These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3341 - 2013-12-01 02:42:54 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:

NO. The AFK Cloaker is "successful" at system camping because with about 30 mil ISK in a cyno stealth bomber he is able to OWN a sovereign system for which another corp is paying billions for each month, and there IS NO DIRECT COUNTER against him and NO RISK TO HIM. And that PISSES OFF those who are PAYING for a system which the cloaky cyno mechanism renders impossible to defend 24/7. THAT is why you have so many afk cloaky threads linked there on your first page. The problem is not that the cloaky cannot be countered (wormholes prove this), the problem is that the CYNO CANNOT BE COUNTERED when it is CLOAKED, except sometimes through VAST and CONTINUOUS EFFORTS to purge all assault forces within cyno range. Since carriers jump very long distances (about 15 ly), it is impractical to clear hostile carrier fleets from attack range. But as you see, EVERY ONE OF THESE ISSUES revolves around CYNOS. Without cynos, SOLO afk cloaking would have very little threat value and would not disrupt ops, so you see that without cynos there would be no SOLO AFK cloaking.


My god, back to cynos again are we? We have already gone over this.

If an AFK cloaker has a cyno...
If that AFK cloaker with a cyno actually has a fleet ready to go....
If that AFK cloaker with a cyno and has a fleet ready to go has enough in fleet oto take out the opposition....
And if the intended targets aren't paying attention (e.g. the in game map can give away the position of fleet in a system within cyno range) then yeah, it could be bad.

But that is alot of ifs. In other words, if you are going to take the most risk averse stance...that is on you.

Am I back to the cyno problem with AFK cloakers? I never left that issue. First, everyone that complains about cynos in this thread ultimately mentions the inability to remain constantly prepared for a cyno hotdrop. Second, everyone admits that a solo stealth bomber isn't that big of a threat by itself, and can be dealt with fairly easily by a small group. Third, everyone sees cyno hotdrops on pve assets in their region as a fairly frequent occurence and readily testifies that they are a substantial threat. So no if this and if that because HOTDROPS HAPPEN ALOT. I am still waiting for you to admit that if cloakies could not fit cynos, small groups would continue operations and AFK cloaking would cease; thus proving that the potential for the cyno causes AFK cloaking.


If you insist on only solo play, yes you will have an issue with cyno hotdrops. The problem for people who insist only on solo play is that this is largely the wrong game for you.

"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
#3342 - 2013-12-01 02:44:33 UTC
Vas Eldryn wrote:
I'd actually love to hear from CCP, will they every consider redesigning the game to omit local....

If YES, we can continue with removal of local debate with techos

If NO, then we can talk about AFK cyno camping, which i think, if memory serves, is the heading of this thread.


The best you get is CCP Explorer who would prefer decoupling local from intel.

Sorry to dissappoint.

"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
#3343 - 2013-12-01 02:46:51 UTC
Vas Eldryn wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Pointing out a Bad Idea™ is indeed a Bad Idea™ is not trolling.
But you point out any idea that is not your idea as a bad idea. That's trolling.


Not if they are all bad. And so far they have all been bad because, as I've noted, they nerf other players than the intended target. Heck a logoff timer can now, without violating the EULA, be by-passed by a number of methods.

And active player who, for whatever reason stops provided input to the client, but is still at his keyboard, he'd have his game play effected.


well how about the suggestion that cloaks have a limited operational life of x hours in space, I know this would re-purpose cloaking as a tactic instead of a shield, but I think that would be a good thing.


Again, why nerf players other than the AFK cloaker? Come up with a solution that targets only them....and nobody else.

I know, its not easy is it?

"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
NightmareX
Pandemic Horde High Sec Division
#3344 - 2013-12-01 03:02:22 UTC  |  Edited by: NightmareX
Teckos Pech wrote:
Again, why nerf players other than the AFK cloaker? Come up with a solution that targets only them....and nobody else.

I know, its not easy is it?

It have been said by many and by my self a million times on what can solve the afk cloaker problem. But you just ignores what we say and doesn't want to hear our opinions on this and just thinks that your opinions are more important and better.

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

1: Asteroid Madness

2: Clash of the Empires

3: Suddenly Spaceships fighting in Tama
Vas Eldryn
#3345 - 2013-12-01 03:06:32 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Vas Eldryn wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Pointing out a Bad Idea™ is indeed a Bad Idea™ is not trolling.
But you point out any idea that is not your idea as a bad idea. That's trolling.


Not if they are all bad. And so far they have all been bad because, as I've noted, they nerf other players than the intended target. Heck a logoff timer can now, without violating the EULA, be by-passed by a number of methods.

And active player who, for whatever reason stops provided input to the client, but is still at his keyboard, he'd have his game play effected.


well how about the suggestion that cloaks have a limited operational life of x hours in space, I know this would re-purpose cloaking as a tactic instead of a shield, but I think that would be a good thing.


Again, why nerf players other than the AFK cloaker? Come up with a solution that targets only them....and nobody else.

I know, its not easy is it?


nope, and thats why im changing my position on cloaking, right now cloaking is being used as a shield... where i think it should be repurposed as a tactic, does this nerf all cloak wielding ships, maybe... the ones using it as a shield definitely.

It seems that is a hard subject to address because people are so used to hitting the cloak, then wondering off to work, do the dishes or going to bed...

I'm not against cloaking... but the problem is, that its the one module that seems to have no counter while the cloak is activated, and im not saying that it's the perfect solution, but bringing cloaking back into the game as something you have to think about using from a tactical standpoint rather then press one button and safe, i think would be a great thing for all....
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3346 - 2013-12-01 03:12:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Pinky Hops
Andy Landen wrote:
[NO. The AFK Cloaker is "successful" at system camping because with about 30 mil ISK in a cyno stealth bomber he is able to OWN a sovereign system for which another corp is paying billions for each month, and there IS NO DIRECT COUNTER against him and NO RISK TO HIM. And that PISSES OFF those who are PAYING for a system which the cloaky cyno mechanism renders impossible to defend 24/7. THAT is why you have so many afk cloaky threads linked there on your first page. The problem is not that the cloaky cannot be countered (wormholes prove this), the problem is that the CYNO CANNOT BE COUNTERED when it is CLOAKED, except sometimes through VAST and CONTINUOUS EFFORTS to purge all assault forces within cyno range. Since carriers jump very long distances (about 15 ly), it is impractical to clear hostile carrier fleets from attack range. But as you see, EVERY ONE OF THESE ISSUES revolves around CYNOS. Without cynos, SOLO afk cloaking would have very little threat value and would not disrupt ops, so you see that without cynos there would be no SOLO AFK cloaking.


1) You can't "own" a system with a cyno stealth bomber. In fact, you can't really "own" a system period.

2) Paying another corp for access to sov does not make you special. In fact, it makes you stupid. Congrats. You successfully got extorted into paying for something that is free.

3) Paying another corp for access to sov and docking facilities does not magically mean you get a free pass for playing the game. In fact, paying another corp for access to sov has literally zero relevance to balance, so I have no idea why you brought it up.

It's like a highsec miner complaining about how he's still getting bumped after paying somebody for a "mining pass."

4) Learn to bait. If there's some bomber camping the system waiting to hot drop, BAIT HIM. Get him to drop some **** into the system and clean it all up. Mock them in local. I bet they bugger off.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3347 - 2013-12-01 03:20:51 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Vas Eldryn wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Pointing out a Bad Idea™ is indeed a Bad Idea™ is not trolling.
But you point out any idea that is not your idea as a bad idea. That's trolling.


Not if they are all bad. And so far they have all been bad because, as I've noted, they nerf other players than the intended target. Heck a logoff timer can now, without violating the EULA, be by-passed by a number of methods.

And active player who, for whatever reason stops provided input to the client, but is still at his keyboard, he'd have his game play effected.


well how about the suggestion that cloaks have a limited operational life of x hours in space, I know this would re-purpose cloaking as a tactic instead of a shield, but I think that would be a good thing.


Again, why nerf players other than the AFK cloaker? Come up with a solution that targets only them....and nobody else.

I know, its not easy is it?
Again though I ask this. How does your own solution fit your own requirements? Your own solution affects a lot more other people than most other suggestions.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3348 - 2013-12-01 03:23:32 UTC
Vas Eldryn wrote:

nope, and thats why im changing my position on cloaking, right now cloaking is being used as a shield... where i think it should be repurposed as a tactic, does this nerf all cloak wielding ships, maybe... the ones using it as a shield definitely.

If people wanted to use a cloak to keep themselves safe they would be better served to just log off, so your reasoning is flawed.

Also explain to me how the use of something as a "shield" is not a "tactic".
Vas Eldryn
#3349 - 2013-12-01 03:59:53 UTC
Astroniomix wrote:
Vas Eldryn wrote:

nope, and thats why im changing my position on cloaking, right now cloaking is being used as a shield... where i think it should be repurposed as a tactic, does this nerf all cloak wielding ships, maybe... the ones using it as a shield definitely.

If people wanted to use a cloak to keep themselves safe they would be better served to just log off, so your reasoning is flawed.

Also explain to me how the use of something as a "shield" is not a "tactic".


Bingo... thank you!!!!
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3350 - 2013-12-01 04:05:23 UTC
Vas Eldryn wrote:
Astroniomix wrote:
Vas Eldryn wrote:

nope, and thats why im changing my position on cloaking, right now cloaking is being used as a shield... where i think it should be repurposed as a tactic, does this nerf all cloak wielding ships, maybe... the ones using it as a shield definitely.

If people wanted to use a cloak to keep themselves safe they would be better served to just log off, so your reasoning is flawed.

Also explain to me how the use of something as a "shield" is not a "tactic".


Bingo... thank you!!!!

Great, now answer my question.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3351 - 2013-12-01 04:12:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Teckos Pech wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:

Am I back to the cyno problem with AFK cloakers? I never left that issue. First, everyone that complains about cynos in this thread ultimately mentions the inability to remain constantly prepared for a cyno hotdrop. Second, everyone admits that a solo stealth bomber isn't that big of a threat by itself, and can be dealt with fairly easily by a small group. Third, everyone sees cyno hotdrops on pve assets in their region as a fairly frequent occurence and readily testifies that they are a substantial threat. So no if this and if that because HOTDROPS HAPPEN ALOT. I am still waiting for you to admit that if cloakies could not fit cynos, small groups would continue operations and AFK cloaking would cease; thus proving that the potential for the cyno causes AFK cloaking.


If you insist on only solo play, yes you will have an issue with cyno hotdrops. The problem for people who insist only on solo play is that this is largely the wrong game for you.

DID YOU READ ANYTHING I WROTE?!

The only time I used the word "solo" was to say, "solo stealth bomber" and that is solo play by that pesky AFK cloaky we keep talking about in this thread. In the same sentence, I continued with the phrase "can be dealt with fairly easily by a small group." Small group IS NOT SOLO PLAY.

Please read before you post! .. Now go back and read that one simple paragraph and realize why this is all about cynos and not about "local."

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Vas Eldryn
#3352 - 2013-12-01 04:21:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Vas Eldryn
Astroniomix wrote:
Vas Eldryn wrote:
Astroniomix wrote:
Vas Eldryn wrote:

nope, and thats why im changing my position on cloaking, right now cloaking is being used as a shield... where i think it should be repurposed as a tactic, does this nerf all cloak wielding ships, maybe... the ones using it as a shield definitely.

If people wanted to use a cloak to keep themselves safe they would be better served to just log off, so your reasoning is flawed.

Also explain to me how the use of something as a "shield" is not a "tactic".


Bingo... thank you!!!!

Great, now answer my question.


well first of all cloaking as it stands, removes a person from any means off attack or counters, making it a perfect shield that never expires, negating the cloaked ship of having to think "tactically" about his/her environment (especially in regards to AFK cloaking), except when it becomes time to attack.

What I'm saying is reel in cloaks so that they are on par with other modules... albeit they would have to be a little better in terms of running time. For example you don't run your armour repper or shield recharger 100% of the time (unless your PvE fit and only on certain ships)... No you think tactically about when to run them and when to turn them off. Not the best example but you get the point.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3353 - 2013-12-01 04:26:47 UTC
Pinky Hops wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
[NO. The AFK Cloaker is "successful" at system camping because with about 30 mil ISK in a cyno stealth bomber he is able to OWN a sovereign system for which another corp is paying billions for each month, and there IS NO DIRECT COUNTER against him and NO RISK TO HIM. And that PISSES OFF those who are PAYING for a system which the cloaky cyno mechanism renders impossible to defend 24/7. THAT is why you have so many afk cloaky threads linked there on your first page. The problem is not that the cloaky cannot be countered (wormholes prove this), the problem is that the CYNO CANNOT BE COUNTERED when it is CLOAKED, except sometimes through VAST and CONTINUOUS EFFORTS to purge all assault forces within cyno range. Since carriers jump very long distances (about 15 ly), it is impractical to clear hostile carrier fleets from attack range. But as you see, EVERY ONE OF THESE ISSUES revolves around CYNOS. Without cynos, SOLO afk cloaking would have very little threat value and would not disrupt ops, so you see that without cynos there would be no SOLO AFK cloaking.


1) You can't "own" a system with a cyno stealth bomber. In fact, you can't really "own" a system period.

2) Paying another corp for access to sov does not make you special. In fact, it makes you stupid. Congrats. You successfully got extorted into paying for something that is free.

3) Paying another corp for access to sov and docking facilities does not magically mean you get a free pass for playing the game. In fact, paying another corp for access to sov has literally zero relevance to balance, so I have no idea why you brought it up.

It's like a highsec miner complaining about how he's still getting bumped after paying somebody for a "mining pass."

4) Learn to bait. If there's some bomber camping the system waiting to hot drop, BAIT HIM. Get him to drop some **** into the system and clean it all up. Mock them in local. I bet they bugger off.

1) You own a system by controlling it. Denying its use to others is controlling it. So yes, a cyno stealth bomber, or a stealth bomber having the potential for lighting a cyno can own the system while AFK cloaking camping it.

2) Paying another ALLIANCE rent makes you special enough to be allowed to use the system under the alliance's sovereignty. If you are saying that sov has zero relevance, you may be more accurate than you realize AND you are identifying a key deficiency in CCP's goal to allow players to take ownership of null sec space. That said, if you think that you can freely use systems of hostiles without upgrades, stations, or jump bridges, etc. then be my guest and go do it.

3) Cracking down on AFK, bots, or blob mechanics has more to do with increasing content and improving Eve. The free pass currently sits with the AFK cyno cloaky and with those who would remove local or render it vulnerable to blobs.

4) Most null sec pve'rs do bait often. After 30 minutes or so of baiting, mocking, etc., we realize that the cloaky is AFK and completely unresponsive .. for now.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3354 - 2013-12-01 04:30:56 UTC
Vas Eldryn wrote:
Astroniomix wrote:
Vas Eldryn wrote:
Astroniomix wrote:
Vas Eldryn wrote:

nope, and thats why im changing my position on cloaking, right now cloaking is being used as a shield... where i think it should be repurposed as a tactic, does this nerf all cloak wielding ships, maybe... the ones using it as a shield definitely.

If people wanted to use a cloak to keep themselves safe they would be better served to just log off, so your reasoning is flawed.

Also explain to me how the use of something as a "shield" is not a "tactic".


Bingo... thank you!!!!

Great, now answer my question.


well first of all cloaking as it stands, removes a person from any means off attack or counters, making it a perfect shield that never expires, negating the cloaked ship of having to think "tactically" about his/her environment (especially in regards to AFK cloaking), except when it becomes time to attack.

What I'm saying is reel in cloaks so that they are on par with other modules... albeit they would have to be a little better in terms of running time. For example you don't run your armour repper or shield recharger 100% of the time (unless your PvE fit and only on certain ships)... No you think tactically about when to run them and when to turn them off. Not the best example but you get the point.

So if you did this would you be ok with buffing cloaked ships to bring them up to par with equivalently sized ships?
Vas Eldryn
#3355 - 2013-12-01 04:43:40 UTC
No that would be silly... everyone would then fly blops... please think before you post!
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3356 - 2013-12-01 04:51:37 UTC
Vas Eldryn wrote:
No that would be silly... everyone would then fly blops... please think before you post!

But if you remove their ability to select their engagements, then they lose what advantage they had over everything else. Also blops need a hell of a lot more than just a buff to be usable in general pvp.
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3357 - 2013-12-01 04:54:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Pinky Hops
Andy Landen wrote:
So yes, a cyno stealth bomber, or a stealth bomber having the potential for lighting a cyno can own the system while AFK cloaking camping it.


If an AFK bomber has more control over a system than your whole corp does, then you are doing something very, very very very VERY wrong.

Andy Landen wrote:
2) Paying another ALLIANCE rent makes you special


No, it doesn't.

Andy Landen wrote:
If you are saying that sov has zero relevance,


Nope. Sov has some relevance. Paying another alliance "rent," however, does not. Nobody cares how much you paid for your "nullsec mining pass."

You got scammed. Deal with it.

Andy Landen wrote:
CCP's goal to allow players to take ownership of null sec space.


What do you want? A padlock attached to the gate? Not going to happen. Sov is about the ability to dock and produce super capitals. That's about it.

It never has and never will keep undesirables out of a system.

Andy Landen wrote:
4) Most null sec pve'rs do bait often. After 30 minutes or so of baiting, mocking, etc., we realize that the cloaky is AFK and completely unresponsive .. for now.


Looks like you failed at baiting. You aren't supposed to mock them until after you kill them. You bait by doing whatever it is you normally do to provoke a response, such as mining and pretending that nothing is out of the ordinary....

The idea is to *BAIT* them, to make yourself look like a juicy target, then cyno your own crew in to counter them. If you are just standing there making cat calls like "HAHAHA I SEE YOU COME OUT!" and are wondering why they didn't come out, you must be stupid indeed.
Vas Eldryn
#3358 - 2013-12-01 05:02:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Vas Eldryn
Astroniomix wrote:
Vas Eldryn wrote:
No that would be silly... everyone would then fly blops... please think before you post!

But if you remove their ability to select their engagements, then they lose what advantage they had over everything else. Also blops need a hell of a lot more than just a buff to be usable in general pvp.


please re-read the post... I say nothing about removing cloaks, just bringing them down out of the clouds and making cloaks require more thought when just hitting a button and knowing your safe! For example if a cloak lasted for 2-4 hours before needing a minute or two to recharge, maybe pending on ship size? I've never need a cloak on the offensive for more then 10 mins.

And for Blops... look at the killboards, they dont need buffing... they do just fine... unless your one of those fools that try to 1v1 a ratter in a blop... I'm a Blop pilot, secret to success ... numbers!
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3359 - 2013-12-01 06:02:18 UTC
NightmareX wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Again, why nerf players other than the AFK cloaker? Come up with a solution that targets only them....and nobody else.

I know, its not easy is it?

It have been said by many and by my self a million times on what can solve the afk cloaker problem. But you just ignores what we say and doesn't want to hear our opinions on this and just thinks that your opinions are more important and better.


I'm not ignoring the ideas, I just thing that nerfing the play of people who are not AFK or who use cloaks (depending on the flavor of nerf you prefer to AFK cloaking) is not acceptable. If you have a method that also has a high level of false positives it is generally a bad method.

"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
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3360 - 2013-12-01 06:06:55 UTC
Vas Eldryn wrote:
Astroniomix wrote:
Vas Eldryn wrote:
No that would be silly... everyone would then fly blops... please think before you post!

But if you remove their ability to select their engagements, then they lose what advantage they had over everything else. Also blops need a hell of a lot more than just a buff to be usable in general pvp.

please re-read the post... I say nothing about removing cloaks, just bringing them them down out of the clouds and making cloaks require more thought when just hitting a button and knowing your safe! For example if a cloak lasted for 2-4 hours before needing a minute or two to recharge, maybe pending on ship size? I've never need a cloak on the offensive for more then 10 mins.

And for Blops... look at the killboards, they dont need buffing... they do just fine... unless your one of those fools that try to 1v1 a ratter in a blop... I'm a Blop pilot, secret to success ... numbers!

It's not at all unheard of to have to cloak for more than 3-4 hours in a wormhole without a break, why do you want to nerf it? Not everything has to have a big important tactical decision attached to it, having to carefully pick and chose when and where to decloak is enough.

Also if you're going to claim to have flown blops, it's best to do it on a character that has actually flown one.