These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#541 - 2011-10-14 18:15:55 UTC
Rhinanna wrote:

So your solution is to have a massive cap fleet sitting on hold ready to counter ONE AFK CLOAKER..... please tell me how that is in any way balanced?

I also like the time-delay cyno + no local idea, so long as

1: When cloaked the cloaker has reduced D-scan range (or he may as well have local with very very little effort) Say 1-2 AU, so he has to manually investigate planets.

2: Limit probe strength or increase probe time or something similar.

Removing local for a cloaked ship also not on local alone isn't much of a punishment when Local is more a defensive intel tool, probes and D-scan are the offensive scanning tools.


Ah, well, thank you. Big smile

I'll have to disagree with 1... the DScan range is fine right now and works well, especially in wormholes. All it tells you is that there's a ship there, somewhere, but you have to work at it already to find out what and where. Most systems are larger than the dscan range anyhow, so you still have to be mobile.

Regarding 2, if they do that then you'll have the issue reappearing of the "unprobable ship". You'll have the potential for some sigs themselves not being scannable. It's really not a needed nerf. Simply by being more alert in null you can see the probes out there and react accordingly. This is already a tried and true system working quite well in w-space.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Rhinanna
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#542 - 2011-10-14 21:23:47 UTC
Sorry was meaning system scanner not D-scan, had a brain fart. Just don't want them to be able to find the sanctums and havens as quickly as they can currently, make them search for these if cloaked.

Same with probes.

Basically its so if someone is AFK cloaking, they have to spend some time hunting round when they come back from AFK instead of within a few couple of minutes having the locations of all the sanctums and havens and sites within the system. If someone is willing to gimp their ship to make themselves unprobable to cloakies, I don't see the problem there, since all the cloaky has to do to get as high as he can cloaked, drop cloak for the final scan, re-cloak, warp to target. Doesn't make anyone immune to cloakies, just means they can make it harder for a cloaky to get them at the cost of several mid slots. Seems like a fair deal there!

-The sword is only as sharp as the one who wields it! Other names: Drenzul (WoT, WoW, Lineage 2, WarH, BloodBowl, BSG, SC2 and lots more) 
Gorefacer
4S Corporation
The Initiative.
#543 - 2011-10-15 03:31:39 UTC
1. Remove local (in relation to AFK cloaking, may cause other unrelated issues, I have no opinion here though think it might be a fun experiment)
2. Cloak Fuel
3. Auto log off inactives
4. After x minutes of inactivity remove user from local chat
etc..

I can understand the argument that AFK cloaking may be unfair due to people negatively affecting others while not actively in game, in principal.

However AFK cloaking has never once bothered me in practice. If it's never changed I don't think the game will suffer much if at all (might be critical in relation to keeping anomalies open? I don't have any direct experience with this though).

I think the best argument FOR AFK cloaking is that it's not a big deal, or that hey you just think having an impact on your enemies while AFK is OK. AFK cloaker not having an impact because they are AFK is a poor argument:

-Either the ratters/miners assume the AFK ship is active and take measures to mitigate the risk (loss of profit) OR
-They assume the ship is AFK and risk being blown up (greater loss of profit)

The AFK cloaker does have an impact even if they are AFK as debatable as the severity and fairness of that impact may be.

The fallible arguments for AFK cloaking annoy me more than AFK cloaking itself.
Maggeridon Thoraz
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#544 - 2011-10-15 04:49:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Maggeridon Thoraz
to all the whiners,

i invite you to stay some month in wh and get rid of your afk cloak paranoia.

you null sec whiners have such a great intel tool. the local and if you just have on cloaky in system you get paranoid like mad.

you have due to local such safe area in null sec. really. if you are afrid of a neutral or red cloaky make some jumps and do your thing somewhere else. you sound worse the the carbears in hisec
Kitty McKitty
In Praise Of Shadows
#545 - 2011-10-15 07:13:08 UTC
Rhinanna wrote:
So your solution is to have a massive cap fleet sitting on hold ready to counter ONE AFK CLOAKER..... please tell me how that is in any way balanced?

are you suggesting you shouldn't have to defend your valued territory from hostiles? if you aren't prepared to fight for your systems you don't deserve them.

♥ Haviing your portrait painted here helps INTAKI Disabled Children ♥
M0GWAI
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#546 - 2011-10-15 11:16:04 UTC
Sniped117 wrote:
in the best interest of my alliance im posting on an alt.

On my main i am in null sec and seen enemies to my alliance go in each of our systems with an alt and go cloaked for days and days on end. this disrupts our operations to ratting mining and other profitable isk ways. it started to tear down my alliance these people sitting cloaked off grid waiting to pick off the easy targets when we least expect it and hotdropping us time to time.. It brought my alliance mostly to a halt.

A debatable Solution:

Make it so to activate cloaking modules you must have a fuel to power it instead of using Capacitor power. Maybe a fuel like nitrogen isotopes that is consumed per hour using your cloaky module and is stored in your cargo bay or a cloaked fuels bay. So say covert ops cloak ships with the bonuses to use less fuel per hour would use less fuel per hour while being cloaked moving around while ships with prototype cloaks use more fuel per hour.

Just a thought

cloaking ships are invincible if not seen and menacing and fun to use to your liking. Its a pain in the ass when an alt is sitting in your system for days and days on end... a fuel to consume would eventually run out in were the fuel is held and uncloak the ship therefore easier to find and sotp

cloaking ships have no counter everything else has a counter lets make one for cloakies


I think it was spiraljunkie who said it first: "If you're afraid of losing ships - just don't login!"
Karn Dulake > These Bots are getting very advanced. The other day one spent 45 minutes scamming me out of 5 plexes in Jita.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#547 - 2011-10-15 11:27:16 UTC
Gorefacer wrote:
I think the best argument FOR AFK cloaking is that it's not a big deal, or that hey you just think having an impact on your enemies while AFK is OK. AFK cloaker not having an impact because they are AFK is a poor argument:

-Either the ratters/miners assume the AFK ship is active and take measures to mitigate the risk (loss of profit) OR
-They assume the ship is AFK and risk being blown up (greater loss of profit)
…in other words, this whole “AFK cloaker” problem supposition can be boiled down to this:

“I am entitled to earn at max efficiency. Cloakers disrupt my privilege and therefore must be removed.”

…to which the answer is “no, you're not, and no they don't.”
L Salander
All Web Investigations
#548 - 2011-10-15 12:13:26 UTC
Gorefacer wrote:
I think the best argument FOR AFK cloaking is that it's not a big deal, or that hey you just think having an impact on your enemies while AFK is OK. AFK cloaker not having an impact because they are AFK is a poor argument:

-Either the ratters/miners assume the AFK ship is active and take measures to mitigate the risk (loss of profit) OR
-They assume the ship is AFK and risk being blown up (greater loss of profit)

The AFK cloaker does have an impact even if they are AFK as debatable as the severity and fairness of that impact may be.

The fallible arguments for AFK cloaking annoy me more than AFK cloaking itself.


This just in: Risk is a big part of EVE.

If you don't like the risks in nullsec head on back to highsec and join an npc corp.
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#549 - 2011-10-15 14:50:28 UTC
Rhinanna wrote:
Sorry was meaning system scanner not D-scan, had a brain fart. Just don't want them to be able to find the sanctums and havens as quickly as they can currently, make them search for these if cloaked.

Same with probes.

Basically its so if someone is AFK cloaking, they have to spend some time hunting round when they come back from AFK instead of within a few couple of minutes having the locations of all the sanctums and havens and sites within the system. If someone is willing to gimp their ship to make themselves unprobable to cloakies, I don't see the problem there, since all the cloaky has to do to get as high as he can cloaked, drop cloak for the final scan, re-cloak, warp to target. Doesn't make anyone immune to cloakies, just means they can make it harder for a cloaky to get them at the cost of several mid slots. Seems like a fair deal there!


OK, but there you go again nerfing wromholes by denying us our intel tools when cloaked. It's a way of life... you enter a wormhole, you check dscan and hit the scanner, you uncloak from the hole entry, drop probes (if dscan is clear), cloak up and scan further. You want to do too much damage to something you don't understand because of something else you're afriad of.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#550 - 2011-10-15 15:00:54 UTC
well either a fuel based mechanic or a time based mechanic but something needs to be done about this...

i figure tech I cloak takes about 30 min sitting still to start to emit too many tachions and is able to be detected with probes...

then 1 hour for a regular tech II

and then 2 hours for a covert ops cloak...

it would still allow people to be a "wolf" pack hunters but would kill the all day long afk cloakers...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
KrakizBad
Section 8.
#551 - 2011-10-15 15:34:06 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
well either a fuel based mechanic or a time based mechanic but something needs to be done about this...


Why? Is there any other reason other than "it's an inconvenience for me?"
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#552 - 2011-10-15 15:37:36 UTC
KrakizBad wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
well either a fuel based mechanic or a time based mechanic but something needs to be done about this...


Why? Is there any other reason other than "it's an inconvenience for me?"


It isn't even an inconvenience unless you let it be one.
KrakizBad
Section 8.
#553 - 2011-10-15 15:40:23 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
KrakizBad wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
well either a fuel based mechanic or a time based mechanic but something needs to be done about this...


Why? Is there any other reason other than "it's an inconvenience for me?"


It isn't even an inconvenience unless you let it be one.


Well that's kind of my point. 28 pages now without a single valid reason why cloakies are a problem other than a sense of entitlement.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#554 - 2011-10-15 15:52:40 UTC  |  Edited by: MeBiatch
let me explain... cloaking is ok infact its needed and great... but perma afk 23/7 cloaking is silly and op in its emotianal affect on the game...

wolf pack hunting is fun and needed... but permal afking cloaking is stupid...

i mean if i am going to shut a plus five system down i should be somewhat active to do it...

plus i think most of the objectors either have som much isk they never have to rat again or just do missions in high sec so it does not affect them so they are against any change cuss afk cloaking does not affect thier game play style...

or moreover they understand all too well the propergandise affect that afk claoking plays and its affect on reduced isk income and are reliant on this competative edge to keep new players/alliances from gaining large amounts of isk...

so as i said either a fuel based mechanic or a time based one would be awesome to still let players hunt in thier cloaky ships but also ensure that peeps are not just signing in and being afk all day... with tey way local works and its phycological affect its a way too powerfull mind frak...

ccp wants more dudes and duedets in 0.0 do something about perma afk but not cloaking ships and you got more people taking the plung...

furhtermore after 28 pages there has not been a single post in favor of afk cloaking that was not just a sense of entitlement staw man arugment based on ad hominem fallacies...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#555 - 2011-10-15 16:02:30 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
let me explain... cloaking is ok infact its needed and great... but perma afk 23/7 cloaking is silly and op in its emotianal affect on the game.
In what way? And why is it bad?
Quote:
furhtermore after 28 pages there has not been a single post in favor of afk cloaking that was not just a sense of entitlement staw man arugment based on ad hominem fallacies...
You haven't read it, I take it…
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#556 - 2011-10-15 16:11:02 UTC
Rhinanna wrote:
And if he had been sitting in the system for 10 hours previously AFK, does it make any difference?

Its the sitting there for 10 hours with ZERO risk and the threat of a hot-drop that is the problem here! If they had to be active to maintain the cloak then there wouldn't be a problem. It would be a pain in the arse when someone did it to you, but it would be OK. The problem is that someone AFK can sit there, with zero risk, holding a entire system to ransom, with no effort.

I use AFK cloaking myself to massive advantage and let me tell you, if people are stupid enough to rat while I'm in system (I check back every few hours when I can) then they generally get a bomb in the face followed by torps at a rather critical moment. If I have cap backup online, well then its even worse for them!

Basically the only defence for AFK cloaking that it's supporters can offer is that it can in theory be defended against, however you are asking the defenders to put literally thousands of times as much effort in as the AFK cloaker AND to be the ones taking the big risks (losing their expensive PvP and ratting ships) which simply isn't viable.

As for 'defending your space', well I can get a SB into ANY SYSTEM IN EVE with virtually no risk or effort so basically what you are saying at the moment is that no alliance in eve is capable of defending it's space....... due to AFK cloaking. If anything this is another reason it needs to be fixed.


could not say it better my self

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#557 - 2011-10-15 16:18:26 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:


could not say it better my self


Remove local and you're self inflicted issue along with many others will go away.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#558 - 2011-10-15 16:21:58 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:


could not say it better my self


Remove local and you're self inflicted issue along with many others will go away.



you are correct in that... but how does one just remove local?

how would you subliment intelegence gathering?

whats the more simple less complex fix as ccp has only so much resourses...

simply nerf afk cloaking but not wolf pack hunting?

or removing local and intorducing a totally new game mechanic for ship detection?

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#559 - 2011-10-15 16:23:34 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
whats the more simple less complex fix as ccp has only so much resourses...

simply nerf afk cloaking but not wolf pack hunting?

or removing local and intorducing a totally new game mechanic for ship detection?
They're already doing the latter…
L Salander
All Web Investigations
#560 - 2011-10-15 16:42:21 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
let me explain... cloaking is ok infact its needed and great... but perma afk 23/7 cloaking is silly and op in its emotianal affect on the game


i lol'd