These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

So why do people hate cloaking?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#381 - 2013-07-21 22:22:47 UTC
Rishna Katar wrote:

yes, but afk miners and afk ratters can be found and killed. afk travellers too. they all run a risk by beign afk. afk cloakers do not. im not saying dont let them afk cloak, im saying make it have risk


You can bait out an AFK cloaker you know. I've splatted a number of them.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#382 - 2013-07-21 22:22:52 UTC
Rishna Katar wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Rishna Katar wrote:

but afk cloaking take no effort to do, so you are saying that its ok for an element of the game that you yourself are saying has an active impact in the game world to be able to be performed without being at your keyboard? its the equivalent of botting without having to push any keys or move the mouse



Like AFK mining? Like AFK hauling? Like AFK ratting which still happens.

EVE online allows a lot of afk or semi afk things. Just because you don't like them don't make them against the rules. I sometimes afk ships from jita to near low sec so i can jump them down to null the next day. Is that also wrong?

yes, but afk miners and afk ratters can be found and killed. afk travellers too. they all run a risk by beign afk. afk cloakers do not. im not saying dont let them afk cloak, im saying make it have risk


if they cloak in the wrong spot, they can be decloaked and if they are afk they could come back to a dead ship and a clone activation.

But thats moot, those other AFKrs are gaining actual material gains from their afk activity. The "afk cloaker" gets nothing except MAYBE the inactivity of cowards. By properly preparing (read this thread I psoted my anti afk claoker phoon) against the afk cloaker, you can make sure that they don't even get THAT much satisfaction.

But apprently that's too hard for some people. Too bad I say, the game needs no extra tools to conmpensate for the mental failures of players.
Rishna Katar
Doomheim
#383 - 2013-07-21 22:27:20 UTC
Doc Fury wrote:
Rishna Katar wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Rishna Katar wrote:

but afk cloaking take no effort to do, so you are saying that its ok for an element of the game that you yourself are saying has an active impact in the game world to be able to be performed without being at your keyboard? its the equivalent of botting without having to push any keys or move the mouse



Like AFK mining? Like AFK hauling? Like AFK ratting which still happens.

EVE online allows a lot of afk or semi afk things. Just because you don't like them don't make them against the rules. I sometimes afk ships from jita to near low sec so i can jump them down to null the next day. Is that also wrong?

yes, but afk miners and afk ratters can be found and killed. afk travellers too. they all run a risk by beign afk. afk cloakers do not.


Not true. afk cloakers can in fact be killed, ways to accomplish that pepper this thread and the dozens of other ones that came before it here

the only way an afk cloaker can be found is if you dont cloak before you land on your safe or if you save is directly between two celestials or at a celestial and a hunting party drops on you by luck.

as an idea of the luck involved in dropping on a proper safe, a 1 au system would have over 26000 trillion possible grids, so you'd have a 1 in 26000T chance of landing on the same grid by chance.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#384 - 2013-07-21 22:28:33 UTC
Rishna Katar wrote:

the only way an afk cloaker can be found is if you dont cloak before you land on your safe or if you save is directly between two celestials or at a celestial and a hunting party drops on you by luck.

.



Just empty out the system and wait till he tries to follow you.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#385 - 2013-07-21 22:28:52 UTC
Quote:
ill try to simplify
afk cloakers have no associated risk, have an effect on the gameworld


They do NOT have an effect on the gameworld. They are, literally by definition, not doing a damn thing.

They have an effect on cowards who allow it to effect them. How do you not see the distinction?

Someone's reaction is their fault, and their fault alone. It's the people who don't want to take responsibility for fleeing their system from a a single player in a frigate who come onto the forums to whine. Luckily, their opinion doesn't matter to anyone but themselves and their facebook page.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#386 - 2013-07-21 22:29:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Doc Fury
Rishna Katar wrote:
Doc Fury wrote:
Rishna Katar wrote:
the problem is that we dont have the tools to separate afk cloakers from non afk cloakers. nothing more.


So then for balance's sake then we need the same for all pilots, including anyone who is docked. Call it an "AFK indicator flag".


See how stupid that sounds? Whether someone is afk or not is irrelevant, the problem here is not knowing someone's intentions, and you cannot fix that via changing a game mechanic. It's only fixed by natural selection.

but a docked player can be identified as docked. afk or not. and that eliminates the threat. you can use the tools of docking and d-scans to moitor that threat. an afk cloaker is completely unidentifiable. it really amazes me that you guys really cant tell the difference between the concepts. maybe im not explaining myself well enough.

ill try to simplify
afk cloakers have no associated risk, have an effect on the gameworld and cannot be identified as no threat, cannot be found and cannot be removed. they can effect the game 23/7 with no effort beyond logging on and clicking once.


Someone docked also has no "associated risk" in that regard, and can provide intel and can potentially uncloak undock and gank someone who left station but not local. Not to mention they can uncloak undock and hot drop some friends (if applicable). All of this with no associated risk using your standards as the measuring stick.

So, how do you know someone is cloaked, other than you can't seem to locate them other than via local? That damn uncertainty again. Cloaking is the logical guess, but you cannot ever be 100% sure. How do you know they are afk with 100% certainty?

☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Kijo Rikki
Killboard Padding Services
#387 - 2013-07-21 22:29:48 UTC
Rishna Katar wrote:

but a docked player can be identified as docked. afk or not. and that eliminates the threat. you can use the tools of docking and d-scans to moitor that threat.


I doubt you keep tabs on station at all times. When I'm docked I'd certainly notice players who have been there long enough to be reasonably assumed to be afk. Even if they are not I doubt they stare incessantly at the guest list, its more likely they are looking at the market or playing with ship fittings, I could take a gamble and undock in a hunter, and if I've done any prior intelligence work, I'd have a rough idea where to go to try to catch some unsuspecting victims.

I like that you pointed out the dscan, amazingly this works for cloaks too, though honestly they will probably try to decloak in point range or even be ballsy to try to go for a decloak bump. Either way, if you're vigilant enough to pump d-scan to try to catch a red you might have missed from undocking in local and be smart enough to realize what is coming in s hunter ship, then you shouldn't have any problem being vigilant enough to react to a decloaking ship.

Quote:

an afk cloaker is completely unidentifiable. it really amazes me that you guys really cant tell the difference between the concepts. maybe im not explaining myself well enough.

ill try to simplify
afk cloakers have no associated risk, have an effect on the gameworld and cannot be identified as no threat, cannot be found and cannot be removed. they can effect the game 23/7 with no effort beyond logging on and clicking once.


Again, I hope you realized I broke your logic. While I'm at it, lets break the other two: If you got cajones, you can go about doing your thing and if he thinks to try to attack, well then, he indeed can be found, and he can be removed all at once.

You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam. 
Rishna Katar
Doomheim
#388 - 2013-07-21 22:34:06 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Rishna Katar wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

And for some reason they refuse to accept the idea that if you prepare properly, it done'st MATTER what their intentions are lol.

It's because they don't want to learn, they want an external FIX to their internal problem (that problem being their fear and laziness and lack of creativity).

see my previous comment. theres no point banging on and on about how they carebears are doing it wrong. they will keep doing it that way no matter what you say. and as such null will remain dead while they remain docked. if you think you can convince the whole of null to stop docking up then go right ahead and demonstrate this power. if not then why not suggest something that doesnt require changing the mindset of thousands of people that helps null be less dead.


I don't care what other people do. I'm not trying to convince people to not dock up, i'm saying that the fact that they do demonstrates a problem with THEM, not the game.

The game provides enough tools, it doesn't need more just because people are to lazy, dumb or entitled to use them.

like i said many times it really doesnt matter where the problem lies with the player or the game. the only thing that matters is effect. the effect is that its pointless to roam null cos its empty, so a massive portion of space is just empty of players. the effect is what needs to be changed. it wont change if your response is simply "deal with it" since they wont "deal with it" they'll just keep docking and leaving the space empty.

Kijo Rikki wrote:
It's been said over and over, but I'll try again. It doesn't matter what the intentions of a cloaked player are if you are prepared to deal with it. That really should be the slogan for null-sec: Be ready for anything.

While some think it's not fair that a cloaked player who may not even be at his keyboard should have so much control over what others do, I contend that not only should you be ready for anything at any time even when no hostiles are in system at all, but that it is certainly not fair that the only effort you have to put into defending yourself in nullsec is watching for when a red or neutral pops up in local and bug out. It really shouldn't be that easy for you and no, you don't deserve that much safety in the lucrative but shark infested waters of null.

PS: When you play with a mindset to be ready for anything, it just so happens that an afk player has no control over how you are playing, because you were already playing that way. It's only a problem when the way you want to play is to fully fit your miners for maximum yield or bling out your officer fit ratting ships and sit still and unaligned to safes and even go afk because intelligence tells you there isnt anyone for miles, and as soon as a neut pops up in local you scoot to a safe before he can land.

Honestly, that's what its about. Deny all you want, most simply want greater safety than highsec and reap the rewards of nullsec.

see above. exact same thing applies. this is not a discussion on whether its right or wrogn that people dock and whether they can or cannot deal with it. they can. we know they can, its been suggested. but they wont. so if the game doesnt change null stays dead. pretty much the only place to roam at the moment is low sec where you need to be super careful of gate camps and wormholes which take ages to navigate. null would be a great place to hunt if it wasnt dead.
Rishna Katar
Doomheim
#389 - 2013-07-21 22:38:32 UTC
Kijo Rikki wrote:
Rishna Katar wrote:

but a docked player can be identified as docked. afk or not. and that eliminates the threat. you can use the tools of docking and d-scans to moitor that threat.


I doubt you keep tabs on station at all times. When I'm docked I'd certainly notice players who have been there long enough to be reasonably assumed to be afk. Even if they are not I doubt they stare incessantly at the guest list, its more likely they are looking at the market or playing with ship fittings, I could take a gamble and undock in a hunter, and if I've done any prior intelligence work, I'd have a rough idea where to go to try to catch some unsuspecting victims.

I like that you pointed out the dscan, amazingly this works for cloaks too, though honestly they will probably try to decloak in point range or even be ballsy to try to go for a decloak bump. Either way, if you're vigilant enough to pump d-scan to try to catch a red you might have missed from undocking in local and be smart enough to realize what is coming in s hunter ship, then you shouldn't have any problem being vigilant enough to react to a decloaking ship.

Quote:

an afk cloaker is completely unidentifiable. it really amazes me that you guys really cant tell the difference between the concepts. maybe im not explaining myself well enough.

ill try to simplify
afk cloakers have no associated risk, have an effect on the gameworld and cannot be identified as no threat, cannot be found and cannot be removed. they can effect the game 23/7 with no effort beyond logging on and clicking once.


Again, I hope you realized I broke your logic. While I'm at it, lets break the other two: If you got cajones, you can go about doing your thing and if he thinks to try to attack, well then, he indeed can be found, and he can be removed all at once.

i dont even know what you are tryign to say here? null players like to be carebears and dock up as they have no cajones. yes, we know. they wont go about doeing their thing, hence, null is dead. this whole post has nearly no relation to the rest of the posts as it can be tldr as "null players are cowards" which we already know. and nothing will change that, so they need to be given more of a reason to undock.
Kijo Rikki
Killboard Padding Services
#390 - 2013-07-21 22:39:23 UTC
Rishna Katar wrote:

see above. exact same thing applies. this is not a discussion on whether its right or wrogn that people dock and whether they can or cannot deal with it. they can. we know they can, its been suggested. but they wont. so if the game doesnt change null stays dead. pretty much the only place to roam at the moment is low sec where you need to be super careful of gate camps and wormholes which take ages to navigate. null would be a great place to hunt if it wasnt dead.


This is not an inherent problem with afk cloaking, its a problem with the type of player.

Have you ever been to a dead end system that has a million bubbles on the only gate in? Got a pretty good bunch of players, that are generating 0 content for the playerbase. They might as well not even be there because all they do is dock the instant something comes in. The system migth as well be empty.

You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam. 
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#391 - 2013-07-21 22:39:23 UTC
Quote:
like i said many times it really doesnt matter where the problem lies with the player or the game. the only thing that matters is effect. the effect is that its pointless to roam null cos its empty, so a massive portion of space is just empty of players. the effect is what needs to be changed. it wont change if your response is simply "deal with it" since they wont "deal with it" they'll just keep docking and leaving the space empty.


Completely wrong.

If a circumstance, as you seem to have at least partially yielded, is the fault of the player, then that player can correct the situation himself.

It's very literally the difference between a problem CCP has to fix, like gas clouds causing ridiculous lag, and a problem the player has to fix for themselves, like afk cloaking.

If they refuse to deal with it (because "deal with it" is the right answer), then they suffer the consequences appropriately. Incorrect play should be punished. And in this case, it is.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Rishna Katar
Doomheim
#392 - 2013-07-21 22:40:20 UTC
Doc Fury wrote:
Rishna Katar wrote:
Doc Fury wrote:
Rishna Katar wrote:
the problem is that we dont have the tools to separate afk cloakers from non afk cloakers. nothing more.


So then for balance's sake then we need the same for all pilots, including anyone who is docked. Call it an "AFK indicator flag".


See how stupid that sounds? Whether someone is afk or not is irrelevant, the problem here is not knowing someone's intentions, and you cannot fix that via changing a game mechanic. It's only fixed by natural selection.

but a docked player can be identified as docked. afk or not. and that eliminates the threat. you can use the tools of docking and d-scans to moitor that threat. an afk cloaker is completely unidentifiable. it really amazes me that you guys really cant tell the difference between the concepts. maybe im not explaining myself well enough.

ill try to simplify
afk cloakers have no associated risk, have an effect on the gameworld and cannot be identified as no threat, cannot be found and cannot be removed. they can effect the game 23/7 with no effort beyond logging on and clicking once.


Someone docked also has no "associated risk" in that regard, and can provide intel and can potentially uncloak undock and gank someone who left station but not local. Not to mention they can uncloak undock and hot drop some friends (if applicable). All of this with no associated risk.

So, how do you know someone is cloaked, other than you can't seem to locate them other than via local? That damn uncertainty again. Cloaking is the logical guess, but you cannot ever be 100% sure. How do you know they are afk with 100% certainty?

someone docked can be identified as docked and can be watched. afk cloakers can't. this is the point you dont know if they are afk. thats the whole point of what im saying. im saying theres hould be tools to make that distinction.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#393 - 2013-07-21 22:40:58 UTC
A lot of the docking is having the right ship for the job.

Most of the time if you aren't roaming yourself you are NOT in a ship that you want to be PvPing with, because of fit, price, role or whatever.

So you dock.
Once a cloaker becomes persistant its simply a matter of playing cat and mouse, or just going somewhere else.
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#394 - 2013-07-21 22:42:30 UTC
Rishna Katar wrote:
"null players are cowards" which we already know. and nothing will change that, so they need to be given more of a reason to undock.


CCP gave the players the tools already (if you believe EVE is a sandbox), it's up to the players to use those tools. It's not up to CCP to intervene on behalf of the risk averse they can and will be replaced.

What's that axiom again... risk vs. reward?

☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Alaekessa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
#395 - 2013-07-21 22:43:38 UTC
I <3 cloaking, I can't wait until we get more than a spawn cloak in Dust.

I wonder if anyone **cough**Cat Merc**cough** will make a pro cloaking thread on the Dust forums.
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#396 - 2013-07-21 22:45:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Doc Fury
Rishna Katar wrote:

someone docked can be identified as docked and can be watched. afk cloakers can't. this is the point you dont know if they are afk. thats the whole point of what im saying. im saying theres hould be tools to make that distinction.


How do you know if someone docked is afk or not? if they uncloak undock they can do those bad things. And you don;t know anything until they leave the security of the cloak station.

See my previous post regarding the "AFK indication flag".

The problem isn't afk or not. the problem is fear and entitlement and depending on local as an intelligence tool.

☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Rishna Katar
Doomheim
#397 - 2013-07-21 22:45:28 UTC
Kijo Rikki wrote:
Rishna Katar wrote:

see above. exact same thing applies. this is not a discussion on whether its right or wrogn that people dock and whether they can or cannot deal with it. they can. we know they can, its been suggested. but they wont. so if the game doesnt change null stays dead. pretty much the only place to roam at the moment is low sec where you need to be super careful of gate camps and wormholes which take ages to navigate. null would be a great place to hunt if it wasnt dead.


This is not an inherent problem with afk cloaking, its a problem with the type of player.

Have you ever been to a dead end system that has a million bubbles on the only gate in? Got a pretty good bunch of players, that are generating 0 content for the playerbase. They might as well not even be there because all they do is dock the instant something comes in. The system migth as well be empty.

yes! it is a problem with the player!
ive said this over and over please dear god read before you post.
you cant change the players though, so null will remain dead. so either go convince null players to not be cowards or find another way to make them feel more secure so they will actually be undocked when your hunting them.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
like i said many times it really doesnt matter where the problem lies with the player or the game. the only thing that matters is effect. the effect is that its pointless to roam null cos its empty, so a massive portion of space is just empty of players. the effect is what needs to be changed. it wont change if your response is simply "deal with it" since they wont "deal with it" they'll just keep docking and leaving the space empty.


Completely wrong.

If a circumstance, as you seem to have at least partially yielded, is the fault of the player, then that player can correct the situation himself.

It's very literally the difference between a problem CCP has to fix, like gas clouds causing ridiculous lag, and a problem the player has to fix for themselves, like afk cloaking.

If they refuse to deal with it (because "deal with it" is the right answer), then they suffer the consequences appropriately. Incorrect play should be punished. And in this case, it is.

i havent partially yielded anything. ive said over and over the players reaction is what gives afk cloakers power. but you cant change them as i said above. so the system has to change or null stays dead.

i just have to add that this post fills up pretty quick with you guys repeating yourselves a lot and very little of it is constructive. you should realise however that you wont change my stance. why not add something constructive such as alternative solutions to null deadness? you can keep tellign me that its the players fault an null players should stop being cowards and i agree wholeheartedly, but that doesnt really get us anywhere, since none of us can change the playerbase.
Rishna Katar
Doomheim
#398 - 2013-07-21 22:47:10 UTC
Doc Fury wrote:
Rishna Katar wrote:
"null players are cowards" which we already know. and nothing will change that, so they need to be given more of a reason to undock.


CCP gave the players the tools already (if you believe EVE is a sandbox), it's up to the players to use those tools. It's not up to CCP to intervene on behalf of the risk averse they can and will be replaced.

What's that axiom again... risk vs. reward?

so what tool do you have for finding out if a cloaker is afk?
ccp add and change tools all the time to help players accomplish different tasks. this is no different.
Rishna Katar
Doomheim
#399 - 2013-07-21 22:48:41 UTC
Alaekessa wrote:
I <3 cloaking, I can't wait until we get more than a spawn cloak in Dust.

I wonder if anyone **cough**Cat Merc**cough** will make a pro cloaking thread on the Dust forums.

cloaking is fine and afk cloakign wouldnt affect dust.
tbh, i dont even mind that afk cloaking exists.
i just hate that null is so empty because half the systems have an afk cloaker keeping them empty. its hearbreaking to go 40 jumps not null and not see a single ship on d-scan to play with.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#400 - 2013-07-21 22:49:09 UTC
Rishna Katar wrote:

like i said many times it really doesnt matter where the problem lies with the player or the game. the only thing that matters is effect. the effect is that its pointless to roam null cos its empty, so a massive portion of space is just empty of players. the effect is what needs to be changed. it wont change if your response is simply "deal with it" since they wont "deal with it" they'll just keep docking and leaving the space empty.


This is exactly wrong. And i mean in lots of ways lol. We went roaming in Providence today and got some kills, so that part you said about roaming is demonstratably untrue.

But the big part is that it doesn't matter where the "problem" comes from. That's wrong. where the problem comes from is ALL that matters.

If the problem is with the game, it's wrong and should be changed. If the problem is from the players, the game should not be changed to cater to bad people, rather, the players should change.

They won't of course, but oh well. Changing a game that works so that people who can't stand the loss of imaginary spaceships is the most pitiful thing I could think of.

On top of all that, it jsut doesn't work. CCP has made many changes aimed at getting people to fight more or move around more or do whatever. It NEVER works (like the anom nerf that was supposed to spur conflcit but just ended up sending people to PVE in high sec lol).

Learn to leave well enough alone. EVE online works as is.