These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1661 - 2013-09-23 11:27:59 UTC
Aivo Dresden wrote:
I've lived in 0.0 and I've lost a few ratting ships to single recons ganking me. You know what I did about it? I went to a system 4-5 jumps away from the station, on route to a dead end system. I took my own PvP alt with me, when I wanted to go make some ISK. You know what happened next time a recon tried to gank me? He got BBQ'd. After 2-3 times, I never saw him again. I didn't care if you're there AFK in local. Why should i? As soon as I see you uncloak next to me though, my alt will warp in and I'll gank you right back.

If it's just a Covops anyway, then why do you bother? Should a cyno go up, you get out. This really isn't a problem, unless you're of course AFK mining / ratting yourself. In which case I can totally understand your problem.
Congratulations? A mining ship can do nothing to defend so you have to dock. After that, if it's a combat ship, I'll undocck in a combat ship to fight it. If it's a covops, it's just going to avoid me forever, so there's no point fighting it.

Aivo Dresden wrote:
You somehow feel entitled to do industry without risk. To make ISK without risk. You feel like that's how it should be because you put efford in taking or renting 0.0 space. That's not how it works though. Why don't you just look for solutions ingame, instead of asking for game changes? Why don't you make your own security force and keep your industrialists safe?
Are you even reading before you post? I don't want less risk from active players, I just want the AFK ones to **** off. How is it less risk for an AFK player to not be there? It just means that in the same way you want me to put in the effort, the enemy has to as well. That's called balance.

Aivo Dresden wrote:
Unless you are **** scared of everything that isn't blue, how exactly is an AFK pilot a threat to you? Are you that scared to undock when there's a neutral / red in local?
I won't undock a hulk with a neut/red in local, and since I mine/rat between operations, wasting my time chasing a covops that may or may not be there is not what I fancy doing.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1662 - 2013-09-23 11:45:25 UTC  |  Edited by: TheGunslinger42
Lucas Kell wrote:
]LOL. so the covops ship refusing to engage without certainty of success is not a carebear? A guy who's not even willing to put his name on the line, instead making an alt to sit in a system all day to disrupt operations, he's not a carebear? Don't talk ****. The cloakers are some heroic elite combatants, they are just as bad as anyone else. The only difference being they want MORE ability to hide and MORE ability to surprise ratting and mining ships, while all we want is for cloakers to be at their PC to disrupt us. I don't think that's much to ask.

It's all the "kill local" guys that are talking about cloak finding probes and all that. I'm happy with the idea of an AFK cloaker getting warped (still cloaked) to deaspace and getting an icon in local to indicate this, then auto warping back (still cloaked) to where they were upon return. This would resolve the issue, and only affect AFK cloakers, while making nobody have to lose anything.


Compare the number of topics asking for the removal or nerfing of local compared to the number of topics asking for cloaks to be nerfed. We are not the ones begging for changes - that's you. Our response to your one sided changes range from "leave it as is" to "fix the problem in it's entirety, and not just a hamfisted, extremely biased nerf which results in perfect safety".

Even if we WERE asking for more... do you not think it's perhaps because - as you have literally stated yourself - you have 100% chance to escape unless you encounter a glitch, get stuck in scenery, or whatever?

You are bemoaning the fact that the side, who by your own admission have zero chance to succeed, are asking for a chance to succeed?

The hypocrisy, the entitlement, it is astounding
Aivo Dresden
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1663 - 2013-09-23 11:49:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Aivo Dresden
Lucas Kell wrote:
Congratulations? A mining ship can do nothing to defend so you have to dock. After that, if it's a combat ship, I'll undocck in a combat ship to fight it. If it's a covops, it's just going to avoid me forever, so there's no point fighting it.

Yes, but hey, you're not getting ganked anymore!

You know there are places in 0.0 where this isn't a problem at all right? You know how they got rid of the cloakers? You guessed it, they kept their own PvP alts handy and killed them every time they tried to pull a move.

But sure, how about you keep refusing to adapt, keep refusing to take a PvP alt with you, keep losing your ships and keep complaining about it here instead. Sounds like a much better idea. Roll

TheGunslinger42 wrote:
The hypocrisy, the entitlement, it is astounding

I totally agree with this. You only want changes so you can go back to doing your old thing, in perfect safety. Make your boat loads of ISK without being troubled.

Why don't we all play the game like you want us to play, instead of playing like we would like to ourselves.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1664 - 2013-09-23 11:57:14 UTC  |  Edited by: TheGunslinger42
Lucas Kell wrote:
Are you even reading before you post? I don't want less risk from active players, I just want the AFK ones to **** off. How is it less risk for an AFK player to not be there? It just means that in the same way you want me to put in the effort, the enemy has to as well. That's called balance.


The contradiction in this paragraph is so big and so blatant I don't understand how you could have typed it up and not had an aneurism. You imply that the risk from active players is fine, but want the risk from "AFK" players to be removed. Then you imply there is no removal of risk if the player was AFK to begin with. Which is it, friend Lucas? Are they no risk at all (this is the side I agree with) or are they a risk despite being AFK? You claim it's unfair or badly designed that an AFK player can be a risk to you, but when we point out that removing them would therefore reduce risk, you claim it wouldn't because they were AFK and no risk? How does you process this?

You can't have your cake and eat it too, my dear friend.
JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman
#1665 - 2013-09-23 11:57:26 UTC  |  Edited by: JIeoH Mocc
Lucas Kell wrote:
wasting my time chasing a covops that may or may not be there is not what I fancy doing.

Well then, you'll have to (eventually) accept that despite you being entitled to your fancies, it's not good enough of a reason to whine for mechanics changes... or is it?

TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Are you even reading before you post? I don't want less risk from active players, I just want the AFK ones to **** off. How is it less risk for an AFK player to not be there? It just means that in the same way you want me to put in the effort, the enemy has to as well. That's called balance.


The contradiction in this paragraph is so big and so blatant I don't understand how you could have typed it up and not had an aneurism. You imply that the risk from active players is fine, but want the risk from "AFK" players to be removed. Then you imply there is no removal of risk if the player was AFK to begin with. Which is it, friend Lucas? Are they no risk at all (this is the side I agree with) or are they a risk despite being AFK? You claim it's unfair or badly designed that an AFK player can be a risk to you, but when we point out that removing them would therefore reduce risk claim it wouldn't because they were AFK and no risk? How does you process this?

You can't have your cake and eat it too, my dear friend.


Why did you post this, i missed it in the first place, but read it now and just had an aneurism explode =(
Aivo Dresden
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1666 - 2013-09-23 12:02:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Aivo Dresden
I think what you really want is to just remove the cloakers all together. Because you'll still get ganked regardless of the AFK ones being removed or not. You'll still get active cloaked players fly in and kill your ships. You'll still get active cloakers fly in and cyno in drops.

Lucas Kell wrote:
[quote=Aivo Dresden]I won't undock a hulk with a neut/red in local, and since I mine/rat between operations, wasting my time chasing a covops that may or may not be there is not what I fancy doing.

So you do want effortless and riskfree ISK then after all?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1667 - 2013-09-23 12:03:37 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Compare the number of topics asking for the removal or nerfing of local compared to the number of topics asking for cloaks to be nerfed. We are not the ones begging for changes - that's you. Our response to your one sided changes range from "leave it as is" to "fix the problem in it's entirety, and not just a hamfisted, extremely biased nerf which results in perfect safety".

Even if we WERE asking for more... do you not think it's perhaps because - as you have literally stated yourself - you have 100% chance to escape unless you encounter a glitch, get stuck in scenery, or whatever?

You are bemoaning the fact that the side, who by your own admission have zero chance to succeed, are asking for a chance to succeed?

The hypocrisy, the entitlement, it is astounding
Bullshit. All I want is players to HAVE TO PLAY THE GAME. I don't think that's entitlement. You on the other hand want ways to guarantee easy miner kills with your scout ship. No matter how you put it, that's what you want.

Entitlement would be me wanting to have ways to keep people out so I can mine and rat with no threat at all. That's not the case. You can feel free to bring 1000 people in as long as they are actually playing. Some random alt AFKing all day though being part of the game is moronic, and doesn't help content generation.

The fact that you keep boiling this down to some kind of want for safety clearly means you don;t understand or don;t bother reading what is being said. By all means continue to tell me how I'm just crying and want a risk free null, while you petition for your risk free miner ganks from your covops scout ship, while trying to make all non covops ships pointless to fly.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman
#1668 - 2013-09-23 12:05:13 UTC
Aivo Dresden wrote:
I think what you really want is to just remove the cloakers all together. Because you'll still get ganked regardless of the AFK ones being removed or not. You'll still get active cloaked players fly in and kill your ships. You'll still get active cloakers fly in and cyno in drops.


Nah, he wouldn't have to figure out the dilemma of whether the cloaky presents a threat or not. No uncertainty at all -
If someone's in local and not on scan -> cloaky. If cloaky -> Not AFK - > Threat -> stay docked or bugger off to another system, where there's 99% safety.
Azrael Dinn
Imperial Mechanics
#1669 - 2013-09-23 12:07:21 UTC
JIeoH Mocc wrote:
Azrael Dinn wrote:

Why cannot I find the cloaked ship even if I wanted to?

Because it's cloaked, duh. Pretty much ths same as I'd ask why can't I shoot some carebear who's under the POS field, i mean we've already agreed that he has 99% certainty to make it there in good health.


Now see you have a problem in your logic. You can kill the carebear underneath the pos shields. You just need to kill the tower first or bum him out from there. And if that wont give you more pvp then what will?

After centuries of debating and justifying... Break Cloaks tm
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1670 - 2013-09-23 12:07:47 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Are you even reading before you post? I don't want less risk from active players, I just want the AFK ones to **** off. How is it less risk for an AFK player to not be there? It just means that in the same way you want me to put in the effort, the enemy has to as well. That's called balance.


The contradiction in this paragraph is so big and so blatant I don't understand how you could have typed it up and not had an aneurism. You imply that the risk from active players is fine, but want the risk from "AFK" players to be removed. Then you imply there is no removal of risk if the player was AFK to begin with. Which is it, friend Lucas? Are they no risk at all (this is the side I agree with) or are they a risk despite being AFK? You claim it's unfair or badly designed that an AFK player can be a risk to you, but when we point out that removing them would therefore reduce risk, you claim it wouldn't because they were AFK and no risk? How does you process this?

You can't have your cake and eat it too, my dear friend.
Seriously?
Do you speak english?
Where did I say AFK players have risk? I simply said I want them to **** off. They add the appearance of an active cloaker, invoking a response, while putting in no effort. As far as I am concerned AFK miner, AFK cloakers, botters, etc, all are in the same barrel and they do nothing for the content of the game.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Aivo Dresden
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1671 - 2013-09-23 12:08:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Aivo Dresden
Lucas Kell wrote:
Bullshit. All I want is players to HAVE TO PLAY THE GAME. I don't think that's entitlement. You on the other hand want ways to guarantee easy miner kills with your scout ship. No matter how you put it, that's what you want.

Wouldn't this require him to be not AFK then? If he was AFK he woulnd't be able to kill you in the first place? So your problem is not with the AFKers, but with the ones that are activily playing and killing you?

Lucas Kell wrote:
Entitlement would be me wanting to have ways to keep people out so I can mine and rat with no threat at all. That's not the case. You can feel free to bring 1000 people in as long as they are actually playing. Some random alt AFKing all day though being part of the game is moronic, and doesn't help content generation.

If he is AFK and not doing anything, how is he hindering your ISK income or even affecting your game play at all? Is the terror that 1 neutral or red brings to the system really that great, that everyone there feels the need to urgently dock up?

Lucas Kell wrote:
The fact that you keep boiling this down to some kind of want for safety clearly means you don;t understand or don;t bother reading what is being said. By all means continue to tell me how I'm just crying and want a risk free null, while you petition for your risk free miner ganks from your covops scout ship, while trying to make all non covops ships pointless to fly.

Again, if you got ganked and killed, wouldn't that mean the player was actually playing? I don't see how an AFK ship floating in space without being controlled could have killed you.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1672 - 2013-09-23 12:08:52 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Bullshit. All I want is players to HAVE TO PLAY THE GAME. I don't think that's entitlement. You on the other hand want ways to guarantee easy miner kills with your scout ship. No matter how you put it, that's what you want.

Entitlement would be me wanting to have ways to keep people out so I can mine and rat with no threat at all. That's not the case. You can feel free to bring 1000 people in as long as they are actually playing. Some random alt AFKing all day though being part of the game is moronic, and doesn't help content generation.

The fact that you keep boiling this down to some kind of want for safety clearly means you don;t understand or don;t bother reading what is being said. By all means continue to tell me how I'm just crying and want a risk free null, while you petition for your risk free miner ganks from your covops scout ship, while trying to make all non covops ships pointless to fly.


That is not what I want at all, friend. I am saddened that despite spending 80 pages explaining what I want - both sides to have a chance to succeed - you are still attacking an argument I never made.

As for wanting players to "HAVE TO PLAY THE GAME"... why? What difference does it make to you? You just stated on this page that removing AFK players would not reduce risk because an AFK player by definition cannot be a risk.

So why do you want them removed, if not simply for your own peace of mind?
Aivo Dresden
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1673 - 2013-09-23 12:11:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Aivo Dresden
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
AFK players would not reduce risk because an AFK player by definition cannot be a risk. So why do you want them removed, if not simply for your own peace of mind?

This pretty much hits the nail on the head doesn't it?

There also seems to be some confusion regarding this AFK cloakers thing. You keep bringing up 'easy miner kills'. Obviously the people doing the killing are not AFK, so why do you keep bringing them in to the discussion?
JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman
#1674 - 2013-09-23 12:11:29 UTC
Azrael Dinn wrote:
JIeoH Mocc wrote:
Azrael Dinn wrote:

Why cannot I find the cloaked ship even if I wanted to?

Because it's cloaked, duh. Pretty much ths same as I'd ask why can't I shoot some carebear who's under the POS field, i mean we've already agreed that he has 99% certainty to make it there in good health.


Now see you have a problem in your logic. You can kill the carebear underneath the pos shields. You just need to kill the tower first or bum him out from there. And if that wont give you more pvp then what will?


Sophism.
Set a a bait for the cloaky, and kill him. That's pretty much the same reasoning, eh.

Lucas Kell wrote:
Some random alt AFKing all day though being part of the game is moronic, and doesn't help content generation.


Yeah right, see it generated like gazillion pages of content right here =), and there's the threads before and plenty more to come.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1675 - 2013-09-23 12:11:45 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Are you even reading before you post? I don't want less risk from active players, I just want the AFK ones to **** off. How is it less risk for an AFK player to not be there? It just means that in the same way you want me to put in the effort, the enemy has to as well. That's called balance.


The contradiction in this paragraph is so big and so blatant I don't understand how you could have typed it up and not had an aneurism. You imply that the risk from active players is fine, but want the risk from "AFK" players to be removed. Then you imply there is no removal of risk if the player was AFK to begin with. Which is it, friend Lucas? Are they no risk at all (this is the side I agree with) or are they a risk despite being AFK? You claim it's unfair or badly designed that an AFK player can be a risk to you, but when we point out that removing them would therefore reduce risk, you claim it wouldn't because they were AFK and no risk? How does you process this?

You can't have your cake and eat it too, my dear friend.
Seriously?
Do you speak english?
Where did I say AFK players have risk? I simply said I want them to **** off. They add the appearance of an active cloaker, invoking a response, while putting in no effort. As far as I am concerned AFK miner, AFK cloakers, botters, etc, all are in the same barrel and they do nothing for the content of the game.


You have said multiple times throughout this topic that AFK cloaked players are a legitimate risk that you must respond to. Forgive me if I don't trawl backwards through pages to find quotes. Luckily, I do not have to - the post I quoted was heavy with that very implication. You said you are fine with the risk presented if the player is ACTIVE, but wish that the AFK players were removed.

But then you state removing them would not reduce risk.

These two things directly contradict each other.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1676 - 2013-09-23 12:20:57 UTC
Aivo Dresden wrote:
I think what you really want is to just remove the cloakers all together. Because you'll still get ganked regardless of the AFK ones being removed or not. You'll still get active cloaked players fly in and kill your ships. You'll still get active cloakers fly in and cyno in drops.
That is entirely fine. As logn as a player is having to put in the effort, they are fully supported in whatever they want to do.

I really can't be arsed to continuously quote trolls.
At the end of the day, players should have to PLAY THE GAME, nothing in EVE should be effort free. That's what you want. Effort free EVE right? You can derail the thread as much as you want, but I'm NOT asking to hunt cloakers I'm NOT asking to nerf cloaks I'm NOT asking for any changes to any active players.

And to be honest I DON'T EVEN CARE if it stays as is. I can keep moving if a cloaker camps local. What I'm objecting to is the idea that it's unbalanced unless local is removed. Yet I'm the "entitled" one
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA morons.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1677 - 2013-09-23 12:22:46 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
You have said multiple times throughout this topic that AFK cloaked players are a legitimate risk that you must respond to. Forgive me if I don't trawl backwards through pages to find quotes. Luckily, I do not have to - the post I quoted was heavy with that very implication. You said you are fine with the risk presented if the player is ACTIVE, but wish that the AFK players were removed.

But then you state removing them would not reduce risk.

These two things directly contradict each other.
No, They give the APPEARANCE OF RISK. I've said it like a hundred times. If you can't read, that's YOUR problem.
Any APPEARANCE OF RISK, must be reacted to in the same way. Thus while an AFK cloaker has no risk, he must be reacted to the same as an active cloaker.
And I'm sure we've covered this last time you got bored and decided to go out trolling.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1678 - 2013-09-23 12:23:32 UTC
You mean you can't be bothered to reply to people who point out glaring contradictions in your posts, friend lucas.

And I have never said that local should be removed, only that some changes to local would need to be made if changes to cloaks were made.
Azrael Dinn
Imperial Mechanics
#1679 - 2013-09-23 12:24:47 UTC
JIeoH Mocc wrote:
Azrael Dinn wrote:
JIeoH Mocc wrote:
Azrael Dinn wrote:

Why cannot I find the cloaked ship even if I wanted to?

Because it's cloaked, duh. Pretty much ths same as I'd ask why can't I shoot some carebear who's under the POS field, i mean we've already agreed that he has 99% certainty to make it there in good health.


Now see you have a problem in your logic. You can kill the carebear underneath the pos shields. You just need to kill the tower first or bum him out from there. And if that wont give you more pvp then what will?


Sophism.
Set a a bait for the cloaky, and kill him. That's pretty much the same reasoning, eh.


It is not. If the cloaked up person does not want to engage me or someone else he will stay hidden as long as he wants and I still cannot not do anything to find, or to stop him or anything else, while if someone is behind the pos shields you can just start shooting the tower and eventualy the shields are gone.

After centuries of debating and justifying... Break Cloaks tm
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1680 - 2013-09-23 12:25:46 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
You mean you can't be bothered to reply to people who point out glaring contradictions in your posts, friend lucas.

And I have never said that local should be removed, only that some changes to local would need to be made if changes to cloaks were made.

No, I mean we've covered this over and over. You refusing to read and instead choosing to repeat your old posts is not worth my time.
I'm going to highlight "if changes to cloaks were made" since I DON'T WANT CLOAK CHANGES. I want AFK PLAYER changes.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.