These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Time to bring in the mine sweepers.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ferrenc
State War Academy
Caldari State
#61 - 2011-12-10 02:47:39 UTC
remove local from null?
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#62 - 2011-12-10 02:49:04 UTC
I apologize if this is a stupid question, but...

What is the difference between the possible risk of a gank from the "AFK" cloaker in null and the possible risk of a gank form the hundreds of ships in a given HS system?

Other than ships in local not causing miners to scatter like roaches...
Alski
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#63 - 2011-12-10 02:55:36 UTC
Krios Ahzek wrote:
Let's say we invent a Cloaking disruption generator module for heavy interdictors that produces a decloaking bubble. Or an anchorable deployable for that matter.

If a single ship slips your perfect blocade and ends up having the time to make a safe spot and cloak there, you are still in TROUBLE (according to your criteria for trouble) as it's impossible to comb a 1:1 scale solar system with a kilometers wide sphere.



If you create an anchorable "cloaking nullifying" bubble your nerfing other aspects of the game that don't need nerfing, ie; bombers, blockade runners (big wtf there.), travel fit /anythings/. those aren't the problem. the problem is 23/7 intel gathering / gank-on-standby nullbear alts.

Cloaky intel/semi-afk-ganky ships are not an issue, if anything they are another nice flavour of Eve and should remain. the issue is being able to do these things with zero penalty, zero attention, zero risk, indefinitely.

I dunno why I'm arguing this since these things effect me precisely: zero. but yaknow... gameballance... or something...
Pseudo Ucksth
Camellia Void Cartographics
#64 - 2011-12-10 02:56:14 UTC
Ferrenc wrote:
remove local from null?


replace local with a dradis tia
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#65 - 2011-12-10 02:57:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Jaroslav Unwanted
Pseudo Ucksth wrote:
Ferrenc wrote:
remove local from null?


replace local with a dradis tia


give free beer to capsulers. ehm users

it seems that intoxicated pilots tend to risk more and lose more while having tremendously more fun. Just the mornings are bad.
Alski
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#66 - 2011-12-10 03:01:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Alski
Corina Jarr wrote:
I apologize if this is a stupid question, but...

What is the difference between the possible risk of a gank from the "AFK" cloaker in null and the possible risk of a gank form the hundreds of ships in a given HS system?

Other than ships in local not causing miners to scatter like roaches...


In Highsec?

that's a pretty difficult question to answer in a short reply because nullsec is nothing like highsec.

but to the very basics...
In highsec your ship has to be worth destroying for the absolute 100% guaranteed loss of your ganking-ship to be worth the profit gained for the mods thats fitted to your victims ship or the cargo it carries.

in null?

for the fun.
for the lol's?.
for the fun.
for the hell of it.
for the fun.
for KB stats.
for fun?
for.... boredom? (done that one.)

Yeah... its not quite the same, its just lame P
Pseudo Ucksth
Camellia Void Cartographics
#67 - 2011-12-10 03:01:58 UTC
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:
it seems that intoxicated pilots tent


I tend to have trouble tenting while intoxicated. Hopefully I am not alone in this? Oops
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#68 - 2011-12-10 03:03:32 UTC
Pseudo Ucksth wrote:
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:
it seems that intoxicated pilots tent


I tend to have trouble tenting while intoxicated. Hopefully I am not alone in this? Oops


you were quicker.. i admit.. i fixed it about 0,3 sec. after i re-read it. so about 1,2 sec after it went live.. but good..

However on the other hand.. i dont have problem tenting while intoxicated at all .. Shocked
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#69 - 2011-12-10 03:06:07 UTC
Ferrenc wrote:
remove local from null?


heh

no

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Alski
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#70 - 2011-12-10 03:08:47 UTC
Andski wrote:
Ferrenc wrote:
remove local from null?


heh

no


quite.
1-Up Mushroom
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#71 - 2011-12-10 03:13:25 UTC
Man I love that game
5 Senses In A Person... 4 Seasons In A Year... 3 Colors In A Stoplight... 2 Poles On The Earth... ONLY 1-UP MUSHROOM!!!  If You Like My Sig, Like Me!   Remember EVE is EVErything!
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#72 - 2011-12-10 06:25:39 UTC
I rather have the ability to probe one down to its grid and pulse one out (long cooldown) that tries to decloak one.

Any active pilot will be smart and not get caught.

Another option would be turn auto repeat massively extend cycle time (but cooldown within normally allowed reactivate time) off or fuel based.

I am not a fan of 'coolant' based system which would limit Steathers deployability for extended long range missions a current advantage they do have.

I am also not a fan of the first idea either as numeration of the defenders would make the idea horrible.

Maybe remove local/replace with player installable tac net and combination mix match of all three ideas. Make the fuel small like 1 coolant tank an hour of cloak and thousand tanks can easily fit in a stealth bombers bay.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#73 - 2011-12-10 16:43:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Corina Jarr
Alski wrote:
Corina Jarr wrote:
I apologize if this is a stupid question, but...

What is the difference between the possible risk of a gank from the "AFK" cloaker in null and the possible risk of a gank form the hundreds of ships in a given HS system?

Other than ships in local not causing miners to scatter like roaches...


In Highsec?

that's a pretty difficult question to answer in a short reply because nullsec is nothing like highsec.

but to the very basics...
In highsec your ship has to be worth destroying for the absolute 100% guaranteed loss of your ganking-ship to be worth the profit gained for the mods thats fitted to your victims ship or the cargo it carries.

in null?

for the fun.
for the lol's?.
for the fun.
for the hell of it.
for the fun.
for KB stats.
for fun?
for.... boredom? (done that one.)

Yeah... its not quite the same, its just lame P

Ship doesn't have to be worth squat for a HS gank. People do it for the lulz just like in low and null. In fact the biggest rage right now is popping pods since they added implants to KMs. And there is zero loot value in that.

Reasons to gank in HS:
For fun.
For lulz.
Just because.
Ice interdiction.
For profit (usually combined with other ones).
For KB stats.
Boredom.
To kill an enemy who moved to an NPC corp.
For tears.
To kill "bots".

Hmm, it seems there are more reasons to gank someone in HS than in null.


Edit: to make my point, someone ganked me in a Zealot today (I was in a salvage fit Inquisitor). When I asked why, they said they were bored. At least I made a profit off of their drop...
IIIAsharakIII
Hostile Takeover.
Leviathan.
#74 - 2011-12-10 22:41:16 UTC
I like the idea of sonar bouoys instead of using mines. Detection is important, its not just about the afk cloakers, its about detecting cloaks in general. There ought to be a method of atleast tracking down the general area.
Terminal Insanity
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#75 - 2011-12-10 22:51:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Terminal Insanity
this thread is a joke.

You're crying because, oh no, he's sitting there... and i cant see him!! OH NO! HE COULD BE A MONSTER!

Sorry, but if you cant deal with afk cloakers you probably cant deal with any REAL threat, and thus your corp/alliiance/nap has no business existing.

Eve is about survival of the fittest. If you cant even function around a guy who's not even at his computer, you've already lost, and you havent even started.

If they use these "afk cloakers' to hotdrop cynos on you, then you should consider trying to bait them. some alliances like PL love information like this, and they'll come to gank carriers if you can catch them.

Otherwise, man up, or go back to highsec

"War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#76 - 2011-12-10 22:56:25 UTC
Ill bring one question to the table.

Should it be fair that an afk guy without cloak be just as immune?

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.
Vyl Vit
#77 - 2011-12-10 23:07:18 UTC
Er...destroyers...depth charges...mine sweepers were used to clear mined harbors and shallow draft passages.
The purpose of a destroyer was expressly to hunt down and attack U-boats.

Paradise is like where you are right now, only much, much better.
Terminal Insanity
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#78 - 2011-12-10 23:13:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Terminal Insanity
If you nearf afk cloakers then they'll just become afk rookieship'ers or afk mwd'ing vigils that even if you scan down, wont likely catch - and if you do, hey, he'll just come back with another 200k isk ship.

Theres really nothing you can do about it, other then get some guns and dare them to decloak. I really dont see why afk cloakers are even a probelm... they arnt doing anything... What about people who afk in stations? they're invincible too, and can undock and attack at any time. Or they could just logout in a belt and leave their alt in station, once they see you've gone back to mining they log their combat character in. Theres really nothing you can do about it - they'll find a way to 'harass' you one way or another.

Honestly im just glad there is a cloak, eve isnt like other games. You cant just hit the save button and come back after dinner. Its nice to be able to quickly cloak up if i need to go AFK immediatly

And yes, the best solution is to just remove local from 0.0. This would solve everything

"War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#79 - 2011-12-11 00:40:22 UTC
Terminal Insanity wrote:
And yes, the best solution is to just remove local from 0.0. This would solve everything


No it wouldn't. Have you ever set foot in nullsec?

"Recent speakers" mode local in nullsec would just lead to cloaked hictors sitting at cyno beacons and jump bridges with impunity.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#80 - 2011-12-11 01:44:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Solstice Project
Some pussy (think: cat) got scared again ?