These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Yet Another AFK Cloaking Nerf Related Idea:
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#41 - 2013-02-03 13:41:31 UTC
Tornadari Axonium wrote:
Iagus Damaclese wrote:


Act like a *****, get treated like a *****. Pure and simple.


What?

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Tornadari Axonium wrote:
I really don't think cloaks were put into the game so that people could completely shutdown null sec region economy by not playing the game.

I do not consider players relying on local to avoid all hostile contact to be playing the game.

They face less risk using this play dynamic than pilots flying in high security, and get higher rewards.

Think about this:

Using local this way, in low or null, they completely avoid neutral and openly hostile pilots with absolute certainty.
In high sec, a war dec'ed corp pilot can be scouted by an out of corp alt, then speed blitzed by the actual war opponent.
In high sec, a pilot can be suicide ganked. (Remember hulk-a-geddon?)

Having a stalemate situation where neither side effectively plays may seem broken, but it is balanced.


When did anyone say anything about relying on local, and why the **** are you completely ignoring the glaring balance issue with removing the intel capacity from local? It just gives a MASSIVE advantage to any gang or hot dropping fleet.

You're trying to base your argument on the capability of using alts in high sec? That's what Awoxing is for in null sec you ******* idiot. You cannot just "avoid" enemy gangs in null sec, especially if you're being a dipshit.

Would you please care to elaborate as to why being able to AFK cloak and not do ANYTHING and have such a massive affect on a system is a good thing?



Making you scared is not an effect on a system. TEST hold nearly two hundred syetems, go rat in another one. Or use a battlecruiser or other cheap ship that is either able to get out quickly, or just isn't worth dropping on.
Iagus Damaclese
Doomheim
#42 - 2013-02-03 13:57:37 UTC
I vote we lock this topic as it is going nowhere constructive and continue to lock any and all future discussion related to this topic.
Thutmose I
Rattium Incorporated
#43 - 2013-02-03 15:24:58 UTC
Iagus Damaclese wrote:
I vote we lock this topic as it is going nowhere constructive and continue to lock any and all future discussion related to this topic.


I agree with this, hence my first line in the thread mentioning that if this goes bad, it get locked. I was hoping that people might discuss the actual mechanic I suggested, rather than rant on about local...
Mag's
Azn Empire
#44 - 2013-02-03 15:28:47 UTC
Tornadari Axonium wrote:
I really don't think cloaks were put into the game so that people could completely shutdown null sec region economy by not playing the game.
Pray tell how someone AFK cloaked, can completely shut down a system?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#45 - 2013-02-03 15:30:46 UTC
Thutmose I wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Why is this needed and what problem are you trying to solve?



Thutmose I wrote:
Yes, this is a very situational suggestion, but the combat capabilities (LOL) of BLOPS is also very situational, so now we have another very situational use of the ship, maybe increasing the usage.

Reason needed: more BLOPS need to be blown up. Or used for anything other than a bridge for that matter

Problem trying to solve:
1) Not enough BLOPS blow up.
2) Will give something to tell the ones who whine about AFK cloakers: tell them to go manually find the ship with a BLOPS.

I am still trying to come up with a way to make EAFs more useful, but so far nothing comes to mind...
Black ops ships are not responsible for AFK cloaking. So irrelevant.

So why is this needed and what problem are you trying to fix.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Thutmose I
Rattium Incorporated
#46 - 2013-02-03 15:33:57 UTC
Irrelevant to whether they are responsible, they could still use this feature.

Thutmose I wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Why is this needed and what problem are you trying to solve?



Thutmose I wrote:
Yes, this is a very situational suggestion, but the combat capabilities (LOL) of BLOPS is also very situational, so now we have another very situational use of the ship, maybe increasing the usage.

Reason needed: more BLOPS need to be blown up. Or used for anything other than a bridge for that matter

Problem trying to solve:
1) Not enough BLOPS blow up.
2) Will give something to tell the ones who whine about AFK cloakers: tell them to go manually find the ship with a BLOPS.

I am still trying to come up with a way to make EAFs more useful, but so far nothing comes to mind...
Mag's
Azn Empire
#47 - 2013-02-03 15:34:53 UTC
Kodiii wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Why is this needed and what problem are you trying to solve?


Dude I see you saying this in lots of these threads.

Obviously, you've noticed there are many. Therefore, don't you think that it might be a problem that there are so many people being made unhappy by this? Personally, I don't find it that hard to deal with it, although I generally don't risk doing the little ratting that I do in my more expensive ships when I have cloakers in system. I just take it as time to pvp instead and leave the system that they are camping.

Yes CCP isn't the biggest fan of nerfing things to make certain game mechanics easier for a percentage of the player base (although think of things like doomsday nerfing and POS fuel blocks), it is in their interests to keep people from rage-quitting from the game. You can call people who are complaining whatever you like, they are still paying for the game and are therefore part of the stakeholders that CCP takes account for.


This is a very fair and minimalistic idea, but you haven't even taken that into account yet.


As for my opinion, I think it's a pretty good idea. There could be something included also that makes it hard to dscan their location by either limiting the distance they can be detected, or by making it only possible to detect them in maybe a certain direction (like 90 degrees scan and less for instance).
I say it because people don't think about it before posting.

Let me ask you this.
Whilst they are AFK, what mechanic are they using to interact with you?

When you know the answer, you know the cause. For this is a cause and effect situation. Fixing the effect, will not fix the cause.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#48 - 2013-02-03 15:35:42 UTC
Thutmose I wrote:
Irrelevant to whether they are responsible, they could still use this feature.
So what problem are you trying to solve and why?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Thutmose I
Rattium Incorporated
#49 - 2013-02-03 15:37:05 UTC
Thutmose I wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Why is this needed and what problem are you trying to solve?



Thutmose I wrote:
Yes, this is a very situational suggestion, but the combat capabilities (LOL) of BLOPS is also very situational, so now we have another very situational use of the ship, maybe increasing the usage.

Reason needed: more BLOPS need to be blown up. Or used for anything other than a bridge for that matter

Problem trying to solve:
1) Not enough BLOPS blow up.
2) Will give something to tell the ones who whine about AFK cloakers: tell them to go manually find the ship with a BLOPS.

I am still trying to come up with a way to make EAFs more useful, but so far nothing comes to mind...
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#50 - 2013-02-03 15:42:17 UTC
Thutmose I wrote:
Thutmose I wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Why is this needed and what problem are you trying to solve?



Thutmose I wrote:
Yes, this is a very situational suggestion, but the combat capabilities (LOL) of BLOPS is also very situational, so now we have another very situational use of the ship, maybe increasing the usage.

Reason needed: more BLOPS need to be blown up. Or used for anything other than a bridge for that matter

Problem trying to solve:
1) Not enough BLOPS blow up.
2) Will give something to tell the ones who whine about AFK cloakers: tell them to go manually find the ship with a BLOPS.

I am still trying to come up with a way to make EAFs more useful, but so far nothing comes to mind...



That doesn't answer the question. Are you by any chance a politician?
Thutmose I
Rattium Incorporated
#51 - 2013-02-03 16:03:10 UTC
It does answer his question, He asked for a reason why my list of suggestions is needed (I assume he is asking about the list) which I give a reason for. He also asked for what problem it is trying to solve, which I gave those as well.

Anyone who has read the first post will see that this is not a "nerf AFK cloaking" thread.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#52 - 2013-02-03 18:17:49 UTC
Thutmose I wrote:
It does answer his question, He asked for a reason why my list of suggestions is needed (I assume he is asking about the list) which I give a reason for. He also asked for what problem it is trying to solve, which I gave those as well.

Anyone who has read the first post will see that this is not a "nerf AFK cloaking" thread.
Let's see what you include in your OP.

Title: Yet Another AFK Cloaking Nerf Related Idea:

In the OP: Suggestion: Allow cloaked ships to show up on D-scan of black ops ships, but not giving ship type, name or exact distance.
This would allow cloakers to be located, albeit with significant difficulty if they are in a safe spot, but would not affect other forms of cloak use.
Edit: AFK cloakers will still be mostly safe, so long as they make their safespot right, as it could take a blops a very very long time to locate them, and blops are not very common ships.

So yes, it is an AFK nerf thread. You simply add on some irrelevant Black Ops stuff to hide it. Nothing you've stated so far, is a problem needing to be solved.

So why is this needed and what problem are you trying to solve?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2013-02-03 18:32:02 UTC
Thutmose I wrote:
Iagus Damaclese wrote:
I vote we lock this topic as it is going nowhere constructive and continue to lock any and all future discussion related to this topic.


I agree with this, hence my first line in the thread mentioning that if this goes bad, it get locked. I was hoping that people might discuss the actual mechanic I suggested, rather than rant on about local...



First because the essential "problem" isn't cloaking. It is local.

Ever since I started in EVE I've never understood the point of covert ops, black ops etc when you cannot hide from local.

Effectively the only covert ops thing you can do is a hot drop right on top of someone. Otherwise you tip your hand by having local explode. It just hasn't made any sense.

Also, to answer your OP. Honestly it's crap. So you want to have a way to counter cloakers in system. But to do so requires a very niche ship, that requires a ton of training. So effectively it limits its usefulness to the veterans of the game.
Thutmose I
Rattium Incorporated
#54 - 2013-02-03 18:44:09 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Thutmose I wrote:
It does answer his question, He asked for a reason why my list of suggestions is needed (I assume he is asking about the list) which I give a reason for. He also asked for what problem it is trying to solve, which I gave those as well.

Anyone who has read the first post will see that this is not a "nerf AFK cloaking" thread.
Let's see what you include in your OP.

Title: Yet Another AFK Cloaking Nerf Related Idea:

In the OP: Suggestion: Allow cloaked ships to show up on D-scan of black ops ships, but not giving ship type, name or exact distance.
This would allow cloakers to be located, albeit with significant difficulty if they are in a safe spot, but would not affect other forms of cloak use.
Edit: AFK cloakers will still be mostly safe, so long as they make their safespot right, as it could take a blops a very very long time to locate them, and blops are not very common ships.

So yes, it is an AFK nerf thread. You simply add on some irrelevant Black Ops stuff to hide it. Nothing you've stated so far, is a problem needing to be solved.

So why is this needed and what problem are you trying to solve?


Mag's wrote:
Why is this needed and what problem are you trying to solve?



Thutmose I wrote:
Yes, this is a very situational suggestion, but the combat capabilities (LOL) of BLOPS is also very situational, so now we have another very situational use of the ship, maybe increasing the usage.

Reason needed: more BLOPS need to be blown up. Or used for anything other than a bridge for that matter

Problem trying to solve:
1) Not enough BLOPS blow up.
2) Will give something to tell the ones who whine about AFK cloakers: tell them to go manually find the ship with a BLOPS.

I am still trying to come up with a way to make EAFs more useful, but so far nothing comes to mind...
Thutmose I
Rattium Incorporated
#55 - 2013-02-03 18:46:08 UTC
Derath Ellecon wrote:
Thutmose I wrote:
Iagus Damaclese wrote:
I vote we lock this topic as it is going nowhere constructive and continue to lock any and all future discussion related to this topic.


I agree with this, hence my first line in the thread mentioning that if this goes bad, it get locked. I was hoping that people might discuss the actual mechanic I suggested, rather than rant on about local...



First because the essential "problem" isn't cloaking. It is local.

Ever since I started in EVE I've never understood the point of covert ops, black ops etc when you cannot hide from local.

Effectively the only covert ops thing you can do is a hot drop right on top of someone. Otherwise you tip your hand by having local explode. It just hasn't made any sense.

Also, to answer your OP. Honestly it's crap. So you want to have a way to counter cloakers in system. But to do so requires a very niche ship, that requires a ton of training. So effectively it limits its usefulness to the veterans of the game.


The point of the idea was to give a use for the currently mostly useless BLOPS. Even if they give them combat capabilities, they will still mostly be used as jump bridges. I am giving a use for them which does not involve bridging targets, and which would encourage their use in fleets.

Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#56 - 2013-02-03 18:47:37 UTC
Thutmose I wrote:
Derath Ellecon wrote:
Thutmose I wrote:
Iagus Damaclese wrote:
I vote we lock this topic as it is going nowhere constructive and continue to lock any and all future discussion related to this topic.


I agree with this, hence my first line in the thread mentioning that if this goes bad, it get locked. I was hoping that people might discuss the actual mechanic I suggested, rather than rant on about local...



First because the essential "problem" isn't cloaking. It is local.

Ever since I started in EVE I've never understood the point of covert ops, black ops etc when you cannot hide from local.

Effectively the only covert ops thing you can do is a hot drop right on top of someone. Otherwise you tip your hand by having local explode. It just hasn't made any sense.

Also, to answer your OP. Honestly it's crap. So you want to have a way to counter cloakers in system. But to do so requires a very niche ship, that requires a ton of training. So effectively it limits its usefulness to the veterans of the game.


The point of the idea was to give a use for the currently mostly useless BLOPS. Even if they give them combat capabilities, they will still mostly be used as jump bridges. I am giving a use for them which does not involve bridging targets, and which would encourage their use in fleets.




And no-one will use them for this, as they'll be paying a billion ISK for virtually no practical use outside of some INCREDIBLY niche situations.
Thutmose I
Rattium Incorporated
#57 - 2013-02-03 18:51:08 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:

And no-one will use them for this, as they'll be paying a billion ISK for virtually no practical use outside of some INCREDIBLY niche situations.


No-one will ever use titans, they have to pay out 70 billion isk, and are only used for some INCREDIBLY niche situations.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#58 - 2013-02-03 19:05:10 UTC
As you obviously have no faith in your idea and won't answer directly. I say no.

Black ops are getting a buff anyway and cloaks are fine. Big smile

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Thutmose I
Rattium Incorporated
#59 - 2013-02-03 19:12:53 UTC
Mag's wrote:
As you obviously have no faith in your idea and won't answer directly. I say no.

Black ops are getting a buff anyway and cloaks are fine. Big smile


If you ask an identical question, I will give an Identical response, and ad-hominem arguments are generally considered to be bad.

care to elaborate more on why you say no?
Mag's
Azn Empire
#60 - 2013-02-03 19:16:28 UTC
Thutmose I wrote:
Mag's wrote:
As you obviously have no faith in your idea and won't answer directly. I say no.

Black ops are getting a buff anyway and cloaks are fine. Big smile


If you ask an identical question, I will give an Identical response, and ad-hominem arguments are generally considered to be bad.

care to elaborate more on why you say no?


It can't be Black Ops, they are getting a buff. (on this page)
It can't be cloaks, they are working fine.

So what is the problem you are trying to solve?

It's a simple question you cannot seem to answer.

Therefore you must have no faith in your idea. What else am I meant to think?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.