Player Features and Ideas Discussion

**** AGAIN!? when was the last time an AFK cloaker killed someone?

When was the last time the purpose of AFK cloaking was to kill someone?

To my understanding "afk cloaking" is primarily used to either confuse the oposition as you move about. Or to prevent the oposition to gain income.. to some degree.

What I would like to know is what is so bad about having some sort of indicator that shows another player is afk?

In what way does it devalue cloaking when it is a defensive module? You use it to hide.

What does it matter if, for instance, your name is grayed out in the chatbox. You are still hidden.

I don't tink it devalues the cloak in slightest. Preventing income, I've been told, is just as easy without a cloak and risk averse player will still hide if you are in the system.

So, could you please elaborate a bit more on the reason for it being devalued?

I want to see you shoot a pos in a cloak dedicated vessel...See how long you live before a 10 turret pos kicks your arse


and don't get me started on those death star posses, were all they have is turrets, and missiles.

If your name is greyed out in a chatbox due to lack of interaction, it is an obvious detail that you are extremely not likely to be in places that were not active before.

Bob is cloaked, and goes AFK. After X amount of time, his name is greyed out.
Pete moves 300 KM to a new section of belt, and from that position resumes mining or ratting.

Unless Bob managed to predict Pete's new location exactly, he now needs to relocate before he can attack.
To relocate, he needs to become active.
His name stops being greyed out when he interacts with the game again, warning Pete to get safe, the same way he would if a new non blue name appeared in the list.

Let's be honest here, noone cares if Bob is cloaked, but by being cloaked he can sneak up on players like Pete, since they don't know where he is or what he is doing.
If he is greyed out for being AFK, Pete knows what he is NOT doing. He is not moving to follow Pete to the new location for an attack. This means Pete can feel pretty safe so long as that name is grey.

The PvE player is either watching local, or not. The tool is provided, and gives them the ability to know these things.

The fact that the tool requires no effort to use more than balances the alleged lack of effort put into a cloak.

But since you asked:
Under your AFK flag: The player PvE occupied needs to notice a freely displayed change in local chat.
Assuming they made the effort to be prepared, they click on warp, and are 100% safe.

Currently, and still under your AFK flag: The cloaking player needs to watch the visual display / the overview to determine if the potential target is in range.
If not, he needs to approach by warp or slow boating, depending. If the AFK Flag was active, it will have changed state, alerting the PvE pilot.
He needs to decloak, and if possible begin to counter tactics used by the target. This involves combat if the target remains in range.
Assuming he is a cyno equipped player, he will have needed to coordinate with other players before moving into position, so they will be ready and standing by to jump. Then he can deploy the cyno if in range.

Yes, I can see how this difference in effort must seem overwhelming.
But I suspect I view the player who makes more effort as the cloaked one.

From my point of view, the problem is not with AFK at all, it is with the potential threat projected by an invunerable ship.


Instead of trying to find a way to nerf cloaks, how about we just make it so you cant fit a cyno and a cloak on the same ship?

Now you have your intel gathering tool, your threat to bots (though you may have to bring several to properly roll some mining and PvE type ships, etc... but the threat level of the ships can be properly evaluated. Without the possiblity of a cyno and hotdropping the threat the ship projects can be accurately determined and properly prepared for, though not actively removed.

Other adjustments can be made instead. Make Cyno's able to gate in only one ship at a time, with a substancial cool down and/or bulky fuel use per ship brought in this way. Each ship gated in could then gate another ship, making moving a large fleet time consuming and a bit more of a logistics chore to organize.

I know that the folks that enjoy the SOV games will hate this, but it does solve most of the "problem" without touching cloaks.

Please don't assume i believe using a cloak requires no, or less effort than anything else.

I would just like to know why having an afk indication is a bad thing since most activities won't be affected by it.

To Datarunner.

That is not really a secret. But this is not on an alliance level. AFK cloaking is more often than not an activity used by a player going solo. How can one person with a cloak affect an entire alliance, the very notion is silly.

I guess I can let you into another little secret that isn't really a secret too. I believe "afk cloaking" gives risk averse players an excuse to be risk averse. And that the people that want to change the cloak mechanic is not really risk averse nullbears but PVP oriented players who want to be able to bring the hurt to the cloaked one, since he will be an easy target.

After all, non-consesuall pvp is the best pvp.

I wasn't really serious about that part, so you can keep laughing if you want.

But since you are here. Why do you think showing that a player is afk is a bad thing?

The questions were answered already, even an example given.

They are ignoring the legitimate reasons why this is a bad idea. Free intel that also reports degree of activity only empowers players wishing to avoid conflict, as is perfectly obvious.

They are trying to make null safer than high sec, well... even more safer. You already have more risk in high sec in may cases thanks to this mechanic in it's current form, this would make null a joke.

It would be blob or GTFO, all others will be avoided as we see fit.