These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The answer to the ultimate question of Life, the Universe, and Cloaking.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
YuuKnow
The Scope
#261 - 2011-12-23 04:07:22 UTC  |  Edited by: YuuKnow
Tippia wrote:
They will not show on local, per the request of the AFK-cloak-whiners.
Riiiiight... whose idea was this again? Yeah, that's what I thought.
Quote:
They can still very easily be detected.
With my anticloak probes they canSmile
Quote:
They are ridiculously easy to counter since they'll either be in very weak ships or they'll be in ships that auto-nerfs themselves and make them far easier to defeat.
Depends on the opposing fleet.
Quote:
…and no, they can't sit as long as they like without anyone knowing they're there.
... with anticloaking probes... ftwSmile
Tippia wrote:
Because the game already provides the tools to detect such a force. The problem is that AFK-cloak-whiners are cluless n00bs who don't understand any of the game mechanics they're dealing with (which also explains why they can't identify the actual problem, nor generate proposals that don't break the game in hilarious new ways). Their ignorance is not a mechanics or balancing problem.
Yep, more of the "The game will be BROKEN!!!!!!1111"

Actually this idea, doesn't even gasp the point that most people are trying to make. No one views AFK cloakers as a threat. "Oh No! There's an AFK guy in the system!"Roll. Its just lame that you see the same guy sitting there for hours on end and no one can ever get to him.

What's so annoying is when your flying through FW space and you see 2 or 3 WTs in local. You Dscan and they don't show up. You warp to the station and they're not docked, so they must be cloaked in safe spots, so you go about your roam.... you come back 2 hours later to the same system... and they're still there. And no one can touch them. They've probably been afk for hours. That's lame.Roll Its the same lameness that existed during the original safe-spot fiascos, before CCP after 4 years finally fixed it where safe spots can be found.

There needs to be a way to somehow get to these guys.Twisted. No one should be invulnerable.

That is all. As you were.

yk
Nex Parietis
Interstellar Booty Hunters
Abyssal Booty Hunters
#262 - 2011-12-23 05:00:32 UTC
I like the idea of a cloak hiding you from local chat, while disabling the cloaker's connection to local as well.

I support it, though I do think local chat in nullsec in general should be player made, as in a building or structure perhaps that provides local intel to a system.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#263 - 2011-12-23 05:36:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
YuuKnow wrote:
Riiiiight... whose idea was this again? Yeah, that's what I thought.
It was the idea of those who looked at the supposed AFK cloaking problem and determined a solution that would solve that problem completely. Yes, there are people who don't like it, but that's because they're not actually concerned with AFK cloaking, but rather like to use that non-issue to cloak (ha!) their real wish to nerf cloaking. The idea doesn't do that because it's not aimed at nerfing cloaking — it's aimed at “fixing” AFK cloaking without breaking cloaking as a whole.
Quote:
With my anticloak probes they can
…and that's why your broken idea isn't needed. It's not solving any existing problem and only creates new ones for no good reason.
Quote:
Depends on the opposing fleet.
No, it doesn't. It's inherent in how cloaks work.

Quote:
Actually this idea, doesn't even gasp the point that most people are trying to make.
Actually, it completely solves the point most people make — whether or not they are actually making that point or if they're trying to hide a completely different whine behind it is largely besides the point. In fact, whether or not they are actually concerned about AFK cloakers can easily be determined by whether or not they like the idea.

Quote:
There needs to be a way to somehow get to these guys.Twisted. No one should be invulnerable.
There are, and they aren't.
YuuKnow
The Scope
#264 - 2011-12-23 06:14:13 UTC  |  Edited by: YuuKnow
Quote:
Quote:
Actually this idea, doesn't even gasp the point that most people are trying to make.
Actually, it completely solves{/i] the point most people make — whether or not they are actually making that point or if they're trying to hide a completely different whine behind it is largely besides the point. In fact, whether or not they are [i]actually concerned about AFK cloakers can easily be determined by whether or not they like the idea.
LOL, what a load of bullcrapLol

Quote:
Quote:
There needs to be a way to somehow get to these guys.Twisted. No one should be invulnerable.
There are, and they aren't.
If that claim was any more empty it would implode. There's a saying where I come from "Sh*t or get off the pot"
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#265 - 2011-12-23 07:01:35 UTC
YuuKnow wrote:
LOL, what a load of bullcrapLol
…as shown by your astute and detailed counter-argument. Oh wait, there was none because you're having problems arguing against facts.
Quote:
If that claim was any more empty it would implode.
It doesn't really need to contain more since the content has been stated and restated and never been countered (because no-one can think of any counter claim) so there's no particular need for further repetition.

The fact remains: you can get to cloakers and they are not invulnerable. F1 is your friend.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#266 - 2011-12-23 08:36:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
just take it one step further and offline all non-visual intel gathering while cloaks are active

but this is an acceptable compromise
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#267 - 2011-12-23 12:04:35 UTC
The suggestion wasn't made by those who get annoyed by AFK cloakers, it was a suggestion by people like Tippia, as a "solution" to afk cloakers. The fact that it completely overpowers cloaks seems to be a happy side-effect they're more than happy to take in their stride.

Add something that counters this, or *gasp* makes them unable to nab people who are trying to make a run for it out a wormhole that's being sieged, and oh god it's so broken.

Yeah. We're talking masters of balance here.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#268 - 2011-12-23 12:14:13 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
The suggestion wasn't made by those who get annoyed by AFK cloakers, it was a suggestion by people like Tippia, as a "solution" to afk cloakers. The fact that it completely overpowers cloaks seems to be a happy side-effect they're more than happy to take in their stride.

Add something that counters this, or *gasp* makes them unable to nab people who are trying to make a run for it out a wormhole that's being sieged, and oh god it's so broken.

Yeah. We're talking masters of balance here.


Funny how you leave out the part about all the solutions offered to the mythical "AFK cloak" problem breaking cloaks, and therefore breaking wormholes. This is a much more balanced solution, if anything were needed to be done (not convinced anything needs to change to be honest), that not only preserves the integrity of wormholes, but maintains the element of danger you'd expect in null.

Not everyone wants to see Eve become "Hello Kitty Space Adventure".

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#269 - 2011-12-23 12:18:59 UTC
Which part? You mean the counter to the "solution" you and tippia come up with? I mentioned that. I didn't spell out the entire "probes that can detect cloaked ships, and they can counter that by running silent" skit, I kind of thought that would be obvious by now.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#270 - 2011-12-23 12:55:13 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Which part? You mean the counter to the "solution" you and tippia come up with? I mentioned that. I didn't spell out the entire "probes that can detect cloaked ships, and they can counter that by running silent" skit, I kind of thought that would be obvious by now.


You still haven't had it sink in how stupid the idea of having to offline all your mods is? Wow. Sorry, but absolutely crippling a covops ship so it can remain covert is completely insane.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#271 - 2011-12-23 12:56:53 UTC
And you haven't had it sink in just how stupid the idea of having certain ships excempt from local is?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#272 - 2011-12-23 12:59:25 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
And you haven't had it sink in just how stupid the idea of having certain ships excempt from local is?


The difference being that there are two people arguing against the idea, yet when I look at the number of "likes" being spread around I find that the vast majority finds this method to at least be intriguing.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#273 - 2011-12-23 13:02:07 UTC
Again, how many of those "likes" are from carebears? And how many of those "likes" are from people who just want to roam in even greater security, and salivate at the thought of all these easy kills they'll get?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#274 - 2011-12-23 13:06:39 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Again, how many of those "likes" are from carebears? And how many of those "likes" are from people who just want to roam in even greater security, and salivate at the thought of all these easy kills they'll get?


Greater security and greater risk, all rolled into one package! You'd never know if the ship you were about to jump on had a couple friends waiting for you to try exactly that.

This would, admittedly, be a bit more like wormhole PvP where surprise is an actual element of combat.

And... it doesn't break the entire wormhole PvP paradigm. That's a biggie.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#275 - 2011-12-23 13:09:48 UTC
They'd be greater risks just like if everyone in a system were docked. Foo diggity.

It might not break wormholes, but it certainly breaks nullsec, in a much more severe way than probes would break WHs.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Oddsodz
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#276 - 2011-12-23 15:24:40 UTC
The OP post on paper works for me. But should be limited to Null. When in High and Low Sec. All players should be viewable in "Local". But if you are cloaked in Null and wormhole space. Then you lose access to see who is in the "Local" and vice versa. I Like it a lot. Means The guys that are sitting in a system AFKing are of no thread at all as they are away are really away from the keyboard. But them that are out looking for targets will have to work to find somebody instead of just looking at the "Local" channel.
Marduk Nibiru
Chaos Delivery Systems
#277 - 2011-12-24 23:55:26 UTC
Sarina Berghil wrote:
I think it sounds fun, and balanced, and simple. And unlike a lot of game mechanics it actually sounds logic, which is just an added bonus.

I can imagine some submarine slang to evolve from a mechanic like this:

- Going active - turning off cloak to see who is in local.
- Going passive, silent running - turning on the cloak, losing some speed and awareness in the process.
- One ping - quickly uncloack and decloack to get a quick reading.

Is there any way to add the number 42 to this?



The submarine metaphor seems more reasonable than this proposal. Although a sub might go silent and can't be seen...they can still hear everything around them. It would make more sense to have the cloaker able to see local but not visa-versa.

This actually more directly addresses the "problem" of afk cloakers. An afk cloaker stays afk in system specifically because he can be seen in local. If they could not then there'd be nothing gained by remaining logged in. This causes one of two things, a permanent DOS attack to the system or people getting used to them being there and then running into the suprise butt sex scenario.

Really though, I don't understand why people keep complaining about cloakers and try to fix them. Well, I sort of understand....you want to mine in peace. I don't support the reason though. Bombers are actually really easy to pop if you're not being dumb already. They don't really need a nerf. Really this thread seems like another one of the OMG AFK CLOAKER MUST DIE!!! that it complains about.

I would support a more comprehensive change to local that didn't target a specific class of vessel for no good reason, but can't get behind this.
Marduk Nibiru
Chaos Delivery Systems
#278 - 2011-12-25 00:11:08 UTC
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Again, how many of those "likes" are from carebears? And how many of those "likes" are from people who just want to roam in even greater security, and salivate at the thought of all these easy kills they'll get?


Greater security and greater risk, all rolled into one package! You'd never know if the ship you were about to jump on had a couple friends waiting for you to try exactly that.


99.99% of the time I could be sure that they were unaware of me. Someone MAY have seen me enter the system 5 hours ago, but they'd not hear a peep from me since. Just like I do now, only now chances are they think I've left. Especially if I go nowhere near anything at first....just like now.

The difference being that while now they know I'm around at least in "spirit". With your proposal they do not. Thus most of the time, if I see someone out there mining or ratting they probably have no idea I'm there. I'm not going to be popping out of cloak to check local either. It's going to be bomb, torps, and either you pop or I run.

Your proposed change would actually be a benefit to the AFK cloaker except that they loose the DOS aspect. On the other hand, done right you could DOS a system you'd left hours ago because nobody knows if you did or not.

What bothers me about the idea isn't the bomber aspect, I could make use of the mechanic. What bothers me is the impact it would have on scouting. I believe it would be a detriment to roams, which would pretty much kill 0.0 as that's the only mildly interesting thing to do out there....besides bombing dipshits who rat with neuts in local.
Arbiter Reformed
I Have a Plan
Shadow Cartel
#279 - 2011-12-25 04:18:15 UTC
+1
Drichter
Private Productions
#280 - 2011-12-25 13:25:45 UTC
Cloaker:
"Nullsec is meant to having risks. Risk-free-anything for anyone is bad, like lvl 4 missions in highsec. Being in nullsec means risk of being killed at anytime."
/cloaks up again and leaves for work

^ this ... in every thread about cloaking.