Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Fair enough, twitch can in theory provide intel...does it send out a ping when something juicy is spotted too? I suppose that wouldn't really be a EULA violation since it isn't automating EVE...but then again neither supposedly did ISBoxer.

Your twitch Intel sounds about as effective as CCTV at stopping crime in the UK.

I think you are ignoring the fact peoples stream like DaOpa's proves pretty much everything people have been saying about AFK cloaking. He is sitting in war zones and has very little danger of losing anything.

How he plays shows several of the issue people have with AFK cloaking.

Actually it was one of the first things I brought up. Ratting in safety was the assumption thrown at me. it isnt just intel though. It gives huge strategic advantages. You can cyno in people behind enemy lines just be floating in the system.

For example. Corp A has one person floating in a soon to be contested system. Corp B, does all the leg work, invades system, bubbles gates, camps them, bookmarks and positions themselves around assets, has fleets ready, ammo trucks, cynos everything. However became of the immunity that cloak provides, the few cloakies in the system just wait AFK till they are needed, light cynos and poof. All the work Corp B did is useless.

DaOpas stream is a perfect example of this. He can be in heavily fought over systems and has little worry about being caught. It would be because of his own mistakes if he died.

Local doesnt matter in this case at all.

The strategic advantage of being able to confront the cloak player is highly important in this situation and you know this isnt some rare one off situation.

Again this is AFK cloaking. The person gets into system and just waits, likely leaving the character floating in that system for days or weeks till it is needed for the war effort.

Since a plethora of new structures and structure changes seems to be in the works; how about a decloak station weapon upgrade. You fire it like a pos gun and it doesn't allow any cloaking in a system for say...5 minutes, on a 6 hour cool down timer. One gun limit per system.

An active cloaker bounces pings for a few minutes and goes back to camping. An afk cloaker dies like the cancer afk-anything should.

But it is OFF TOPIC.

Intel gathering, while often relating to cloaking, has no realistic connection to AFK cloaking specifically.
You simply cannot gather intel without paying attention, so the AFK part is often absent.
PvE play is often of less interest than combat activity, so PvE being affected occurs less often.


Yeah...

You are implying that the effects of intended gameplay, with no direct requirement for hot dropping ability or even PvP capability, is an important factor here.
If we are going that route, we should not forget wormhole use, as cloaking is heavily relied on in that area of the game.

Except... neither one of those significantly overlaps into the gameplay associated with AFK Cloaking.

This is NOT a general cloaking thread.

This is not off topic. However if you think it is. Report it and let the ISD decide.

There is no difference. Player gets into system, cloaks up, walks away. That is the basis of AFK cloaking.

I do find it funny that people have made pretty clear statements that while AFK camping a ratting system they often come back and forth to check on the system but now all the sudden its the super literal version of AFK cloaking where you have to be away 100% of the time.

What I am implying, that you so gracefully ignore, is that though certain aspects of cloak are completely viable, it is being abused as well. I have always argued that cloak in general works fine, but that the 100% safety it allows can be abused and it is what I feel leads to AFK camping.

You have self imposed the idea that this thread is about PVE but no where in the original statement is that the case. Another example of how you are wrong is clearly stated in the original post on this thread.

Taking exception at a literal interpretation on one hand, (AFK Cloaking as requiring full AFK status), then overly specific using of a phrase outside of it's larger context, (namely your ISD quote's superficial conflict with the name of the thread), seems a self conflicting set of standards.

First of all, it is the decision making process being affected by the other (cloaked) player, which defines AFK Cloaking in this context.
More to the point, it is the perception that game stopping choices are being made too often, at the expense of diminishing the game.

It is the specific perception, that the cloaked player represents too great of a threat to risk otherwise preferable ships by exposing them.
Typically these are PvE hulls, and the second choice is being presented as non-play with eventual loss of overall game enjoyment.

Why only PvE hulls, as a requirement in this context?
PvP hulls are not meaningfully concerned over the presence of a single hostile name.
They often have the perception of representing the overwhelming counter to a hostile covops ship. This is made as a frequent point where it is explained how unreasonable it seems to expect PvP to stand guard.
Hot dropping is either a non-issue, or expected equally from both directions, quite often when considering a PvP hull into the context.

The concern that a hostile cloaked ship is not at risk, when sitting by itself or where PvE is not involved, is off topic.
It lacks the defining characteristic most commonly associated with AFK Cloaking, as it fails to meaningfully affect decisions on the same level.

AFK cloaking has and always will revolve around the basic idea of using a cloak to hide in a system. Fozzie and others want to call it area denial, some call it trolling, some call it PVP, and others just ignore it but never has AFK been limited to just PVE activities. You cant just redefine the term to fit your argument. You cant just narrow the field of discussion when it best suits your stance.

I have pointed out issues with SOV space and this will be the second or third time I have pointed out issues with PVP.

Are you trying to say that the situations provided in my previous examples regarding PVP are ideal game play, or even closely working as intended?

So far all you have done is attempt to marginalize my examples or say they are off topic. You have offered no counter on why an AFK cloaky should be able to just float free and safe in space.

It seems to me that the problem with cloaking is that it provides an asymmetric advantage to the cloaker - he can see d-scan but does not appear on it.

This could easily be solved by disabling d-scan while a ship is cloaked.

It will still be able to gather intel visually (involving some small peril), or with probes (advertising its presence). But it will not be automatically aware of every ship and warp bubble within 14AU.

This seems to me very similar to submarine warfare, where the sub must expose itself to some degree in order to gather intel, but can sit still and silent (almost) without risk.

If we follow through on the implications for AFK cloaking - it no longer matters, because unless the cloaked ship has probes out or periodically de-cloaks in order to use d-scan, he won't know that you're ratting in the same system as him.

that would not change much, a cloaky could still interrupt an entire system with zero risk and zero effort.