These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Azrael Dinn
Imperial Mechanics
#901 - 2013-09-11 07:37:09 UTC
Barbara Nichole wrote:
Azrael Dinn wrote:
And still... break cloaks it would make things better for eve.


A very myopic view. understand that pvpers are not the only benefactors of cloaks.
...and pvpers ganking "poor industrials" not only does not require a cloak, there are other activities that do require cloaks that will suffer if nerfherders get their way on cloak "breaking".


Meh I have tried to say all I have to say on the topic even if it's balanced or not. It gets fustrating to tell the same things over and over and people like gunslinger saying "NO! I'm a pvper the game is all about pvp and I am right" so after all this we are at the point where it's only "break cloaks tm". Don't care how it's done, when it's done as long as it's done.

sorry Sad

I do like to compromise but this has been talked over and over again and not either of the two sides on this topic is willing to compromise. If anything it would be alot better if CCP would just hit the nerf hammer to the table and say "play this way or shut up".

After centuries of debating and justifying... Break Cloaks tm
Vas Eldryn
#902 - 2013-09-11 07:48:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Vas Eldryn
ok i can't speak for others but the subject here is AFK cyno cloaking in sov, i am not for the breaking cloaking all together.

but removing AFK cyno cloaking from sov will bring more people to null.

im not sure if i can really understand barabaras post though, im not really sure what barab means my myopic in the aspect of this thread but im not an english student.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#903 - 2013-09-11 07:52:44 UTC
Vas Eldryn wrote:
I still wouldn't like being a mining ship with only a prototype cloak in a swarm of SB's, recons and T3 cruisers, I can't see, with the exception of aligning, which you should already be, how it would help. They have you rough position you need to decloak before warp.... still feels like being fish in a barrel to me.


No one is going to drop a swarm of stealthbombers, recons and t3s for a venture or other single mining ship. If they do, call for help from your alliance. There's a chance you might lose your mining ship, but your alliance will inflict much larger damage on them and they'll think twice before targeting it's members again. If your alliance wont back you up in that situation then find a better alliance.

virgofire wrote:
You know what bothers me the most about your argument Nikk? The fact that it feels your telling people how to play the game of Eve based on how you think THEY should play the game. This bothers me.

To suggest changing ships or to alter their play style so that it fits more in line with yours isn't a valid argument on this topic.


The hypocrisy here is astounding. These threads are by definition asking for the game mechanics to be changed to suit certain people (because they refuse to adapt to nullsec conditions), and to remove other peoples playstyles (ie camping a system or hotdropping). To complain when someone opposes that change, and instead suggests other possible "solutions" is simply disgusting.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#904 - 2013-09-11 07:58:49 UTC
Vas Eldryn wrote:
ok i can't speak for others but the subject here is AFK cyno cloaking in sov, i am not for the breaking cloaking all together.

but removing AFK cyno cloaking from sov will bring more people to null.

im not sure if i can really understand barabaras post though, im not really sure what barab means my myopic in the aspect of this thread but im not an english student.


What point is there in "bringing more people to null" if null has become 100% safe - something not even highsec achieves? It'll cause massive stagnation to the game and destroy the economy as isk and resource generation in null end up being completely unopposed
Azrael Dinn
Imperial Mechanics
#905 - 2013-09-11 08:04:18 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
virgofire wrote:
You know what bothers me the most about your argument Nikk? The fact that it feels your telling people how to play the game of Eve based on how you think THEY should play the game. This bothers me.

To suggest changing ships or to alter their play style so that it fits more in line with yours isn't a valid argument on this topic.


The hypocrisy here is astounding. These threads are by definition asking for the game mechanics to be changed to suit certain people (because they refuse to adapt to nullsec conditions), and to remove other peoples playstyles (ie camping a system or hotdropping). To complain when someone opposes that change, and instead suggests other possible "solutions" is simply disgusting.


You aren't offering any good solutions your self are you now.

After centuries of debating and justifying... Break Cloaks tm
Vas Eldryn
#906 - 2013-09-11 08:11:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Vas Eldryn
so you think more people in null will destroy eve? and FFS, no null is not safe by any measure, stop trying to say that removal of AKF cloaked camping will make null sec safe for indy pilots.

i know the pro AFK cyno cloaked camp says over and over if this aspect of the game was removed that the earth will stop spinning and 1000 puppies will die.... i don't get it but you are entitled to your opinion.

why can other PVP pilots manage kills without resorting to AFK camping? this is the one answer you guys still havent answered? why do you need an easy mode?
JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman
#907 - 2013-09-11 10:54:26 UTC  |  Edited by: JIeoH Mocc
Vas Eldryn wrote:
so you think more people in null will destroy eve? and FFS, no null is not safe by any measure, stop trying to say that removal of AKF cloaked camping will make null sec safe for indy pilots.

i know the pro AFK cyno cloaked camp says over and over if this aspect of the game was removed that the earth will stop spinning and 1000 puppies will die.... i don't get it but you are entitled to your opinion.

why can other PVP pilots manage kills without resorting to AFK camping? this is the one answer you guys still havent answered? why do you need an easy mode?


First of all, no one should be safe in null, without putting efforts to it.
No one said that it's the way it should be, eh? So you demanding that kind of safety is audacious.

Null is TOO safe right now, with the following measures avaiable:
1) Security channels regions across
2) Cynojammers
3) Mobile bubbles
4) Local channel

Yourself moaning about "how others get kills" equals to me saying - how other manage to mine in nullsec? Answer that please.

Also consider this - your whole point is based on a huge logical flaw -
AFK ships can't do anything, since they're AFK.
So what actually bothers you, is the uncertainty, right? Close your local channel window and you should be just fine.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#908 - 2013-09-11 11:41:54 UTC  |  Edited by: TheGunslinger42
Azrael Dinn wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
virgofire wrote:
You know what bothers me the most about your argument Nikk? The fact that it feels your telling people how to play the game of Eve based on how you think THEY should play the game. This bothers me.

To suggest changing ships or to alter their play style so that it fits more in line with yours isn't a valid argument on this topic.


The hypocrisy here is astounding. These threads are by definition asking for the game mechanics to be changed to suit certain people (because they refuse to adapt to nullsec conditions), and to remove other peoples playstyles (ie camping a system or hotdropping). To complain when someone opposes that change, and instead suggests other possible "solutions" is simply disgusting.


You aren't offering any good solutions your self are you now.


Throughout this topic and countless others I, as well as people like Nikk, Techos, etc have offered countless alternatives to "cry and demand mechanics be changed" for dealing with cloaked players. How about you try reading, understanding and employing some of them? :)

Vas Eldryn wrote:
so you think more people in null will destroy eve? and FFS, no null is not safe by any measure, stop trying to say that removal of AKF cloaked camping will make null sec safe for indy pilots.

i know the pro AFK cyno cloaked camp says over and over if this aspect of the game was removed that the earth will stop spinning and 1000 puppies will die.... i don't get it but you are entitled to your opinion.

why can other PVP pilots manage kills without resorting to AFK camping? this is the one answer you guys still havent answered? why do you need an easy mode?


More people in null won't destroy EVE. Removing all uncertainty and risk in null would however, and that is EXACTLY what your proposed changes do. You can deny it all you want, but unless local is drastically changed, then removal or any kind of nerf to prolonged cloaking and cyno use would remove absolutely all risk to someone in system.

As for your question, no one - not a single one of us - have denied that you can find fights by other means or in other areas. Your question is entirely irrelevant, and is little more than an attempt to smear those who use tactics you don't like.

The fact that other types of PVP can be found is completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. Just because other avenues for PVP exist doesn't mean that this one should be removed because you feel entitled to absolute safety. That's not how it works. CCP shouldn't shrink the sandbox, shouldn't remove PVP options/styles, etc just so you can have perfect safety. And make no mistake, these nerfs would result in perfect safety for locals. And that would be a disaster for this game.
Azrael Dinn
Imperial Mechanics
#909 - 2013-09-11 13:08:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Azrael Dinn
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Azrael Dinn wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
virgofire wrote:
You know what bothers me the most about your argument Nikk? The fact that it feels your telling people how to play the game of Eve based on how you think THEY should play the game. This bothers me.

To suggest changing ships or to alter their play style so that it fits more in line with yours isn't a valid argument on this topic.


The hypocrisy here is astounding. These threads are by definition asking for the game mechanics to be changed to suit certain people (because they refuse to adapt to nullsec conditions), and to remove other peoples playstyles (ie camping a system or hotdropping). To complain when someone opposes that change, and instead suggests other possible "solutions" is simply disgusting.


You aren't offering any good solutions your self are you now.


Throughout this topic and countless others I, as well as people like Nikk, Techos, etc have offered countless alternatives to "cry and demand mechanics be changed" for dealing with cloaked players. How about you try reading, understanding and employing some of them? :)


Your solution trough this topic and countless other topics is "there is no problem" though at somepoint if I recall correctly you started to think Nikks solution (removing local and balancing cloaks) would be a good idea which I have to argree. But other than that your solution has been "deal with it, there is no problem" and thats just crap that you pour out from your mouth and makes me sick and it's not even a solution it's a gamaplay aspect.

After centuries of debating and justifying... Break Cloaks tm
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#910 - 2013-09-11 13:42:37 UTC  |  Edited by: TheGunslinger42
Azrael Dinn wrote:
Your solution trough this topic and countless other topics is "there is no problem" though at somepoint if I recall correctly you started to think Nikks solution (removing local and balancing cloaks) would be a good idea which I have to argree. But other than that your solution has been "deal with it, there is no problem" and thats just crap that you pour out from your mouth and makes me sick and it's not even a solution it's a gamaplay aspect.


The reason I've said in the past that there "is no problem" is because as far as the mechanics of cloaking, cynoing and going afk are concerned there really aren't any problems. They currently balance each other out, and still allow for very flexible, varied playstyles and activities. When ideas are proposed that break this balance, or reduce or remove desired properties of null space I speak against them - often asking what needs to be fixed in the first place.

The other "solutions" proposed are not changes to the game, but rather purely informative - they demonstrate all the different ways in which the mechanics be operated in, or used to your own advantage.

ps if local were drastically changed - or removed entirely, though I think that is a far too simplistic change and might cause problems - then I would be open to changing cloaking or cyno mechanics.
virgofire
Vay Mining Corporation
#911 - 2013-09-11 15:33:38 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Vas Eldryn wrote:
I still wouldn't like being a mining ship with only a prototype cloak in a swarm of SB's, recons and T3 cruisers, I can't see, with the exception of aligning, which you should already be, how it would help. They have you rough position you need to decloak before warp.... still feels like being fish in a barrel to me.


No one is going to drop a swarm of stealthbombers, recons and t3s for a venture or other single mining ship. If they do, call for help from your alliance. There's a chance you might lose your mining ship, but your alliance will inflict much larger damage on them and they'll think twice before targeting it's members again. If your alliance wont back you up in that situation then find a better alliance.

virgofire wrote:
You know what bothers me the most about your argument Nikk? The fact that it feels your telling people how to play the game of Eve based on how you think THEY should play the game. This bothers me.

To suggest changing ships or to alter their play style so that it fits more in line with yours isn't a valid argument on this topic.


The hypocrisy here is astounding. These threads are by definition asking for the game mechanics to be changed to suit certain people (because they refuse to adapt to nullsec conditions), and to remove other peoples playstyles (ie camping a system or hotdropping). To complain when someone opposes that change, and instead suggests other possible "solutions" is simply disgusting.


Actually almost all of the threads on this topic have offered a compremise on both sides to help overall game play. Just because you don't like the ideas doesnt mean you can immediately say they are just wanting the game to fit them.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#912 - 2013-09-11 15:39:40 UTC
virgofire wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Vas Eldryn wrote:
I still wouldn't like being a mining ship with only a prototype cloak in a swarm of SB's, recons and T3 cruisers, I can't see, with the exception of aligning, which you should already be, how it would help. They have you rough position you need to decloak before warp.... still feels like being fish in a barrel to me.


No one is going to drop a swarm of stealthbombers, recons and t3s for a venture or other single mining ship. If they do, call for help from your alliance. There's a chance you might lose your mining ship, but your alliance will inflict much larger damage on them and they'll think twice before targeting it's members again. If your alliance wont back you up in that situation then find a better alliance.

virgofire wrote:
You know what bothers me the most about your argument Nikk? The fact that it feels your telling people how to play the game of Eve based on how you think THEY should play the game. This bothers me.

To suggest changing ships or to alter their play style so that it fits more in line with yours isn't a valid argument on this topic.


The hypocrisy here is astounding. These threads are by definition asking for the game mechanics to be changed to suit certain people (because they refuse to adapt to nullsec conditions), and to remove other peoples playstyles (ie camping a system or hotdropping). To complain when someone opposes that change, and instead suggests other possible "solutions" is simply disgusting.


Actually almost all of the threads on this topic have offered a compremise on both sides to help overall game play. Just because you don't like the ideas doesnt mean you can immediately say they are just wanting the game to fit them.


Actually almost NONE of the threads on this topic offer actual compromise, because actual compromise would mean maintaining the uncertainty and risk in nullsec, and most of these threads are little more than veiled attempts to remove such uncertainty and risk. Compromises, by definition, would require massively reworking local - the majority of people who make these complaints resist that though.
virgofire
Vay Mining Corporation
#913 - 2013-09-11 15:47:29 UTC
JIeoH Mocc wrote:

Also consider this - your whole point is based on a huge logical flaw -
AFK ships can't do anything, since they're AFK.
So what actually bothers you, is the uncertainty, right? Close your local channel window and you should be just fine.


Yes yes. Great plan. Let people just stick their head in the sand and pretend no one is out there. That wont result in a blown up ship at all.

Of course the uncertainity of it all is the issue. This style of game play is simply taking advantage of a mechanic in the game. It might not be against the rules at the moment, but it doesnt mean that it isn't something that shouldn't be reworked.

I personally am less concerned with the uncertainity of the situation and less frustrated that I can't fight back. I can defend myself, but I can't go on the offensive and attack a cloaky camper. That is what bothers me about the tactic. I simply move to an uncamped system, but I would much rather go fight off the cloaky and turn the tables on him.

I dont think this is unreasonable of a request. It just needs to be done in a balanced way.
virgofire
Vay Mining Corporation
#914 - 2013-09-11 15:52:07 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:

Actually almost NONE of the threads on this topic offer actual compromise, because actual compromise would mean maintaining the uncertainty and risk in nullsec, and most of these threads are little more than veiled attempts to remove such uncertainty and risk. Compromises, by definition, would require massively reworking local - the majority of people who make these complaints resist that though.


Complaining about local is a crutch and you know it. The free intel has always existed but it's of little use to anyone if there isnt a network of alliance and other channels that use that intel to inform their pilots.

PVPers use local to find targets, and PVE people use local to try and stay safe.

That door swings both ways and closing it would effect nothing. And WH space cant be used as an example of how removing local works, since WH space cant be hot dropped into, which is the main offensive tactic of a afk cloaker.
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#915 - 2013-09-11 15:55:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Debora Tsung
virgofire wrote:
I dont think this is unreasonable of a request. It just needs to be done in a balanced way.
Unfortunately almost none the suggestions posted thus far are balanced.

Right now only Nikk Narrels suggestions have a nice ring to it, but even those are not entirely convincing as the only possibility to truly see if it could work is to implement it on TQ.

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#916 - 2013-09-11 16:01:10 UTC
virgofire wrote:
Complaining about local is a crutch and you know it. The free intel has always existed but it's of little use to anyone if there isnt a network of alliance and other channels that use that intel to inform their pilots.

PVPers use local to find targets, and PVE people use local to try and stay safe.

That door swings both ways and closing it would effect nothing. And WH space cant be used as an example of how removing local works, since WH space cant be hot dropped into, which is the main offensive tactic of a afk cloaker.


Discussing local is not a crutch, local is the direct root cause of the playstyles we're discussing. How can we hope to have a meaningful, informed discussion on certain mechanics and emergent gameplay without discussing the things that directly cause them?

I understand that local is used by both locals and the 'foreigners' to the system, and both pve and pvpers alike. The point I'm making though is that the interplay between local, cloaks and cynos balance each other. You can't change one without changing the other - that is where the compromise comes in. I thought you were willing to compromise?
Vas Eldryn
#917 - 2013-09-11 16:13:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Vas Eldryn
JIeoH Mocc wrote:
Vas Eldryn wrote:
so you think more people in null will destroy eve? and FFS, no null is not safe by any measure, stop trying to say that removal of AKF cloaked camping will make null sec safe for indy pilots.

i know the pro AFK cyno cloaked camp says over and over if this aspect of the game was removed that the earth will stop spinning and 1000 puppies will die.... i don't get it but you are entitled to your opinion.

why can other PVP pilots manage kills without resorting to AFK camping? this is the one answer you guys still havent answered? why do you need an easy mode?


First of all, no one should be safe in null, without putting efforts to it.
No one said that it's the way it should be, eh? So you demanding that kind of safety is audacious.

Null is TOO safe right now, with the following measures avaiable:
1) Security channels regions across
2) Cynojammers
3) Mobile bubbles
4) Local channel

Yourself moaning about "how others get kills" equals to me saying - how other manage to mine in nullsec? Answer that please.

Also consider this - your whole point is based on a huge logical flaw -
AFK ships can't do anything, since they're AFK.
So what actually bothers you, is the uncertainty, right? Close your local channel window and you should be just fine.


scroll up and actually read some of the posts.
virgofire
Vay Mining Corporation
#918 - 2013-09-11 16:37:32 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
virgofire wrote:
Complaining about local is a crutch and you know it. The free intel has always existed but it's of little use to anyone if there isnt a network of alliance and other channels that use that intel to inform their pilots.

PVPers use local to find targets, and PVE people use local to try and stay safe.

That door swings both ways and closing it would effect nothing. And WH space cant be used as an example of how removing local works, since WH space cant be hot dropped into, which is the main offensive tactic of a afk cloaker.


Discussing local is not a crutch, local is the direct root cause of the playstyles we're discussing. How can we hope to have a meaningful, informed discussion on certain mechanics and emergent gameplay without discussing the things that directly cause them?

I understand that local is used by both locals and the 'foreigners' to the system, and both pve and pvpers alike. The point I'm making though is that the interplay between local, cloaks and cynos balance each other. You can't change one without changing the other - that is where the compromise comes in. I thought you were willing to compromise?



One of my threads is listed in this collection of threads about the topic. I am more than willing to compromise and I have even said that in the last 4 pages of posts. I dont believe that removing local is practical though. A rework, sure, but not a removal. Go back a few pages and read what I said.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#919 - 2013-09-11 18:49:42 UTC
This blew my mind with the extreme expectations of what should be seen as acceptable gameplay in null in general.

virgofire wrote:
...

If you are watching local for your intel, you are dead already, especially if your in a ratting carrier. You will be tackled before you can warp off to safe. ...


Maybe you like the idea of a ratting carrier. But if you are not in an alliance with a blue donut big enough to preclude hostile presence, it is often enough an awful idea.

A carrier used for ratting can be justified only if you can afford to lose it. That's your call, but don't expect the game to become safe for your convenience.

Rewards, ultimately, are limited by risk, or the economy tanks.
If risk is not enough to balance rewards, then the devs either roll back the rewards or increase the risk.

Local intel is a disaster for PvE in null, because it gives hostile outsiders all the information they need, while only upgrading local residents the difference between their intel channel and itself.
Need to find a pilot to hunt? Knowing they are in the system is OP for a hunter who would have otherwise left after a few minutes fruitless searching.
Instead of leaving for better hunting areas, they stay put because they see pilots in local. Cloaked at a belt, docked in a POS, or kicking back in an outpost, they are being flawlessly tracked.

And no amount of effort on the part of PvE can hide the presence from being handed to the hunter on a silver platter.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#920 - 2013-09-11 19:35:04 UTC
virgofire wrote:
Wow quick to get defensive, are we?

No honestly, I think it's you and a few others that commonly post on this topic that are trying to smoke screen issues. Your suggestions aren't bad suggestions. I never said that, but they do feel like you are trying to tell people how to play the game instead of "teaching" as you claim.


Bunk.

Its called advice.

And when you think about the people complaining about AFK cloaking aren't simply telling people how to play the game, they are outright prohibiting a type of play via the a game change...one that I an others have argued is unbalancing.

So, get off your frigging high horse. Roll

As for local being broken, it is. For example, here is CCP Explorer:

https://twitter.com/erlendur/status/284995879482585088

There is this article as well:

http://interstellarprivateer.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/unbreaking-local/

And this one:

http://themittani.com/features/local-problem-tale-two-solutions

Local is a bad game mechanic

"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