These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

A possible solution to AFK cloaky alts

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dray
C.O.D.E
#101 - 2011-10-12 12:10:21 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Removing Local is not a real solution to the AFK issue. Matter of fact it will mean even more risk free hotdrops. Not a solution.


You couldn't be more wrong.
Jennifer Starling
Imperial Navy Forum Patrol
#102 - 2011-10-12 12:12:49 UTC
Signal11th wrote:
Ladie Harlot wrote:
This thread is like a magnet for bad ideas about fixing a problem that doesn't really exist.


^^This

Christ I can't believe people are still moaning about this!!, If it's AFK then you're in no danger only the danger your perceive to be there if their not AFK then they are doing their job!

Basically all the people who complain about this, just go and live in a wormhole for a month or so and then come back to 0.0 and you'll then wonder what the fuss is all about.

Exactly.

It more seems like people are actually opposing cloaking.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#103 - 2011-10-12 12:16:24 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Removing Local is not a real solution to the AFK issue.
Of course it is. Without local, you can't detect those AFKers and therefore can't worry about them.
Quote:
Matter of fact it will mean even more risk free hotdrops. Not a solution.
That is not an AFK issue.
Quote:
To solve this issue you must remove the incentive to walk away from your computer while cloaked.
Yes: remove local so your mere presence in it can't scare any remaining wits out of the already witless. Doing so removes the incentive to leave your ship AFK while cloaked, in the hope that people will be too afraid of it to do anything.
Quote:
The issue is it does exist. CCP can easily pull up the history to show the many AFK cloakers turning active and hotdropping resulting in almost free kills.
In other words, the issue is not with the AFK cloakers — it's with hotdrops.
Shang Fei
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#104 - 2011-10-12 12:26:20 UTC
ohai TCU :)
Endeavour Starfleet
#105 - 2011-10-12 12:26:26 UTC
Removing local will not decrease free hotdrops it will increase them dramatically. For the few months people will stay in EVE to experience it. Being able to remain cloaked for hours maybe days in a system without risk of detection and away from keyboard leading to a free hotdrop with the cloak having full intel on his side will become a much worse issue with Local removed or delayed not less.

The REAL solution is to remove the incentive to walk away from the keyboard without destroying nullsec with a local change. There are several ways to this. I believe my solution is the most targeted towards those who are AFK while cloaked and reduces the chance of badly affected those using the cloak for intel gathering through hostile systems.

This will also remove the issue of a cloaker being able to come back from AFK and launching a free hotdrop.

Winter 2011 is the perfect time to make a real change in this while not destroying nullsec or those using the cloak for intel gathering while at their keyboards.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#106 - 2011-10-12 12:30:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Removing local will not decrease free hotdrops it will increase them dramatically.
…which is not an AFK cloaker issue.
Quote:
The REAL solution is to remove the incentive to walk away from the keyboard
Yes: remove local so your mere presence in it can't scare any remaining wits out of the already witless. Doing so removes the incentive to leave your ship AFK while cloaked, in the hope that people will be too afraid of it to do anything.
Quote:
without destroying nullsec with a local change.
Changing local does not destroy nullsec, and anyway, without a change to local, AFK cloaking can't be removed as it acts as the only counter to this overpowered intel tool.

The problem you're having is one of being hotdropped and of not wanting to lose your intel tool (which, unfortunately, needs to happen regardless). So address those actual problems instead — not the non-issue of cloakers who have gone AFK.
Svizac Marmotov
#107 - 2011-10-12 12:32:27 UTC
What is he's not AFK?
What is he's sitting at his computer and running his d-scanner every few minutes waiting for someone to make a wrong move?

Or what if he wasn't cloaked at all?

Would it feel better if you knew he is actively hunting you, and you can't undock or do anything because you WILL get hotdroped, for hours and hours?
Do you still think it's unfair and needs fixing?

What if he was there, but you didn't know he is there at all? Not showing in local, not showing on scanner, ganking you "out of the blue"?
As it should be, since cloak should hide your presence.

What if you don't know he is NOT there? Sitting and hiding from illusionary enemy that is not there?
Because you're petrified by fear of danger.....
DarkAegix
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#108 - 2011-10-12 12:38:17 UTC
Blah blah blah, local this, local that.
Remove local? Fear all the time! Hotdrops at any given second!
Keep local? AFK cloakers which can sip tea for days then strike at any time they please.
All arguments have been exhausted.

Pro-cloak-nerfers are too cowardly, while AFK-cloak-sympthasisers consistently block their ears, often replying with "Derp they're AFK they can't hurt you yep definitely no way they can't suddenly un-AFK that's ludicrous AFK cloakers are always AFK never uncloaking :elitepvp:"

CCP are doing the *right* thing and creating a new 0.0 intel system for the next expansion. Local will no longer be an intel tool, for nullsec at least, and will be replaced with something else.
Endeavour Starfleet
#109 - 2011-10-12 12:46:41 UTC
With my solution if he is there and active he will receive a warning that he will soon decloak and thus the active pilot can quickly warp to a safespot and back again to reset the scan point and resume his activities. I ONLY want to remove the incentive to go AFK in a hostile system. Active cloaking is a viable tactic and I want to to be the main use again. That way a cloak alt will be actually something to work at and be proud for not something for free ganks or free all day affecting a system.

Don't Destroy Nullsec with removing local and don't damage active player AFK. If solutions can be discussed that can target just the incentive to walk away from keyboard this issue can be resolved without the massive nerf bat.
Endeavour Starfleet
#110 - 2011-10-12 12:48:24 UTC
Just to clarify Dark, I am talking about local with its main use now which is knowing instantly who is in system. That is a general term and I would be happy to support an external system that emulates or improves on it. As long as it's use it not affected.
Dorian Wylde
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#111 - 2011-10-12 12:48:55 UTC
There's no problem, therefore no solution is needed. If they are afk, they can't hurt you.
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#112 - 2011-10-12 12:51:07 UTC
Wow, another OP that thinks "his" null space system should be as safe as high sec. People like this are embarassments to Eve as a whole.

If you want to really "fix" what isn't broken, here's how you do it.

1. When a ship cloaks, it disappears from local. You can't see it anymore, you have nothing to be afraid of, right?
2. When a ship cloaks, it also loses access to local. You lose the free intel of being able to sit there while cloaked at a safe seeing who's in system or not. You want more intel? Simply... use probes, use dscan, fly your lazy ass around and see who's where. In addition. when cloaked you can no longer be "warped to".
3. When you decloak, there should be a delay in being able to fire off a cyno. This balances the "invisible in local" thing, giving the poor bastard you're surprising at least a fighting chance to soil himself and run away.

There you go, the "afk cloaker problem" is fixed. Now grow some balls, undock and play the game.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Mistress Motion
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#113 - 2011-10-12 12:53:28 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Mistress Motion wrote:
Or am I missing something here?
Yes: how the lack of local means that there is no such thing as “AFK cloaking” in w-space, and that.


Just wanted to point out that it's not really same to be in WH anyway, since you can spam dscan and find probes when someone is after you. And in nullsec if there's someone coming to 'your' sanctum, he/she won't need a single probe for that.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#114 - 2011-10-12 12:56:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
I ONLY want to remove the incentive to go AFK in a hostile system.
…which the removal of local does perfectly. But even so: why does it need to be disincentivised?
Quote:
Don't Destroy Nullsec with removing local
How would it destroy nullsec?
Quote:
I am talking about local with its main use now which is knowing instantly who is in system. That is a general term and I would be happy to support an external system that emulates or improves on it.
Why on earth do you need to improve on a tool that gives you perfect, free intel? No, it needs to be massively nerfed into actually requiring some work to gain unreliable intel.

It does not need to be emulated or improved on — it needs to be replaced with something that is worse in every way.

Oh, and yes, Ingvar Angst's solution is pretty much ideal if local isn't replaced.
Rico Rage
#115 - 2011-10-12 13:06:40 UTC
What about a new type of probes, that allows you to scan down cloaked ships?

Maybe make them take a lot longer to scan down a target (as in like, 15 minutes to scan down a target), that way you couldn't use it to scan down active cloakies. However, any AFK cloaky would be easily found as they would just be sitting in one area of space for long periods of time.

This allows players to still remain effective at harassing in a cloaky, but prevents people from being able to sit in a system cloaked while AFK. If a cloaky pilot is active in your system, you won't be able to scan them down. But if an AFK cloaky is at large, all you need to dedicate is a probing ship with a couple of guns on it to take them out.

Signal11th
#116 - 2011-10-12 13:09:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Signal11th
Mistress Motion wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Mistress Motion wrote:
Or am I missing something here?
Yes: how the lack of local means that there is no such thing as “AFK cloaking” in w-space, and that.


Just wanted to point out that it's not really same to be in WH anyway, since you can spam dscan and find probes when someone is after you. And in nullsec if there's someone coming to 'your' sanctum, he/she won't need a single probe for that.



You're missing the point of what I meant, if you live in a WH you lose your fear of a cloaky because you always assume there is one always there. This said people in Wormholes always manage to work on as normal and you don;t need probes to visit the sleeper sites either.

I lived in WH space for a little time and I must admit I wasn't a great fan but it did show how baseless these AFK CLOAKING MUST BE FIXED arguments are because there is already a slice of EVE that lives with cloakies AND no local and they prefer it that way.

God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster!
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#117 - 2011-10-12 13:12:29 UTC
Mistress Motion wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Mistress Motion wrote:
Or am I missing something here?
Yes: how the lack of local means that there is no such thing as “AFK cloaking” in w-space, and that.


Just wanted to point out that it's not really same to be in WH anyway, since you can spam dscan and find probes when someone is after you. And in nullsec if there's someone coming to 'your' sanctum, he/she won't need a single probe for that.


Sleeper sites don't require probes to locate. Think of them as the wormhole version of sanctums. In holes, you need to probe gravs, mags, radars, ladars and more holes, but not the combat sites.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#118 - 2011-10-12 13:13:28 UTC
Rico Rage wrote:
What about a new type of probes, that allows you to scan down cloaked ships?
It immediately raises the question: why is that needed?
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#119 - 2011-10-12 13:15:27 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
Tippia wrote:
Rico Rage wrote:
What about a new type of probes, that allows you to scan down cloaked ships?
It immediately raises the question: why is that needed?




EDIT: Post removed. Please stay on-topic, CCP Phantom.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Signal11th
#120 - 2011-10-12 13:16:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Signal11th
I must admit I'm sort of leaning towards Ingvar's solution with a couple of tweaks but I would prefer local being removed completely from 0.0 with the addition of better/newer scanning tools

God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster!