These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7021 - 2016-10-18 18:13:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Baltec
I was actually going to suggest you check out your alliance fleetops for t1 frigate fits. Use your alliance resources. PL is there to help you.

You are incorrect in your claim on afk cloaky campers. Afk cloaky campers camp systems that are used for PVE. That is the only discernable criteria.

The act of keeping ratting ships docked rooster block small gang roams. Roams that cover a tremendous number of systems over the course of a typical two hour roam.

The only reason CCP had to not fundamentally changed the cloaking mechanism to castrate its use for removing content is to keep server numbers buffed. That reason is gone, a cloak nerf is coming.

Ratpack
Small gangs care that afk cloaky campers keep their targets docked up.

Step two is because of afk cloaky camping. Your suggestion that this can be resolved by removing local is incredibly intrusive and would need trigger all kinds of compensatory measures including player ability to manipulate gates. I mention this as an example of the order of magnitude to the intrusive changes you seem to support.

I would suggest you instead go to wormholes that seem to have most of the functionality you desire.

edit
A counter to local is a counter to local. If it does not work in high sec, then it counters something else. Not local. The other ratpack fellow seemed to get that.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#7022 - 2016-10-18 18:21:33 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Baltec
I was actually going to suggest you check out your alliance fleetops for t1 frigate fits. Use your alliance resources. PL is there to help you.

You are incorrect in your claim on afk cloaky campers. Afk cloaky campers camp systems that are used for PVE. That is the only discernable criteria.

The act of keeping ratting ships docked rooster block small gang roams. Roams that cover a tremendous number of systems over the course of a typical two hour roam.

The only reason CCP had to not fundamentally changed the cloaking mechanism to castrate its use for removing content is to keep server numbers buffed. That reason is gone, a cloak nerf is coming.

Ratpack
Small gangs care that afk cloaky campers keep their targets docked up.

Step two is because of afk cloaky camping. Your suggestion that this can be resolved by removing local is incredibly intrusive and would need trigger all kinds of compensatory measures including player ability to manipulate gates. I mention this as an example of the order of magnitude to the intrusive changes you seem to support.

I would suggest you instead go to wormholes that seem to have most of the functionality you desire.

edit
A counter to local is a counter to local. If it does not work in high sec, then it counters something else. Not local. The other ratpack fellow seemed to get that.


They will be docked up anyways due to how local and intel channels work. The only ones that might not be docked up are those who are not paying attention which is quite rare.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7023 - 2016-10-18 18:45:10 UTC
Ratpack
High target density + human error = kills.

Why not put 300 ratting ships out in the multitude of systems that a 2 hour roam crosses through. Then define "quite rare" any way you like and tell me how many kills the small gang roam would get if not for the content destroying, rooster blocking afk cloaky campers.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#7024 - 2016-10-18 19:52:12 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
I was actually going to suggest you check out your alliance fleetops for t1 frigate fits. Use your alliance resources. PL is there to help you.


Oh no, you said it so now you have to show us this fit.
Jerghul wrote:

You are incorrect in your claim on afk cloaky campers. Afk cloaky campers camp systems that are used for PVE. That is the only discernable criteria.

The act of keeping ratting ships docked rooster block small gang roams. Roams that cover a tremendous number of systems over the course of a typical two hour roam.


And said roams never catch people in those systems because everyone in them scatter the second they show up in local. Which is why they get cloaky camped, its the only way to get them.
Jerghul wrote:

The only reason CCP had to not fundamentally changed the cloaking mechanism to castrate its use for removing content is to keep server numbers buffed. That reason is gone, a cloak nerf is coming.


You base this upon what? Why would CCP keep it so that a few dosen show up in the player numbers? The numbers are negligible at best, this is a ridiculous argument with no basis in reality.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#7025 - 2016-10-18 19:54:41 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Ratpack
High target density + human error = kills.

Why not put 300 ratting ships out in the multitude of systems that a 2 hour roam crosses through. Then define "quite rare" any way you like and tell me how many kills the small gang roam would get if not for the content destroying, rooster blocking afk cloaky campers.


Feel free to roam around in a solo ship and try to catch these people, you will quickly find even the supers are in warp long before you get to their anom.
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#7026 - 2016-10-18 20:36:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Sonya Corvinus
Jerghul wrote:
Sonya
Perhaps because both of us know afk cloaky camping has a profound effect on game?


I'm confused. A moment ago you said cynos weren't a big deal because you can't light them while AFK, but now you're saying AFK cloaking has an impact on the game.

Which time were you lying, when you said a person cloaked isn't a big deal or when you said they were?

Or do we want to stop this dance and just admit AFK cloaking is only dangerous to the risk averse who refuse to pay attention, fleet up and do PvE in PvP ships when a non-friendly is in system? Working as intended.

I asked you before (and you didn't answer), what percent of the time when you are PvE-ing in null are you in a fleet and on comms? I'm simply curious.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#7027 - 2016-10-19 03:24:02 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Ratpack

Why not put 300 ratting ships out in the multitude of systems that a 2 hour roam crosses through. Then define "quite rare" any way you like and tell me how many kills the small gang roam would get if not for the content destroying, rooster blocking afk cloaky campers.


How about I don't get to decide how many ships are out ratting?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#7028 - 2016-10-19 03:25:09 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Sonya
Perhaps because both of us know afk cloaky camping has a profound effect on game?


I'm confused. A moment ago you said cynos weren't a big deal because you can't light them while AFK, but now you're saying AFK cloaking has an impact on the game.

Which time were you lying, when you said a person cloaked isn't a big deal or when you said they were?

Or do we want to stop this dance and just admit AFK cloaking is only dangerous to the risk averse who refuse to pay attention, fleet up and do PvE in PvP ships when a non-friendly is in system? Working as intended.

I asked you before (and you didn't answer), what percent of the time when you are PvE-ing in null are you in a fleet and on comms? I'm simply curious.


Well it is obviously sarcasm...or something.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7029 - 2016-10-19 05:06:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Ratpack
Fair enough. I get that you don't want to quantify how badly afk cloaky campers hurt content.

Sonya
I get that you are confused. My heartfelt best wishes for your speedy recovery.

Baltec
Ah, yes. Destroying content because solo. The tragedy of the Commons in a nutshell.

Except afk cloaky camping is not really solo is it? It's afk.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#7030 - 2016-10-19 09:11:03 UTC
Jerghul wrote:


Ah, yes. Destroying content because solo. The tragedy of the Commons in a nutshell.

Except afk cloaky camping is not really solo is it? It's afk.


so one bomber is not a solo ship because its AFK now? Are you even reading what you are saying here?

Still waiting on that fit.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7031 - 2016-10-19 10:28:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Baltec
"feel free to roam around in a solo ship" is what you said. Something that cannot be done afk as afk removes a human actor from the equation by definition.

Frankly, I respect your right to hold as many opinions as you like. I truly do.

The issue regarding afk cloaky camping remains one of pisspoor time management. Destroying content for weeks to accomodate biweekly single kill events is simply not viable without a business side buffer.

The business side buffer is gone with the introduction of alpha-clones. Your services buffing the number of players on server (which is the one thing the afk lifestyle excels at) is not longer required.

Thank you for what you did for as long as it was needed.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#7032 - 2016-10-19 11:54:43 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Baltec
"feel free to roam around in a solo ship" is what you said. Something that cannot be done afk as afk removes a human actor from the equation by definition.



I was responding to your comment on roaming. Read what is being said.


Jerghul wrote:

The issue regarding afk cloaky camping remains one of pisspoor time management. Destroying content for weeks to accomodate biweekly single kill events is simply not viable without a business side buffer.


We have been over and over this. You AFK camp a system because you cant catch anything in there any other way.

Jerghul wrote:

The business side buffer is gone with the introduction of alpha-clones. Your services buffing the number of players on server (which is the one thing the afk lifestyle excels at) is not longer required.


How many times are you going to spout this bullshit? The few dosen AFK campers make no difference at all to the server numbers and CCP wouldn't keep it around just to boost numbers by a few dosen. AFK cloaking is there because it is the only thing that counters local.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7033 - 2016-10-19 14:19:34 UTC
Baltic
You are wrong in every way except using your right to express your opinion.

Sorry if that hurts your feelings, bro.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#7034 - 2016-10-19 14:37:34 UTC
"I'm always right and you are wrong and I cannot hear or see your reasonings as I've closed my eyes and have my fingers in my ears while going 'LALALA I CANNOT HEAR YOUR WRONG IDEAS'"

Most people left that way of debating in kindergarden...

Wormholer for life.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7035 - 2016-10-19 14:44:40 UTC
Ratpack
Wow. While I appreciate your honest introspective...perhaps this is not the correct place to share your rich inner life?

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#7036 - 2016-10-19 15:11:40 UTC
Since there is nobody called that in this thread, I don't know who you are talking to. I'm going to continue to call you out on the bullshit you spout like it's the truth and on your attitude towards others on this thread.

I may not see eye to eye with everyone on this thread, I at least respect their opinions and ideas. You on the other hand just belittle others and their points as it's the only way you can defend the imaginary ideas that you come up with every time we shoot down your previous one due to it being based on nothing but your dreams.

Wormholer for life.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7037 - 2016-10-19 15:25:07 UTC
Ratpack
Back to your old games I see. Reported.

The generic tag is actually complimentary. A group of holywood stars went by it. But it does allude to the echo-chamber function this thread often has. Its hard to keep track of a few of your individual tags as the content of your posts are quite identical.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#7038 - 2016-10-19 16:17:48 UTC
Yes, I'm the one making thinly veiled snipes at other people for thinking differently from me.... Oh wait.

Have you ever thought that maybe you get similar responses from different people because they agree on the subject?

Wormholer for life.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#7039 - 2016-10-19 17:12:42 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Baltic
You are wrong in every way except using your right to express your opinion.

Sorry if that hurts your feelings, bro.


You have yet to say anything that shows I am wrong.

Still waiting for that fit.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7040 - 2016-10-19 18:19:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Baltec
I asked if you needed help fitting a T1 frigate. I did not offer to actually help you, though I repeatedly did advise that you seek alliance council if you are that interested.

I have repeatedly demonstrated that your dogmatic positions are wrong. Usually wrong in both a moral and factual sense. Though sometimes just wrong factually.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1