These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals

First post First post
Author
Haywoud Jablomi
Vay Mining Corporation
#281 - 2015-01-15 17:06:58 UTC
All three of your points are invalid. My example uses no SOV, stations POSs or anything. Just two ships in a system.

Please stop adding to my statements.

The cloak ship has every advantage in all aspects. Some of those are well deserved and I see no problem with them. However I do see where they can be abused to permanently camp a system.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#282 - 2015-01-15 17:19:32 UTC
Haywoud Jablomi wrote:
All three of your points are invalid. My example uses no SOV, stations POSs or anything. Just two ships in a system.

Please stop adding to my statements.

The cloak ship has every advantage in all aspects. Some of those are well deserved and I see no problem with them. However I do see where they can be abused to permanently camp a system.

I pointed out how sov holding systems had an even greater advantage, over simply unclaimed or NPC space.

It is a key detail, that the stereo-typed situation is regarding a cloaked presence in hostile sov space.

As to them permanently camping a system, what of it?

They are not stopping any of your activities. Only YOU can do that.
Apparantly:
You are afraid they will destroy your ship, so you do not undock.
You feel bored just sitting in a ship that can fight back, so you do not undock.
You imply that you cannot know the composition of their possible forces, particularly due to cyno options, so you do not undock.

Why don't you simply do like they do?
Undock in a ship that can either fight back, or avoid the hostiles.
You CAN PvE in evasive or combat capable hulls. It may not be as efficient, but you seem to value the confrontation.
Let the cloaked guy sweat for a change, while you actually play the game.
Haywoud Jablomi
Vay Mining Corporation
#283 - 2015-01-15 17:41:43 UTC
Nikk wrote:

As to them permanently camping a system, what of it?

You CAN PvE in evasive or combat capable hulls. It may not be as efficient, but you seem to value the confrontation.
Let the cloaked guy sweat for a change, while you actually play the game.


Your first statement there makes it clear you have not understood anything of my issue or any of the issues involving the idea of AFK cloaking. The fact that someone CAN permanently camp a system is all I have been concerned with and is the definition of AFK camping. It is exactly the heart of this ENTIRE thread.

You claim they cant do anything. You know that is false though. Let's look at the most basic of things, as I have already provided examples of why losing a ship doesn't matter to me, the fact that I dont hide in a POS or Station when a fight comes, and I am willing to confront the unknown that is behind a cyno.

We all know that a camper brings the potential for a hot drop. That is why they are there. The unknown is what the cloak pilot is banking on. It could be a bluff, it could be legit. So anyone with half a brain that uses that system is going to move to a different area, or come back later when the person leaves. Now let's say they never leave. What effect does that have. From a sov mechanic standpoint it can mean the lose of index ranks for industry and military. This has an overall effect on the corp that calls that area home. That in itself is reason enough to wish to be able to eject the camper but with current game mechanics, that is impossible. Only the cloaked player can make that choice.

Furthermore you make claims that people should do their industry jobs in PVP ships? Not only myself but other people have pointed out how ignorant and pointless this idea is. It would be like me asking you to go PVP in a venture. Yea it's not great but it works, right? That cloaked ship is outfitted to do its job 100% but you suggest that other players should be in ships that only do 50% of their job. The suggestion is mildly insulting.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#284 - 2015-01-15 18:26:51 UTC
Haywoud Jablomi wrote:
Nikk wrote:

As to them permanently camping a system, what of it?

You CAN PvE in evasive or combat capable hulls. It may not be as efficient, but you seem to value the confrontation.
Let the cloaked guy sweat for a change, while you actually play the game.


1 Your first statement there makes it clear you have not understood anything of my issue or any of the issues involving the idea of AFK cloaking. The fact that someone CAN permanently camp a system is all I have been concerned with and is the definition of AFK camping. It is exactly the heart of this ENTIRE thread.

2 You claim they cant do anything. You know that is false though. Let's look at the most basic of things, as I have already provided examples of why losing a ship doesn't matter to me, the fact that I dont hide in a POS or Station when a fight comes, and I am willing to confront the unknown that is behind a cyno.

3 We all know that a camper brings the potential for a hot drop. That is why they are there. The unknown is what the cloak pilot is banking on. It could be a bluff, it could be legit. So anyone with half a brain that uses that system is going to move to a different area, or come back later when the person leaves. Now let's say they never leave. What effect does that have. From a sov mechanic standpoint it can mean the lose of index ranks for industry and military. This has an overall effect on the corp that calls that area home. That in itself is reason enough to wish to be able to eject the camper but with current game mechanics, that is impossible. Only the cloaked player can make that choice.

4 Furthermore you make claims that people should do their industry jobs in PVP ships? Not only myself but other people have pointed out how ignorant and pointless this idea is. It would be like me asking you to go PVP in a venture. Yea it's not great but it works, right? That cloaked ship is outfitted to do its job 100% but you suggest that other players should be in ships that only do 50% of their job. The suggestion is mildly insulting.


1
Actually, the suggestion that cloaking needs to change has never been proven.
AFK camping can be done by anyone who is both AFK, and not located by anyone due to inability or lack of effort.
It has been demonstrated that this effect can be achieved by simply flying to a safe spot, and letting everyone else assume the rest.
This ignores the obvious, that someone can simply sit in an outpost, and achieve that same effect.

2
They can't do anything. That is the ironic aspect of this whole thing.
The threat and supporting details are all being provided by those seeing the supposedly hostile name in local.
In the event they intend genuine harm, first they must stop being AFK, then they must stop being cloaked.
Either state, being AFK or cloaked, is enough to ensure they are harmless. Quite literally.

And the idea that they might attack with little warning, this seems to be the REAL issue.

3
Why are you insulting players who choose to remain present, and possibly need to fight against attackers who were previously cloaked?
Are you trying to justify actions by yourself, or others, who chose avoidance rather than confrontation?
You keep pointing out how we cannot force cloaked players into action, when quite clearly the reverse is also true.

4
Compromise is insulting?
Are we in the sandbox still, where all forms of play are accepted?
So, you are saying that PvE pilots should not need to "compromise" their fittings, in the supposedly most high risk area of space. No mention of getting friends together for mutual defense, or other cooperative tactics.
You are effectively asking for solo or small group play to be made safe against the threat of larger groups of players.

Now, you will tell me I am twisting your words, because I am not limiting myself to your perspective on this, I suppose.

I apologize if that seems to be the case, but perhaps you may wish to consider here your own views being too limited?
Mario Putzo
#285 - 2015-01-15 20:52:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Its funny because even if they kill cloaking you will still have folks sit in systems with tough to probe ships. Example.

[Succubus, New Setup 1]
Micro Auxiliary Power Core II
Overdrive Injector System II
Overdrive Injector System II

Experimental 10MN Afterburner I
ECCM - Radar II
ECCM - Radar II
ECCM - Radar II

[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]

Small Auxiliary Thrusters II
Small Polycarbon Engine Housing I
[empty rig slot]

Whaaaaaa I can't probe this guy plz nerf CCP its not fair!

Only 5K m/s in a straight line cap stable. Have fun probers!
Nendail Smith
Lockheed Nighthawk
#286 - 2015-01-16 00:18:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Nendail Smith
Milla Goodpussy wrote:
Cloaky ships should have a fuel requirement - CCP response... Nothing
Cloaky ships should have a counter - CCP response ... nothing
AFK gameplay should be against the rules - CCP Response.. yeah maybe.. but lets debate on that subject for 4 more years
Give us a Deployable that can scan down cloaked ships - CCP response.. but but but.. that can be exploited.

I give up.. no matter the suggestion ccp always has an excuse to not deal with it.. here we are in 2015 and still these guys refuse to deal with it.. amazing!


CCP could hold you to their naming standards... CCP Response... Nothing.
Nendail Smith
Lockheed Nighthawk
#287 - 2015-01-16 00:23:52 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Rroff wrote:
Sov upgrade that increases (per level) the decloak delay (via signal "distortion") before you can lock (even on ships that don't have a decloak targetting delay normally).

*runs*
*runs some more*
*hides*

(Personally I think they are fine as they are).


What would that accomplish, AFK cloakers won't be there to lock anyway...since they are AFK.


By that logic they aren't there to kill either so they are not a problem.... Seems we've gone full circle now. :)
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#288 - 2015-01-16 02:35:45 UTC
Nendail Smith wrote:
Seems we've gone full circle now. :)



You must be new. Welcome to an afk cloaky thread.

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

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Jenshae Chiroptera
#289 - 2015-01-16 03:03:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
"There is nothing wrong with cloaking! Lalalalalalala.
Shocked
Stop posting thousands of threads about cloaking! There is nothing wrong with it I tell you! Evil "

Tell me how small corps absolutely love hiding in a WH POS until more people come online; for hours and hours because they have no idea how many or what is waiting outside and if they will be able to get home, once they die.

Please also tell me how it is wonderful that many will simply abandon a system, have to set themselves up else where because one guy, who isn't even playing is sitting there with an AFK toon.

Stop beating about the bush. The bush is on fire and you saying the fire is good for your mashmallows doesn't help.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Estella Osoka
Perkone
Caldari State
#290 - 2015-01-16 03:30:12 UTC
Why not just create a deployable mobile structure that creates a 100km no-cloak radius effect, with some of the same restrictions as other deployable structures (easily destroyed, can't be deployed near 50km of stations and gates, etc.)? Then your only worry will be if the AFK cloaker is sitting in the site, but that's not really possible as some sites despawn if you cloak up for too long in them.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#291 - 2015-01-16 05:48:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:


Stop beating about the bush. The bush is on fire and you saying the fire is good for your mashmallows doesn't help.


The bush is on fire because it refused to accept making its home on the bank of an active volcano was dangerous. Instead it whined that its home was meant to be a safe haven despite the surrounding environment and he had a right to be there because he paid his mortgage in monthly installments.

He never admitted that he probably didnt belong anywhere near a volcano in the first place and demanded god did something about the volcano rather than adapt his home or choice of location

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

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Mag's
Azn Empire
#292 - 2015-01-16 07:36:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:


Stop beating about the bush. The bush is on fire and you saying the fire is good for your mashmallows doesn't help.


The bush is on fire because it refused to accept making its home on the bank of an active volcano was dangerous. Instead it whined that its home was meant to be a safe haven despite the surrounding environment and he had a right to be there because he paid his mortgage in monthly installments.

He never admitted that he probably didnt belong anywhere near a volcano in the first place and demanded god did something about the volcano rather than adapt his home or choice of location

But can we please think of those WH dwellers and just how many have complained about AFK pilots in their WH systems, over the years. They may not like having a fiery bush. Lol

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#293 - 2015-01-16 11:06:00 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:


Stop beating about the bush. The bush is on fire and you saying the fire is good for your mashmallows doesn't help.


The bush is on fire because it refused to accept making its home on the bank of an active volcano was dangerous. Instead it whined that its home was meant to be a safe haven despite the surrounding environment and he had a right to be there because he paid his mortgage in monthly installments.

He never admitted that he probably didnt belong anywhere near a volcano in the first place and demanded god did something about the volcano rather than adapt his home or choice of location

But can we please think of those WH dwellers and just how many have complained about AFK pilots in their WH systems, over the years. They may not like having a fiery bush. Lol


This thread had my attention again for a moment there...oh how dissapointed I was...
Neegaliss Rugisa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#294 - 2015-01-16 11:13:07 UTC
How to solve AFK cloaking :

When you are cloak you don't appear in local chan anymore.

Problem solved.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#295 - 2015-01-16 14:19:00 UTC
Neegaliss Rugisa wrote:
How to solve AFK cloaking :

When you are cloak you don't appear in local chan anymore.

Problem solved.

That is almost balanced, but needs a few details specified.

1> You would not be able to see the pilot list for local chat while cloaked.

2> A method must exist to effectively hunt for cloaked vessels, since they are not being displayed.

The balancing act:
Local cancels the power of the cloak, by informing all present exactly who is present in the system.
The cloak cancels the power of local, by creating information that cannot be acted on by those using it for intel.

Both of these are flawed, yet they effectively cancel each other out.
You may not see the balance that exists, unless you have actively played both sides of the issue.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#296 - 2015-01-16 16:11:48 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:


Stop beating about the bush. The bush is on fire and you saying the fire is good for your mashmallows doesn't help.


The bush is on fire because it refused to accept making its home on the bank of an active volcano was dangerous. Instead it whined that its home was meant to be a safe haven despite the surrounding environment and he had a right to be there because he paid his mortgage in monthly installments.

He never admitted that he probably didnt belong anywhere near a volcano in the first place and demanded god did something about the volcano rather than adapt his home or choice of location

But can we please think of those WH dwellers and just how many have complained about AFK pilots in their WH systems, over the years. They may not like having a fiery bush. Lol


This thread had my attention again for a moment there...oh how dissapointed I was...


What WH dwellers? Something like 4% of the entire player population and most of those are wrapped up in large alliance like No Holes Barred.

There is and never really was anyone to make the complaints. Most players look at it and think how there is no way they will try defend that.

I advocate the idea of a SOV structure that can online for a few hours but also takes a few hours to cool down after that, which wipes out cloaks.
Hit back at the AFK cloakers.

Force Recons can also be specific hunters, they can see through cloaks at a given range, can D-scan through cloaks but can't decloak unless they neut it off them or get close enough.

More details in CSM thread.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#297 - 2015-01-16 16:32:47 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
...

I advocate the idea of a SOV structure that can online for a few hours but also takes a few hours to cool down after that, which wipes out cloaks.
Hit back at the AFK cloakers.

Force Recons can also be specific hunters, they can see through cloaks at a given range, can D-scan through cloaks but can't decloak unless they neut it off them or get close enough.

More details in CSM thread.

Why do you want to shift the balance of play in favor of solo / small group PvE play?

Sure, null sec is dangerous, UNLESS you are in your own claimed space.
At that point, depending on how wide your holdings are, it can often be safer than high sec space by a wide margin.
Solo and small group PvE play, in these environments, are already far safer than their counterparts in other areas of the game.
Why do we want to diminish their risk even further?

Outside of their own sov areas, there is no expectation of safety, so AFK cloaking has no meaningful impact.

I believe your approach would shift the balance, and dumb down play inside friendly sov space.
Bobsled Nutcase Motsu
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#298 - 2015-01-16 17:52:59 UTC
Dumb down play for any group, and you spoil that group for the normal game environment.
You have a group of miners and ratters, who are grown used to seeing only friendly names in local.

With only friendly names in local, an awareness of safety exists. This awareness is most often possible in sov null, particularly where player combat is seen less often.
Miners and ratters get used to seeing this intel, which assures them of complete safety. They learn to use it's information to avoid danger when it advises them a bad guy comes into their system.

They forget how to operate without it's guidance. Or they refuse to consider not using it.
So the bad guy with the name in local, who they can't remove, turns them blue in the face. No matter how long they wait, he don't leave, and they refuse to blink first by undocking with this dude here.

Any other space, they would keep rolling.
Cyno worries? BS. In high sec, a bunch of neutrals can drop on you in greater numbers, so that falls flat.
No warning for the attack? Again I call BS. In high sec, you can be ganked just as quick.
These guys seem to want a place safer than high sec, with ratting and mining more profitable.
What they dont want, is needing to call in other players to help them.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#299 - 2015-01-16 19:38:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Sure, null sec is dangerous, UNLESS you are even in your own claimed space.
What are the current solutions?

1) Wait with a counter drop 23/7 and try catch them when they drop
(No sane person is going to sit on 100% ready status to jump at a moment all day long)
2) Camp every gate into your region, all the time with a perfect composition.
(Gate camping is as boring as mining and often less rewarding)

Meanwhile, the AFK cloaker sits in perfect safety picking and choosing choice targets. They are better off than in a station because they can fly to various points and can D-scan.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Lug Muad'Dib
Funk'in Hole
#300 - 2015-01-16 19:52:25 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Sure, null sec is dangerous, UNLESS you are even in your own claimed space.
What are the current solutions?

1) Wait with a counter drop 23/7 and try catch them when they drop
(No sane person is going to sit on 100% ready status to jump at a moment all day long)
2) Camp every gate into your region, all the time with a perfect composition.
(Gate camping is as boring as mining and often less rewarding)

Meanwhile, the AFK cloaker sits in perfect safety picking and choosing choice targets. They are better off than in a station because they can fly to various points and can D-scan.


I want to know how to warp, D-SCAN, cyno and choosing choice targets when afk ?