These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jee'ta
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#501 - 2011-10-14 05:34:27 UTC

I read somewhere that a lot of the Eve devs got their start ganking noobs in UO.... so quite probably.
Karim alRashid
Starboard.
#502 - 2011-10-14 06:14:26 UTC
Jee'ta wrote:
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.

Note to self: 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.



FYP.

Pain is weakness leaving the body http://www.youtube.com/user/AlRashidKarim/videos
Kitty McKitty
In Praise Of Shadows
#503 - 2011-10-14 06:25:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Kitty McKitty
I HAVE HEARD THAT PEOPLE CAN LOG OUT AND HAVE COMPLETE IMMUNITY WHILST NOT EVEN RUNNING THE GAME CLIENT. THEY COULD BE OUT IN A FIELD HAVING A PICNIC MEANWHILE THEY MAKE ZERO EFFORT IN GAME TO PROTECT THEIR ASSETS. I THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE FORCED TO LOG IN EVERY 15 MINUTES AND PRESS A 'SAFETY' BUTTON TO ENSURE THAT EVERYONE IS OPERATING FAIRLY AND EVENLY.

THEY COULD BE LOGGED OFF IN YOUR VERY SYSTEM THAT YOU OWN AND YOU WOULDN'T EVEN KNOW IT OR BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT!!!!!!

♥ Haviing your portrait painted here helps INTAKI Disabled Children ♥
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#504 - 2011-10-14 06:29:10 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
There is a flag above your post that can be hit to report you



SWEET.

Had no idea that was there!

Thanks for pointing that out, I went through and flagged all your posts.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Ekrund
BREACH INC.
#505 - 2011-10-14 06:52:03 UTC
Sniped117 wrote:
A possible solution to AFK cloaky alts

Sounds to me like you have this all wrong. If they're AFK they're not doing anything, it's all in your head. The game is fine, you just need therapy.
Signal11th
#506 - 2011-10-14 07:42:14 UTC
Ahh, This thread is a gift that just keeps on giving.

God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster!
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#507 - 2011-10-14 09:22:02 UTC
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"


I did this on post 11. As you can see it didn't stop them from whining about seeing a red in local and being too cowardly to do anything about it.
Endeavour Starfleet
#508 - 2011-10-14 10:46:17 UTC
Signal11th wrote:
Ahh, This thread is a gift that just keeps on giving.


How is this relevant to the conversation? This topic is about discussing ways to provide risk to the practice of being AFK or not active in the client when cloaked in a hostile system. My idea being probe a random point with warning of decloak.

I refer you to the forum TOS. Link above.
Kitty McKitty
In Praise Of Shadows
#509 - 2011-10-14 10:54:00 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Signal11th wrote:
Ahh, This thread is a gift that just keeps on giving.


How is this relevant to the conversation? This topic is about discussing ways to provide risk to the practice of being AFK or not active in the client when cloaked in a hostile system. My idea being probe a random point with warning of decloak.

I refer you to the forum TOS. Link above.


Feel free to cry about it. It is relevant because this is thread #23072350972450289837650208572 on the subject and every single one of them is full of clueless crybabies that want risk free ratting in contestable space. If you whine that there is no risk to being AFK you are missing the point. There is also no risk to you cowering in your station too afraid to undock because of a hostile ship doing nothing.

♥ Haviing your portrait painted here helps INTAKI Disabled Children ♥
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#510 - 2011-10-14 10:59:00 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Now can we focus on discussing ways to provide risk for those who are cloaked while not active in their client?
Sure. As soon as you explain why it is a even problem that needs to be solved and, if so, why the proposed solution of removing them from local (or, indeed, removing local entirely) is not adequate to solve that (supposed) problem.
Kitty McKitty
In Praise Of Shadows
#511 - 2011-10-14 11:02:22 UTC
Problem : Cowards
Solution : Stop being babbys

♥ Haviing your portrait painted here helps INTAKI Disabled Children ♥
Endeavour Starfleet
#512 - 2011-10-14 11:02:48 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Now can we focus on discussing ways to provide risk for those who are cloaked while not active in their client?
Sure. As soon as you explain why it is a even problem that needs to be solved and, if so, why the proposed solution of removing them from local (or, indeed, removing local entirely) is not adequate to solve that (supposed) problem.


The topic states "A possible solution to AFK cloaky alts" Not "This is a discussion of what is AFK cloaking" CCP knows darn well what AFK cloaking is. We are discussing solutions here.

Removing local will cause far more problems than solutions. Not to mention someone in this very topic already admitted to doing the same in Wormhole systems and in fact using it to make his cloaking nuclear. Removing local = highly buffed AFK cloaking not solves it.
Kitty McKitty
In Praise Of Shadows
#513 - 2011-10-14 11:12:53 UTC
You need a problem before you suggest a solution to it. What is the problem?

♥ Haviing your portrait painted here helps INTAKI Disabled Children ♥
Elisha Starkiller
EU Industrials
#514 - 2011-10-14 11:25:49 UTC
Diddent read thread as far too long,

Why are AFK cloakers a problem again???? I rat all the time in systems with a red in local... there is this thing in game called a "DIRECTIONAL SCANNER" its quite handy you know...


but then the real problem with AFK cloakers is that people cant run their bots... so keep it up AFK'ers your doing a grand job :D


ES
Signal11th
#515 - 2011-10-14 11:27:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Signal11th
Kitty McKitty wrote:
You need a problem before you suggest a solution to it. What is the problem?




This is exactly the point? To find a solution to "AFK cloaking" you need to have a problem! CCP and around 350 posts on here say there is no problem with AFK cloaking so your posts are completely pointless (not yours Kitty).

The only problem I have seen with it is the ability to stop a site from spawning , but how many people does that affect probably less than 0.5% of the EVE population.

God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster!
The Apostle
Doomheim
#516 - 2011-10-14 11:30:45 UTC
3 quick posts from 3 different dudes saying "what problem?"

This is so totally a figment of our imagination that it simply doesn't warrant post #23072350972450289837650208572 on the topic.

It wasn't, isn't and never has been an issue.

You're 100% correct. You can leave now.

[i]Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo![/i]
Endeavour Starfleet
#517 - 2011-10-14 11:33:13 UTC
Elisha Starkiller wrote:
Diddent read thread as far too long,

Why are AFK cloakers a problem again???? I rat all the time in systems with a red in local... there is this thing in game called a "DIRECTIONAL SCANNER" its quite handy you know...


but then the real problem with AFK cloakers is that people cant run their bots... so keep it up AFK'ers your doing a grand job :D


ES



You do realize Dscan cant detect a ship that is cloaked right? How is that relevant to the topic?
Signal11th
#518 - 2011-10-14 11:33:41 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
3 quick posts from 3 different dudes saying "what problem?"

This is so totally a figment of our imagination that it simply doesn't warrant post #23072350972450289837650208572 on the topic.

It wasn't, isn't and never has been an issue.

You're 100% correct. You can leave now.




Tbh Apostle I've only been posting to see if I can get this thread to 1000 posts, after the first two pages the rest of it is bascially saying the same thing.

God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster!
The Apostle
Doomheim
#519 - 2011-10-14 11:35:22 UTC
Signal11th wrote:
The Apostle wrote:
3 quick posts from 3 different dudes saying "what problem?"

This is so totally a figment of our imagination that it simply doesn't warrant post #23072350972450289837650208572 on the topic.

It wasn't, isn't and never has been an issue.

You're 100% correct. You can leave now.


Tbh Apostle I've only been posting to see if I can get this thread to 1000 posts, after the first two pages the rest of it is bascially saying the same thing.

No way dude. As I said before, I never repeat myself. Cool

[i]Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo![/i]
Elisha Starkiller
EU Industrials
#520 - 2011-10-14 11:37:40 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:



You do realize Dscan cant detect a ship that is cloaked right? How is that relevant to the topic?


if they are cloaked they are not a problem, when they uncloak you can see them on the D-Scan, when they uncloak next to you fight back??? .

none of this thread is relevant as there is no problem..............