These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Aredontis
Doomheim
#521 - 2015-01-23 11:39:22 UTC
Rhavas wrote:
Exactly. If it's your home, defend the entries like a wormhole corp does.


Gonna try this one more time, just for you, because you seem "special": Null is NOT like wormholes, you can't just sit on the gates to keep people out. See, in null, people can light cynos and covert cynos, bridging in hundreds of others. This mechanic does not exist in W space.

Apple meet Orange.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#522 - 2015-01-23 11:46:59 UTC
Aredontis wrote:
Rhavas wrote:
Exactly. If it's your home, defend the entries like a wormhole corp does.


Gonna try this one more time, just for you, because you seem "special": Null is NOT like wormholes, you can't just sit on the gates to keep people out. See, in null, people can light cynos and covert cynos, bridging in hundreds of others. This mechanic does not exist in W space.

Apple meet Orange.


If you don't let them into your system, they aren't there to light a cyno.

Heck, you even have the wonderful foreknowledge of exactly where they will be coming from, unlike wormholes which open up in random spots.

But asking for a one button solution to someone being cloaked in your system? That's just not how it works.

"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.

Leannor
State War Academy
Caldari State
#523 - 2015-01-23 11:48:25 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Leannor wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Leannor wrote:

A safe way to go afk, is to dock, or log off. A cloak should not be 'intended' and protected from balance for that reason.



That's not why a cloak behaves as it does. It does so because it absolutely hampers your offensive options while it is active.

When I can fire torpedoes through a cloaking device, then you can scan me through one.



Now, THAT should be possible! A cloak should not, either, be a shield. :)

Sadly, we need to lock to be ble to fire ... another thing which, personally, I think is wrong


So basically you don't want to play EVE, you want to play Elite: Dangerous. Or some other flight sim.



heh, ... ok, I was wandering off on one,.

"Lykouleon wrote:

STOP TOUCHING ICONIC SHIP PARTS"

Leannor
State War Academy
Caldari State
#524 - 2015-01-23 11:49:51 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Aredontis wrote:
Rhavas wrote:
Exactly. If it's your home, defend the entries like a wormhole corp does.


Gonna try this one more time, just for you, because you seem "special": Null is NOT like wormholes, you can't just sit on the gates to keep people out. See, in null, people can light cynos and covert cynos, bridging in hundreds of others. This mechanic does not exist in W space.

Apple meet Orange.


If you don't let them into your system, they aren't there to light a cyno.

Heck, you even have the wonderful foreknowledge of exactly where they will be coming from, unlike wormholes which open up in random spots.

But asking for a one button solution to someone being cloaked in your system? That's just not how it works.


no one is asking for a one-button-solution. *sigh* Just level field.

"Lykouleon wrote:

STOP TOUCHING ICONIC SHIP PARTS"

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#525 - 2015-01-23 11:53:55 UTC
Leannor wrote:

no one is asking for a one-button-solution. *sigh* Just level field.


Except you've already got it.

No one who is cloaked can activate an offensive module. No one who is afk can even move.

And local, your perfect intel tool, automatically lets you know if there is a potential threat.

What more do you want besides something that invalidates cloaking devices existing in the first place? Because I've seen a whole lot of that proposed in this thread, and very little of anything even resembling a balanced mechanic.

"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.

Leannor
State War Academy
Caldari State
#526 - 2015-01-23 11:57:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Leannor
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Leannor wrote:

no one is asking for a one-button-solution. *sigh* Just level field.


Except you've already got it.

No one who is cloaked can activate an offensive module. No one who is afk can even move.

And local, your perfect intel tool, automatically lets you know if there is a potential threat.

What more do you want besides something that invalidates cloaking devices existing in the first place? Because I've seen a whole lot of that proposed in this thread, and very little of anything even resembling a balanced mechanic.


What is the disadvantage/vulnerability in using the cloak for it's intended purpose?

(read that carefully ... as your answer should not include 'well you can't fire', because, clearly, when you're cloaked that is no longer your objective, seeing as you are cloaked ergo secret, ergo, firing a weapon would mean you're no longer secret).

"Lykouleon wrote:

STOP TOUCHING ICONIC SHIP PARTS"

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#527 - 2015-01-23 12:01:25 UTC
Leannor wrote:

What is the disadvantage is using the cloak for it's intended purpose?

(read that carefully ... as your answer should not include 'well you can't fire', because, clearly, when you're cloaked that is no longer your objective, seeing as you are cloaked ergo secret, ergo, firing a weapon would mean you're no longer secret).


The intended purpose of a covert ops cloaking device is to avoid being seen, and to sneak up on people.

Since you can't be seen on grid, you are prevented from using or activating offensive or defensive modules, as well as target locking as that would be an unfair advantage.

I reject your false narrative, by the way. Loss of module activation is in fact the disadvantage of a cloaking device, and is a fully appropriate one.

"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.

Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
#528 - 2015-01-23 12:38:52 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
However, it is vexing that he can just sit there in perfect safety, watching, waiting and we can do nothing to kick him out of our home. He is in perfect control of when an engagement happens.


The part of this discussion you are totally ignoring is that this is only a 'problem' in nullsec. Why do you think that is?

Wormhole residents don't even know if someone is sitting next to them... cloaked 100% of the time in 20 T3's waiting to spring a trap on them.

The reason it is a problem in nullsec is that it's the only place where this amount of whining is tolerated by CCP and also that's the best place to AFK rat.

It takes a ship a minimum of about 5 seconds (with max skills) to be able to target you after dropping cloak. Unless he dropped cloak in warp to you in which case you should have been watching d-scan.

P.S. He's in your home but you can't muster enough people to stop a blops gang? I assume their dropping triage since you can't stop them. Drop more triage and T1 battleships or supers. It's not complicated. Survival of the fittest.

Not today spaghetti.

Amy Farrah FowIer
SKULL AND B0NES
#529 - 2015-01-23 13:02:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Amy Farrah FowIer
@ Leannor #515 (my original post #512)

You continue reading my further points?

My suggestion solved the problems of being so called "AFK cloaked" As I sad earlier, to be cloaked AFK isn't the problem, the problem is you dont know wether he is AFK or active!

Making cloakers detectable would be a lot of operating expenses for CCP. New ships? New scanner probes? New mechanic.....my suggestion, would be easy to implement with very poor operating expenses.

So again - just freeze them, if they dont do something. (see #512)
Leannor
State War Academy
Caldari State
#530 - 2015-01-23 13:16:56 UTC
Amy Farrah FowIer wrote:
@ Leannor #515 (my original post #512)

You continue reading my further points?

My suggestion solved the problems of being so called "AFK cloaked" As I sad earlier, to be cloaked AFK isn't the problem, the problem is you dont know wether he is AFK or active!

Making cloakers detectable would be a lot of operating expenses for CCP. New ships? New scanner probes? New mechanic.....my suggestion, would be easy to implement with very poor operating expenses.

So again - just freeze them, if they dont do something. (see #512)


Hi, sorry, at work, so very skim reading. hehe, soz. Yeah, I see now your point at the end.

Hmm, it is a solution of sorts, granted. Not sure it's in keeping with EVE though, freezing the user interface wise.

It's a sticky issue. On the one hand a cloak is a cloak, it needs to be impenetratble, else it's not a cloak (merely a delaying of dectection tactic). On the other hand, the operation of a cloak seems weird that it's effectively like just putting on a coat - ie no detriment to the ship. There's zero (or effectively zero) cap usage to project the cloak, so there's no run down ability. There's no degradation of the cloak (like with som crystals etc) ... it's literally a win button once on. There is no expense in the operation of the cloak. Granted there is a counter exiting and re-entering the cloak, but the second is useless unless you're forced to de-cloak as part of the cloak (only the stupid decloak and then recloak, unless they're in active combat in which case it's the whole log-off argument, which is different). And the former is a 'tut tut you were cloaked, so you can't gain an advantage in using that to lock osmeone like younnormally would. (which I also think is dumb). Cloak penalties should be incurred when cloaked, not after decloaking - or through fitting penalties.

But, that's just my thoughts.

appologies for typos. :)

"Lykouleon wrote:

STOP TOUCHING ICONIC SHIP PARTS"

Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#531 - 2015-01-23 13:18:53 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:

However, it is vexing that he can just sit there in perfect safety, watching, waiting and we can do nothing to kick him out of our home. He is in perfect control of when an engagement happens.


The face of entitlement, ladies and gentlemen.

It is not "your home". EVE belongs to everyone, not just the people who want to farm the AI all day long.


Dude, get out of my brain space, for those are my thoughts exactly.

People think there are 2 sides to this argument. The "AFK cloaking is good -signed, an AFK Cloaker" side and the "AFK Cloaking is bad because it scares me and that's unfair i pay 15 bux" side.

They are wrong, there are 3 sides. The 2 I mention above and then folks like me who say "I don't like AFK cloaking per se, but AFK cloaking isn't a problem , it can can be dealt with using existing in-game tools and tactics, you should HTFU, stop crying and stop focusing on what others do and focus ON WHAT YOU CAN DO TO PROTECT YOUR SELF".

The 'I want to hunt them down" people are really saying that they want an active way of stopping other people from doing something they don't like. They are usually the people who get butt hurt when OTHER people do things that make them stop or modify their own actions. At the heart of their argument is a deep and unrepentant selfishness that creates such double standards.

I laugh at AFK cloakers who waste their 15bux sitting cloaked in a null sec system while never being able to catch or kill me while I go about my carebearing.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#532 - 2015-01-23 13:20:12 UTC
Rhavas wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:

However, it is vexing that he can just sit there in perfect safety, watching, waiting and we can do nothing to kick him out of our home. He is in perfect control of when an engagement happens.


The face of entitlement, ladies and gentlemen.


Exactly. If it's your home, defend the entries like a wormhole corp does.


How dare you ask them to effort??!?1

Big smile
Leannor
State War Academy
Caldari State
#533 - 2015-01-23 13:23:13 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
[quote=Kaarous Aldurald] I laugh at AFK cloakers who waste their 15bux sitting cloaked in a null sec system while never being able to catch or kill me while I go about my carebearing.


This, definitly this.

TBH I'm not much bothered about the impacts, or not, of them. They don't impact my gameplay at all, and have done it myself in the past.

I'm just thinking literally, and fairly, and logically. The cloak mechanism is borked imo; which enables weird swung usage that rely on out of EVE mechanics rather than in game mechanics.

But, clearly CCP has no intention of fixing this. So, hey ho, it matters little :)

"Lykouleon wrote:

STOP TOUCHING ICONIC SHIP PARTS"

Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#534 - 2015-01-23 13:47:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Aredontis wrote:


Please-oh-please wise-one, explain to me how the risk aversion of the cloaky camper is any less than the risk aversion of the pilots who live in the system? The cloaky guy wants 100% safety to gather his intel and prepare for a hot-drop.


This is another example of what's wrong with the 'anti-afk cloak' crowd. see how it is focused OUTWARD, towards what someone else is doing. There is also a smidgen of false equivalence here, with the whole "they are bieng risk averse too!!!".

I don't care at all about someone avoiding risk. When i use my "screw you mr afk guy" fits and tactics (everything from triple boxing 3 remote rep Domis, which means the bad guys gotta bring a serious fleet to kill me, to 'getting creative' with fighter assist) I'm avoiding risk too...by playing the game, not by begging mommy (CCP) to play the game for me).

(side note, DID YOU KNOW that you can assign fighters to A CHEAP TANKED INDUSTRIAL with a magical tank, from a carrier sitting on the undock of a station and keep ratting risking only a mining ship during a visit by an afk cloaker? Of course you don't, you're too busy trying to find ways to get someone to fix it for you rather than figuring it out yourself)

Quote:

To those posts saying (Jenn) "you have ways to protect yourself", I give you 1 "horseshit" as well. The specific deployable that would allow for some protection, the mobile cyno inhibitor, does not affect covert cynos. Perhaps you'd be all for changing that mechanic? After all, there is no logical reason that a cyno jammer shouldn't affect all cynos....


Who needs to change a Mechanic when the game gives you everything you need? Mobile Cyno in hibitor + knowing which anomalies to do (DID YOU KNOW) that things like the rings in Ring Sanctum and the Rock in "pirate gate" haven can protect you from BLOPS drops by keeping you out of range of most scrams as well as decloaking things trying to kill you??? Again, OF COUSE YOU DON'T lol because instead of playing the game and learning you're on a forum screaming 'horseshit' at people who actually know how to play Twisted)

Oh yea, and here is an example of the "Fighter Ratting" industrial I use to thumb my nose at the AFK cloakers you people somehow can't deal with:

[Badger, Fighter Ratting]
Damage Control II
Capacitor Flux Coil II
Capacitor Flux Coil II
Capacitor Flux Coil II

'Cetus' ECM Shockwave I
Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 150
Experimental 10MN Afterburner I

Drone Link Augmentor II
Drone Link Augmentor II

Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I
Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I
Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I

Surprisingly, an INDUSTRIAL ship can carry a lot of cap boosters. but keep at range (+50k) with the AB on and you almost never need em.

No not as good as using a carrier directly or some pirate BS, but how much isk are yall making when cowering from an afk cloaker I wonder? This ship (and a carrier outside a pos or on a staiton undock in docking range) makes more than the zero isk the guys cowering will make. If they want to hot drop a ship that costs 12 million isk, let em, just remember to send the fighters back lol.

And that concludes this episode of 'learn2EVEuNUB'. Stay tuned for out next exciting adventure.
Haywoud Jablomi
Vay Mining Corporation
#535 - 2015-01-23 14:55:47 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:

The fact that carebears are too risk averse and scared of losing some pixels in a damn video game is not the fault of the cloak, it's entirely a problem with the carebears. The real solutions to a cloaky camper have been repeated, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. (This is not an exageration.) The risk averse don't want to fix cloaky camping. They want to remove it entirely.

I suppose that's inevitably going to happen, unless CCP alters it's recent trend of kowtowing to the risk averse.


Not sure you have been following the topic but wouldnt the idea of revealing a cloaked ship be the exact opposite of risk aversed? I mean you do actually have to fight once you reveal the ship. They dont just explode when visable.

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)

Leannor
State War Academy
Caldari State
#536 - 2015-01-23 15:16:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Leannor
Haywoud Jablomi wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:

The fact that carebears are too risk averse and scared of losing some pixels in a damn video game is not the fault of the cloak, it's entirely a problem with the carebears. The real solutions to a cloaky camper have been repeated, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. (This is not an exageration.) The risk averse don't want to fix cloaky camping. They want to remove it entirely.

I suppose that's inevitably going to happen, unless CCP alters it's recent trend of kowtowing to the risk averse.


Not sure you have been following the topic but wouldnt the idea of revealing a cloaked ship be the exact opposite of risk aversed? I mean you do actually have to fight once you reveal the ship. They dont just explode when visable.


Exactly, this isn't about risk adverse. This is about making the cloak have to actively do something to stay cloaked, and give the opportunity, though not easily, to pursue with a view to combat. That is not risk adverse.

It has been stated it can be done to preserve those who are active and cloaked, so that with effort and a modicum of skill they can remain safe. But it means those unattended become increasingly more vulnerable to exposure - which is fair considering they're not actually playing the game but still able to influence the game whilst undocked.

"Lykouleon wrote:

STOP TOUCHING ICONIC SHIP PARTS"

Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#537 - 2015-01-23 15:43:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Leannor wrote:


Exactly, this isn't about risk adverse. This is about making the cloak have to actively do something to stay cloaked, and give the opportunity, though not easily, to pursue with a view to combat. That is not risk adverse.

It has been stated it can be done to preserve those who are active and cloaked, so that with effort and a modicum of skill they can remain safe. But it means those unattended become increasingly more vulnerable to exposure - which is fair considering they're not actually playing the game but still able to influence the game when not docked.


The underlying motivation is the same, the desire to be able to actively remove someone from space rather than simply adapting to and defending against that presence. It is no different than the old (really old) idea of 'I should be able to control the gates of space I OWN" whining that was prevalent in this forum section when I started playing in 2007.

If you don't like afk cloakers, there are already things you can do. I call AFK cloaker's "bluff" all the time, on a few occasions I've played Bait Ship (web/scram Maelstrom + cyno + dual ASB fit + letting the bad guys get you into hull before boosting = you'll never see those same guys try to hot drop you again). The real truth is that most people who complain about afk cloaking have taken ZERO actions to combat them and given ZERO thought to how to do so.

I know afk cloaking isn't a problem because (by using 'thinking") I've already beaten them before they enter my null sec ratting system, before they can cloak, hell, before they even log in lol.

I've received eve-mails from people who have told me that the anti-afk cloak tactics I've posted (such as warp core stabbed MJDing FoF missile+drone ships or spider tanking "come at me bro" set ups) saved them and even let them strike back against hotdroppers. Hell, in addition to working, they are FUN.

The "give me some new mechanic to rid my ratting space of cloakers" crowd don't want fun , or to have to think. They want CCP to hand them advantage.
Leannor
State War Academy
Caldari State
#538 - 2015-01-23 15:51:37 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Leannor wrote:


Exactly, this isn't about risk adverse. This is about making the cloak have to actively do something to stay cloaked, and give the opportunity, though not easily, to pursue with a view to combat. That is not risk adverse.

It has been stated it can be done to preserve those who are active and cloaked, so that with effort and a modicum of skill they can remain safe. But it means those unattended become increasingly more vulnerable to exposure - which is fair considering they're not actually playing the game but still able to influence the game when not docked.


The underlying motivation is the same, the desire to be able to actively remove someone from space rather than simply adapting to and defending against that presence. It is no different than the old (really old) idea of 'I should be able to control the gates of space I OWN" whining that was prevalent in this forum section when I started playing in 2007.

.



actually, I find it more akin to "whine, person logged off as I attacked them, make it so that they're ship stays behind so I can kill them for being chicken" ... clearly adapt and learn to kill better using existing tools 'argument' didn't work. For the same reason - there are none. :-)

"Lykouleon wrote:

STOP TOUCHING ICONIC SHIP PARTS"

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#539 - 2015-01-23 16:02:11 UTC
Aredontis wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:

However, it is vexing that he can just sit there in perfect safety, watching, waiting and we can do nothing to kick him out of our home. He is in perfect control of when an engagement happens.


The face of entitlement, ladies and gentlemen.

It is not "your home". EVE belongs to everyone, not just the people who want to farm the AI all day long.


umm, no. When "everyone" starts paying the sov bill, then "everyone" can call the system home. Until then, it is their home, as they have paid for it and are defending it. And has already been pointed out, they were defending it.

You can call the system Sh1rley if it makes you happy.

The fact is, the game is not designed to give you discretion over who can enter, ONLY leverage in the form of having exclusive access to Outposts and POS structures you go to the trouble of placing.

If you cannot drive out hostile players, even with this leverage which is overwhelming in most other circumstances, then calling it your space is something you can do in name only.
Leannor
State War Academy
Caldari State
#540 - 2015-01-23 16:04:42 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Aredontis wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:

However, it is vexing that he can just sit there in perfect safety, watching, waiting and we can do nothing to kick him out of our home. He is in perfect control of when an engagement happens.


The face of entitlement, ladies and gentlemen.

It is not "your home". EVE belongs to everyone, not just the people who want to farm the AI all day long.


umm, no. When "everyone" starts paying the sov bill, then "everyone" can call the system home. Until then, it is their home, as they have paid for it and are defending it. And has already been pointed out, they were defending it.

You can call the system Sh1rley if it makes you happy.

The fact is, the game is not designed to give you discretion over who can enter, ONLY leverage in the form of having exclusive access to Outposts and POS structures you go to the trouble of placing.

If you cannot drive out hostile players, even with this leverage which is overwhelming in most other circumstances, then calling it your space is something you can do in name only.


well said ...

"Lykouleon wrote:

STOP TOUCHING ICONIC SHIP PARTS"