These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post First post
Author
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1961 - 2013-09-26 20:22:24 UTC
Solerin wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

It was in reference to your comment you want to force AFK cloakers to fight. Forcing one side to fight in this game is not usually an option. Each side in many fights has a choice to engage or not, to take on risk or not. Carebear corps in empire may tell pilots, "Don't undock, blue ball them, they'll move on." An alliance may decide not to take an engagement in a sov war. PvE players almost always never choose to fight and instead will safe up. And yes...cloaked players can pick and choose their fights too, that is how cloaks work. And that may mean PvE players. Is that unfair? Yeah, could very well be. And I don't care.


Ok, you convinced me and I have to take back my words about being able to force AFK cloakers to fight :)
On the other hand, the cloak mechanics is designed in such a way that I cannot tell what the cloaked guy is doing (unless he has probes launched on dscan).
So, if he attacked me first time, then I can expect him to do the same second time. If he tricked me once then shame on him, but if he tricked me twice then shame on me :)
So, if I seeing him in local, I have to assume he is watching me and seeking opportunity for attack all the time.
The problem is that I see him 24/7 over a month now.

If I want to counter the threat, I have to gather a fleet, make them sit near me and do nothing, waiting for him to attack.
If he wants to arrange a threat, he only has to sit in a cloak somewhere in a system and do nothing.

I think that efforts that each side makes in this situation are way not equal. I want the mechanics to be changed in that way, than cloaker should make serious efforts to cause constant threat in 24/7 mode, or we should have the opportunity to see whether the cloaker is causing threat now or he just went to sleep.


Thanks for the reply. And like Nikk going to offer a suggestion for when you have a cloaky camper in your system. Its free advice, not meant to tell you what to do or the like. Just something to consider.

Instead of parking that fleet near you while you PvE why not do it as a group? Such as running anomalies with that fleet. Yes, you'll get less isk/anomaly, but you'll probably run them faster. You might still make less isk/hour too, but hey at least yo are making isk/hour. And maybe you'll have fun BSing with the guys on TS or Mumble and basically be giving the big finger to that guy cloaked up.

He might even see you guys as being a poor target to camp and hope for the periodic kill and move on. At which point you guys declare victory and break out the min-maxed PvE ships and make even more isk.

Just a suggestion. Not telling you how to play the game though.

And of course, I prefer a longer term solution that removes AFK cloaking and decouples intel from Local.

"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

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1962 - 2013-09-26 20:30:00 UTC
So who is cloaked ITT trying to get the first post on page 100? P

"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

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1963 - 2013-09-26 20:44:12 UTC
NightmareX wrote:
CorsairV wrote:
Why is AFK cloaking a problem? They can't kill you either.

That's not the point. And that argument is out of date as it have been proved to only apply to the cloakers point of view and not to the others in local.

Why does it only apply to the cloakers POV and not everyone else in local / game?

Wait, what?

NightmareX, you may feel obliged to speak for "threatened" players interested in PvE, but you do not speak for all of them by far.

I myself am a miner, normally in null, and quite frankly I am more often bored to tears than otherwise.
Please skip the comments about finding other pursuits, I take credit for having thoroughly investigated those too.

Mining, as well as other null PvE interests, has been dumbed down. Maybe people were concerned with solo playability, maybe it was simply an unforeseen chain of events, but PvE in null is about the safest in the game.

In no other part of the game, am I able to so effectively avoid combat while earning ISK. I would love to give my alliance credit here, and say they did it all, but other groups also reap the same benefit.
It's a game mechanic.

No matter how hard my alliance works, after a certain point it achieves diminishing returns because local intel won't let it go past a certain point. We can stick a POS at every moon, and shuffle assets cunningly between them, and yet a hostile can pop in, glance at local, and instantly know how many of us are present.
THAT holds us down in PvE performance.

We can set up systems for mining and ratting, and arrange pipelines to travel efficiently with no warning. And yet, a hostile casually strolling through can note our strength in each system they pass through, with no effort.
THAT holds us down in PvE performance.

We can dock up in an Outpost, paid for by hours of effort by our stunning PvP crew, and wait for a scout ship to pass by.
And yet, it can report all our presence in that system, docked up and otherwise, as if we somehow volunteered this sensitive information.
THAT holds us down in PvE performance.

Our problem isn't the cloaked dude in a cyno boat. He couldn't find us with two hunting dogs and a map. Our problem is local telling him exactly which system we are in, like some divine oracle of knowledge. And add to that the stinking map that reports activity in one hour increments.
This intel tool is not our friend.

We have an intel channel, we earned it. We reported sightings into it.
We are pretty sure noone is reporting our locations to the hostile, except for local.

This thing does nothing more than encourage stalemate conditions.
Anyone remember the last time they actually chatted in local to another player in null? ON PURPOSE?
NightmareX
Pandemic Horde High Sec Division
#1964 - 2013-09-26 21:10:24 UTC  |  Edited by: NightmareX
Nikk Narrel wrote:
NightmareX wrote:
CorsairV wrote:
Why is AFK cloaking a problem? They can't kill you either.

That's not the point. And that argument is out of date as it have been proved to only apply to the cloakers point of view and not to the others in local.

Why does it only apply to the cloakers POV and not everyone else in local / game?

Wait, what?

NightmareX, you may feel obliged to speak for "threatened" players interested in PvE, but you do not speak for all of them by far.

And a big wall of text nonsense....................


Why should everyone else feels threatened while the cloakers doesn't have to feel that in any ways?

Again, if you looks through the Cloakers POV, then yes, it's true that a cloaker or you wont kill anyone if he / you are afk. But as it have been said a million times already, it's via the other players in local's POV we see through and therefor the case is something else. They don't see it the same way as you do.

See the differences?

Here is a list of my current EVE / PVP videos:

1: Asteroid Madness

2: Clash of the Empires

3: Suddenly Spaceships fighting in Tama

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1965 - 2013-09-26 21:29:21 UTC
NightmareX wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
NightmareX wrote:
CorsairV wrote:
Why is AFK cloaking a problem? They can't kill you either.

That's not the point. And that argument is out of date as it have been proved to only apply to the cloakers point of view and not to the others in local.

Why does it only apply to the cloakers POV and not everyone else in local / game?

Wait, what?

NightmareX, you may feel obliged to speak for "threatened" players interested in PvE, but you do not speak for all of them by far.

And a big wall of text nonsense....................


Why should everyone else feels threatened while the cloakers doesn't have to feel that in any ways?

Again, if you looks through the Cloakers POV, then yes, it's true that a cloaker or you wont kill anyone if he / you are afk. But as it have been said a million times already, it's via the other players in local's POV we see through and therefor the case is something else. They don't see it the same way as you do.

See the differences?

You apparently want the cloaker to know all of our locations.
You apparently don't want us capable of evading the cloaker, short of actually logging out entirely. He may not be able to get to us behind shields or docked, but neither can we fool him or frustrate him with uncertainty.

Why are you helping hostiles in our sov systems, by giving him this intel?

We can cover ourselves quite well, thank you very much, between intel channels and coordination.
But all of our preparation is diminished if a hostile can simply log in, and know at a glance whether he is in a good hunting system, or should move on.
Why are we making his game easier like this?

The token ability to evade him only creates a stalemate. We could get this intel easily without local's help, but he CAN'T.
He knows from local we are in system, or are active there. That map only gave him a general idea, local is what confirmed it and gave him live intel.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1966 - 2013-09-26 21:34:14 UTC
I have already made 4 suggestions. Thoughts?

  1. Auto-logoff
  2. Either cloak active or cyno active, not both
  3. Local disconnect for cloak or wh which merely annotates player entry with the red word "disconnect"
  4. Local intel for sov and blue only in sov space


Now I add 3 more to address cynos:

  1. Titans and BLOPS BS cannot bridge from within a shield AND the bridge creates a wh on both sides which allows ships to jump through in both directions.
  2. Mass limits for cyno with covert cynos having less mass.
  3. POS deployable at gates by sov corp.


Fact is that if the solo cloaker has no cyno, I can handle him easily, esp. if I have friends online (not just afk online, lol). He should have brought friends to mess with a large group in hostile sov space. All of these suggestions directly address the issues raised by "afk" cloakers.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 

Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
#1967 - 2013-09-26 21:46:12 UTC
Pfffft. Just get rid of cloaks.

You want to hang out and grief, you better be able to back it up. No more hiding.

Just put out some news story about advances in scanner technology, etc, and make it so everyone can see cloaked ships on their overview and scanner.

Maybe give covops frigates (not bombers or recons) a free pass, since they're so weak combat wise.

Then, of course, rebalance and repurpose the ruined ships.

Of course, all the guys with cloaky alts who like to sit afk in a system full of miners for 14 hours straight because they just enjoy causing grief to other players will go apeshit. Who cares.

Seriously, yes, you can sit there for hours and then finally come back from afk after the locals have gotten complacent about your presence and get a kill, but that's really just a bullshit justification for ruining someone else's day with way too little risk to yourself.

You can get a lot more kills by just roaming, anyway. If you're an even halfway decent pvp'er.

Do not run. We are your friends.

Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1968 - 2013-09-26 21:49:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Thoughts on the proposed mechanic of hiding cloaked ships from local?


  1. Cyno stealth bomber enters system, BUT local shows nothing
  2. Cyno sb avoids dscan with cloaked warps around to each site until a suitable pve target is found
  3. SB decloaks and instantly points the target and lights the hotdrop cyno
  4. Lots of hostiles jump through and engage WITHIN SECONDS.


Potentially hundreds of hostile ships enter system within seconds as the pve player calls for help to the dozen friends in the area, but they dare not assist with the greatness of the numbers for which they could not prepare in advance. SB and friends got a free, easy kill.

FREE, and EASY. With no local report of a cloaker, the sb threat could not be detected until it decloaked and insta-locked/pointed the target. Even if there were multiple scouts on every gate to attempt to notice or catch the solo sb, they could easily miss it and they certainly would not be making any ISK. In a system with 4 gates, that means 8 players are on gate camp duty 24/7 just to meet the threat of a solo sb, lest one get into system without their knowledge. 8:1 sounds like the defender's work is 8 times more than the aggressor's (who doesn't have to be active 24/7). If the sb is only active for 1 hour per day then the work load becomes 192:1 .. Thoughts?

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1969 - 2013-09-26 21:52:10 UTC
You are being creative, which I appreciate here.
Andy Landen wrote:
I have already made 4 suggestions. Thoughts?

  1. Auto-logoff
  2. Either cloak active or cyno active, not both
  3. Local disconnect for cloak or wh which merely annotates player entry with the red word "disconnect"
  4. Local intel for sov and blue only in sov space --Possible winner


Now I add 3 more to address cynos:

  1. Titans and BLOPS BS cannot bridge from within a shield AND the bridge creates a wh on both sides which allows ships to jump through in both directions.
  2. Mass limits for cyno with covert cynos having less mass.
  3. POS deployable at gates by sov corp.


Fact is that if the solo cloaker has no cyno, I can handle him easily, esp. if I have friends online (not just afk online, lol). He should have brought friends to mess with a large group in hostile sov space. All of these suggestions directly address the issues raised by "afk" cloakers.

Auto logoff: Not really a fix. The only thing it solves is long term cloaked presence with no key presses.
If this reduces risk by removing uncertainty, our rewards get nerfed to compensate.
If players bypass it, then meta gaming reaches new levels, and PvE players like me regret it.

Mutual exclusive cloak & cyno gens, I appreciate the intent, but if local isn't forcing the hot drop to prevent my being warned, it won't happen on grid to me anyways.

Anonymous red word disconnect on local pilot listing: Yeah... at least hostile pilots will be more likely to risk their mains, but many alliances policies about staying docked will still exist. Those policies may deny kills, but they enable resource denial in exchange. All because it looks good on an excel doc for someone who doesn't worry about PvE play quality.

The sov based intel I actually like, but it has to have pieces on the field. If you have your intel at risk to hacking or destruction, it can balance out much better, and that means better rewards possible for operating in null.

Titans and blops being able to bridge behind shields is ridiculous, kill that ASAP.

Cyno mass limits? This needs work, but it DOES have potential. For example, what if a ship could not open a cyno except for other ships it's own size or smaller?
(bridging limit only, self jumping ships should be exempt)

Not so sure the POS at a gate, unless local goes poof. It might still be unworkable, and if it cannot be bypassed it is DOA when local broadcasts the new arrivals from another gate. Everyone jumps behind a shield, combat avoided too easily.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1970 - 2013-09-26 21:53:22 UTC
Tyranis Marcus wrote:
Pfffft. Just get rid of cloaks.

You want to hang out and grief, you better be able to back it up. No more hiding.

Just put out some news story about advances in scanner technology, etc, and make it so everyone can see cloaked ships on their overview and scanner.

Maybe give covops frigates (not bombers or recons) a free pass, since they're so weak combat wise.

Then, of course, rebalance and repurpose the ruined ships.

Of course, all the guys with cloaky alts who like to sit afk in a system full of miners for 14 hours straight because they just enjoy causing grief to other players will go apeshit. Who cares.

Seriously, yes, you can sit there for hours and then finally come back from afk after the locals have gotten complacent about your presence and get a kill, but that's really just a bullshit justification for ruining someone else's day with way too little risk to yourself.

You can get a lot more kills by just roaming, anyway. If you're an even halfway decent pvp'er.

You could have said that in three words. Let me demonstrate:
BLOB or GTFO

See?
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1971 - 2013-09-26 21:55:56 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Thoughts on the proposed mechanic of hiding cloaked ships from local?


  1. Cyno stealth bomber enters system, BUT local shows nothing
  2. Cyno sb avoids dscan with cloaked warps around to each site until a suitable pve target is found
  3. SB decloaks and instantly points the target and lights the hotdrop cyno
  4. Lots of hostiles jump through and engage WITHIN SECONDS.


Potentially hundreds of hostile ships enter system within seconds as the pve player calls for help to the dozen friends in the area, but they dare not assist with the greatness of the numbers for which they could not prepare in advance. SB and friends got a free, easy kill.

FREE, and EASY. With no local report of a cloaker, the sb threat could not be detected until it decloaked and insta-locked/pointed the target. Even if there were multiple scouts on every gate to attempt to notice or catch the solo sb, they could easily miss it and they certainly would not be making any ISK. In a system with 4 gates, that means 8 players are on gate camp duty 24/7 just to meet the threat of a solo sb, lest one get into system without their knowledge. 8:1 sounds like the defender's work is 8 times more than the aggressor's (who doesn't have to be active 24/7). If the sb is only active for 1 hour per day then the work load becomes 192:1 .. Thoughts?

If the cloak is not freely displayed in local, hunting it becomes balanced.

If you CAN detect the cloaked vessel through effort, the effort becomes required.

Potentially hundreds of hostiles stopped by one clever pilot with a scanner.
PvE wins again

Big smile
CorsairV
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1972 - 2013-09-26 22:02:26 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
CorsairV wrote:
Why is AFK cloaking a problem? They can't kill you either.
Oh that old chestnut. You are clearly some kind of genius.
Read the thread.

as soon as I train frigate 5 I'm going to AFK cloak in your system every day until you ragequit
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1973 - 2013-09-26 22:03:11 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
I have already made 4 suggestions. Thoughts?

  1. Auto-logoff
  2. Either cloak active or cyno active, not both
  3. Local disconnect for cloak or wh which merely annotates player entry with the red word "disconnect"
  4. Local intel for sov and blue only in sov space


Now I add 3 more to address cynos:

  1. Titans and BLOPS BS cannot bridge from within a shield AND the bridge creates a wh on both sides which allows ships to jump through in both directions.
  2. Mass limits for cyno with covert cynos having less mass.
  3. POS deployable at gates by sov corp.


Fact is that if the solo cloaker has no cyno, I can handle him easily, esp. if I have friends online (not just afk online, lol). He should have brought friends to mess with a large group in hostile sov space. All of these suggestions directly address the issues raised by "afk" cloakers.


I'm already on record, multiple times, for preferring 4.

As for bridging and shields, I'd consider it. Not sure about the 2-way WH aspect though.

I think there are mass limits already for bridging, well at least implicit ones imposed by fuel requirements. I think the bigger the sig radius the more LO is used (e.g. try jumping through with your MWD on). At least that has been an issue with some BLOPs bridges I've tried to take. :P

Hmmm...not a fan of the POS on gates. Seems like it would make Sov warfare more of a PITA than it already is.

"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

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1974 - 2013-09-26 22:04:43 UTC
CorsairV wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
CorsairV wrote:
Why is AFK cloaking a problem? They can't kill you either.
Oh that old chestnut. You are clearly some kind of genius.
Read the thread.

as soon as I train frigate 5 I'm going to AFK cloak in your system every day until you ragequit


Well in fairness to Corsair it is almost 100 pages long. Shocked

I don't mind people jumping in without reading, but providing a bit more than the old one liner would be nice. Smile

"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

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1975 - 2013-09-26 22:29:15 UTC
CorsairV wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
CorsairV wrote:
Why is AFK cloaking a problem? They can't kill you either.
Oh that old chestnut. You are clearly some kind of genius.
Read the thread.

as soon as I train frigate 5 I'm going to AFK cloak in your system every day until you ragequit
Proceed. I have many many systems to choose from and a lot of them I have duplicate gear sets already in position for me and my alts. Trust me, you'll get bored well before I do.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1976 - 2013-09-26 23:38:28 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
I have already made 4 suggestions. Thoughts?

  1. Auto-logoff
  2. Either cloak active or cyno active, not both
  3. Local disconnect for cloak or wh which merely annotates player entry with the red word "disconnect"
  4. Local intel for sov and blue only in sov space


Now I add 3 more to address cynos:

  1. Titans and BLOPS BS cannot bridge from within a shield AND the bridge creates a wh on both sides which allows ships to jump through in both directions.
  2. Mass limits for cyno with covert cynos having less mass.
  3. POS deployable at gates by sov corp.


Fact is that if the solo cloaker has no cyno, I can handle him easily, esp. if I have friends online (not just afk online, lol). He should have brought friends to mess with a large group in hostile sov space. All of these suggestions directly address the issues raised by "afk" cloakers.


I'm already on record, multiple times, for preferring 4.

As for bridging and shields, I'd consider it. Not sure about the 2-way WH aspect though.

I think there are mass limits already for bridging, well at least implicit ones imposed by fuel requirements. I think the bigger the sig radius the more LO is used (e.g. try jumping through with your MWD on). At least that has been an issue with some BLOPs bridges I've tried to take. :P

Hmmm...not a fan of the POS on gates. Seems like it would make Sov warfare more of a PITA than it already is.

The 2-way WH aspect means that the bridging Titans are not ABSOLUTELY safe. If the bridge was to a bait, the Titan could find a lot more coming back through than he bargained for. Hope that Titan has a large support fleet ready, like it is supposed to. I would totally support replace the fuel requirement with mass limits. The only safety for the Titan is using up the mass limit and collapse the wh before the hostiles come through. Then the part of the fleet which was bridged out is on its own. Same goes for BLOPS BS.

We all know that the fuel limit is bypassed by ships refueling the LO as needed. Not a fan of fuel, tbph. I do like the size limitation to bridging based on the ship that lit the cyno. Good idea, too.

I am all about giving people more to fight over and the gate POS's seem like great things to fight over. Increase sov benefits and increase things to fight over. More fighting equals happier pvp'ers. PS, what is PITA? Caps shooting POS's at gates? That could be interesting. Caps hate being at gates, usually. Might encourage sub-cap battles.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 

Vas Eldryn
#1977 - 2013-09-27 01:11:15 UTC
CorsairV wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
CorsairV wrote:
Why is AFK cloaking a problem? They can't kill you either.
Oh that old chestnut. You are clearly some kind of genius.
Read the thread.

as soon as I train frigate 5 I'm going to AFK cloak in your system every day until you ragequit


Ahh the true motive of the AFK cyno camper comes out... the problem with this tactic of yours, is that we just switch to high sec alts, go on Active Roams or Jump in on CTA's, Alliance fleets, etc when this occurs....

This is not my main, so you can come and camp my high sec alt.
Espae
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1978 - 2013-09-27 01:32:12 UTC
We got 99 pages, but a solution ain't come.
NightmareX
Pandemic Horde High Sec Division
#1979 - 2013-09-27 02:17:14 UTC
Ok, i'm just gonna let...........

Here is a list of my current EVE / PVP videos:

1: Asteroid Madness

2: Clash of the Empires

3: Suddenly Spaceships fighting in Tama

NightmareX
Pandemic Horde High Sec Division
#1980 - 2013-09-27 02:17:27 UTC
you know that........

Here is a list of my current EVE / PVP videos:

1: Asteroid Madness

2: Clash of the Empires

3: Suddenly Spaceships fighting in Tama