Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Afk Cloaking is griefing....


You can tell this by the initial response you get from players. If they dock up and refuse to undock when it's in system... it means they are making the choice to not play the game.


If ccp had an even decent lead he would be able to spot/recognize this problem and would hot fix a change. This is where you recognize the difference between a Good Developer, and a crapy one.

I have a rule in development "Dont annoy the players" and i find "afk cloaking" to be an annoyance.

What should happen is the cloak should be changed to

- Take up large amounts of energy
- Reduced energy rates while active (or stopped).

No ship should sit cloaked more then 3-4 minutes, and since bombers have a way to warp around and what not
they most of all should not get that ability.

On another note....

If it was not possible to fit cyno modules on bombers, it would also remove the power the bomber has, as bombers by themselves are no threat to things like barges (not generally).

Yet another Simple change that would massively change the situation.


In short, some lead developer out there needs to be canned. And if he cared about his job, or even had a slight amount of concern in him, he'd hot fix it tomorrow.

AND


You have not demonstrated evidence that this is griefing, you have only produced anecdotal references that yourself and others want to call it griefing.

Is it less than optimal play? That I can agree with.
Teckos has also supported this.

But griefing steps beyond best play views, into moral and ethical views which suggests that the other player is not simply playing in opposition to you, but is in fact maliciously trying to sabotage your game experience.

CCP's existing guidelines draw the line where opposed gameplay becomes questionable, and therefore prohibited when it meets specific details deemed excessive.

Demonizing something by calling it names, like this, does not advance the effort to solve the issue.
This is not a popularity contest.
It is a brainstorming session dedicated to finding better alternatives for everyone involved.

This is a sandbox game. As such there are limited rules on what can and cannot be done. Verbal harassment (e.g. ethnic slurs) is a no-no. Following a player around and making his time in game miserable even when he has made an effort to get away from you...also harassment and a no-no. Ganking in a rookie system and a few others is also a no-no. Causing lag is a no-no (i.e., don't drop 200 drones on a gate to lag people out and kill them).

That's about it.

Thus cloaking is:

Not griefing.
Not harassment.
Not against the rules, no matter how long you do it.
Not an exploit. An exploit is where the player is using a game mechanics that was never intended by the developer. Cloaking for an indeterminate period of time was one intended use of the cloaking device. After all, it was made with no timer, no cap drain, no fuel, etc.

These are pretty much definition based.

Is it sub-optimal play (AFK cloaking)? Sure. Should it be changed? So long as there are reasonable changes to local, absolutely.

Is AFK cloaking unbalanced? No. I say this for two reasons.

1. By playing even moderately smart you can avoid whatever minimal dangers an AFK cloaking player poses.
2. Sub-optimal play probably quite often appears to be unbalanced. In fact, I’d say unbalanced game mechanics probably are sub-optimal…however, it is not necessarily the case that something that is sub-optimal is unbalanced.

I disagree, because you ignore the consequences of playing 'even moderately smart' and are trying to downplay the dangers of a cloaked camper by pretending that they either don't exist or are minimal when they do exist.

That flying even moderately smart means having assistance in system ready to immediately come if hostiles show up on grid and you are pointed. Thus they aren't in a PvE ship of their own, and need to be in fleet with you unless some significant prep was done with pre-arranged bookmarks and such. For true effectiveness they are on grid. This means that you are splitting the proceeds with your escort---and therefore the cloaked camper has nearly halved the value of space, just sitting there. If they are helping you they speed things up, so the hit is slightly less than half. That assumes just one escort. If you want enough to actually win the engagement with a hot dropping gang, then you need a lot more.

That is too much effect for a ship that cannot be challenged. If a miner in his harmless ship cannot opt out of PvP except by constant vigilance and evacuating the second a non-friendly appears in system, then there is absolutely no justification for a hostile hunting ship to be able to opt out while still retaining the ability to hunt.

If the camper could be hunted in the same class of vessel used to do the effective cloaked camping then you restore both balance and fun since you now have activity from all parties, with useful action on both sides of the conflict to attain their goals.

Griefing implies behavior that warrants official punishment. Cloaking, AFK or otherwise, does not meet that standard.


There are a few camps. Some more reasoned than others. The 3 main ones advocate no change, limits to cloaks invulnerability, and removal of local to make hunting easier. I myself advocate limiting cloaks invulnerability, preferably by giving active options to interact with a cloaked ship (Hunt it down and shoot it, and/or force it to shoot me). I don't have a problem with them threatening me as long as I am allowed to threaten back, because this is EVE.

We are pretty much discussing this to keep ourselves busy at this point. CCP has never officially commented on AFK cloaking, and the only change to cloaks I am aware of was the new animation to the effect and adjustments to the various hulls on occasion.

The problem may get some amelioration with the introduction of Observatory Arrays. All we know is in that thread and it's all very early days with that.

We aren't here to get it declared Griefing. CCP actually has their own special definition of griefing and this does not come anywhere near those criteria. At best I hope to provide reasoned dialogue that there is in fact a problem in the first place, as PvE pilots as a whole are radically under represented on the forums, and many of those who are here are not our brightest lights. Many of the 'No Change' or 'Remove Local' camps deny that a problem exists at all, but they also consider PvE pilots content, as if we were the NPC rats and should have about the same chances of winning a fight and exist solely for their entertainment.

@Mike So basically, we're down to the question

(a) should the cloak make you even more invisible than you already are by removing you from local as well; thereby removing the "need" to go AFK since you can't pester anyone by being there if they don't even know you are. Obviously implying a serious buff to the cloak, and completely removing the only advance warning the prey currently has. Arguments in favour boil down to "have friends" -- which should imho not be assumed. Some dude even suggested "assign thanatos fighters to a cheap industrial" -- seriously?! Would you suggest the counter to a cloaked ship (of any kind) is dualboxing a carrier or having a shitton of friends on standby? I do a lot of solo or VERY small gang work in NPC null, which is dangerous enough as it is. There are already plenty of game mechanics in place that offer very low advance-heads-up warning (Huginn's not on DScan, cloakers not on any scan, fast warping interceptors, surprise entry through wormholes, logoff traps, cynos covert and otherwise to name a few). So I ask: does the cloak need this kind of buff? The whole idea of providing incomplete/misguiding/fabricated intel on local may sound like fun but what means of defending ourselves do we get in the end? "AFK cloak OP, please buff cloak" ?

(b) should the cloaking vessel be engageable?

I would like to toss some "food for thought" concerning the latter into the group, and see where we go from there:

When a vessel is out in space, does the pilot not declare a desire to participate in the Grand Sandbox by interacting with other spacedwelling objects?
Does interaction in EvE require consent from all parties involved? Or, otherwise put, should any pilot be allowed to flag himself as "not accepting PvP" whilst undocked and moving freely throughout the system?
Should any pilot be allowed to dictate where and when an engagement starts by striking the first blow, yet not return the courtesy by opting out of PvP at their convenience?

These are fundamental questions. It is what defines the core principle upon which the sandbox is built: by clicking "undock", you agree to accept the consequences of other player's actions and are in return granted the right to act yourself. I'm not saying it is a game-breaking issue; but it is worthy of thought:

Moving around, being on grid and watching, being able to drop cloak and engage, are all active acts performed by an player object in space. By my logic, this player ought to be subject to the same rules, the same risk any other pilot takes when placing his vessel outside a station. There HAS to be a way to force non-consensual interaction upon this vessel.

There are precedents to this condition, which imho also need to be addressed. For example, an Orca providing mining boosts should NOT be allowed to do so from within a shield bubble. Either place your Orca where we can hurt it, or forego your boosts. NO vessel should be invincible while performing its function.

Yet, there is also evidence supporting my stance: even in the highest possible secure space (1.0), PvP is still allowed; making it abundantly clear no place in EvE is 100% risk free.

I am not debating what cloaked vessels can or cannot do, nor for how long they should be able to do so, nor if it's anyone's business if the pilot of a vessel chooses to go away from keyboard for any amount of time - no. This matter goes beyond the example of AFK cloaking altogether: it's the basic right I, as a capsuleer in a notoriously harsh sandbox environment, am entitled to. The right to interact with other capsuleers in space.

The worst that could happen after all, if cloaks were to receive a small nerf to their 100% invulnerability, would be opening up options for MORE engagements. How can that be a bad thing? Who can argue with me this does not need to happen and that this is indeed a case where a capsuleer should be granted a "free from PvP" pass while retaining the freedom to move, observe and engage?

You might want to pitch in here folks, because this touches the foundation of your gameplay. Would you be okay with highsec 1.0 being a 100% guaranteed gank-free zone? Would you be okay with haulers, miners, missionrunners opting out of The Sandbox whenever they please? And here's the catch: are you okay with PvP ships opting out of the sandbox until THEY decide otherwise?

I would very much like to hear your opinions on that. Thank you for reading and paying attention.

Maybe another game, or even another hobby is in order then.

CCP has already noted that AFK cloaking is the best way to deny people resources. They have left cloaks untouched for a very long time, and only with the Observation Array are they going to revisit the issue.

Yes, you missed the camp that notes that the problem is not just cloaks, but cloaks and local. That local is itself unbalanced. That it too needs to be changed and until then cloaks should not be changed.

CCP has indicated they'll be looking at the issue with the structure overhaul, specifically the Observatory Array.



Quite a few are hoping that local is gone by default (probably becomes like W-space) and that the OA will allow players to regain that lost information, maybe more.

For example, assume the default setting for local is now a delayed chat channel only--i.e. it is like w-space. Also, that the OA allows for the people who anchored the structure to see who is in that system--i.e. it replaces local.

This would greatly enhance your security. Now you could see who was in system with you, but they could not see you (at least not without d-scan or probes). Further, if OA disrupts the d-scan feature--e.g. makes it take longer--that too enhances your security/safety.

Why some of the hardcore PvE people do not like such a set up....beats the **** out of me. Well aside from the fact, that it might be possible for me to come along and entosis it, turning it off and putting us all on an equal footing. That is probably what they dislike. Which just underscores that local is broken itself.

Keep in mind that going from gate cloak to fitted cloak is not seamless. You would show up in local, if only briefly. And it isn't clear that the being removed from local would apply to gate cloaks.

As for the solutions to having an afk cloaked pilot in system there have been a number of suggestions offered. The "standby fleet" is but one (bad) example...which is why the anti-cloak crowd probably keep using it.

Why? What did my Hurricane get in return when it was deemed broken? What did the Drake get? When ECCM mods were changed to correct the flawed design of mathematically unscannable ships, did anybody cry their boosting Tengu was broken and it really needed a little something to ease the pain? If something needs to be addressed, why does it become a matter of bargaining?

The exchange has already been made: less gank/tank in exchange for the ability to travel unseen. You get to strike first, having the element of surprise on your side AND the ability to covertly cyno in troops (yes, a covert cyno is reserved for undercover ships only; as is the ability to bridge without risking a titan). The trade off is already in place. If this 100% certainty is notched down to 95% certainty to stay true to the core principle of bilateral engagement, so what?