Player Features and Ideas Discussion

CCP acknowledgment is not complete - that was intended at part of the current way for the small guys to get at the big guy. CCP has also acknowledged that it does not scale well, and should be looked at after upcoming changes. Then meaning agis sov

So here's the thing as someone who was a profound Force Recon hunter before the arazu got directly and indirectly nerfed to oblivion....

The first time you enter a system as a completely new face, most people in system are going to D-Scan. Assuming nothing shows up and you don't leave system in a matter of the time it would take to warp from gate to gate, the people you're looking to hunt; i.e. the ratters, will dock up.

Now fast forward to the time where you actually caught someone in a site and tried to kill them. Following that attempt, whether failed or sucessful, you are now marked as someone to watch out for while in system. That means the chances of you catching another person have dropped drastically.

Now fast forward to the second time you caught someone, you maybe lit a covert cyno and helped bridge a black ops fleet in or still attacked solo, and now you are blacklisted as someone to completely avoid.

This causes a big issue in that now, I'm black listed from trying any stealthy combat (btw have you tried to solo in an Arazu? If not, I recommend it. Check my killboard for a good fit). This means I have to change up my tactics and by doing that, it means catching people when their guard is down or when they think I'm out of my normal timezone. Thus, I have a need to sit at my computer and wait you out. By this I mean, I have to wait until you feel comfortable to undock again and go back to business as usual. This could take 10mins, 10 hours, or hell even 10 days. The downside to the waiting game is that yes, it can done while not at the keyboard, but at the same instance you waiting me out in station can done AFK as well.

By definition AFK mean the player isn't actually playing the game so there is 0 threat. I used to fight CVA in Provi years ago and we where constantly AFK camped by them. I took my Domi and 1) PvP fit it and 2) dropped the min/max fit to actually survive multibomber while at the same time having the ability to kill them. CVA stopped trying to gank me in my sites are a few times of killing them. It got to the point that I could run Havens solo, have some guy complain about the "AFK" guy so I would pretend to dock up with the site half run. I would have the other guy warp in 10mins later to finish the site, while I was sitting cloaked up off him. Sure enough, the bomber decloaks within a minute of the other guy landing and we score a few bomber kills.

Placing some arbitrary timer or fuel on cloaking only hurts the game and continues to push the "I want to print ISK in nullsec in peace and complete security" mindset when it should be the complete opposite of making money while pew pew'ing. The issue here isn't AFK cloaking, it's the fact that you're upset with Black Ops Hotdrops and not prepared to handle it accordingly; i.e. by not min/maxing your fit, running sites in large groups supported by logi, bringing direct counters to their usual hotdrops like instalock, arty Nados (can't light a cyno and bridge a fleet if you're alpha'ed). If you argue they drop 5x your numbers, then go to another system and run anoms. If that's camped too, scan down complexes and run those, or go chain belts in a non-camped system.

My entire set of recent arguments has been more directly to this point:

AFK Cloaking is a symptom of the real problem, which is that many players want more from the PvE associated side of this game.

1. The devs left local in place, even after boosting it's intel to include standings.
On it's own, this was not game breaking, but blue doughnuts were not as serious a thing yet, compared to today.

2. PvE ships have been neglected in terms of fighting ability, while PvP ships have evolved over time into more efficient killers.
Tactical cruisers alone shifted the balance in PvE null, often becoming a trump card against previously effective strategies.
Back in the day, the only ships able to mount a covert cloak were the covops frigs, the blockade runners, and the force recons.
There was no such thing as a covert cyno, and titans simply were not found nearly as often. Regular cynos were usually associated with a carrier coming through, not the surprise parties we get today.
The dynamic has changed drastically.

The evasion requirement for PvE survival is obsolete.

AFK Cloaking is simply the poster child for this issue.

What? Goodness you guys love running to the absurd. Being logged in and AFK generally has little or no benefit for the player in question. This includes AFK cloaking. However, a Bot would have a benefit and one that is, when take in aggregate (i.e. lots of players botting) is detrimental to the in game economy.

Your "Gameplay" affects me, while you are AFK. What part of this are you having trouble with.

So? I get nothing from it. With botting I would. Biiiiig difference. So it does not, at all, follow logically that if we allow AFK cloaking we should allow botting.

Once upon a time, in EvE...

- I'm AFK so I pose no threat.
- Then can the server log you off automatically after an hour?
- NOOO! I *need* to stay online!
- To do what?
- Nothing. I'll just sit somewhere cloaked, because I want to PvP at some point.
- Can we scan you down after awhile then?
- NOOO! My vessel is too weak against other PvP ships.
- So you want to PvP but only against PvE ships then?
- You're being dishonest. I never said that.
- Then why do you need to be online?
- To prevent you from making money.
- So you *are* actually doing something then?
- You're being dishonest again. I never said that.
- Allright then. So you *have* to be logged on to prevent people from making money. What gives you the right to do so, in space their alliance secured?
- Because their alliance fails at securing their space; so it's not "your" space. Just move over a system.
- But should active effort not trump passive "effort"?
- Yeah it should but we can't catch you any other way.
- Why not?
- hurrr durrr local. %#^^ Must use cloaky to attack your PvE ship.
- I thought you just said the alliance did not sufficiently secure their space, because they fail so bad?
- And again you're being dishonest. Show me one quote where I said that.
- You do realize that, in order to "secure" space, we need to be able to engage cloaked vessels, right?
- There are already counters to cloaked ships. You just need to land 2k off them.
- But we can't scan them in order to land next to them!
- See? I told you your alliance sucks. There are counters, that you don't like them is not my problem.
- Or maybe cloak is OP ...?
- IF YOU NERF CLOAK I WANT LOCAL GONE!
- That's unreasonable; you wouldn't even feel the difference if you were not AFK!
- herp derp why does it bother you I'm there? Since I'm AFK I can't hurt you.
- But if I get this straight, you need to AFK camp because of Local; and therefore, to solve AFK Cloaking you want local gone?
- I never said that either. Quite the contrary, in fact!

...

I think this thread is getting funnier by the minute. AFK Cloaking should go, if nothing else then because of all the griefertears we could harvest. Wait ... did I say griefing?

- it's not griefing! You're just scared of honest PvP.
- honest as in 20 against 1 black ops cyno?
- Me? Cyno? Never. I'm AFK, remember?
- Be that as it may, you're still forcing me to dock up, move a system over, have a backup fleet or fit for PvP.
- I'm not forcing you to do anything.
- ...but if I don't I die?
- That is correct Sir.
- Since I can't force you to log off, then can we perhaps look for ways to evict you from our system?
- UNACCEPTABLE! Since I put some real effort into AFK cloaking, it's only fair I see some real results!
- But you're not actually putting in any effort, are you? Since you're not even at your computer and all ...?
- Of course not! if I wasn't AFK I wouldn't be "AFK Cloaking", now would I? Keep the strawmen coming, geez... nubs.

Ladies and gentlemen, this conversation is giving me so much LOLs please do carry on for another 150 pages. For a moment there I feared it settled down somewhat, but I can see we're still going strong. Keep up the good work! So much tears, so much comedy to be had... thank you all! Much appreciated.

Of course it has an effect...because those like Mike let it have an effect. "We don't know when he might come back!!!" That kind of thinking is all that is needed for it to have an effect....fear of the uncertain.



I ratted in a min/maxed ratting ship as well.

And now it isn't so much content denial as being denied the content you want. Sorry, nothing in this games guarantees you the content you want.

It isn't guarding AFK play, it is that simply removing AFK cloaking is quite clearly a buff to someone else's play style with the current mechanics--i.e. local and how it works. Even a simple change such as not having a pilot entering system show in local until they break the gate cloak would level the playing field in some way. Or let me ask this, why should ratting in Null Sec get a buff? NS ratters already make a crap ton of ISK.

AFK cloaking should stay because it's the only way to attack nullbears in sov space.

"Griefer tears" you speak about are there because the moment you enter local everything docks up, and because of the ratio of hunters:bears is so small we can never cover more than 1% of nullsec at a time because there are so many nullsec systems.

Every hunter will agree that they are perfectly fine with the removal of afk cloaking as long as the local is gone or delayed too.

So really... Your griefer tears are just "I'm not crying it is you who is crying defense mechanism", we don't complain about current mechanics as much as you do but you can't just have it all.

Eve online is not and should not be a theme park where you can block the interaction with other players.

This is painfully accurate.

The assumption that risking interaction with a hostile in system, somehow equals automatic death, is chilling to open debate about it.

If we are to insist that the cloaked pilot, has a genuinely AFK player behind it, then the game is centered around either calling the bluff, or conceding and folding operations under expectation that they are controlling the system.
Reference: Fleet in being

And that assumes the player is NOT in fact AFK at all, but pretending to be in order to lure out targets.
In which case, they are simply patient, and not subject to being AFK with possible obstacles suggested in the past.

In any case, this strategic concept has been beaten.


The players can bypass the affected area, without overwhelming effort.

MY POINT, is that this dynamic is itself pointless.
The PvE player should have no reason to expect an encounter must be avoided at all costs.

The dynamic failed when it became more of an obstacle to player interaction, rather than a means to express it.
Anyone who can perceive another player's presence as denial of content, has actually found a flaw in the game itself.