These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Defeating AFK Cloaking

Author
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#41 - 2013-01-01 22:35:12 UTC
Jessica Danikov wrote:

Very good summary. I agree entirely with 3... an alternative is a perma MWD'ing ship that cannot be caught even if scanned down. 2 is also a very weak solution. I quite vehemently disagree with 1., even if it seems to be a very popular option... firstly, I don't think CCP would ever go for that, it's too significant a change. Secondly, it's what sets WHs apart and would reduce the charm/uniqueness of w-space. Basically, you're 'solving' the problem of being camped by making it EASIER to camp, and making those who are camped ignorant, when clearly a lot of the issue here is the disparity in effectiveness- AFK cloak campers are too powerful. They do not need to be more so.



its freaking null sec. if u cannot defend urself then u dont belong. come back to hi-sec.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2013-01-01 22:38:32 UTC
Ok, I have to admit I am very confused by the proliferation of these threads. I have spoken to friends in SOV holding alliances who laugh when I mention this "afk cloaking" problem that I read about on the forums.

When they get an afk cloaker in system they do one thing, bait their hooks. They don't have a problem with afk cloakers because they deal with the problem head on.

Why is it then that so many others can only complain and whine?
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#43 - 2013-01-01 22:42:01 UTC
Derath Ellecon wrote:
Ok, I have to admit I am very confused by the proliferation of these threads. I have spoken to friends in SOV holding alliances who laugh when I mention this "afk cloaking" problem that I read about on the forums.

When they get an afk cloaker in system they do one thing, bait their hooks. They don't have a problem with afk cloakers because they deal with the problem head on.

Why is it then that so many others can only complain and whine?


cause they think they have the right to rat in null sec without interruption. all the rewards of null without any of the risk.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#44 - 2013-01-01 22:42:11 UTC
Kestrix wrote:
Oh right. Silly me, 0 risk to having a hostile in a system with a Covert cynosural field generator...
From an AFK player, absolutely. For the record, the same mechanic that is the cause of your problem is also your salvation should they ever use that cyno. If nothing else, AFK cloaking must exist to as the sole counter to that mechanic.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#45 - 2013-01-01 23:34:46 UTC
Currently is would seem that i did cover the common counter points in my first post, and nothing new from the pro-nerf cloaking groups.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#46 - 2013-01-01 23:40:02 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Ines Tegator wrote:
Still nobody has discussed the cloaking-removes-you-from-local idea (I guess it was Narrel's idea originally? /shrug).

I have proposed this in the past, for the reasons you list below.
I also recommend including docked vessels and those within POS shields as well.
Yea yours includes docked vessels and pos stuff. But I think the originator was Ingvar Angst. Although I could be wrong.

Linkage.

I believe we are both drawing some of our inspiration from the active example of WH space.
I don't quite agree with his changes to cyno use, although I respect the goals he seems to be seeking. I would address them in other ways, but for similar results.

I find the crutch / training wheels / stabilizer association local has currently to be like an addiction. One that could be too much of a shock if changed all at once. This is why I recommend keeping it for active ships in space exclusively, as defined by who can target and be targeted.
Players will discover a need to use sensors and associated effort to discover potential threats, if they are proactive. A proactive defense effort should become notable in creating a better environment to operate out of, above and beyond one where people merely watch local's pilot roster.

Compared to High Sec, I firmly believe that PvE in null should be different in more ways than needing to just watch local. Local chat being the only needed source of intel for defense feels like the challenge supposedly present in null to be trivial.
Kestrix
The Whispering
#47 - 2013-01-02 04:55:41 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Kestrix wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Kestrix wrote:
The reason it exists is because it's a tactic with 0 risk to the cloaked person and a very real zero risk to the industrial inhabitants of that system.
Fixed.

No, an AFK cloaker can't do anything to you and no, there is plenty of warning when a hostile fleet enters the system.

The reason AFK cloaking exists is because of local. Want to fix AFK cloaking? Fix local.


Oh right. Silly me, 0 risk to having a hostile in a system with a Covert cynosural field generator... Great lets grab the Rorquals , Orca's and Hulks and lets get some mining done! We'll all warp to that large hidden asteroid belt and sit in a large clump and get rich mining ABC's


u've never been hot dropped because of an afk player...surely he must be at his keyboard in order to light the cyno. what u want to nerf is cloaks and cynos in general.

come back to hi-sec, there are no cyno's and afk cloaking is much less of an issue. Plus its where u really belong if u think about it null-bear


I've already explained in a past post that because it's impossible to know if a cloaked vessel is AFK or not we must assume that it is active all the time. In most of 0.0 a cloaked vessel is not an issue. As pointed out by various people in this thread there are tactics that can be employed to deal with them.

HOWEVER in a system raised to industry level 5, where you have players stripping the hidden belts it would be nice if we had a more pro-active method of dealing with the cloaked vessel. We have more at stake here than simply padding our pockets with ISK (although that is a very pleasant by product of what we did) When I was in 0.0 there were cloaked vessels in the system where I worked, no they did not stop me from mining and yes we did eventually deal with the issue.

I don't want to nerf cloaking I want it to remain a viable source of intel gathering/harassment. I do want a method however that lets us punish dumb/distracted cloakers who aren't paying attention, something that keeps them active or logged off. Or gives us a simple piece of intel the ship class... from that we can ascertain it's threat level.

The argument that AFK cloakers never killed anyone is not a valid one as there is no way to test the state of a cloaker at any given time.
Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2013-01-02 06:12:41 UTC
Your post is so full of contradictions I don't know where to begin.

Kestrix wrote:
I've already explained in a past post that because it's impossible to know if a cloaked vessel is AFK or not we must assume that it is active all the time. In most of 0.0 a cloaked vessel is not an issue. As pointed out by various people in this thread there are tactics that can be employed to deal with them.


So there are tactics to deal with cloakers. So where is the issue? You even say in most of 0.0 a cloaked vessel is not an issue.

Kestrix wrote:
HOWEVER in a system raised to industry level 5, where you have players stripping the hidden belts it would be nice if we had a more pro-active method of dealing with the cloaked vessel. We have more at stake here than simply padding our pockets with ISK (although that is a very pleasant by product of what we did) When I was in 0.0 there were cloaked vessels in the system where I worked, no they did not stop me from mining and yes we did eventually deal with the issue.


So what does Industry level have to do with it? Are industry upgraded systems exempt from having to be defended the same way as the rest of 0.0? I thought the point of 0.0 is being a place where you have to defend and police your systems on your own? Why not emply the same tactics referred to in your above quote?

I would say if an alliance cannot protect it's industrial core, maybe they don't deserve to be there?

Kestrix wrote:
I don't want to nerf cloaking I want it to remain a viable source of intel gathering/harassment. I do want a method however that lets us punish dumb/distracted cloakers who aren't paying attention, something that keeps them active or logged off. Or gives us a simple piece of intel the ship class... from that we can ascertain it's threat level.


But how do you know? You have already said many times there is no way to know if the player is afk? How active do they have to be? You have already said in other parts of this post that you have to assume the cloaker is not AFK, AND that there are ways to deal with them. What more do you need?

Kestrix wrote:
The argument that AFK cloakers never killed anyone is not a valid one as there is no way to test the state of a cloaker at any given time.


Right, so as you have said, you have to assume they are not AFK. You have also said they never stopped you, and you eventually dealt with the issue. Seems the issue can be controlled and dealt with.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#49 - 2013-01-02 07:13:44 UTC
Kestrix wrote:
I've already explained in a past post that because it's impossible to know if a cloaked vessel is AFK or not we must assume that it is active all the time. In most of 0.0 a cloaked vessel is not an issue. As pointed out by various people in this thread there are tactics that can be employed to deal with them.
…in other words, AFK cloakers are not a problem.

Quote:
I don't want to nerf cloaking I want it to remain a viable source of intel gathering/harassment. I do want a method however that lets us punish dumb/distracted cloakers who aren't paying attention, something that keeps them active or logged off.
What's the point? If they aren't paying attention, then they will get themselves killed anyway or be completely irrelevant to anything.

Quote:
The argument that AFK cloakers never killed anyone is not a valid one
As long as people keep complaining that AFK cloakers are somehow worse than regular cloakers, then yes, yes it is.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#50 - 2013-01-02 08:46:36 UTC
Summary of every "we need a decloaking thing or ability to find cloaked ships!!1" thread: Wah wah wah, I cannot rat/mine in 100% safety in 0.0 space, please ccp destroy the balance of the game and toss out the entire idea of what null should be so I can continue being a risk averse carebear wah wah wah

The only thing that needs to be done is is making cloaked ships not appear in local.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#51 - 2013-01-02 13:28:03 UTC
Kestrix wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Kestrix wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Kestrix wrote:
The reason it exists is because it's a tactic with 0 risk to the cloaked person and a very real zero risk to the industrial inhabitants of that system.
Fixed.

No, an AFK cloaker can't do anything to you and no, there is plenty of warning when a hostile fleet enters the system.

The reason AFK cloaking exists is because of local. Want to fix AFK cloaking? Fix local.


Oh right. Silly me, 0 risk to having a hostile in a system with a Covert cynosural field generator... Great lets grab the Rorquals , Orca's and Hulks and lets get some mining done! We'll all warp to that large hidden asteroid belt and sit in a large clump and get rich mining ABC's


u've never been hot dropped because of an afk player...surely he must be at his keyboard in order to light the cyno. what u want to nerf is cloaks and cynos in general.

come back to hi-sec, there are no cyno's and afk cloaking is much less of an issue. Plus its where u really belong if u think about it null-bear


I've already explained in a past post that because it's impossible to know if a cloaked vessel is AFK or not we must assume that it is active all the time. In most of 0.0 a cloaked vessel is not an issue. As pointed out by various people in this thread there are tactics that can be employed to deal with them.

HOWEVER in a system raised to industry level 5, where you have players stripping the hidden belts it would be nice if we had a more pro-active method of dealing with the cloaked vessel. We have more at stake here than simply padding our pockets with ISK (although that is a very pleasant by product of what we did) When I was in 0.0 there were cloaked vessels in the system where I worked, no they did not stop me from mining and yes we did eventually deal with the issue.

I don't want to nerf cloaking I want it to remain a viable source of intel gathering/harassment. I do want a method however that lets us punish dumb/distracted cloakers who aren't paying attention, something that keeps them active or logged off. Or gives us a simple piece of intel the ship class... from that we can ascertain it's threat level.

The argument that AFK cloakers never killed anyone is not a valid one as there is no way to test the state of a cloaker at any given time.


wait, so there was an afk cloaker and u dealt with the issue and it didnt even stop u mining...so what it is the problem?
u want to know the threat level of dumb and distracted cloakers? how about none...they are dumb, distracted, seemingly not paying attention and, lets not forget, unable to shoot u while cloaked. once he decloaks to do his thing then d-scan or overview provides all the intel ur asking for.

how does it make sense to gather intel on a cloaked ship? its cloaked!

mining in null sec is rewarding, so it should have its risks to balance it out. if u cannot deal with the risks then u should not be there. u seem to be completely ignorant of the fact that null sec is centred around PvP and if u and ur brosefs cannot defend eachother, including industry 5 systems, then u don't belong there. at best u belong in low sec.

what ur also neglecting is that fact that u wouldnt even know the cloaker was there if it wasn't for local. i doubt u'd even be in null sec if it wasn't for local providing 100% certainty when enemies are inbound, cause then u'd actually have to work for ur money.

right now it is too easy to identify if bad guys are in system, so null-bears are always able to avoid any form of PvP despite being in a PvP centric area of the game. What afk cloaking basically does is provides enough uncertainty to those who are risk averse and those who cannot be arsed to defend themselves that it prevents them from activities.

what these null-bears should be asking themselves is: if i am really that risk averse and i cannot be bothered to defend myself, then what the hell am i doing in null sec?

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#52 - 2013-01-02 14:31:58 UTC
Gee... it really is too bad that local displays the cloaked pilot constantly. You just can't tell from that when he is decloaking and might actually hurt anyone.

It sounds like local would be a lot more useful defensively if it reported on the cloaked ships that were decloaking, rather than entering the system and switching to a mode where they cannot attack anyone.

And hey, those docked pilots, they are absolutely worthless being listed like that. They aren't even IN a ship, technically, just floating around their CQ eating junk food.... how useless is that...

And the POS guys.... seriously? You can see them like animals on display at a zoo. (Just don't get in range of the station guns)
Now, knowing when they LEFT that shield has value... but if you wanted a list of pilots who you can't even target though, hey, we all get off on something I guess....

Just sayin!
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#53 - 2013-01-02 14:43:02 UTC
Ruse Lander wrote:
[list]

2) Cloaking requiring a pilot to interact with the game to maintain their cloak, which leads to some sort of macro system being used violating the EULA.

There's an interesting story about the dawn of automated computerized trading IRL.

It seems that the first group to do so ended up violating the NASDAQ TOS by simulating the terminal transactions directly in software, so they ended up building a machine to actually type on the keyboard to ensure that they were not violating the TOS and thus avoided being banned from the market.

I expect that there exists a subset of the EvE community competent enough with a soldering iron and screwdriver to rig up a frame with a couple of servos on it should they be inspired to. Detecting the botting in such a case would be something of a challenge.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#54 - 2013-01-02 14:59:19 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Ruse Lander wrote:
[list]

2) Cloaking requiring a pilot to interact with the game to maintain their cloak, which leads to some sort of macro system being used violating the EULA.

There's an interesting story about the dawn of automated computerized trading IRL.

It seems that the first group to do so ended up violating the NASDAQ TOS by simulating the terminal transactions directly in software, so they ended up building a machine to actually type on the keyboard to ensure that they were not violating the TOS and thus avoided being banned from the market.

I expect that there exists a subset of the EvE community competent enough with a soldering iron and screwdriver to rig up a frame with a couple of servos on it should they be inspired to. Detecting the botting in such a case would be something of a challenge.

That goes beyond a challenge, it succeeds in bypassing realistic restrictions by becoming handicapped friendly.

If Bob the pilot is physically impaired, and has an automated system helping him compensate for it, ethically he is playing with good intent. Whether it is a voice recognition system, a modified keyboard that allows him use, or an automated system that answers to his will...
I do not recall any of the game requirements specifying the player must have hands.
Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
#55 - 2013-01-02 16:12:18 UTC
You cannot destroy that which does not exist. You cannot be effected by that which has no corporal form. Your fear of the ethereal realm is very unsettling - They are simply the lost AFK Cloaker Souls of the universe drifting midst local chat. Reaching out for a friendly miner to help them find home.

Anyways going to AFK Cloak this thread.
Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2013-01-02 17:34:29 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Ruse Lander wrote:
[list]

2) Cloaking requiring a pilot to interact with the game to maintain their cloak, which leads to some sort of macro system being used violating the EULA.

There's an interesting story about the dawn of automated computerized trading IRL.

It seems that the first group to do so ended up violating the NASDAQ TOS by simulating the terminal transactions directly in software, so they ended up building a machine to actually type on the keyboard to ensure that they were not violating the TOS and thus avoided being banned from the market.

I expect that there exists a subset of the EvE community competent enough with a soldering iron and screwdriver to rig up a frame with a couple of servos on it should they be inspired to. Detecting the botting in such a case would be something of a challenge.


Way ahead of you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OkKhkJiJyo

Sidus Rado
Sidus Rado Tax Free Corporation
#57 - 2013-01-02 19:59:04 UTC
I see nothing bad if player wants to cloak in the system and go afk.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#58 - 2013-01-02 20:06:53 UTC
Sidus Rado wrote:
I see nothing bad if player wants to cloak in the system and go afk.

I agree, but some of these guys are trying to make it seem like the cloaked pilot is hurting them.

He targets nothing, he launches no weapons, and has no choice but to mind his own business while cloaked.

Maybe the problem lies with their perception of the issue...?
RoAnnon
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#59 - 2013-01-02 21:55:40 UTC
How does anyone really know these folks are actually AFK? Seems to me unless you have a video feed to their desk chair and can see they're not sitting there, you can't know, and are merely surmising. The fact you can't see them and they won't reply to you is circumstantial evidence, at best. Can we stop trying to implement a mechanic that aims at preventing someone from doing something you can only guess they're doing?

So, you're a bounty hunter. No, that ain't it at all. Then what are you? I'm a bounty hunter.

Broadcast4Reps

Eve Vegas 2015 Pub Crawl Group 9

Houston EVE Meet

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#60 - 2013-01-03 02:20:55 UTC
RoAnnon wrote:
Can we stop trying to implement a mechanic that aims at preventing someone from doing something you can only guess they're doing?


i hope this one is done.

see u all at the next one. same day next week?

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs