These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

(Proposal) Cloaky reds in system & Macro miners in Eve, how to make life harder for them.

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Caruleum Ursa
Orion Ore International
#221 - 2012-06-25 14:24:23 UTC
Excuse me for interrupting the personal attacks, but I have a question.

Are you seriously trying to defend some "need" for a hostile AFK CLOAK to remain "in operation" for MORE THAN TWENTY (20) HOURS to protect an AFK pilot in a hostile system?

Shouldn't the real question be HOW LONG before we force a disconnect/emergency warp on the griefer? Or, should we continue to troll and personally attack the posters bringing up these good ideas?

LOL. Get serious. If you are really on about getting some killmails or some serious intelligence gathering, you're going to HAVE TO MOVE ABOUT, anyways!

Let's send a message to the EXTENDED AFK CLOAKER - No risk, No Killmails. P

Shouldn't we focus on WHY ANYONE NEEDS to CLOAK for OVER 4, 6, 10, 14, 18, 22 hours AFK in a hostile system, and then ask whether the needs of the one exceed the needs of the many? I think I already spotted the "one" in this topic ... does anyone else recognize the troll? LOL How Long do you think should be the EXTENDED AFK??

I see no reason not to disconnect the cloaky so the isk maker alts can move to another system after a reasonable period of time, rather than forcing the isk maker to choose either extreme risk or logoffski to play WOW.

Some Chars gather isk. Some Chars gather killmails. Either one is fine. Why can't we all just "get along". Lol

But, just the same as you don't want miners and ratters AFK all the time ... you shouldn't get cloakers "hunting" AFK all the time. Keep the pilots active. I bet you'll get more killmails in the end. Don't make them log off due to tactics without a counter.
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#222 - 2012-06-25 15:28:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Ribikoka
Caruleum Ursa wrote:
I see no reason not to disconnect the cloaky so the isk maker alts can move to another system after a reasonable period of time....


Where can move, when all system is plagued with cloaker alts, which is easily can create on account slots and need just few days training ?
Easily can put cloaker AFK alts to all systems.

That's why i wrote, need create to cloaking devices with capacitor or fuel useage and cloaker cant do AFK cloaking easily 24/7 times long or AFK tag and AFK cloaker cant terrorize other active players anymore.
Kahn Soomer
Beverage Production and Consumption
#223 - 2012-06-25 18:22:40 UTC
Yes, Rib. I agree with you, except for one small issue that needs some thought.

If cap needs for cov ops cloaking device increases after the extended AFK period, and this cap drain simply de-cloaks the ship, the poor little cloaky nan******* would be left out there at risk of being scanned out and killed. The point is that we NEVER want cloaked ships to be "at risk". Amirite? Or wrong?



so her's a small addition to Rib's great idea:
Program the game to recognize the Covert Ops Cloaking Device malfunction (due to cap drained) and cause an emergency warp via a safe disconnection. Can't CCP set conditions for extended afk/increased cap use by Cov Ops Cloak and Decloak, result in d/c to emergency warp?

Vivi suggested using a "report spammer/report extended cloaker grief" button/feature trigger causing ccp enforcement (automatic or gm) to disconnect the griefer. The d/c seemed a bit more humane as it's really hard for the average Joe to catch a small cov op cloaker after d/c into the emergency warp.



The d/c works for either one of these mechanics (1.- cap drain, or 2. -report extended afk grief button) includes a d/c with emergency warp out. Using d/c, the cloaker preserves his current "not at any serious risk" advantage. The d/c balances the game by pushing the cloaker out of system for a little bit of time so local traffic can resume until the cloaker returns.
Cloaker still wins, but majority still have some small counter measure. The d/c happens ONLY AFTER the Cloaker has full reign of some long and unreasonable period (4+ hours) for imposing his grief upon all the locals in that system.



Now tell me why this is not better? More balanced, yes?
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#224 - 2012-06-25 19:26:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Ribikoka
Kahn Soomer wrote:
Yes, Rib. I agree with you, except for one small issue that needs some thought.

If cap needs for cov ops cloaking device increases after the extended AFK period, and this cap drain simply de-cloaks the ship, the poor little cloaky nan******* would be left out there at risk of being scanned out and killed. The point is that we NEVER want cloaked ships to be "at risk". Amirite? Or wrong?


If you are at the machine you can manage your ship with my idea. Can use cap booster, you can evade from scanners just need to warp to safepoint upload your cap for activating cloaking device and recloak. Repeat, when you are active.
The 4-5 hours long capacitor amount enough for prepare to everything (with covert ops). If a cloaker go AFK longer time than 4-5 hours. He need to undertake the consequences and he will uncloaked and he will scannable.

When you know you need to move away from your PC, you can prepare for 4-5hours long time cloaking, but you can't left your ship behind when you move to AFK 23 hours long. The cloaker have choice to log off when he know he need to move to work 8 hours long time and he wont play and he can't cloaking at enemy system without risk.
And another important thing cloaker sometimes need to recharge his cap boosters or fuels and they need to move to loading for their cargoholds. So, they cant sit in a system three months long time without move.

Your idea problem is the report to GM. They have enough job, they cant check everytimes who AFK or who not.
And dont forget they can't respond immediately for player requests.
Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#225 - 2012-06-25 20:33:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Arduemont
This thread is so full or terrible logic and bad ideas it gives my headache a headache.

In order for the cap drain idea to work, you need to stop cap recharge whilst cloaked. Which sounds fine until you actually think about it.

It would mean anyone with a cloak would have serious trouble using the cloak to disengage if they just spent most of their cap using an MWD to escape. It also means cloakies can't be cloaked if they want to recharge any cap (which for some pass fits, takes a very long time indeed), to the point where you might as well not have a cloak at all. Use a cap booster? Sure, if you want to completely ruin your fit. It takes a certain type of ship build to field a cap booster and have it actually be useful. This would be a massive massive Nerf to any ship fielding a cloak.

Now, I want to make it clear that, I am not (and have never been) against some kind of way to lower the effects AFK cloakies can have, but most of these ideas are terrible. And I will continue to argue against these terrible ideas, until you lot give up, or a good idea actually surfaces from somewhere.

Quote:
Are you seriously trying to defend some "need" for a hostile AFK CLOAK to remain "in operation" for MORE THAN TWENTY (20) HOURS to protect an AFK pilot in a hostile system?


There is a difference between shooting down terrible terrible gamebreaking ideas, and justifying afk cloaking.

Also, the whole "cloaking is risk free" thing, is a really daft argument. Docking up is risk free, and you don't need a cloak for that. Some people might argue that when someone is docked up, that at least you know where they are right? Well, if you checked the stations and know they're not docked up, you know they're in space anyway. So I don't see that there is a great deal of difference. The risk is still there for people in their home system as well, having a hostile only an undock away, is something people seem to have a false sense of security about.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#226 - 2012-06-25 21:26:06 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Spitfire
Arduemont wrote:
Another cloaker whine


Please refrain from personal attacks. Spitfire

And you still can use cap boosters for capacitor, when you want to use mwd or when you should be need to use capacitor for cloaking devices. Just you need spend some time to learn to it. Just ask for us and we show you where you find it and how can you use them.

And your argument for station it's crap. The nonNPC stations can occupied, those stations need ISK for build.
That's builded for shelter and need ISK billions. But what need one AFK cloaker ?

Anyone can camping the station undock point and can waiting to undock any pilots, but no one can camping the cloaked AFK ships, because no one know their positions. You feel the differences newbee ? Who has advantage in his home system ?

The POS is destructible, everyone can shot the POS down and can use bubble there for catch logged players.Everyone can find those position too..But how you can find a cloaked player in a huge solarsystem?
And what is the risk for AFK cloaker when hiding somewhere ? They dont have risk.

Repeat ; "And one thing AFK cloakers at enemy systems inflicting economic damage without play and no matter how you try to whining with your alt that's true."
Kahn Soomer
Beverage Production and Consumption
#227 - 2012-06-25 23:39:03 UTC
I have read in this topic at least 3 perfectly acceptable solutions for better balanced Covert Ops Cloaking Devices.

UNKOWNS:
1. Whether any Council member will take up the banner to ask for better balance?
[Council members well know a small minority of the player base likes to grief, and some are good at trolling. And, a lot of large alliances own so much territory they won't be affected by cloakers, probably preferring to keep the masses from getting "too big" (i.e. - big alliances won't want this change as it would help smaller alliances to enjoy their sovereign space in Null Sec...)] It will take a council member with some courage to "get behind" this measure.
2. Whether CCP has the backbone to tweak these devices for better balance? It might take some precious time to develop some programming sub routine or whatever...


THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:
The most repeated argument I read in this topic was some crazy thing about "no risk, no isk". The obvious response to that message is that we PAY (cost) to PLAY. When mechanics prevent PLAY, they are wrong. You don't DOCK in NULL SEC for FREE, but you must PAY a LOT of ISK for SOV and docking is a PRIVILEGE. Quite simply, that is WHY the Cloaker can't dock.

But, the cloaker should also have some cost/risk to get his jollies or his killmails - "no risk, no killmails". After all, his pvp char's game isn't about making isk, it's about getting the kills. And, these different goals makes the sand box more FUN. All we're asking is for a bit of better balance. Please fix this.
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#228 - 2012-06-26 00:27:12 UTC
The problem with cloaks using cap, specifically Cov Ops.

It either uses less cap than the cap recharge, in which case it is pointless, or it uses more and Cov Ops become useless.

Scouting for targets and/or other things, a Cov Ops can warp to several belts, gates, planets and moons in a short period of time. If the cap use is enough to have an effect on inactive players, then it would make active use of the cov ops impossible.

So cap use for cloaks to combat AFK cloakers will always hurt active players more. This makes it a bad idea.



At least fuel hurts them both equally. And is still a bad idea.




The only idea of "anti afk cloaking" that I could get behind woudl be something like the following.
Use of cloak over time through a currently non existent mechanic adds to the heat build up of the ship (since in the RW a cloak would have to mask heat). After a significant amount of time (between a couple hours and... more than a couple hours) the ship would have an effective signature of something like a pod (would come up as unknown in a probe scan and be hard to probe down). It would take about 12-16 hours of constant cloak for the ship to be probable to the point of warping. To vent this heat only takes a few seconds of decloak, during which the sig of the ship is that of a few classes higher (frig = BC-BS).
With something like this, an active player could manage, and an inactive one could still do their thing, just with some risk. Not a lot (because it would invariably hurt active players more) but enough to be non zero.

Anything that has more negatives than this would IMO be to harsh on those who are at their computers. But this is just my opinion, and I certainly do not speak for the cloaking community (if such even exists).Smile
Ta-Dam
#229 - 2012-06-26 05:35:40 UTC
Ribikoka wrote:
Kaelie Onren wrote:
Ribikoka wrote:
The problem is the riskfree cloaking without play when the pilots not playing. This need counter.


Answered. Read it again.
No isk, NO RISK


Answered read it again.

""Everyone knows why would be disturb the AFK tag some cloaky fags, who lying in this topic "I'm AFK at enemy systems and i cant kill anyone when i'm AFK", because they would be lost the chances to terrorizing active players in AFK."


"AFK cloakers plagued all systems. They are realy collecting intels alone in empty systems 24/7 time long?? LOL"

""Just as i said. It's time to create something what is should be change this bad game mechanic where a cloaker can hide in enemy system and can went out from his PC, 23 hours time long, without risk and where just wasting server resources without play.

"How many times i saw 3 weeks long intel collecting when a neutral alt at enemy system just logged on and went to AFK.
Intel collecting in AFK :PPP thats a joke argument."

Need solution for handling this. Capacitor useage for cloak, or fuel usage. Counter ship (seek and destroy) or AFK tag.""

And still we have a question.

"why disturb afk tag an afk player who not at the computer ?"


And everyone know NO RISK in AFK cloaking at enemy system it's time create a counter against them or AFK tag and the AFK players wont be disturb or terrorizing active players anymore.
Collecting intel in AFK it's lying."

"And afk cloakers not just in 0.0. They can cloak everywhere in AFK.
And other thing No RISK equal with no ISK ?
Really ? Hey newbee what is the RISK/ISK for AFK cloaker in enemy system?
A ratter have risk when he go to make isk when a cloaker in system, but what is the RISK for a cloaker who went to AFK ? Nothing.
So your arguments a big zero and just empty blabla such as the second answer. Not need any module rebalancing. I can use cap booster on any ship, maybe you need to learn some skills and brain for good fitting. I know this part is the hardest thing for you without it."

And one thing AFK cloakers at enemy systems inflicting economic damage without play and no matter how you try to whining with your alt that's true.


I agree with you completely
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#230 - 2012-06-26 09:50:23 UTC
oh wow I forgot about this thread

make cloaks consume the tears of people who are terrified by players who aren't even at the computer, that'll fix everything Big smile

... as would removing local from nullsec.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#231 - 2012-06-26 10:04:08 UTC
Kahn Soomer wrote:
Unless and until you have been part of a small alliance claiming less than 5 sovereign systems, which has been "fairly fought" by a hot dropping alliance that leaves AFK CLOAKERS onine in all your systems 24/7 for a few weeks, I am NOT going to listen to you suggest this process is "fair", "balanced", or not "grief" against each and every blue player in those systems.

Unless and until you have tried to conduct PvE to recover isk to reship after your PvP losses, and you find that your alliance's PvE systems are plaged by 24/7 AFK CLOAKED SHIPS and hot droppers, I am NOT going to listen to you talk about making FRAPS of your screens for intell. We ALL know WHY you do this, and it's NOT going to hurt your intell for CCP to use existing reporting mechanisms to BOOT the EXTENDED AFK CLOAKED SHIPS into an emergency warp. They will be safe in an emergency warp exit from system, and they can, ofc, relog and return to their cloaked duties as soon as they return to the keys to actively play the game. No foul on them, particularly if they are truly active.

I tend to agree there is no reason to "TAG" these people in Local. The solution is to push a REPORT BUTTON so that CCP can verify AFK status and BOOT THEM resulting in relog if there was an error. Small penalty to pay for the grief they inflict. And, not a big priority for GMs or enforcement as there is really "no rush" for booting them - they are going to be there 24/7 and ready to be booted whenever the GM has some down time available to deal with the anonymous REPORTS.

EULA violation for botting AFK and for purpose of giving grief to every person in system. This isn't a EULA violation? ROFL. Let's be serious. That's like suggesting a mass murder isn't a crime because it effects more than one person and the crime is described as killing "a person". I don't think the Judge will grant your motion to dismiss the indictment against a mass murderer on that basis.

So, I say (as explained in detail above):

1. ADD A REPORT BUTTON. [Put it into the same place where you report foul mouthed people or pron links = grief against the Local Residents in LOCAL. The policy would be explained in a small pop up or description before you push the button.]

2. CCP follows up on a report of the violation in a leisurely way (as time permits) to BOOT the LONG AFK CLOAKY causing him to go offline and into a safe emergency warp (until he logs back in and reactives cloak). Abuse of the reporting tool could also carry consequences.
PROBLEM SOLVED (at least until some "PvP counter-measure" or some better solution is developed and implemented.)

We players are paying for good mechanics. Please don't tell us CCP still doesn't have time to fix this or address it.
Please make this a priority, and please someone on the COUNCIL take on this Project as a CRUSADE. Show us you can make a difference. This will limprove the game.


A few things:
As far as not listening to me: That is your loss. I live in wormhole space and manage just fine, you seem to be having troubles though. Why not listen to someone who has experience in situations where cloakies are an even bigger threat and is successful? Don't you want help?

You claim that your systems have been "plagued with AFK cloakers" that prevented you from doing PVE, but surely if they're AFK you can PVE until your hearts content, and if you get hot dropped then they weren't AFK to begin with... so which is it?

Also the suggestion that they are violating the EULA and that you should have a button that logs them out... I have to admit, that is one of the funniest things I've read. Good on you, pal. +1 for the lols had by all.
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#232 - 2012-06-26 11:18:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Ribikoka
Corina Jarr wrote:
The problem with cloaks using cap....


Bad arguments.
What about with ships which use mwd and need capacitor for guns ???
They can use cap booster for capacitor upload ? Yes they can.
And other thing i didnt talk about short period of cloaking. 4-5hours long time.
Use mwd if you need (there no cloak cap consume without cloak) upload your cap with cap booster and use cloak and you can cloak 4-5hours long but you can't move to 24 hours long time AFK. Very simple.
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#233 - 2012-06-26 11:30:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Ribikoka
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
oh wow I forgot about this thread

make cloaks consume the tears of people who are terrified by players who aren't even at the computer, that'll fix everything Big smile

... as would removing local from nullsec.


You have choice to move WH. Thx Bye.
Remove local just make a big laggenerator because scanner spamming. And every player on server must be spamming scanner button.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1491281#post1491281

So your argument it's a big fail, again.
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#234 - 2012-06-26 19:14:14 UTC
Ribikoka wrote:
Corina Jarr wrote:
The problem with cloaks using cap....


Bad arguments.
What about with ships which use mwd and need capacitor for guns ???
They can use cap booster for capacitor upload ? Yes they can.
And other thing i didnt talk about short period of cloaking. 4-5hours long time.
Use mwd if you need (there no cloak cap consume without cloak) upload your cap with cap booster and use cloak and you can cloak 4-5hours long but you can't move to 24 hours long time AFK. Very simple.

You don't understand.

If cap usage is less than the recharge of the ship:
AFK cloakers are not hampered at all, so no point.

However, if cap usage is greater than the recharge of the ship, even if alone it could last for 5 or so hours, it make Cov Ops cloaks 100% useless.
A person could cap out after 2 or 3 long warps (happens frequently during scouting and exploration). It makes scouting impossible. It makes 3 classes of ships useless.

The whole point of a Cov Ops cloak is so that warping while cloaked is possible, allowing someone to scout or sneak up on prey undetected.

Requiring cap boosters in order to do that removes the whole point of the ship's, and their cloak's, existence.
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#235 - 2012-06-26 19:45:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Ribikoka
Corina Jarr wrote:
Ribikoka wrote:
Corina Jarr wrote:
The problem with cloaks using cap....


Bad arguments.
What about with ships which use mwd and need capacitor for guns ???
They can use cap booster for capacitor upload ? Yes they can.
And other thing i didnt talk about short period of cloaking. 4-5hours long time.
Use mwd if you need (there no cloak cap consume without cloak) upload your cap with cap booster and use cloak and you can cloak 4-5hours long but you can't move to 24 hours long time AFK. Very simple.

You don't understand.

If cap usage is less than the recharge of the ship:
AFK cloakers are not hampered at all, so no point.

However, if cap usage is greater than the recharge of the ship, even if alone it could last for 5 or so hours, it make Cov Ops cloaks 100% useless.
A person could cap out after 2 or 3 long warps (happens frequently during scouting and exploration). It makes scouting impossible. It makes 3 classes of ships useless.

The whole point of a Cov Ops cloak is so that warping while cloaked is possible, allowing someone to scout or sneak up on prey undetected.

Requiring cap boosters in order to do that removes the whole point of the ship's, and their cloak's, existence.



He can use cap boosters, he can use rigs and coovops have very long warp speed can warp 200AU with just half cap useage and dont forget the original suggests :

""Just i said. It's time to create something what is should be change this bad game mechanic where a cloaker can hide in enemy system and can went out from his PC, 23 hours time long, without risk.

Need solution for handling this. Capacitor useage for cloak, or fuel usage. Counter ship (seek and destroy) or AFK tag.""

If you want to evade with cap useage, just change to fuel useage.
Tarsus Zateki
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#236 - 2012-06-27 01:32:18 UTC
After six years of playing this game I still have yet to be ganked by an AFK cloaker. I don't know why anyone considers cloaked AFK ships a threat given that cloaked ships can't actually hurt you and being AFK would also make it impossible for that pilot to hurt you.

You asked me once, what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#237 - 2012-06-27 06:17:19 UTC
Tarsus Zateki wrote:
After six years of playing this game I still have yet to be ganked by an AFK cloaker. I don't know why anyone considers cloaked AFK ships a threat given that cloaked ships can't actually hurt you and being AFK would also make it impossible for that pilot to hurt you.


There's a certain type of insane paranoid carebear who work themselves up into hysterics over a random extra pilot in local, and will spend years on the forums voicing how terrified they are, and how outraged they are that CCP doesn't allow them zero-risk 0.0 PVE.

Rib, you chose to go to 0.0. So bloody deal with it or sod off back to hisec and shut up. You are not entitled to absolute safety in any part of eve, especially nullsec. If you don't like the nature of EVE it then unsub and go play hello kitty online
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#238 - 2012-06-27 06:35:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Ribikoka
Tarsus Zateki wrote:
After six years of playing this game I still have yet to be ganked by an AFK cloaker. I don't know why anyone considers cloaked AFK ships a threat given that cloaked ships can't actually hurt you and being AFK would also make it impossible for that pilot to hurt you.


""Everyone knows why would be disturb the AFK tag some cloaky fags, who lying in this topic "I'm AFK at enemy systems and i cant kill anyone when i'm AFK", because they would be lost the chances to terrorizing active players in AFK.
AFK cloakers at enemy systems inflicting economic damage without play"

This!!! The AFK cloaking just evasion and lying."

We want to catch coward cloakers. Want to counter against them, now they can cloaking everywhere in AFK riskfree and inflicting economic damage without play that's unacceptable.
Yelena Fedorova
#239 - 2012-06-27 07:49:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Yelena Fedorova
Afk cloakers in a nutshell
thats about it what they can do when afk
Kaelie Onren
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#240 - 2012-06-27 10:37:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaelie Onren
You are all just feeding Ribs insanity. There is no reasoning as he doesn't think logically.
Just ignore him and link my post of why fundamentally asking for a counter to cloakers is fundamentally flawed.