Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The counter to perma-cloaked camping already exists and it's three-fold:

1) Downtime forces the cloaked camper to log out each day at a set time, thus forcing him to relog at least once a day.

2) When relogging, the camping ship is uncloaked briefly before activating his cloak, thus allowing a very small window of oppotunity for observation.

3) Passing within 2000m of a cloaked ship will decloak it, allowing it to be attacked in any of the conventional methods of ship combat.

There is no point in mentioning the fact that a cloaked ship cannot aggress, neither can an AFK pilot. If both factors are present, you're doubly safe.

And that's all this comes down to, again and again and again: the perception of threat. Some folks see a pilot in local, cannot find his ship on dscan or in station, and instantly get so afraid because he's cloaked that they dock up and do nothing all day. Meanwhile, there's a chance the pilot is out of the house at the park, playing with his kids, or down at the pool, or taking a nap.

You folks that are scared of cloaky ships really should overcome your fear and play the game, you'll have more fun.

Being cloaked afk in a systm performs a function. It is a valid method of attempting to disrupt your enemy's ability to create revenue and that in turn is a valid part of warfare.

You, as the camped, have several ways to get around this. If you do pve combat, get in gangs with more pvp orientated fits to do your ratting. If mining, get out of your hulks and into procurer's fit with tank, point and combat drones, again in a gang.

You could all move next door. If he logs in and finds no one in the system he won't bother camping it for too many days as it's pointless. Personally I wouldn't do that because if you define a system as yours you should use it, live in it and not let a solo person you think is afk stop you but that's just me.

Pretending to be afk is also a perfectly legitimate tactic.


By introducing fuel for cloaks you are significantly nerfing them when WH play style is considered. That alone, ignoring all the other reasons why it's a bad idea, is sufficient reason not to change them in the way proposed in the OP.

The thing about the fear of cloaked ships which is what most, if not all, the posts on nerfing cloaks or finding cloaked ships are about is that it's internal. Fear is entirely in the mind. You have no idea if the guy is AFK or not. In that respect, to you, it's like Schrödinger's cat in that it could be in either state, AFK or present but unlike Schrödinger's cat you're not the one with the key to the box, the pilot of the cloaked ship is. (edit - or the cat in the analogy)

So you can't control it. Your request to change cloaks so AFK cloaking is no longer possible is a request for more control on your system and a limiting of a valid warfare tactic. Currently, cloaks have balance in the negative aspects in using one as discussed in lots of other threads. All you're asking for is a nerf to cloaks. You're not balancing an aspect of the game. You're unbalancing it.

The problem, as you describe it, is in your head and the heads of those who fear what they cannot control. Free yourself of your fear and you will feel a lot better about yourself. You'll have more fun in the game, too :) I can tell you now that there are plenty of people who live in null who have no problem with afk cloaky campers. You as a corp can choose to either stagnate because of it and complain on the forums or you can see it as a way to galvanise your corp to work together better for mutual protection and gain.

I was hoping blowing up the sun would be his suggestion

I had said:
Your assumption of a problem, and the way you explained it, defines the nature of your bias.

You clearly are threatened by cloaked vessels, and are seeking a means to limit them so you can operate free of their threat.

While you cannot remove the threat completely, and be seen as anything but unbalancing, you seem convinced you can make their operation more difficult as a deterrent to use.

If you were to consider WHY they are used in this manner, or at least ask if it is not clear to you, then you might see things more completely.


No.

Quite simply, you and the OP are conveniently ignoring significant and obvious facts.

Facts present and establish what is objective, and anything that deviates away from this can be defined as having a bias.

A bias changes the direction of an argument or point, so it does not rely on facts exclusively.

It is accepted that AFK Cloaking happens almost exclusively in systems where PvE is attempted.
It is accepted that local chat provides free intel, which is demonstrated to allow PvE assets the ability to completely avoid hostile contact when properly prepared.
It is accepted that non cloaked vessels can be scanned down, and either destroyed or driven off, removing the threat to PvE assets.

The system would have a clearly defined winner, if it ended at that point. PvE could only be delayed except by forces able to brute force into systems, and those would either finish the job of knocking down the POS's and taking sov, or leaving.
Either way, the PvE assets could be evacuated if needed, resuming PvE if not needed.

But we have cloaked ships, spoiling the balance of risk free PvE activity by tainting the intel provided so freely, so otherwise perfectly.

Now, you can be objective, and acknowledge this, or you can be biased, and ignore these established points.

Your call.

1. as i said before 'bias' is just another name for one persons opinion, we all are automatically given the right to have one so long as we don't put forth our opinion as anything other than just that, an opinion.

2. Saying "it is accepted" is not a magic wand that turns your personal biases (to use your phrasing) into a fact.

3. rambling nonsense, more rambling nonsense and to wrap things up, some more rambling nonsense. (this is all I can get out of the last half of your post so I cannot respond to it).

Which is exactly what you are doing.

+1 for Sun mining. That sounds pretty cool.

-Over 9000 for AFK cloaking thread. This isn't a problem that can be fixed with different cloaking devises or cloak detecting stuff, its a problem with local. Why not just make it so if you don't touch your keyboard or mouse after 5 minutes you are labeled AFK in local? Why the **** not.

You have triggered my compassion, allow me to assist you.

Actually suggesting that the problem begins with the pilot using AFK Cloaking tactics, ignores enough to be considered mislead.

I shall try to explain a few details that are usually glossed over crudely, but hold the truth.

AFK Cloaking: This is done in response to Local Chat flawlessly reporting pilot presence. It dumbs down the interaction between pilots by outright telling all parties who is present. Without this crutch, use of sensors, strategy, and cooperation would be needed to fill the void.
What does it achieve?
It creates a flaw in the usual flow of cause and effect for life in many systems. Often, a neutral or hostile pilot is seen entering, and activity is suspended until they leave. There is trivial risk, as standard procedure often involves being ready to get safe in the time frame provided by this instant alarm. Hostile pilots who refuse to leave are subsequently hunted down.
When the "AFK Cloaking" pilot enters, he disrupts this process, by not leaving. Further, since this intel tool persistently shows him present, the default response of suspending activity is perpetually pushed as chosen reaction.
This devalues the intel tool, as it is now being used against the native PvE pilots instead of helping them.
If local were removed, sensors strategy and cooperation would be placed as valuable means of protecting PvE income assets.
It would also be pointless to AFK cloak, as noone would be aware of your presence while you were passive.
It is widely anticipated that any change to local which stopped free cloaking awareness would also include a means to hunt cloaked ships.

Summary: That free intel tool favored by so many can be used by the hunters too.

Hot Dropping: Bridging is intended to bypass reinforced blockades and travel time. Here, it has been fine tuned to avoid advertising the presence of a fleet to the free intel tool as well by delaying the easily recognizable population spike till the last possible moment. The intention is to deny the warning local provides, although it still reports the presence of the cyno boat enough to be associated with AFK Cloaking instead.
Quite simply, while PvE pilots would never resume regular activities with a hostile fleet present, they are sometimes willing to gamble over whether a cloaked vessel represents that level of threat at a given time.

Sorry about the length, but the mindless repetition of "AFK Cloaking is bad mmkay" sounds foolish.

Solution to cloaky campers....

Didn't realize there was a problem, they seem to work just fine.

YAY it's Mag's. I am glad you decided to comment. I would feel left out if you didnt join in with your own brand of opinion that really skirts all the real issues, but attempts to make valid points thru the use of circular logic and other fun crap. Thanks.

As for alts? Na. Brother this is my main. I am trying to see how long I can go with only training for an Iteron V, and see how much Isk I can make in the game. So far its working rather well. Amazing how much isk you make just shuttling skill books from places into Jita.

Now we just need Gunslinger to jump in. He hates the idea of changing cloaks too.