles in system as being potentially active.

Stop raising dumb arguments.

A cloaked presence should require active management in some form. AFK while 100% immune from detection or counter is just poor game design. But then, it is CCP, so change on this issue is unlikely.
KrakizBad
Section 8.
#500 - 2011-10-14 05:25:17 UTC  |  Edited by: KrakizBad
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Now can we focus on discussing ways to provide risk for those who are cloaked while not active in their client? IE the topic?


Quit trolling or I'll report you.

Jee'ta wrote:
It's much easier to find killmails for someone who had been AFK, possibly for many hours, before the kill. Which is of course why you need to treat hostiles in system as being potentially active.


Clearly working as intended.