These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#7081 - 2016-10-20 19:33:10 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Ratpack
Randomly probbing deep space? Now Sonya's watching paint dry wormhole existence seems exciting compared to how you must think the game should be played.

I am really starting to get the selection bias in this thread. These discussions must be incredibly stimulating to players who habitually afk cloaky camp. So you guys are here...and non-afk cloaky campers are playing Eve.

Its not a bad idea, or any idea at all. Its just an example of what you can do with a t-1 frigate "to counter local" without a cloak.

Not that I was ever suggesting no cloaks. I just want cloaks with a 5 hour charge capacity.



No. You'd see the person in local. You might try d-scan, and even warping around and d-scanning. Failing that you can get out a probing ship and just start probing. And again, you do this because you see a non-blue in local.

Why is this hard to understand?

If I AFK cloak it is go take a bio, answer the door, etc. That is it is generally for a short time and only to enhance my safety. I could logoff, but when you are in a cloaking ship why bother.

Maybe you should stop with the assumptions of bad faith.

You cannot counter local with a t1 frigate. Do you even know how probing works? You will be scanned down and you will be killed. Unprobable is no longer a thing. Granted it will take a very good prober, but once that prober is looking for your AFK t1 frig you will die....because you will be probed down and killed.

"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
#7082 - 2016-10-20 19:33:57 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Ratpack
You are in error, my dear friend.

Someone claimed afk-cloaky camping was a counter to local. I disproved that claim by looking at local in high sec.



One thing is not like the other, thus an invalid proof.

"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
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#7083 - 2016-10-20 19:35:24 UTC
Jerghul wrote:

That is untrue. The assumption is that single reds that remain in system not in direct proximity to gates are cloaked.


Bullshit. Red in local = probe it down and kill it. Have you even left highsec?






Jerghul wrote:

Probing rarely if ever takes place in response to single reds or neuts.


The probes that have been launched in M-O looking for me for the last few weeks tell us this is a lie.
Jerghul wrote:

Ever realize that losing ships in PvP is more expensive than not losing ships in PvP?


Ever noticed that in order to attack you have to decloak your ship which make it vulnerable?
Jerghul wrote:

Human error assures that ships will get caught in systems small gang roams pass through if ships are actually undocked.


And this shows you do not go on roaming gangs in null.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#7084 - 2016-10-20 19:38:36 UTC
Jerghul wrote:

Sonya
afk cloaky camping does keep people from undocking. Which is a problem for other pvp playing styles like small gang roams.



Quick, somebody open a ticket because I have undocked in a system with and AFK clokay camper!!

Something must be broken because according to Jerghul undocking can't happen. Roll

People are kept from undocking by an AFK camper, they are kept from undocking because of their own psychology.

"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
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#7085 - 2016-10-20 19:40:48 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Sonya
That suggestion fails to meet my "least intrusive" principle.

You really should create a thread to discuss getting rid of local in null sec though. Or revive a dead thread on the topic at the bottom of this forum somewhere.

Good luck with that project.


We will never get rid of local given how insanely risk averse sov null is. As you are proving.

That being said, you can't intelligently talk about AFK cloaking in null without talking about local. Everyone knows that.
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#7086 - 2016-10-20 19:46:26 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
[quote=Jerghul]Probing rarely if ever takes place in response to single reds or neuts.


The probes that have been launched in M-O looking for me for the last few weeks tell us this is a lie.[/qhote]

My account that hasn't docked in over 3 weeks and does nothing but solo exploration sites in hostile null/WHs tells us this is a lie as well. I see combat probes daily.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7087 - 2016-10-20 19:51:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Sonya
Cool story, sis.

Edit
Also, talking about getting rid of local the resolve afk cloaky camping problems in null-sec is about as relevant as talking about increasing null sec security to 0.5 to get rid of afk cloaky camping issues.

Nuclear options are fun to talk about (though frankly, they are a bit trollish). But a least intrusive approach is generally by far the superior way to go about business.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#7088 - 2016-10-20 20:39:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Jerghul wrote:
Sonya
Cool story, sis.

Edit
Also, talking about getting rid of local the resolve afk cloaky camping problems in null-sec is about as relevant as talking about increasing null sec security to 0.5 to get rid of afk cloaky camping issues.

Nuclear options are fun to talk about (though frankly, they are a bit trollish). But a least intrusive approach is generally by far the superior way to go about business.


What I find amazing is that Jerghul in his unedited post can manage to pack in ignorance, arrogance and divisiveness with just 4 words.

Oh, and after the edit, we have a nice helping of non-sequitur.

"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
#7089 - 2016-10-20 20:46:50 UTC
Ratpack
Just saving forum space, my dear friend.

Thank you for sharing your opinion with us. Always appreciated.

To type out the cool story.

Dora the explorer is noted on her route into a hostile system. Someone there is tired of her pouching sites, so undocks and launches probes.

The mere act of doing that blocks her from running data/relic sites. Now she knows the site may have been scanned down, so she can no longer use it because someone may be cloaked waiting there to ambush her.

So, yah. If a neut/red is identified in an exploring ship, then people will assume it is an exploring ship unless it stays in a system for an extended period.

Cool story, ain't it.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#7090 - 2016-10-20 20:54:29 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Sonya
Cool story, sis.

Edit
Also, talking about getting rid of local the resolve afk cloaky camping problems in null-sec is about as relevant as talking about increasing null sec security to 0.5 to get rid of afk cloaky camping issues.

Nuclear options are fun to talk about (though frankly, they are a bit trollish). But a least intrusive approach is generally by far the superior way to go about business.


How would you know someone unfriendly is in your system in sov null without local?

Teckos Pech wrote:
What I find amazing is that Jerghul in his unedited post can manage to pack in ignorance, arrogance and divisiveness with just 4 words.

Oh, and after the edit, we have a nice helping on non-sequitur.


What comes to mind when he tries to insult me: https://i.imgur.com/IZD3z.gif
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7091 - 2016-10-20 20:57:14 UTC
Sonya
Why would anyone care if an afk cloaky camper was in a null-sec system if the security there was 0.5 or greater?

Surrogate wormholes and surrogate high sec are nuclear options. Fun to talk about, but pretty trollish frankly.

Better to go with the least intrusive approach.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#7092 - 2016-10-20 21:03:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Sonya Corvinus
Jerghul wrote:
Sonya
Why would anyone care if an afk cloaky camper was in a null-sec system if the security there was 0.5 or greater?

Surrogate wormholes and surrogate high sec are nuclear options. Fun to talk about, but pretty trollish frankly.

Better to go with the least intrusive approach.


0.5 isn't nullsec, fam.

So you're saying you want concord to respond when you attack in null? Interesting. That would definitely help your hunting
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7093 - 2016-10-20 21:07:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Sonya
We can call it The space formerly known as null-sec to cater to both the pedantic and to prince admirers.

The important thing is that issues with afk cloaky camping in null sec are resolved using highly intrusive means.

Edit
The point being: Surrogate wormholes and surrogate high-sec are both highly intrusive, nuclear options that should not be used under the cloak of resolving afk cloaky camping issues.

It really is quite trollish to mention either as a possible solution in this thread. But good fun. There is that.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#7094 - 2016-10-20 21:35:22 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Sonya
We can call it The space formerly known as null-sec to cater to both the pedantic and to prince admirers.

The important thing is that issues with afk cloaky camping in null sec are resolved using highly intrusive means.

Edit
The point being: Surrogate wormholes and surrogate high-sec are both highly intrusive, nuclear options that should not be used under the cloak of resolving afk cloaky camping issues.

It really is quite trollish to mention either as a possible solution in this thread. But good fun. There is that.


And as in the past we have now wound up with the usual Whisky Tango Foxtrot with Jerghul.....

But I guess that happens when one must continually contort and distort one's argument.

"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
#7095 - 2016-10-20 22:02:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Ratpack
Yepp. It is hard to take the "lets turn null-sec into surrogate wh-space to fix afk cloaky camping issues" arguement seriously. Yet posters' inner trolls have prattled on about that extensively in this thread.

Go figure.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#7096 - 2016-10-20 22:39:20 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Ratpack
Yepp. It is hard to take the "lets turn null-sec into surrogate wh-space to fix afk cloaky camping issues" arguement seriously. Yet posters' inner trolls have prattled on about that extensively in this thread.

Go figure.


Only reason people bring up AFK camping is because they see them in local.
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#7097 - 2016-10-20 23:52:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Sonya Corvinus
Jerghul wrote:
Sonya
We can call it The space formerly known as null-sec to cater to both the pedantic and to prince admirers.

The important thing is that issues with afk cloaky camping in null sec are resolved using highly intrusive means.

Edit
The point being: Surrogate wormholes and surrogate high-sec are both highly intrusive, nuclear options that should not be used under the cloak of resolving afk cloaky camping issues.

It really is quite trollish to mention either as a possible solution in this thread. But good fun. There is that.


I do agree you are quite trollish.

You are adorable, given how bad your trolling is. Jesus, at least put some effort into this....
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#7098 - 2016-10-20 23:56:53 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Vic
In those terms, Eve is actually 4 distinct sandboxes with characteristics set by variations in game mechanics. You may gladly hold the opinion that null-sec is not a sandbox designed primarily with pvp in mind. Everyone has the right to an opinion after all.

If we want to play this word game, then null isn't designed for PvP, it's designed for empire v empire.

Jerghul wrote:

Afk cloaky camping decreases pvp by decreasing available content for other pvp styles to exploit.


It is literally the ONLY way to ever stand a chance at being on the same grid with some players. Intel can pick up gangs 20+ jumps away, and thanks to plain old intel channels, extra tools that alliances use, and the ratting ships themselves which can either rat aligned, or from 100km out, is the only realistic way to actually impose risk in nullsec. I'm speaking from being one of the best (or at least persistent Big smile) blops hunters in the game, 95% of the time it is not that the hunter is good, it's that the hunted is bad and cannot use intel. I'm not sure how you understand just how strong local really is. The moment a gang is spotted or a WH opens up, the sirens go off and all the ratters dock up. That is terrible design for a region which is supposed to be lucrative and dangerous.


Jerghul wrote:
My issue is being rooster-blocked by afk cloaky camping. It weakens content available to small gang roams excessively.


Fit a cyno. Suddenly the hunter, becomes the hunted. Or Rat in a PvP fit - you can really suprise people. There are already m

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7099 - 2016-10-21 06:55:18 UTC
Vic
Thank you for sharing your opinions!

I think I willl opt for the least intrusive approach and state that cloaks must be aligned with command bursts as soon as possible and the modules be given a 5 hour charge capacity.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#7100 - 2016-10-21 10:14:14 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Vic
Thank you for sharing your opinions!

I think I willl opt for the least intrusive approach and state that cloaks must be aligned with command bursts as soon as possible and the modules be given a 5 hour charge capacity.


And destroy the only counter we have to local.