These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Proposal] AFK game play - the cloaked vessel

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#241 - 2014-04-14 18:36:58 UTC
Lilly Naari wrote:
Quote:

Sorry, but I find your premise unacceptable.

This is a game, and the devs are the final decision makers regarding what is an exploit, and what is not.
As this is an arbitrary decision on their part, and they have final judgement, any definition which seems to contradict this must be therefore invalid.

Please respect the nature of the game as intact, and suggest changes from this foundation.
We get nowhere assuming the devs cannot be trusted at least this far.


Nice troll post, apparently you couldn't come up with anything logical to refute what I stated, so, like most trolls you resort to nonsensical rhetoric, which only states the obvious.

We make these post to assist the devs and speak for the players. If you have an issue with it, make a suggestion desiring the banning of all Suggestions.

Otherwise STFU and move on. Big smile

Your tactic of declaring me a troll is noted. It is not uncommon for people to see themselves reflected onto the motives of others.

I see people trying to have a rational debate, and respond accordingly.
You, apparently, see trolls.

We have no reason to accept your biased view that cloaking is an unbalanced absolute factor, as it is stereotyped by the blocking of intel, which is specific solely to the exact location of the ship itself.
It is balanced by, as agreed to by many others, the exact and specific listing of all pilots in a system, regardless of circumstance such as docked, cloaked, operating in normal space, or behind the shields of a POS.
This is also a form of intel, which establishes the opposite side available.

Many claiming cloaking to be broken and needing a timer, reject seeing an issue with the absolute nature of presence data updating so precisely as to effectively also prompt WHEN to act, as well as IF action is needed.

If you simply want to rant, I can't help you.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Seraph IX Basarab
Outer Path
Seraphim Division
#242 - 2014-04-14 18:38:35 UTC
Lilly Naari wrote:
Quote:

Sorry, but I find your premise unacceptable.

This is a game, and the devs are the final decision makers regarding what is an exploit, and what is not.
As this is an arbitrary decision on their part, and they have final judgement, any definition which seems to contradict this must be therefore invalid.

Please respect the nature of the game as intact, and suggest changes from this foundation.
We get nowhere assuming the devs cannot be trusted at least this far.


Nice troll post, apparently you couldn't come up with anything logical to refute what I stated, so, like most trolls you resort to nonsensical rhetoric, which only states the obvious.

We make these post to assist the devs and speak for the players. If you have an issue with it, make a suggestion desiring the banning of all Suggestions. (Which in and of itself would make your above post irrelevant, null, and void anyway.....)

Otherwise STFU and move on. Big smile



Here's something logical for you champ, being afk in a station has "no counter either." So maybe when you are afk in station for longer than an hour, you get automatically ejected into space to be shot at. That's about as much reason as your argument has.

The people whining about cloaking (not even just afk cloaking) are the same people that want to sit back and carebear away without a worry in life. Sorry, Eve is not a theme park game where you get to sit behind hundreds of systems in your little pocket of safe goodness while making isk with little risk.

Cloaked ships should not show up in local. Nobody can whine about AFK cloaking and cloakers can actually hunt rather than wait for carebears to leave the station.
Lilly Naari
Enclave Security Forces
#243 - 2014-04-14 18:45:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Lilly Naari
Quote:

Your tactic of declaring me a troll is noted. It is not uncommon for people to see themselves reflected onto the motives of others.

I see people trying to have a rational debate, and respond accordingly.
You, apparently, see trolls.

We have no reason to accept your biased view that cloaking is an unbalanced absolute factor, as it is stereotyped by the blocking of intel, which is specific solely to the exact location of the ship itself.
It is balanced by, as agreed to by many others, the exact and specific listing of all pilots in a system, regardless of circumstance such as docked, cloaked, operating in normal space, or behind the shields of a POS.
This is also a form of intel, which establishes the opposite side available.

Many claiming cloaking to be broken and needing a timer, reject seeing an issue with the absolute nature of presence data updating so precisely as to effectively also prompt WHEN to act, as well as IF action is needed.

If you simply want to rant, I can't help you.


Al I see here is a bunch of meaningless content about your personal view of definitions and absolute viewpoints. It is your opinion that I was speaking in absolutes, so be it. But you still have not responded with a legitimate rebuttal to my reasoning or post. You have however attempted to discredit my idea by simply discrediting my opinion with an unsupported opinion of your own.

An opinion is just that an opinion. You have yours and I have mine, and while you are welcome to express yours, since it has 0 to do with what I actually wrote or posted, it is therefore by definition a Troll post attempting to sidetrack the thread.

Move along and let those with actual input have a conversation which actually solves an issue that has been around for years and has even been acknowledged several times by developers "as" an issue that needs to be addressed. Or keep troll posting "Shrugs". I've stated what I needed to, continuing this debate with you on semantics is pointless and and off topic of the OP, not to mention, a waste of time.
Seraph IX Basarab
Outer Path
Seraphim Division
#244 - 2014-04-14 18:49:55 UTC
Lilly Naari wrote:
Quote:

Your tactic of declaring me a troll is noted. It is not uncommon for people to see themselves reflected onto the motives of others.

I see people trying to have a rational debate, and respond accordingly.
You, apparently, see trolls.

We have no reason to accept your biased view that cloaking is an unbalanced absolute factor, as it is stereotyped by the blocking of intel, which is specific solely to the exact location of the ship itself.
It is balanced by, as agreed to by many others, the exact and specific listing of all pilots in a system, regardless of circumstance such as docked, cloaked, operating in normal space, or behind the shields of a POS.
This is also a form of intel, which establishes the opposite side available.

Many claiming cloaking to be broken and needing a timer, reject seeing an issue with the absolute nature of presence data updating so precisely as to effectively also prompt WHEN to act, as well as IF action is needed.

If you simply want to rant, I can't help you.


Al I see here is a bunch of meaningless content about your personal view of definitions and absolute viewpoints. It is your opinion that I was speaking in absolutes, so be it. But you still have not responded with a legitimate rebuttal to my reasoning or post. You have however attempted to discredit my idea by simply discrediting my opinion with an unsupported opinion of your own.

An opinion is just that an opinion. You have yours and I have mine, and while you are welcome to express yours, since it has 0 to do with what I actually wrote or posted, it is therefore by definition a Troll post attempting to sidetrack the thread.

Move along and let those with actual input have a conversation which actually solves an issue that has been around for years and has even been acknowledged several times by developers "as" an issue that needs to be addressed. Or keep troll posting "Shrugs". I've stated what I needed to, continuing this debate with you on semantics is pointless and and off topic of the OP, not to mention, a waste of time.


It's only been "recognized as an issue" by whining carebears that don't understand you consent to pvp the moment you undock your ship.
Lilly Naari
Enclave Security Forces
#245 - 2014-04-14 18:51:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Lilly Naari
Quote:



Here's something logical for you champ, being afk in a station has "no counter either." So maybe when you are afk in station for longer than an hour, you get automatically ejected into space to be shot at. That's about as much reason as your argument has.

The people whining about cloaking (not even just afk cloaking) are the same people that want to sit back and carebear away without a worry in life. Sorry, Eve is not a theme park game where you get to sit behind hundreds of systems in your little pocket of safe goodness while making isk with little risk.

Cloaked ships should not show up in local. Nobody can whine about AFK cloaking and cloakers can actually hunt rather than wait for carebears to leave the station.


I would actually agree with you on this, if it wasn't for stations being labeled as a "Safe" area, and one where many of the functions can take up a rather long time (Such as managing a corp or market which you are required by game mechanics to be docked for).

However, I would think putting an AFK kick feature in game might work nicely to fix this, if the person is actually afk and not playing with the market or something.
Lilly Naari
Enclave Security Forces
#246 - 2014-04-14 18:56:05 UTC
Quote:


It's only been "recognized as an issue" by whining care-bears that don't understand you consent to pvp the moment you undock your ship.



Actually Being Afk (Whether cloaked or not) is not part of PvP, to PvP you must be actively engaging in combat against another player.

So it is not an issue recognized by care-bears (who simply go out and care-bear mine / rat / whatever anyway in 0.0), it is an issue recognized by PvPers, who want a way to actively hunt and kill these Afk individuals.

The excuse that only care-bears complain about broken game mechanics is prejudice and irrelevant, especially since in this particular case as I stated above the majority of complaints come from "PvPers" who think being able to sit 100% immune to attack, in open space while afk is BS.

Just saying.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#247 - 2014-04-14 19:00:07 UTC
Lilly Naari wrote:
Al I see here is a bunch of meaningless content about your personal view of definitions and absolute viewpoints. It is your opinion that I was speaking in absolutes, so be it. But you still have not responded with a legitimate rebuttal to my reasoning or post. You have however attempted to discredit my idea by simply discrediting my opinion with an unsupported opinion of your own.


Perhaps you missed this...
VVV
Nikk Narrel wrote:
We have no reason to accept your biased view that cloaking is an unbalanced absolute factor, as it is stereotyped by the blocking of intel, which is specific solely to the exact location of the ship itself.
It is balanced by, as agreed to by many others, the exact and specific listing of all pilots in a system, regardless of circumstance such as docked, cloaked, operating in normal space, or behind the shields of a POS.
This is also a form of intel, which establishes the opposite side available.

Many claiming cloaking to be broken and needing a timer, reject seeing an issue with the absolute nature of presence data updating so precisely as to effectively also prompt WHEN to act, as well as IF action is needed.

If you simply want to rant, I can't help you.



Lilly Naari wrote:
An opinion is just that an opinion. You have yours and I have mine, and while you are welcome to express yours, since it has 0 to do with what I actually wrote or posted, it is therefore by definition a Troll post attempting to sidetrack the thread.

Move along and let those with actual input have a conversation which actually solves an issue that has been around for years and has even been acknowledged several times by developers "as" an issue that needs to be addressed. Or keep troll posting "Shrugs". I've stated what I needed to, continuing this debate with you on semantics is pointless and and off topic of the OP, not to mention, a waste of time.


I have effectively defined both sides in the absolutes which are counterbalancing each other.

Local, providing intel with the ability to know IF & WHEN to respond.
Balanced by:
Cloaking, which blocks intel from knowing specific ship locations.

A frequent consensus suggests that being able to hunt cloaked ships is not balanced, if local can tell you IF & WHEN you should do the hunting.

Removing a cloaked presence by virtue of the timer method, in any of it's effective forms, simply resolves the stalemate in favor of the local residents, which many agree shifts the balance in their favor.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Seraph IX Basarab
Outer Path
Seraphim Division
#248 - 2014-04-14 19:03:23 UTC
Lilly Naari wrote:
Quote:



Here's something logical for you champ, being afk in a station has "no counter either." So maybe when you are afk in station for longer than an hour, you get automatically ejected into space to be shot at. That's about as much reason as your argument has.

The people whining about cloaking (not even just afk cloaking) are the same people that want to sit back and carebear away without a worry in life. Sorry, Eve is not a theme park game where you get to sit behind hundreds of systems in your little pocket of safe goodness while making isk with little risk.

Cloaked ships should not show up in local. Nobody can whine about AFK cloaking and cloakers can actually hunt rather than wait for carebears to leave the station.


I would actually agree with you on this, if it wasn't for stations being labeled as a "Safe" area, and one where many of the functions can take up a rather long time (Such as managing a corp or market which you are required by game mechanics to be docked for).

However, I would think putting an AFK kick feature in game might work nicely to fix this, if the person is actually afk and not playing with the market or something.


No, it's a terrible idea. Sometimes you want the game up while you're doing other things. Adding an AFK timer for anything would be a bad design. You're basically arguing for a bad game mechanic to be added because you don't know how to deal with a current one.

Lilly Naari wrote:
Quote:


It's only been "recognized as an issue" by whining care-bears that don't understand you consent to pvp the moment you undock your ship.



Actually Being Afk (Whether cloaked or not) is not part of PvP, to PvP you must be actively engaging in combat against another player.

So it is not an issue recognized by care-bears (who simply go out and care-bear mine / rat / whatever anyway in 0.0), it is an issue recognized by PvPers, who want a way to actively hunt and kill these Afk individuals.

The excuse that only care-bears complain about broken game mechanics is prejudice and irrelevant, especially since in this particular case as I stated above the majority of complaints come from "PvPers" who think being able to sit 100% immune to attack, in open space while afk is BS.

Just saying.


Actually being AFK cloaky IS part of PVP. It works to wear down morale. It frustrates the enemy. It helps destablize a region. You have a very limited understanding of what pvp entitles if you think pvp starts when you lock onto an enemy and ends when one of you is dead.

And no actual pvpers have made any whine about cloaky gameplay because the competent ones understand how it works and how to counter act it.
Lilly Naari
Enclave Security Forces
#249 - 2014-04-14 19:11:57 UTC
I cleaned this up abit since you sumerized it nicely at the end, and this I will respond to:

Nikk Narrel wrote:
[

I have effectively defined both sides in the absolutes which are counterbalancing each other.

Local, providing intel with the ability to know IF & WHEN to respond.
Balanced by:
Cloaking, which blocks intel from knowing specific ship locations.

A frequent consensus suggests that being able to hunt cloaked ships is not balanced, if local can tell you IF & WHEN you should do the hunting.

Removing a cloaked presence by virtue of the timer method, in any of it's effective forms, simply resolves the stalemate in favor of the local residents, which many agree shifts the balance in their favor.


I'll start here:

Quote:

Local, providing intel with the ability to know IF & WHEN to respond.
Balanced by:
Cloaking, which blocks intel from knowing specific ship locations.


1. Local only tells you who is in system, not what they are in, or where they are. They could just as easily be in a station as cloaked up Afk. (Granted you can look in station to see if that's where they are). So local has nothing to do with determining any information on whether someone is afk, or even if they are a cloaker, or the Cloak function itself and therefore is an irrelevant topic or rebuttal.

* Local also does not tell you which ship a person is in, you need to use the scanner and be in range, or use probes in order to figure this out, which again, makes your comment on Local, irrelevant.

Quote:
A frequent consensus suggests that being able to hunt cloaked ships is not balanced, if local can tell you IF & WHEN you should do the hunting.


2. There is no current game mechanic which will allow you to hunt cloaked ships. It is impossible to "Do the hunting" even if you are aware by use of local that cloakers are in system, if there is no way to hunt said ships.

Therefore your point here is irrelevant, and simply agrees with my original post.


Quote:
Removing a cloaked presence by virtue of the timer method, in any of it's effective forms, simply resolves the stalemate in favor of the local residents, which many agree shifts the balance in their favor.


3. I never said "remove" the cloak function, I said give it a timer, which the user can re-cloak with continuously IF they are at their computer and not "AFK" to click the button. This function changes nothing in the mechanics other to ensure a cloaker is active at their computer and Not afk.

It provides no favoritism for or against the Local residents, as it takes all of 1 seconds to re-click your cloak function. (Unless of course your afk in which case you deserve to be hunted down and killed for your stupidity of afking in 0.0 / lowsec / wormhole space).
Mag's
Azn Empire
#250 - 2014-04-14 19:15:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Lilly Naari wrote:
Every single one of you are missing the point of this thread.


Let me explain:


"An unbalanced game mechanic or exploit, or glitch, is defined by an action taken in game which has no counter action. And or which gives an unfair advantage do to it's inability to be countered."

1. When you are able to cloak, and have 100% immunity, this is unbalanced and by definition is an exploit, bug, or imbalanced mechanic. So whether the person is afk or not is irrelevant.
Your premiss is flawed, because you fail to take into account that the immunity you speak of applies to both sides equally. Both are equally immune from each other, when the cloak is active.

Also you attempt to use the terms exploit, glitch and bug, is rather weak rhetoric and bears no relation to the facts.

Lilly Naari wrote:
2. What IS relevant, is that the cloak and use of such as it is currently in game by definition is in fact a glitch, or exploit, due to the fact that it gives an unfair advantage since it has absolutely no counter.
But cloaks do have counters. They may not be counters you like, or ones that break their role. But they do have counters and to say otherwise is being rather disingenuous.

Lilly Naari wrote:
3. What is being discussed in this thread is not a debate about afkers or active cloakers, it is about the imbalance of the cloaking mechanism itself.
You base this on your flawed premiss. With that in mind, as well as other mechanics at play. It's clear to see your timer idea is ridiculously bad and breaks cloaking.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Lilly Naari
Enclave Security Forces
#251 - 2014-04-14 19:17:36 UTC
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:


Actually being AFK cloaky IS part of PVP. It works to wear down morale. It frustrates the enemy. It helps destablize a region. You have a very limited understanding of what pvp entitles if you think pvp starts when you lock onto an enemy and ends when one of you is dead.

And no actual pvpers have made any whine about cloaky gameplay because the competent ones understand how it works and how to counter act it.



I do not count psychological warfare as part of PvP. I count it as Psychological warfare. Which is war on the mind and moral of ones enemies.

While yes this is exactly what the AFK cloaker is used for, it should have a counter. Any method of attack in game regardless of it's source should not be 100% immune to counter. Since you are labeling this as a form of attack, their should be some sort of mechanic whcih can be used to defend against it. otherwise in your own words it is the Eulas exact definition of an exploit or glitch.
Seraph IX Basarab
Outer Path
Seraphim Division
#252 - 2014-04-14 19:19:00 UTC
Lilly Naari wrote:
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:


Actually being AFK cloaky IS part of PVP. It works to wear down morale. It frustrates the enemy. It helps destablize a region. You have a very limited understanding of what pvp entitles if you think pvp starts when you lock onto an enemy and ends when one of you is dead.

And no actual pvpers have made any whine about cloaky gameplay because the competent ones understand how it works and how to counter act it.



I do not count psychological warfare as part of PvP. I count it as Psychological warfare. Which is war on the mind and moral of ones enemies.

While yes this is exactly what the AFK cloaker is used for, it should have a counter. Any method of attack in game regardless of it's source should not be 100% immune to counter. Since you are labeling this as a form of attack, their should be some sort of mechanic whcih can be used to defend against it. otherwise in your own words it is the Eulas exact definition of an exploit or glitch.


The counter is you fit your ship properly to deal with pvp threats.

Or remove local for cloaked ships.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#253 - 2014-04-14 19:20:34 UTC
Lilly Naari wrote:
Quote:



Here's something logical for you champ, being afk in a station has "no counter either." So maybe when you are afk in station for longer than an hour, you get automatically ejected into space to be shot at. That's about as much reason as your argument has.

The people whining about cloaking (not even just afk cloaking) are the same people that want to sit back and carebear away without a worry in life. Sorry, Eve is not a theme park game where you get to sit behind hundreds of systems in your little pocket of safe goodness while making isk with little risk.

Cloaked ships should not show up in local. Nobody can whine about AFK cloaking and cloakers can actually hunt rather than wait for carebears to leave the station.


I would actually agree with you on this, if it wasn't for stations being labeled as a "Safe" area, and one where many of the functions can take up a rather long time (Such as managing a corp or market which you are required by game mechanics to be docked for).

However, I would think putting an AFK kick feature in game might work nicely to fix this, if the person is actually afk and not playing with the market or something.

I don't think an AFK kick feature is a good idea. I think the logical and fairest solution is an AFK status indicator. I'll list why this is needed.

Cloaking by itself is not a bad thing. There are legitimate reasons to cloak. Things like operating in deep enemy null and being unable to dock while being camped and scanned. Not wanting to alert people to when you are and are not active.

A cloaked ship in local is just a cloaked ship. If there is one cloaked ship then you can devise a counter. This disregards cynos which are the reason cloaking is so problematic. It ruins PvP and my ability to find targets as a cloaker since everyone assumes cyno dropper and leaves.

The reason a status on AFK is needed is 1) seeking out and killing people in wars is horribly frustrating. Of all the time wasted in EvE the most I have wasted would easily be camping docked and AFK targets. 2) the hot drop menace is beyond annoying. We have 4 people going on 6 months permanently cloaked in and around our stations in Stain. It's foolish given their history of dropping BLOP's to use those systems so they effectively are AFK (but can become active at any time) denying hundreds of people those systems.

A status indicator that turns off on warp activation, after adding those people to contacts, would one, not deny those people the ability to cloak or hot drop but would also not deny others who are actually playing and alert, the ability to use those systems and worry about truly active players. Since it would only deactivate on warp they could happily sit there scanning, communicating with allies without giving away their activity status.

That's my opinion anyway.

I

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#254 - 2014-04-14 19:22:02 UTC
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
Lilly Naari wrote:
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:


Actually being AFK cloaky IS part of PVP. It works to wear down morale. It frustrates the enemy. It helps destablize a region. You have a very limited understanding of what pvp entitles if you think pvp starts when you lock onto an enemy and ends when one of you is dead.

And no actual pvpers have made any whine about cloaky gameplay because the competent ones understand how it works and how to counter act it.



I do not count psychological warfare as part of PvP. I count it as Psychological warfare. Which is war on the mind and moral of ones enemies.

While yes this is exactly what the AFK cloaker is used for, it should have a counter. Any method of attack in game regardless of it's source should not be 100% immune to counter. Since you are labeling this as a form of attack, their should be some sort of mechanic whcih can be used to defend against it. otherwise in your own words it is the Eulas exact definition of an exploit or glitch.


The counter is you fit your ship properly to deal with pvp threats.

Or remove local for cloaked ships.

You have a good fit to deal with 100 Tengu? That's how many I saw dropped on someone the other day.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Lilly Naari
Enclave Security Forces
#255 - 2014-04-14 19:31:03 UTC
Mag's wrote:


Also you attempt to use the terms exploit, glitch and bug, is rather weak rhetoric and bears no relation to the facts.


Oh? And what facts are those?

Well here is some "Facts" I see:

* An AFK cloaker is 100% immune to being found or attack?
* That according to many AFK cloaking is a type of PvP which constitutes as an attack on others to which they have 0 defense against?
* That by the Eulas definition of a glitch, exploit this is exactly what AFK cloaking is?


Quote:
But cloaks do have counters. They may not be counters you like, or ones that break their role. But they do have counters and to say otherwise is being rather disingenuous.


Oh really?

Name 1 way to counter an AFK cloaker in your system. (Beyond ignoring them, which is not a counter as it does not effect them or their ship in any manner.)

Quote:
You base this on your flawed premiss. With that in mind, as well as other mechanics at play. It's clear to see your timer idea is ridiculously bad and breaks cloaking.


You have yet to tell us what my "Flawed Premise" is..... You keep saying this, but saying something is flawed and not explaining in detail how it is flawed is just you blowing smoke.

1. You all have been debating this with me for the past 2 hours, yet none of you have yet to give me one example of how to effectively counter an Afk cloaker. And thereby show why my premise is flawed.

2. You all are debating opinions, and have yet to express actual examples (as I ahve) of why your information or opinion is correct and mine is wrong.


1. Saying someone is wrong because you think they are, does not make them wrong, it simply means you think they are. Showing evidence of a counter currently in game to an Afk Cloaker, would be proving my desire for one irrelevant since it would already exist.

2. Just as giving me a valid reason why a Player should be allowed to AFK in open space with 0 fear of consequence in a game world where every action you take has one, would also be a viable rebuttal.

Neither of which have been addressed or given by any of you.
Seraph IX Basarab
Outer Path
Seraphim Division
#256 - 2014-04-14 19:33:01 UTC
Cloakly gameplay is a way to give the "small group" a chance to do anything to a larger group. Sorry if you want to sit behind a blob wall and rat your heart away but nobody but other carebears share your opinion.
Lilly Naari
Enclave Security Forces
#257 - 2014-04-14 19:36:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Lilly Naari
Infinity Ziona wrote:

I don't think an AFK kick feature is a good idea. I think the logical and fairest solution is an AFK status indicator. I'll list why this is needed.

Cloaking by itself is not a bad thing. There are legitimate reasons to cloak. Things like operating in deep enemy null and being unable to dock while being camped and scanned. Not wanting to alert people to when you are and are not active.

A cloaked ship in local is just a cloaked ship. If there is one cloaked ship then you can devise a counter. This disregards cynos which are the reason cloaking is so problematic. It ruins PvP and my ability to find targets as a cloaker since everyone assumes cyno dropper and leaves.

The reason a status on AFK is needed is 1) seeking out and killing people in wars is horribly frustrating. Of all the time wasted in EvE the most I have wasted would easily be camping docked and AFK targets. 2) the hot drop menace is beyond annoying. We have 4 people going on 6 months permanently cloaked in and around our stations in Stain. It's foolish given their history of dropping BLOP's to use those systems so they effectively are AFK (but can become active at any time) denying hundreds of people those systems.

A status indicator that turns off on warp activation, after adding those people to contacts, would one, not deny those people the ability to cloak or hot drop but would also not deny others who are actually playing and alert, the ability to use those systems and worry about truly active players. Since it would only deactivate on warp they could happily sit there scanning, communicating with allies without giving away their activity status.

That's my opinion anyway.

I



An afk indicator on your picture in local would be an awesome idea in general. Not just for the afk cloaker reasons but for statistics and player activity throughout the game also.
Lilly Naari
Enclave Security Forces
#258 - 2014-04-14 19:46:01 UTC
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
Cloakly gameplay is a way to give the "small group" a chance to do anything to a larger group. Sorry if you want to sit behind a blob wall and rat your heart away but nobody but other carebears share your opinion.


I never said anything was wrong with cloaky game play, in fact I am all for it, my main ship is an SB. (I am not a care-bear by the way and I am a beta player , I do not rat or mine either :) )

1. What I stated was that AFKers should have consequences for sitting afk in open space.

* You find a ship sitting afk in open space your going to kill it right? If your a pvper the answer is YES.

* You know a ship is Afk in open space but it's cloaked so you can't find it to kill it. = Garbage.

Care-bears are the ones who want to be able to Afk cloak, or those too lazy to actually work on their pvp skills.

So you my friend are either a care-bear, or too lazy to do any real pvp. Which is it? Because if you were neither and were a real pvper you wouldn't care if I could somehow hunt down your Cloaky ship, because you'd be ready and willing to fight or run from me.


Obviously however you care a great deal about protecting your ability to sit afk 100% immune to attack with no consequence.

And that's really the bottom line. Laziness is not part of, and has no place in pvp. Laziness is something for care-bears. And if AFKing isn't the very definition of lazy, I don't know what is.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#259 - 2014-04-14 19:53:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Lilly Naari wrote:
Oh? And what facts are those?

Well here is some "Facts" I see:

* An AFK cloaker is 100% immune to being found or attack?
* That according to many AFK cloaking is a type of PvP which constitutes as an attack on others to which they have 0 defense against?
* That by the Eulas definition of a glitch, exploit this is exactly what AFK cloaking is?
And it's for CCP to decide when something is an exploit or glitch. It's their game and their rules and they apply them as they see fit. So as cloaking has been around since 2004 and AFKing with cloaks not long after, if it had been deemed an exploit or glitch, then we would know about it already.

So no, your claim is not based on, or has any relation to know facts. It matters not how you see it, it matters how CCP see it in this regard.


Lilly Naari wrote:
Oh really?

Name 1 way to counter an AFK cloaker in your system. (Beyond ignoring them, which is not a counter as it does not effect them or their ship in any manner.)
Well as you already said yourself that the point of AFKing is Psychological warfare, then the counter is not to let it bother you. After all, that warfare is taking place in your head. Hence the term.

But it also requires the use of another mechanic to work, one that you seem to have ignored in your attempt to break cloaks.

So with that other mechanic in mind, the list is as follows:
You can close local.
Refit your ship for more of a PvP role.
Form a fleet.
Set up a trap.

But you actually said it wasn't about being AFK, it was merely about cloaks. You should at least decide what you are arguing against first. My actual point was that cloaks do have counters, just not ones that break them or that you may like.

Lilly Naari wrote:
You have yet to tell us what my "Flawed Premise" is..... You keep saying this, but saying something is flawed and not explaining in detail how it is flawed is just you blowing smoke.

1. You all have been debating this with me for the past 2 hours, yet none of you have yet to give me one example of how to effectively counter an Afk cloaker. And thereby show why my premise is flawed.

2. You all are debating opinions, and have yet to express actual examples (as I ahve) of why your information or opinion is correct and mine is wrong.
I already said why your premiss was flawed, in my first post. You could read it again a suppose, but I will tell you again.

Your premiss is that the cloaker has 100% immunity while cloaked and this makes it unbalanced. Well that premiss is flawed because you don't take into account that that immunity goes both ways, therefore actually making it balanced.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#260 - 2014-04-14 19:53:51 UTC
Lilly Naari wrote:
1. You all have been debating this with me for the past 2 hours, yet none of you have yet to give me one example of how to effectively counter an Afk cloaker. And thereby show why my premise is flawed.

2. You all are debating opinions, and have yet to express actual examples (as I ahve) of why your information or opinion is correct and mine is wrong.


3. Saying someone is wrong because you think they are, does not make them wrong, it simply means you think they are. Showing evidence of a counter currently in game to an Afk Cloaker, would be proving my desire for one irrelevant since it would already exist.

4. Just as giving me a valid reason why a Player should be allowed to AFK in open space with 0 fear of consequence in a game world where every action you take has one, would also be a viable rebuttal.

Neither of which have been addressed or given by any of you.

I like points.

1. I believe many suggestions could be offered, about how to counter so-called AFK cloaking.
Since it apparently needs to meet your approval, however, we can safely assume you will never give it, thus it is not possible to meet this detail currently.

2. Your premise itself is an opinion, based on your interpretation of game details.
Fact: an AFK cloaked pilot is incapable of inflicting harm or damage to items in game, and is thus pointless to counter further.
Fact: Since you are concerned about active players behavior, as only active players can attack or through hot dropping bring others to attack, your labeling them as AFK is not appropriate beyond showing that they have mislead you to believe this.
And then:
Fact: Since your genuine interest apparently centers around how you object to being mislead by other players, might I suggest you try different tactics.

3. That first part is gold. You should print T-shirts.
The Counter: In sov null, where this has meaningful context, it is possible to see only the name and the standings in local, to know more than enough to realize you must take an action to protect yourself.
As evasion is often the only available means to prevent attack by miners, and some ratters, this is often the choice made.
How do you know they are cloaked? You don't. HOWEVER, you also don't know how they got past your gate camps either, suggesting something sneaky or clever happened.

4. Outposts, specifically player made ones, are placed in open space. People docked there are safe.
By this precedent, players have the ability to re-zone areas in system as being safe. Frequently this also occurs with a POS being set up as well.
Considering that being cloaked only re-zones the immediate area, and can be countered by simply getting within 2,000 meters of the ship, it is hardly as safe or secure as some have implied. It seems to rely quite directly on the fragile secrecy of it's location, to be precise.

I suspect these points will not satisfy you, as per my response at point 1.
I would further state that I believe you are working backwards from your desired conclusion, cloaked ships becoming more limited, and will refuse to acknowledge any response which does not support this.

Have a lovely day.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...