These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#561 - 2011-10-15 17:39:31 UTC  |  Edited by: MeBiatch
Tippia wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
whats the more simple less complex fix as ccp has only so much resourses...

simply nerf afk cloaking but not wolf pack hunting?

or removing local and intorducing a totally new game mechanic for ship detection?
They're already doing the latter…



is this a summer 2012 type of working on or a Soon™ type of thing?...

if its the latter then i would prefer them to first nerf afk cloaking... as it could be over a year before the new mechanic could be introduced...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#562 - 2011-10-15 17:42:00 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
if its the latter then i would prefer them to first nerf afk cloaking.
Sure. Now all anyone needs to do explain why that's needed…


We're at 29 pages of no-one being able to so far.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#563 - 2011-10-15 18:00:01 UTC
Tippia wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
if its the latter then i would prefer them to first nerf afk cloaking.
Sure. Now all anyone needs to do explain why that's needed…


We're at 29 pages of no-one being able to so far.



comon tippa there are 29 pages of worthy arguments... you cant just disreguard all of them can you?... well you can "choose" too but youare better then that Ugh... rightStraight

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#564 - 2011-10-15 18:01:22 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Tippia wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
if its the latter then i would prefer them to first nerf afk cloaking.
Sure. Now all anyone needs to do explain why that's needed…


We're at 29 pages of no-one being able to so far.



comon tippa there are 29 pages of worthy arguments... you cant just disreguard all of them can you?... well you can "choose" too but youare better then that Ugh... rightStraight


No, there really are no arguments for a nerf to the only tool people have to combat local.
Zerra Zeta
Doomheim
#565 - 2011-10-15 18:05:57 UTC
omg there is a person in system who I think is afk... I think I need to cry about it
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#566 - 2011-10-15 18:27:05 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Tippia wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
if its the latter then i would prefer them to first nerf afk cloaking.
Sure. Now all anyone needs to do explain why that's needed…


We're at 29 pages of no-one being able to so far.



comon tippa there are 29 pages of worthy arguments... you cant just disreguard all of them can you?... well you can "choose" too but youare better then that Ugh... rightStraight


No, there really are no arguments for a nerf to the only tool people have to combat local.



cloaking is a counter to local... afk cloaking is an exploitation of a game mechanic to make local obsolete...

the first is awesome the second is lame duck

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#567 - 2011-10-15 18:29:57 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:


cloaking is a counter to local... afk cloaking is an exploitation of a game mechanic to make local obsolete...

the first is awesome the second is lame duck



Please list the things an AFK cloaker can do to hurt you.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#568 - 2011-10-15 18:36:52 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
cloaking is a counter to local... afk cloaking is an exploitation of a game mechanic to make local obsolete...
No. Cloaking is a counter to the overview and to scans; AFK cloaking is a counter to local, since it subverts its value as an intel tool.

Until that intel tool is fixed, AFK cloaking stays.
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#569 - 2011-10-15 18:38:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Tanya Powers
Double post, nice forums.
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#570 - 2011-10-15 18:38:44 UTC
Tippia wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
if its the latter then i would prefer them to first nerf afk cloaking.
Sure. Now all anyone needs to do explain why that's needed…



And why isn't needed?

Here I got the answer!!

copy/pasta: "working has intended"

Easy!
Mag's
Azn Empire
#571 - 2011-10-15 18:51:10 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
cloaking is a counter to local... afk cloaking is an exploitation of a game mechanic to make local obsolete...

the first is awesome the second is lame duck
The fact that you can AFK without a cloak and have the same psychological warfare effect on someone, points to the fact it's not a cloaking issue.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#572 - 2011-10-15 18:53:41 UTC
Tippia wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
cloaking is a counter to local... afk cloaking is an exploitation of a game mechanic to make local obsolete...
No. Cloaking is a counter to the overview and to scans; AFK cloaking is a counter to local, since it subverts its value as an intel tool.

Until that intel tool is fixed, AFK cloaking stays.




hmm you have somewhat convinced me... ok so once there is this new "intel tool" is out we can then nerf akf cloaking to a time based mechanic or fuel based?

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#573 - 2011-10-15 18:55:31 UTC
Mag's wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
cloaking is a counter to local... afk cloaking is an exploitation of a game mechanic to make local obsolete...

the first is awesome the second is lame duck
The fact that you can AFK without a cloak and have the same psychological warfare effect on someone, points to the fact it's not a cloaking issue.


you can? i was under the impression that they fixed un probable ships?

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Maggeridon Thoraz
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#574 - 2011-10-15 18:55:44 UTC
oh my god. there is a cloaky in your system and all you assume is he is beeing afk, how do you know . thats your assumption, your imaginary vision. this is all your imagination. the only thing you can say and fact is: he is cloaked. what you cannot see is what he is doing. he might be warping from safe to safe, etc.

you should or might call the cloaky "god" as well. you cannot see him, thus belive ....

you have so many options to counter a cloaky, and after dt, he has to login as well. if you are scared to get killed use the time he is lgged in ....


actually ther ei sno need to change any of the mechanic. but for the whines, really remove local and all is good again. then you will be yourself using alts staying at gates cloaked as guards. welcome to the other side :-)
ArmyOfMe
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#575 - 2011-10-15 18:56:40 UTC
I cant stand cloaky tactics myself, but the way i see it there is nothing wrong with how cloakers work atm

GM Guard > I must ask you not to use the petition option like this again but i personally would finish the chicken sandwich first so it won´t go to waste. The spaghetti will keep and you can use it the next time you get hungry. Best regards.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#576 - 2011-10-15 19:11:35 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Mag's wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
cloaking is a counter to local... afk cloaking is an exploitation of a game mechanic to make local obsolete...

the first is awesome the second is lame duck
The fact that you can AFK without a cloak and have the same psychological warfare effect on someone, points to the fact it's not a cloaking issue.


you can? i was under the impression that they fixed un probable ships?
Indeed they did, but who mentioned those?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#577 - 2011-10-15 19:13:56 UTC  |  Edited by: MeBiatch
Mag's wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Mag's wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
cloaking is a counter to local... afk cloaking is an exploitation of a game mechanic to make local obsolete...

the first is awesome the second is lame duck
The fact that you can AFK without a cloak and have the same psychological warfare effect on someone, points to the fact it's not a cloaking issue.


you can? i was under the impression that they fixed un probable ships?
Indeed they did, but who mentioned those?


totally confused with that one... how would one afk without a cloak and still have the same affect?
are you suggesting peeps wont probe you out in 3 min?

or how about a pos? but that can be attacked...

does not compute... as smoke starts to fizzle from me brainStraight

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Marcus Wilde
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#578 - 2011-10-15 19:17:10 UTC
I haven't read the other 29 pagesRoll

Have cloaks actively cycle like other mods, problem fixed Cool

Tears + Bucket = Win
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#579 - 2011-10-15 20:20:41 UTC
The primary goal with dealing with AFK cloakers is that the cloaky should be forced to decloak after N hours and spend 10-30 seconds uncloaked before they can cloak up again. That results in:

- Can't go AFK for more then 1-3 hours before they will be decloaked by game mechanics.
- Vulnerable during that 10-30 second window every so often.

That window of vulnerability needs to be in the control of the cloaky pilot. External events such as sov structures do not meet that goal.

- A fuel bay for the cloak probably won't result in a long enough vulnerability window. And most ships don't have a fuel bay.

- Fuel in the form of ammo might work, since you cannot reload a module without decloaking for 10 seconds. Proto-cloaks could have limited fuel capacity, T2 cloaks could have a 2x capacity and CovOp cloaks could have a 4x capacity. Fuel pricing would need to be around 50-100k ISK/hr, with Proto-cloak fuel lasting about 40 minutes.

- Overheating of the cloak would have interesting implications and makes a bit of sense since the heat from running the module cannot be emitted while cloaked, so it has to build up somewhere. Carry a bit of nanite paste and you can sneak off to a safe-spot once an hour and fix up your cloaking device's heat damage.

- If some sort of time limit is put in place, there needs to be modules that can extend that duration (20% for a T1 module, 30% for a T2 variant with stacking penalties - either slower cycling or less fuel/activation or less heat generated). There also needs to be some sort of skill that extends duration by 10% per level. Maybe even (2) skills, one to decrease the fuel/heat, another to increase the cycle duration.

A top-skilled pilot, in a ship fitted for covops (using the modules) work should have about a 2-3 hour window before they need to reload or repair. Without those skills/modules the duration should be about half of that.
Maggeridon Thoraz
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#580 - 2011-10-15 20:56:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Maggeridon Thoraz
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
The primary goal with dealing with AFK cloakers is that the cloaky should be forced to decloak after N hours and spend 10-30 seconds uncloaked before they can cloak up again. That results in:

- Can't go AFK for more then 1-3 hours before they will be decloaked by game mechanics.
- Vulnerable during that 10-30 second window every so often.

That window of vulnerability needs to be in the control of the cloaky pilot. External events such as sov structures do not meet that goal.

- A fuel bay for the cloak probably won't result in a long enough vulnerability window. And most ships don't have a fuel bay.

- Fuel in the form of ammo might work, since you cannot reload a module without decloaking for 10 seconds. Proto-cloaks could have limited fuel capacity, T2 cloaks could have a 2x capacity and CovOp cloaks could have a 4x capacity. Fuel pricing would need to be around 50-100k ISK/hr, with Proto-cloak fuel lasting about 40 minutes.

- Overheating of the cloak would have interesting implications and makes a bit of sense since the heat from running the module cannot be emitted while cloaked, so it has to build up somewhere. Carry a bit of nanite paste and you can sneak off to a safe-spot once an hour and fix up your cloaking device's heat damage.

- If some sort of time limit is put in place, there needs to be modules that can extend that duration (20% for a T1 module, 30% for a T2 variant with stacking penalties - either slower cycling or less fuel/activation or less heat generated). There also needs to be some sort of skill that extends duration by 10% per level. Maybe even (2) skills, one to decrease the fuel/heat, another to increase the cycle duration.

A top-skilled pilot, in a ship fitted for covops (using the modules) work should have about a 2-3 hour window before they need to reload or repair. Without those skills/modules the duration should be about half of that.


you should stick to teaching pvp and not spreading such and wiered ideas.
ever considerd that every ships would get nerfed due to every ship can have a normal cloack fitted and every ships need special bays for the extra fuel and more slots for your mods you suggested. Having already one hi-slot in use and then maybe other slots for just beeing longer cloaky and not doing anything would gimp fiitings and nerf ships...

get rid of your illusions your brain is giving you. the ship is cloaked, but you dont know what the pilot is actually doing. you just assume after some time he is afk. maybe he is not and just waiting for the opportunity to attack. well its all your speculations. nothing else. and if he is really afk. why bother . dont fly what you cannot loose you are are afraid of.

you should better get to hisec and start mining...