These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2201 - 2015-05-22 15:05:44 UTC
Estella Osoka wrote:
I luv cloaks. I luv how I can use them to get free intel on potential targets. I luv how I can take covops, park it about 200-300km off a POS, setup a private twitch feed, and just record everything that goes in an out of the POS; until I determine if it is worthy of destruction. Such safe and easy intel is glorious!

Hmm....hasn't history shown that gathering intel is risky business? Awww, screw history. This is a game.

You:
skilled up a cov-ops pilot
purchased the appropriate hull and modules
snuck into hostile space.
set up a streaming feed from your PC

You then, ironically, suggest that history reports intel gathering as a risky business.
But, this is a game, and intel should not be as dangerous as real life.

You are funny.
It is ironic, that you most likely have little to no idea how easy gathering intel is, in real life.
You probably just think it should be difficult, so you can feel less exposed regarding those parts of your life you expect to be secret.

Here's the truth, the game has intel gathering as more difficult.
Anything else you tell yourself is just rainbows and butterflies.
In real life you are better protected by having false information confusing the real data, because you can't stop the information from reaching those that collect it.

I wish we had cloaks in real life.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
MechaJeb Kerman
MechaJeb Kerman's Thrasher Fund
Novus Ordo.
#2202 - 2015-05-22 16:51:00 UTC
I have a sudden urge to put 3 alts into the free Yachts and just park them cloaked in favorite systems of the biggest whiners in this thread, just because. Har har har.

I'll crudely Photoshop an image of Helen Thomas onto a picture of your choosing for 30m. PM me.
Poena Loveless
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2203 - 2015-05-22 21:54:10 UTC
Intel Gathering (read: cloaked ships in active systems) leads to player interaction which ~is~ the stated goal of the game.
Cyrus Doul
kotitekoinen sissijuusto
#2204 - 2015-05-23 15:22:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Cyrus Doul
Teckos Pech wrote:
Cynos have already been nerfed via the jump drive nerf (range and fatigue). But here we are again with the "nerf cynos" hue and cry again.

I guess at this point how much of a nerf should they get? To the point where they are so useless we can just remove them? Is there any level of risk you'll find acceptable? Because here is how I see it.

1. The PvE pilots already get an advanced warning.
2. Cynos/jump drives/portals have been nerfed.

Yet people are still here complaining about how horribly unfair it is.

It is at moments like this where I'm tempted to just post, "HTFU".


Actually it has not, or at least, not any more. To answer your two points first

1) We dont get advanced warning on black-ops, other then seeing what's in local, and when we see whats in local most activity tends to stop. Warning as you were to put it is as much as "Well I see that that guy is in here today for the next downtime to downtime, no doing anything today"

2) Previous to the last few expansions we had counters to stuff to begin with. Take systems like L-L7PE in detroid for example. That system back in the day was immune to the range of a blackops. All you had to do was install a Cyno Jammer and pay the 20 million isk per day and you suddenly had a system that could not be dropped into. Now CCP has allowed capitals to still get in by gate, and expanded the range of the Blackops to the point where there are now 69 systems that are in range.

This point becomes especially true now that Skynet has been ripped out. You used to see PL and other groups getting to nail skynet carriers, and sometimes even the skynet supers on the control tower to the wall. But CCP removed that. This causes us to circle back around to Blackops.

Onto my counterpoints, which are really just me listing off ideas for people to pick which might make the most sense

1) Disallow the Covert Cyno to be fit with a cloak. If I can see you, I can actually respond to you and try to defend against you by trying to scan you out. I actually do run PVP ships the PVE fleets but they wont last against someone bringing in 40 stealth bombers. If you say "well kill the cyno sitting ontop of you" once you get the first couple in they just light and you go off the backup bridge.

2) Disallow use of covert cynos into jammed systems. Forcing gate use allows the people on their game time to initiate warp and make it though some of their align. Or all of it if the gate you are coming though is bubbled. You can still sit in system with your pvp toons to get us to stop doing stuff but it now cost you pvp toons not being useful.

3) Have the mobile cyno inhibitor inhibit black ops. Makes it so you can cyno in, but not at 0 and have points on the target basically instantly. They get a chance to set up / flee.

4) Change the ranges around so blackops can only bridge non transports 5 ly along with every other combat ship class, Transports remain able to be bridged the full distance since they are haulers
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2205 - 2015-05-25 05:00:30 UTC
Cyrus Doul wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Cynos have already been nerfed via the jump drive nerf (range and fatigue). But here we are again with the "nerf cynos" hue and cry again.

I guess at this point how much of a nerf should they get? To the point where they are so useless we can just remove them? Is there any level of risk you'll find acceptable? Because here is how I see it.

1. The PvE pilots already get an advanced warning.
2. Cynos/jump drives/portals have been nerfed.

Yet people are still here complaining about how horribly unfair it is.

It is at moments like this where I'm tempted to just post, "HTFU".


Actually it has not, or at least, not any more. To answer your two points first

1) We dont get advanced warning on black-ops, other then seeing what's in local, and when we see whats in local most activity tends to stop. Warning as you were to put it is as much as "Well I see that that guy is in here today for the next downtime to downtime, no doing anything today"

2) Previous to the last few expansions we had counters to stuff to begin with. Take systems like L-L7PE in detroid for example. That system back in the day was immune to the range of a blackops. All you had to do was install a Cyno Jammer and pay the 20 million isk per day and you suddenly had a system that could not be dropped into. Now CCP has allowed capitals to still get in by gate, and expanded the range of the Blackops to the point where there are now 69 systems that are in range.

This point becomes especially true now that Skynet has been ripped out. You used to see PL and other groups getting to nail skynet carriers, and sometimes even the skynet supers on the control tower to the wall. But CCP removed that. This causes us to circle back around to Blackops.

Onto my counterpoints, which are really just me listing off ideas for people to pick which might make the most sense

1) Disallow the Covert Cyno to be fit with a cloak. If I can see you, I can actually respond to you and try to defend against you by trying to scan you out. I actually do run PVP ships the PVE fleets but they wont last against someone bringing in 40 stealth bombers. If you say "well kill the cyno sitting ontop of you" once you get the first couple in they just light and you go off the backup bridge.

2) Disallow use of covert cynos into jammed systems. Forcing gate use allows the people on their game time to initiate warp and make it though some of their align. Or all of it if the gate you are coming though is bubbled. You can still sit in system with your pvp toons to get us to stop doing stuff but it now cost you pvp toons not being useful.

3) Have the mobile cyno inhibitor inhibit black ops. Makes it so you can cyno in, but not at 0 and have points on the target basically instantly. They get a chance to set up / flee.

4) Change the ranges around so blackops can only bridge non transports 5 ly along with every other combat ship class, Transports remain able to be bridged the full distance since they are haulers


Load of bullcrap.

Yes, you get an advanced warning anytime any player enters the system you are in. There is no discussion for this, even the most ardent adherents of the anti-AFK cloaking camp admit this.

Whisky Tango Foxtrot, cyno jammers never ever stopped covert ops cynos. And now you are complaining about capitals coming in by gate. Jesus Fracking Christ on a Pogo Stick, can you whine any more? "Oh, booo fricking hooo, CCP nerfed cynos but now they can come in by gate!!!" Seriosuly?

GTFO. HTFU. STFD and STFU. Really.

Hello Kitty Online is that-a-way ---->.

Roll

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
token trade alt
Slamming Mad B-Balls
#2206 - 2015-05-26 18:15:44 UTC
If an enemy has nigh-unlimited initiative, then there should be a way to remove that initiative. If someone is afk in a system, then a module that decloaks everyone(even allies), requiring fuel of some sort is a possibility. No change to reactivation delay. If they're afk, then they shouldn't have the opportunity to come back to the PC at their leisure to see if there's any targets.

If they're not afk, no problem, just recloak and jump safe if they have probes. You should be playing the game if you're on, not going about your day and idly checking back at one of possibly many clients. Also regarding that CCP quote about people being deterred by afk cloakers, you have no way of knowing if they are actually afk, and quite frankly many CCP devs these days don't seem like they play their own game.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2207 - 2015-05-26 18:49:21 UTC
token trade alt wrote:

1. If an enemy has nigh-unlimited initiative, then there should be a way to remove that initiative. If someone is afk in a system, then a module that decloaks everyone(even allies), requiring fuel of some sort is a possibility. No change to reactivation delay. If they're afk, then they shouldn't have the opportunity to come back to the PC at their leisure to see if there's any targets.

2. If they're not afk, no problem, just recloak and jump safe if they have probes. You should be playing the game if you're on, not going about your day and idly checking back at one of possibly many clients. Also regarding that CCP quote about people being deterred by afk cloakers, you have no way of knowing if they are actually afk, and quite frankly many CCP devs these days don't seem like they play their own game.

Your declaration of what is good for play, in my view, seems to lack any foundation which supports it.

1. Being AFK, and returning to see if play opportunities exist, are exactly what creates content.
An AFK player maintaining their in game presence, is more likely to be watching and waiting to play with others, rather than look to find entertainment elsewhere than the game.
Content which is xenophobic towards other players, is quite honestly against what makes an MMO playable.
In short, having any significant aspect of the play experience based on avoiding player interaction, makes no sense in an MMO.
The problem is not the increased potential for contact, but rather the incentive to avoid it whenever possible.

2. If you have no outlet for your play, the option to remain online and check back at intervals is more of a benefit to the game than simply logging out, and being more likely to seek play in other directions than our MMO.
IF the player in question is going to the trouble of deliberately parking their ship in obviously hostile space, that demonstrates an effort to interact.
If this same player then finds noone willing or able to interact with them, you sound like you would have them either leave the area, or the game itself by logging out.
All so someone could in theory choose to engage in activities, that apparently rely on the absence of opposing players.
In a multiplayer game, they want to play by themselves, and / or with those exclusively allied with them, so as to not be threatening.

I want the encounter to happen, and I want it to be something both sides welcome.
Aside from blobs or roams, we seem limited to NPC interaction or solo dives into questionable groups of opponents with little hope of positive outcome. I guess frustration can do that.

It seems to me, that the problem itself is not the problem. The real problem is your reaction to the problem.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#2208 - 2015-05-26 19:28:37 UTC
Nikki, that cuts both ways.

The cloaker has the option of avoiding all play except that which favors him. Why should he have that luxury when everyone around him has to maintain a state of eternal vigilance until he decides to log or leave if they wish to fly safe?

AFK cloaking isn't creating content. From the viewpoint of the average PvE pilot being hunted is an annoying act of harassment, not 'content'. It's even worse if 'being hunted' comprises of someone sitting somewhere in a ship that is effectively invulnerable until the moment it decides to attack, if it ever does.

If you are wanting to do PvE content, you can do it either effectively or safely when there is the possibility of being engaged in PvP. I am happy to engage in PvP if an engagement is possible and fun, but I am not willing to stand on eggshells and hold my breath for the next week while someone lurks afk and only attacks at his own leisure.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2209 - 2015-05-26 19:58:42 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Nikki, that cuts both ways.

The cloaker has the option of avoiding all play except that which favors him. Why should he have that luxury when everyone around him has to maintain a state of eternal vigilance until he decides to log or leave if they wish to fly safe?

AFK cloaking isn't creating content. From the viewpoint of the average PvE pilot being hunted is an annoying act of harassment, not 'content'. It's even worse if 'being hunted' comprises of someone sitting somewhere in a ship that is effectively invulnerable until the moment it decides to attack, if it ever does.

If you are wanting to do PvE content, you can do it either effectively or safely when there is the possibility of being engaged in PvP. I am happy to engage in PvP if an engagement is possible and fun, but I am not willing to stand on eggshells and hold my breath for the next week while someone lurks afk and only attacks at his own leisure.

It ONLY cuts 'both ways', in the scenario where the PvE player is exclusively incentivized to avoid contact.

If the PvE player is ready, willing, and able to have the encounter, then they are also prepared to do things while waiting for the AFK player to resume activity. Like mine or rat.
Doesn't it feel like a better option to do PvE while you wait, as a secondary option to interacting with other players?
(As opposed to viewing such interaction as utterly negative, with no positive aspects to encourage it, like we have now in PvE)

The real solution we need, is what is the best way to prepare the PvE player, in what is likely to be solo or a small group at most, in order to make them free of reservations about encountering a cloaked ship.

If the cloaked player KNOWS that the PvE player wants the encounter, then the psychological tactic of AFK Cloaking, as we know it now, loses all impact.
PvE players will see that hostile name in local, and want to undock before one of their allies has that encounter instead of them.

Figuring out ways to improve the chances the PvE player can avoid contact, or drive away the other player by swapping out into a PvP ship which is probably overwhelming to the cloaked visitor, seems counter productive.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#2210 - 2015-05-26 21:43:09 UTC
Yes, the whole situation needs adjustment.

As things stand right now, the situation is that the PvE player must maintain a ludicrous level of vigilance against the threat of the cloaked vessel for as long as they want to operate in that space and the cloaked remains online.

The cloaker is so perfectly safe that they have the luxury of checking back once in a while at their own convienence to decide to initiate contact or not.

This absolutely should be cutting both ways- the cloaked ship should be as huntable as the PvE vessel. The situation right now is extremely biased and not healthy. By the standards you yourself lay out they have removed themselves from the ability of others to interact with them, and that is an undesirable outcome for the game. Some of those PvE pilots might reship and become PvP pilots if such were possible, creating content for all, not just the guy waiting for the easy and quick kills.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2211 - 2015-05-26 22:08:03 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Yes, the whole situation needs adjustment.

As things stand right now, the situation is that the PvE player must maintain a ludicrous level of vigilance against the threat of the cloaked vessel for as long as they want to operate in that space and the cloaked remains online.

The cloaker is so perfectly safe that they have the luxury of checking back once in a while at their own convienence to decide to initiate contact or not.

This absolutely should be cutting both ways- the cloaked ship should be as huntable as the PvE vessel. The situation right now is extremely biased and not healthy. By the standards you yourself lay out they have removed themselves from the ability of others to interact with them, and that is an undesirable outcome for the game. Some of those PvE pilots might reship and become PvP pilots if such were possible, creating content for all, not just the guy waiting for the easy and quick kills.

That's my entire point.

We have two sets of second rate ships, (in PvP context). Covert cloaked along with PvE, (fitted, if not limited to entirely in the context of mining).
Neither is suitable for roams, both are relatively easy targets for the pure bred PvP ships.

The idea that they should both be hiding, rather than interacting, seems a mistake for an MMO design.
This could be the meat and potatoes of the game, with the blobs and roams given the feeling of bonus content for those who saved enough to play that side.

Maybe it could be challenging to set up the mechanics, and balance them, but I believe it would truly be worth the effort.

How do I put this simply?
AFK Cloaking is a symptom. The problem is the PvE player has been put in a position, so that they want to avoid contact with another player in an MMO.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#2212 - 2015-05-27 05:54:36 UTC
No doubt it would.

In the meantime, AFK cloaking is just an expression of sadism. It's not for 'content'. It's not for the joys of combat. It's purely to harm the PvE players and ruin their time and experience of the game.

The intended target is a group of players who want to have their fun doing PvE activities. PvE is forced by design into boats that are at the very least heavily disadvantaged in a PvP encounter. The intended function is to prevent the PvE players from playing the game, and that should not be allowed.

Ultimately, fixing both sides of the equation need to happen, but until that comes about, at the least fixing the part that ruins the experience of an entire playstyle should be a priority.
Bloody2k
SKULL AND B0NES
#2213 - 2015-05-27 09:11:42 UTC
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#2214 - 2015-05-27 10:29:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
Not really, no.

That 'solution' still leaves you with someone lurking nearby as a threat that you can do nothing about until he decides to act. It even still leaves the AFK issue, because writing a script to simulate mouse and keyboard activity on your system isn't even child's play, it's infantile.


Cloaked ships need to be as huntable as their intended prey. One side should not be expected to be hitting Dscan every 5 seconds, feverishly watching every twitch of activity in system for hours on end to remain 'safe' enough to do anything with the environment except dock, while the other side is so safe they can go AFK until downtime in complete safety while still accomplishing their goal and having complete discretion and initiative on any other goals you may decide to take up.

The argument that the cloaked ship is incapable of aggression does not hold water. Many mining ships are also incapable of aggression, and even most of those fit for Lolfighting aren't going to be very effective, and that's by design of the game. By the logic of the Pro-afk crowd mining ships and freighters should also be immune to non-consensual hostile action. Why do cloaks get the free ride of immunity to non-consensual PvP?

How about some non-consensual PvE instead. Make a special rat faction that are attracted by and can target through cloaks. Any cloaked ship is subject to occasional attacks by these rats, with the difficulty of the rat scaling with the security status of the system the same way belt rats do. Chance of the encounter begins at 1% per minute, +1% every minute. You don't even need to make the rats able to target through the cloak, let them just sweep through the area and be scannable themselves. Let the pilot worry about maneuvering to avoid being decloaked and attacked, and any PC hunters can show up as well. The rats will use long range weapons to engage anyone visible on grid while maneuvering to decloak anyone hidden.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2215 - 2015-05-27 13:28:36 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
No doubt it would.

In the meantime, AFK cloaking is just an expression of sadism. It's not for 'content'. It's not for the joys of combat. It's purely to harm the PvE players and ruin their time and experience of the game.

The intended target is a group of players who want to have their fun doing PvE activities. PvE is forced by design into boats that are at the very least heavily disadvantaged in a PvP encounter. The intended function is to prevent the PvE players from playing the game, and that should not be allowed.

Ultimately, fixing both sides of the equation need to happen, but until that comes about, at the least fixing the part that ruins the experience of an entire playstyle should be a priority.

So, rather than mess up cloaking on multiple levels, why not simply boost up the combat ability of the PvE hulls?

Push them into pure overkill, so that the only reason they don't go on the offense, would be that they are the worst traveling ships in the game.

Example: Give mining ships and a set of rigs the ability to enable a type of siege mode.
It would have insane bonuses, and be effectively unkillable before help could easily arrive to support them.
It could be as simple as a 20 minute reinforced mode, or insane comparable active tanking bonus.
(And that assumes the tank could be beaten before they were able to wipe out the attackers themselves.)
As it is a mode that effectively blocks travel, noone is going to try to put these in hostile territory, as that would be a tactical version of suicide not even these could endure.

Yes, it could be described as overpowered in other situations.
Phase two: Give covert ships the key to matching this defense, with a mechanic to neutralize it down so they could fight evenly.
This second phase is not needed in the short term, as the first phase neutralizes the threat from cloaked ships without making cloaks vulnerable.

It's the PvE ship's vulnerability which is the main problem, on almost every level of this issue.
The cloak is only considered a threat because it has the potential to engage this vulnerable PvE ship.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#2216 - 2015-05-27 18:35:52 UTC
That would not do anything about the issue. A cloaked ship represents infinite threat because of cynos. You might get a few more lone pilots in space, but a few hotdrops and irate alliance execs later and it would go right back to how it is now, because the root of the problem is that there is no way to bring violence to a cloak. Cloak mechanics are broken so long as there is no counter to them.

Cloaked ships would still never engage a ship that can fight back, still cannot have an engagement forced upon them. They need to be vulnerable in some way to being hunted, just like everyone else in space. So long as cloaks are perfect and capable of mounting cynos then the cycle of escalation never ends. Since we will not make PvE activities meaningless and utterly trivial to the game the only other direction to go is to bring cloaks into balance.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2217 - 2015-05-27 19:09:12 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
1. That would not do anything about the issue. A cloaked ship represents infinite threat because of cynos. You might get a few more lone pilots in space, but a few hotdrops and irate alliance execs later and it would go right back to how it is now, because the root of the problem is that there is no way to bring violence to a cloak. Cloak mechanics are broken so long as there is no counter to them.

2. Cloaked ships would still never engage a ship that can fight back, still cannot have an engagement forced upon them. They need to be vulnerable in some way to being hunted, just like everyone else in space. So long as cloaks are perfect and capable of mounting cynos then the cycle of escalation never ends. Since we will not make PvE activities meaningless and utterly trivial to the game the only other direction to go is to bring cloaks into balance.

1. Actually, the idea of reinforced siege mode for 20 minutes would render the cloaked players attack meaningless.
It only relies on the expectation of support coming from the friends of the PvE player, even if such support only exists as a potential threat in the mind of the dropper.
And this assumes it fits into the overwhelming category.

On the plus side, this has two distinct advantages:
Restored PvE activity. If they can't kill you before your buddies have time to show up and fight them, there is no good reason to hide in a POS or Outpost.

Creates a focal point for content, which the allied players from both sides can participate in.
This assumes nothing beyond the existence of players on both sides, which is pretty much a requirement for null activity.
If your entire alliance has too few people online, able to come to your aid over 20 minutes, something needs to change.

2. Never say never.
And even if that should prove to be an issue with some players, it is possible to balance normal cloaks into strict AFK support as needed.
Just like you can't interact or see your overview in an outpost, being cloaked could also have limiting factors on your ability to know your surroundings.

Covert cloaks have as a priority intel gathering, and stealth travel. Anything beyond that is subject to balance, so long as they can still perform these functions.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Vas Vadum
Draconian Empire
#2218 - 2015-05-28 03:40:43 UTC
Sorry if this is slightly outdated; I saved this to post another day because my net was out when I tried to reply and it took several days to get back online.

I also kept getting this;
Secure Connection Failed
The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading.
The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because the authenticity of the received data could not be verified.
Please contact the website owners to inform them of this problem.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
So why do you do it, if it has no effect?

Because he's an idiot. :P He knows it affects space, he just wants to make sure people know he's an idiot.

Teckos Pech wrote:
The claim that local does not need a counter is dubious and has been discussed many, many times. There is no way to get around the simple facts that local provides an early warning for those already in system. Was that intended by CCP? That is also debatable. Especially that there are Devs who have said local, ideally, would just be a chat channel....not function also as an intel channel.

I disagree that local should be removed. I think Local is perfectly fine. I just wish it had a button to compress it into a simple intel window. If you use a gate to get into the system, your name appears on Local because the gate broadcasts your identity to everyone. If you use a cyno, then maybe you shouldn't appear on local. So some aspects of your local are fine. Lets see if I can come up with a compromise you like too.

Gates broadcast your presence to everyone. If you arrive at a gate, you appear on the locals list.
If you jump through a gate, you appear on the locals list.
If someone puts up an intel beacon of some kind, you appear on the locals list if you enter it's range (whatever grid it's on, or within 500KM).
Locals list, will not have a chat, it will just be an intel list for you. You will be able to configure this list to remove specific people from it, on your own client. E.G. Blues.

However, this is not a discussion for local, which your post entirely focuses upon. I just felt like giving you this input.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
Staying in system so that ships that cannot engage effectively in PvP stay docked does that. Those pilots won't show up on a kill board, but they lost the fight anyway. No single module should enable that with no risk of retaliation for unlimited time and irrespective of effort or resources spent preventing or dealing with it. That level of gameplay should be group vs group. Maybe the OA will accomplish that.

Stealth game play should be about cat and mouse On the part of all parties. Cloaks currently are one sided.

I agree, cloaks are really one sided. I don't know why CCP thought infinite perfect safety cloaks would be great for the game. I still want the option I had suggested previously.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
The cloak offers the user the same benefit as a POS or outpost, to the extent we ignore fitting and trade options.

Choice of when to resume activity, and any risk associated with such.

Cloak offers the same protectin as a POS, with mobility and warp capabilities, and lets you get within 10KM of your target with a warp scrambler and light a cyno just before they can flee and **** the enemy to death because you managed to stay cloaked in his system all night while you slept and all day while you worked and you came home to find them ignoring the fact that you were in the system cloaked and hiding so they could take out their carrier and do some ratting. Cloak is way, over, powered. AFK cloaking is the worst part of all of it.

You should not be allowed to login, fly to enemy territory, cloak, then go to bed, work tomorrow, then leave the system and continue playing the game. That's 24 hours a day game play which is impossible for anyone, which makes it botting like activity. Affecting the game without you being around. Lets say you sleep for 8 hours, work for 8 hours, and spend 2 hours in between total time for these things. That's 18 hours a day you spend jamming enemy systems, 6 hours a day you spend making ISK. All the while you prevent the enemy from making ISK during that 18 hour period. While having done absolutely nothing, and being safer than being docked in a station. Does that sound fair? If he can play the game while he's asleep and at work, why can't mining ships automatically mine? Or ratting bots automatically rat? it's the same thing. Only you don't specifically make ISK from your away from computer game play. You disrupt 30-80 other people's game play.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
Cynos dont need to be nerfed at all, just not allowed on the same vessel as a cloak. Their purpose is to move cap fleets around, and allow you to do that at the risk of a single frigate. You want to penetrate enemy space stick it on an interceptor and crash the gates or find a wormhole route.

I don't care if the enemy is cloaked and has a cyno module. So long as he is active and around, and can't just go to bed and open up a cyno sometime 14 hours later randomly without warning when everyone thinks he is away. We need to stop afk activities in this game. You need to actually play the game, if you want to affect it.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5756122#post5756122
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#2219 - 2015-05-28 08:27:17 UTC
A cloaked ship without a cyno is just a single ship. You can account for a single ship in your plans to rat, mine or whatever other PvE activity you choose. I agree that your choice may be that it's simply not worth the risk, which is no fun for anyone, but you can at the least make a decent tactical decision and need not scrap a whole op with several people hinging on the determination of if a guy is atk or about to drop half an alliance on your head.

Separate cloaks and cynos and you solve the largest part of the problem, assuming everything else stays as is.
Tian Toralen
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2220 - 2015-05-28 08:43:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Tian Toralen
Right now there are 2 neutrals in my ratting system, they have been here since yesterday, and they did nothing since yesterday. I am sure they were not at their keyboards since yesterday.

Please implement this:
Quote:
New idea: the module is a SOV or large POS module. It can only be used in null-sec and wormholes. The module is expensive, uses the strontium or some other material, has a delay of 15 minutes, and - the most important thing - when activated it does a system wide announcement that it has been activated, then after 1-3 minutes all ships (enemy or not) in system are decloacked.


Short summary:

Module (POS or sov), possibility to activate it each 15 minutes, decloaks everyone in system 1 minute after it's activated, and before that - it does a system wide announcement that it has been activated. Even plays a sound if you want. Non-afk cloaked ships would simply recloak and continue camping. AFK cloaked ships - would be revealed, and we would be able to scan them.

MOST IMPORTANT: I have nothing against cloaks or those who use cloaks, I use them myself. I am annoyed by AFK camping. My idea is directed only at AFK campers, cloaked campers would not suffer the least inconvenience because of it.

With the option - the module does not decloak ships that are cloaked because they just jumped in. The announcement could even be written in local in the neighboring systems, so travelers know about it. I don't care. It is not designed to be a trap of some sort, it's only against AFK campers.