These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Warfare & Tactics

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

afk cyno cloaking taking the fight out of the game!
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Edah Puss
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#81 - 2013-02-25 00:40:46 UTC
OP: Can you please explain to me how somebody who is AFK can hurt you?

You *are* aware that AFK means Away From Keyboard, aren't you? Do you realise that means that when a person is not at their computer, then they cant control the game?

Or do you think they will telepathicly sense your presence in local and with their freaky superior mind control, press the keys and push the mouse around with their mind, and remotely control their ship to come and gank you?

Which one is it OP, because your entire argument falls flat due to some pretty critical logical failures.
Rio Bravo
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#82 - 2013-02-25 01:55:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Rio Bravo
Op in that you can choose when and how to engage...thats what cloaks do. You can never know when they are at the KB. Then they hot drop fleets to thier location. That is how its dangerous. It' s when every system is got an afk sleeper, disrupts your economy very badly for no risk to the red.
Well, maybe I am whining now... Roll

“You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. I dig.”  - Clint Eastwood, misquote.
Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#83 - 2013-02-25 15:30:08 UTC
All null-sec residents incure degrees of risk, whatever their activities. The only exceptions are afk cloakers. Why should they be any different?

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
Cephelange du'Krevviq
Gildinous Vangaurd
The Initiative.
#84 - 2013-02-25 15:55:12 UTC
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
All null-sec residents incure [sic] degrees of risk, whatever their activities. The only exceptions are afk cloakers. Why should they be any different?


Is a person docked up at risk? No. Is a person POSed up at risk? No.

A person cloaked and AFK is, for all intents and purposes, the same as docked up or POSed up. All are exhibiting the same amount of activity - that is to say, none.

Please let it sink in a person that is AFK is no threat. None, zero, zilch, nada, nichts, etc.

"I am a leaf on the...ah, frak it!"
Knorkor
Ministry of Silly Walk
#85 - 2013-02-25 18:27:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Knorkor
Cephelange du'Krevviq wrote:
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
All null-sec residents incure [sic] degrees of risk, whatever their activities. The only exceptions are afk cloakers. Why should they be any different?


Is a person docked up at risk? No. Is a person POSed up at risk? No.

A person cloaked and AFK is, for all intents and purposes, the same as docked up or POSed up. All are exhibiting the same amount of activity - that is to say, none.

Please let it sink in a person that is AFK is no threat. None, zero, zilch, nada, nichts, etc.

You don't know if he is a threat or not, because you don't know if he is AFK or not.
And you also don't know how big of a threat he can be.
When he decides to attack, he can field anything he wants, from a few SB's and Recons up to a few hundred Black Ops and even capitals and supers.
That's why I think something must be done.
Not because of the threat, but because it is unpredictable as hell and a very important factor of Eve, Risk vs Reward, cannot be outweighed properly. While he can do that very well by spying for an infinite amount of time without any risk.

That is why I made the suggestion to limit (covert) cynos in Mass.
Rio Bravo
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#86 - 2013-02-25 19:18:31 UTC
of course many who don't have a problem with AFK cloakies, seemed to have very big problem with AFK miners...miners were no threat either, but was "lazy"...as is AFK cloaking. You make cloaks consume fuel, doesn't affect thier operation for tactics, but strategically, changes thier management. Makes it less lazy...a suggestion I made was cycle time, and fuel.

Any body that comes back and says that AFK miners in their hulks were damaging the economy and so had to be nerfed and ganked, should apply thier own reasonings to the economics of all day AFK cloakers. If there is enough noise and begins to affect the game, CCP will do something.

Anyway, I won't post for this topic anymore. It just becomes a troll fest if you keep commenting after you already got your point acrossed.

“You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. I dig.”  - Clint Eastwood, misquote.
Cephelange du'Krevviq
Gildinous Vangaurd
The Initiative.
#87 - 2013-02-25 20:05:01 UTC
Except that those AFK/botting miners were actually doing something.

A truly AFK cloaked vessel/pilot is literally doing nothing but sitting in space.

Quote:
You don't know if he is a threat or not, because you don't know if he is AFK or not.


If they are AFK, they aren't a threat. As I already suggested, relocate to a different system and conduct your operations there. If they follow, then they aren't AFK. If they don't follow, then odds are they are.

You're right, you don't know 100% sure if they're AFK, but nullsec isn't about being safe when engaged in activity.

Let me re-attack this from a different perspective.

What has CCP's approach been when there's an issue like this? Do they change it to make things safer for a larger portion of the playerbase than it makes things less safe for? No, they don't. If CCP were to implement a change that required fuel or cap use for an active cloak so more nullbears could feel safe, that would go against their usual stance/mindset.

"I am a leaf on the...ah, frak it!"
Knorkor
Ministry of Silly Walk
#88 - 2013-02-25 20:18:45 UTC
Cephelange du'Krevviq wrote:

What has CCP's approach been when there's an issue like this? Do they change it to make things safer for a larger portion of the playerbase than it makes things less safe for? No, they don't. If CCP were to implement a change that required fuel or cap use for an active cloak so more nullbears could feel safe, that would go against their usual stance/mindset.

So it is okay for it to be totally and 100% safe for the camper? Because that is what you just said. Where is the risk/reward system here? The camper can be rewarded with a dropped industry level for absolutely no risk.
Cephelange du'Krevviq
Gildinous Vangaurd
The Initiative.
#89 - 2013-02-25 21:18:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Cephelange du'Krevviq
Knorkor wrote:
Cephelange du'Krevviq wrote:

What has CCP's approach been when there's an issue like this? Do they change it to make things safer for a larger portion of the playerbase than it makes things less safe for? No, they don't. If CCP were to implement a change that required fuel or cap use for an active cloak so more nullbears could feel safe, that would go against their usual stance/mindset.

So it is okay for it to be totally and 100% safe for the camper? Because that is what you just said. Where is the risk/reward system here? The camper can be rewarded with a dropped industry level for absolutely no risk.


If CCP has to pick from the following scenarios, which do you think they will pick?

1) Add some sort of "active" cost to cloaking
a) decreases safety for those that like to cloak up and camp a system AFK
b) gives system dwellers 100% accountability of threats

2) Keep current mechanics as they are
a) keeps things at a manageable level of risk for system dwellers
b) doesn't require addition or tweaking of program code
c) keeps less than 1%* of playerbase safe

* ok, so it's a number I pulled out of my...hat...but let's face it, if the players online are in the 30k to 40k range, I think it's safe to say there are probably no more than 300 to 400 AFK cloaky campers online.

Oh, and I'll reiterate this, too:
If the cloaky player is AFK, the people in the system are safe from him/her, too.

"I am a leaf on the...ah, frak it!"
Seraph IX Basarab
Outer Path
Seraphim Division
#90 - 2013-02-26 01:26:04 UTC
Knorkor wrote:
Cephelange du'Krevviq wrote:

What has CCP's approach been when there's an issue like this? Do they change it to make things safer for a larger portion of the playerbase than it makes things less safe for? No, they don't. If CCP were to implement a change that required fuel or cap use for an active cloak so more nullbears could feel safe, that would go against their usual stance/mindset.

So it is okay for it to be totally and 100% safe for the camper? Because that is what you just said. Where is the risk/reward system here? The camper can be rewarded with a dropped industry level for absolutely no risk.



Wait how does the AFK cloaker take your industry level away?
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#91 - 2013-02-26 09:03:04 UTC
Hmm lets try this from a wider approach.


Why is something over powered i it works only in one situation, and a nerf would only change it for one stuation.


- High Sec, Not a problem,
- Low Sec, Not Aproblem,
- WH-Space Not a problem
- NPC 0.0 Not a problem
- Souv 0.0 somehow a problem for it''s inhabitance.

So in your smal peace of new eden's cake, there is an advantage to be gained by nerfing cloaking, only or you and it will bother everyone else.
Knorkor
Ministry of Silly Walk
#92 - 2013-02-26 11:36:13 UTC
Mike Whiite wrote:

Why is something over powered i it works only in one situation, and a nerf would only change it for one stuation.

It is becoming a problem when it is abused to death.


Seraph IX Basarab wrote:

Wait how does the AFK cloaker take your industry level away?

He does not take mine, I mine nonetheless.
But as said repeatedly, it is an afk activity that hampers people without putting the camper at a risk.
That was said now numerous times, but you guys just ignore that fact.
Cephelange du'Krevviq
Gildinous Vangaurd
The Initiative.
#93 - 2013-02-26 12:55:14 UTC
Knorkor wrote:
That was said now numerous times, but you guys just ignore that fact.


And you're ignoring the fact that it only hampers you if you allow it to. If they are AFK they Can. Not. Hurt. You. At. All. They only effect an AFK cloaky has on your activities is what you allow it to.

That is the bottom line.

"I am a leaf on the...ah, frak it!"
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#94 - 2013-02-26 13:12:34 UTC
Knorkor wrote:
Mike Whiite wrote:

Why is something over powered i it works only in one situation, and a nerf would only change it for one stuation.

It is becoming a problem when it is abused to death.





That sounds like a legit argument.

Second question would be why is this the case?

because this doesn't happen in the other systems, there people use a variaty of tactics, might it be possible that the number of options in Souv space are limited to this and all out combat?

That doesn't have to say it's a goodthing, but it might also give you a perspective that just nerving cloaking isn't the solution as well.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#95 - 2013-02-26 14:07:36 UTC
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
Wait how does the AFK cloaker take your industry level away?

i dunno.... Roll

have you ever heard about industry levels?

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Id hitthat
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#96 - 2013-02-26 21:18:04 UTC
If it would be fair it would be high risk high reward but most of the time it's medium/low risk high reward. Sure I've probably whined about it in a moment of weakness at some point but really it's not such a big deal and probably a good thing for balance.
Seraph IX Basarab
Outer Path
Seraphim Division
#97 - 2013-02-27 04:44:15 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
Wait how does the AFK cloaker take your industry level away?

i dunno.... Roll

have you ever heard about industry levels?




Yeah I have. What mechanic exactly drops the industry level if there is an afk guy in system? If he's afk he can't harm you. So the issue is with you guys that are afraid of getting attacked rather than the attack itself.

Take local away if cloaked. Problem solved. Anyone have a problem with that?
Rio Bravo
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#98 - 2013-02-27 13:37:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Rio Bravo
It's not when they are AFK that they are a threat, anyone gets that. It's that you never know. The other day one of us lost a BS to one of the AFK cloakers in the network they have spread in every system (so moving is little option). He hotdropped a fleet of nine in (suddenly became unAFK), killed the BS, then the fleet cyno'd out. No Risk...and the sleeper went back to being AFK cloaked and waiting (back to AFK after a brief activity).
Once again, in EVE as long as it works for you it's OK...when you are the victim, it's not OK. If you lose your ship it's your own fault, blah, blah...But it gets rather WoWesque when you can take portals to any place you want and warp friends to any place you are with no borders to defend with...think WoW removed alot of the portals come to think of it...

And it's NOT a cloak nerf OPERATIONALLY! A half hour cycle time and fuel consumption, would nerf cloak operational MANAGEMENT! Wouldn't change how it worked tactically at all, just strategically. So address the issue in your comments...cloaking is fine, its the abuse of alts spread acrossed two dozen systems, cloak impunity, and being AFK for long peroids of time to disrupt others on a regional scale. You can still do this with cycle/fuel, but it would suddenly have an operating cost and supply demand! That is the issue, no risk/no cost is wrong!
...and no I am not mad bro! Smile

“You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. I dig.”  - Clint Eastwood, misquote.
Seraph IX Basarab
Outer Path
Seraphim Division
#99 - 2013-02-27 19:18:09 UTC
Rio Bravo wrote:
It's not when they are AFK that they are a threat, anyone gets that. It's that you never know. The other day one of us lost a BS to one of the AFK cloakers in the network they have spread in every system (so moving is little option). He hotdropped a fleet of nine in (suddenly became unAFK), killed the BS, then the fleet cyno'd out. No Risk...and the sleeper went back to being AFK cloaked and waiting (back to AFK after a brief activity).
Once again, in EVE as long as it works for you it's OK...when you are the victim, it's not OK. If you lose your ship it's your own fault, blah, blah...But it gets rather WoWesque when you can take portals to any place you want and warp friends to any place you are with no borders to defend with...think WoW removed alot of the portals come to think of it...

And it's NOT a cloak nerf OPERATIONALLY! A half hour cycle time and fuel consumption, would nerf cloak operational MANAGEMENT! Wouldn't change how it worked tactically at all, just strategically. So address the issue in your comments...cloaking is fine, its the abuse of alts spread acrossed two dozen systems, cloak impunity, and being AFK for long peroids of time to disrupt others on a regional scale. You can still do this with cycle/fuel, but it would suddenly have an operating cost and supply demand! That is the issue, no risk/no cost is wrong!
...and no I am not mad bro! Smile



There is no abuse or issue. Have you ever even managed a cloaky operation or is your pvp experience limited to approach FC, target primary, hit F1? Do you know how much preparation goes into such an operation that you just described? You're flying paper thin frigates in enemy territory without the logistical advantages that the home team gets.

There ARE ways to deal with cloaky ops in your system. You just haven't figured them out yet.
Cephelange du'Krevviq
Gildinous Vangaurd
The Initiative.
#100 - 2013-02-27 19:59:45 UTC
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
There ARE ways to deal with cloaky ops in your system. You just haven't figured them out yet.


Despite folks in this thread and others pretty much spelling some of them out.

"I am a leaf on the...ah, frak it!"