These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#9401 - 2017-04-30 04:42:39 UTC
Now Life wrote:
The biggest problem with a afk cloaker is the cyno on the ship .


Now many AFK players have lit a cyno?

Here, I'll answer for you since you won't: None.

Roll

"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
#9402 - 2017-04-30 04:43:41 UTC
Now Life wrote:
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Now Life wrote:
wormhole group/corporations can't be hotdropt by 100+ capitals /BS


I fail to see the problem with a 100+ man fleet succeeding in killing something. If you bring that many ships against a lesser target of course you should win. Perhaps, instead of whining that you can get hotdropped by 100+ capitals, you should match their hotdrop with 100+ capitals of your own?



We have
And its not the 100+ capitals i have problems with, it's the afk cloaker


Who lights that cyno how....?

I am AFK, how do I push that butan?

"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
#9403 - 2017-04-30 04:44:46 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Right. Non-Consent only applies to your targets, it should never ever be allowed to come back to the hunter.


Ah yes, the same tired old bleating about "I MUST PVP THIS". You've provided no good reasons for your blanket statements that everything must be vulnerable to attack at all times, you've just declared it to be true. And you continue to overlook the massive balance problems that come with every proposal to add vulnerability to cloaked ships: either the counter is ineffective at best and non-consent applies only in theory, or the counter is way too easy and effectively removes cloaks from the game. And I have no idea why you consider this "ALL MUST BE VULNERABLE" principle to be more important than the practical balance consequences of your obsession with it.


You are questioning if someone should be venerable at all.

This is the entire basis of the 'OMG, PvE'rs are TOO SAFE, must counter Local'. How do you justify that argument if people aren't supposed to be venerable?

Lets skip the part where the cloaked ship isn't interacting with the game, because anyone can refuse to interact with or without a cloak and there are plenty of things a cloaked ship can do including some things you can't while in station, and clearly you are because otherwise this thread would not exist. We can skip the compromised combat potential because plenty of ships are weaker.

The entire point is that people are actively evading hunters who then get butthurt that they missed easy targets, and yet you advocate infinite safety at even less effort for your own playstyle.


I am always venerable. Not always vulnerable, but always venerable. P

"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
#9404 - 2017-04-30 04:46:58 UTC
Now Life wrote:
just an idea

You have : Mobile Cynosural Inhibitors
- 100km effective range
Two minute activation time.

May not be deployed within 200km of another Mobile Cynosural Inhibitor, within 75km of Stargates, Stations or Upwell Structures, or within 40km of a Starbase. Cannot be retrieved once deployed.
Self-destructs after one hour of operation.

You have : Mobile S / M / L Warp Disruputors
- not possible to deploy in 2500m of a gat / ship / WH / ......

Why not a : Mobile Cloaking Disruptor
Same restrictions and effective range as the Mobile Cynosural Inhibitors + do not decloak ships in warp + May not be deployed within 75km of any other deployed Mobile structure

and even : The massive energy required to project this field causes the mobile Cloaking Disruptor itself to be extremely visible to combat probes and directional scans.


Oh yeah, lets put that mobile cloak disruptor on a gate and make our systems really safe.

Maybe if you allow for a nerf for local first, if not, no. You do NOT deserve an increase safety considering the safety local already affords you if you use it.

"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
#9405 - 2017-04-30 04:55:42 UTC
Now Life wrote:
lol yep i lost a JF to CODE in high sec
Completely different use of SB



Your problem appears to be that you place zero value on emergent game play. That players find new and novel uses for a given ship class is not a bug, it is a feature.

"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
#9406 - 2017-04-30 04:58:15 UTC
Now Life wrote:
So

What can we do to AFK cloakt ships

Now = Nothing just keep a suport fleet on standby just in the event that he sees an easy target when he is back behind his pc.

Problem : - No way to find him in system
- AFK <- biggest problemi

possible solutions : - When not active with that character for XX h time auto log off ?
- When not active with that character for XX h time Cloak Fades away ?
- When not active with that character for XX h time a possibility to scan him with new type of probes ?
- ...............


Someone have other possible solutions ?

and yes there are other solutions so we do not have to change the cloak



Kind of tired of repeating this....

Get in the standing fleet.
Get on comms.
Rat in a group.
Rat in a group with PvP fit ships.
Fit a cyno if you are using a carrier.

Alternative, go to KBs and see when the guy is active. Or test to see if he is active. Start moving around in a hauler like you are "doing stuff"™ see if he goes for a quick kill. If he does not after a number of opportunities...maybe he is AFK and as such quite harmless--i.e. go rat, mine, etc.

"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
#9407 - 2017-04-30 04:59:06 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Now Life wrote:
https://zkillboard.com/kill/61912734/

ok 2 SB ooo look a drone ship


That's ONE KILLMAIL, from a 2v1, where a Dominix didn't bother to fit neuts in their highs. Yes, occasionally stupid people will lose ships, but that doesn't mean that cloaking is a problem.


Or bring light or even medium drones.

"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
#9408 - 2017-04-30 05:02:48 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Lets skip the part where the cloaked ship isn't interacting with the game....


Okay, so it is not interacting with "the game" why should "the game" interact with it.

Oh and should I take your lack of reply to my last post as you capitulating?

"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
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#9409 - 2017-04-30 05:40:38 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Lets skip the part where the cloaked ship isn't interacting with the game....


Okay, so it is not interacting with "the game" why should "the game" interact with it.

Oh and should I take your lack of reply to my last post as you capitulating?



No, you are just not worth arguing with. We have been doing it for years, and you have changed your tune a few times only to change it right back when a new poster showed up.

You aren't reasoning. You have nothing but empty dogma and trolling to offer. You just want to make false statements and take things out of context.

You understand the points being made, you just choose to pretend like we haven't covered the same ground before so that every post we have to keep a huge checklist of buzzwords to keep you from just circling back around to something dealt with 200 pages ago.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#9410 - 2017-04-30 06:03:03 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Lets skip the part where the cloaked ship isn't interacting with the game....


Okay, so it is not interacting with "the game" why should "the game" interact with it.

Oh and should I take your lack of reply to my last post as you capitulating?



No, you are just not worth arguing with. We have been doing it for years, and you have changed your tune a few times only to change it right back when a new poster showed up.

You aren't reasoning. You have nothing but empty dogma and trolling to offer. You just want to make false statements and take things out of context.

You understand the points being made, you just choose to pretend like we haven't covered the same ground before so that every post we have to keep a huge checklist of buzzwords to keep you from just circling back around to something dealt with 200 pages ago.


I think you describe yourself Mike... but whatever. You have completely failed to show a cloak is superior to a station or citadel.

I'll take this as a win.

"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
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#9411 - 2017-04-30 06:59:52 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Lets skip the part where the cloaked ship isn't interacting with the game....


Okay, so it is not interacting with "the game" why should "the game" interact with it.

Oh and should I take your lack of reply to my last post as you capitulating?



No, you are just not worth arguing with. We have been doing it for years, and you have changed your tune a few times only to change it right back when a new poster showed up.

You aren't reasoning. You have nothing but empty dogma and trolling to offer. You just want to make false statements and take things out of context.

You understand the points being made, you just choose to pretend like we haven't covered the same ground before so that every post we have to keep a huge checklist of buzzwords to keep you from just circling back around to something dealt with 200 pages ago.


Which is why I blocked this sad troll.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#9412 - 2017-04-30 07:45:13 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Lets skip the part where the cloaked ship isn't interacting with the game....


Okay, so it is not interacting with "the game" why should "the game" interact with it.

Oh and should I take your lack of reply to my last post as you capitulating?



No, you are just not worth arguing with. We have been doing it for years, and you have changed your tune a few times only to change it right back when a new poster showed up.

You aren't reasoning. You have nothing but empty dogma and trolling to offer. You just want to make false statements and take things out of context.

You understand the points being made, you just choose to pretend like we haven't covered the same ground before so that every post we have to keep a huge checklist of buzzwords to keep you from just circling back around to something dealt with 200 pages ago.


Which is why I blocked this sad troll.


And why you keep replying to my posts you sad sack of crap. P

And heaven forbid your little bubble world view face contrary views.

Edit: Maybe you should have your wife post how awesome you are again. Roll

"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
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale
#9413 - 2017-04-30 09:43:32 UTC
I pity the ISDs that are keeping tabs on this thread...

Okay, Mike, Dracvlad and co. You've had 470 pages to get it and still don't.

You're meaningless crybabies that have no business being in nullsec. You cry all the ******* time and never stop crying and quite literally everyone else is just milking you for more and more tears, but because you're so ******* dumb that you literally run against the same wall over and over and over again, you just don't get it.

Cloaks are balanced. The only problems are instant local chat and your inability to defend yourselves.
You have been given time and time again PLENTY of options to deal with afk cloakers and you refuse EVERY SINGLE ONE of them because you DO NOT want to deal with it. Either because you're too lazy, or too stupid. Likely both.

So instead of writing tears every time you press that "post" button, why don't you just man the **** up or finally accept that you're too dumb for the game.

When you don't know the difference between there, their, and they're, you come across as being so uneducated that your viewpoint can be safely dismissed. The literate is unlikely to learn much from the illiterate.
ripper1 Tivianne
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#9414 - 2017-04-30 12:04:31 UTC
Cloacky Wcamper's TwistedTwistedTwistedTwistedTwistedTwistedTwistedTwistedSadP
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#9415 - 2017-04-30 16:27:36 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Lets skip the part where the cloaked ship isn't interacting with the game....


Okay, so it is not interacting with "the game" why should "the game" interact with it.

Oh and should I take your lack of reply to my last post as you capitulating?



No, you are just not worth arguing with. We have been doing it for years, and you have changed your tune a few times only to change it right back when a new poster showed up.

You aren't reasoning. You have nothing but empty dogma and trolling to offer. You just want to make false statements and take things out of context.

You understand the points being made, you just choose to pretend like we haven't covered the same ground before so that every post we have to keep a huge checklist of buzzwords to keep you from just circling back around to something dealt with 200 pages ago.


I think you describe yourself Mike... but whatever. You have completely failed to show a cloak is superior to a station or citadel.

I'll take this as a win.


That's you trying to twist things out of context again. They aren't, and should not be comparable. One aspect- safety- happens to be something that unfortunately is comparable, and it is in the cloaks favor. No doubt you will once again snip out the rest of the post and try to make some kind of point with it.

You aren't worth arguing with.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#9416 - 2017-04-30 16:29:20 UTC
Linus Gorp wrote:
I pity the ISDs that are keeping tabs on this thread...

Okay, Mike, Dracvlad and co. You've had 470 pages to get it and still don't.

You're meaningless crybabies that have no business being in nullsec. You cry all the ******* time and never stop crying and quite literally everyone else is just milking you for more and more tears, but because you're so ******* dumb that you literally run against the same wall over and over and over again, you just don't get it.

Cloaks are balanced. The only problems are instant local chat and your inability to defend yourselves.
You have been given time and time again PLENTY of options to deal with afk cloakers and you refuse EVERY SINGLE ONE of them because you DO NOT want to deal with it. Either because you're too lazy, or too stupid. Likely both.

So instead of writing tears every time you press that "post" button, why don't you just man the **** up or finally accept that you're too dumb for the game.



No one needs a defense from AFK campers.

Everyone deserves a chance to hunt any ship in space, even cloaked ones. It does not have to be cheap or easy, we can start with simply making it possible.
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#9417 - 2017-04-30 16:32:36 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
No one needs a defense from AFK campers.

Everyone deserves a chance to hunt any ship in space, even cloaked ones. It does not have to be cheap or easy, we can start with simply making it possible.


You should be able to hunt a ship that can't shoot you and can't earn isk?

And why would you care about hunting ships when you've never done any PvP since you started playing? Is it that you want to make PvE even safer than it already is?
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#9418 - 2017-04-30 17:52:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Linus Gorp wrote:
I pity the ISDs that are keeping tabs on this thread...

Okay, Mike, Dracvlad and co. You've had 470 pages to get it and still don't.

You're meaningless crybabies that have no business being in nullsec. You cry all the ******* time and never stop crying and quite literally everyone else is just milking you for more and more tears, but because you're so ******* dumb that you literally run against the same wall over and over and over again, you just don't get it.

Cloaks are balanced. The only problems are instant local chat and your inability to defend yourselves.
You have been given time and time again PLENTY of options to deal with afk cloakers and you refuse EVERY SINGLE ONE of them because you DO NOT want to deal with it. Either because you're too lazy, or too stupid. Likely both.

So instead of writing tears every time you press that "post" button, why don't you just man the **** up or finally accept that you're too dumb for the game.


AFK play..., idiot...

Seeing as you mentioned me I am ratting with multiple PL cloaky campers in my systems, while you are a loser who steals ISK from Bombers bar..., because of hurt feelings... and you call me a cry baby, actions speak louder than words you sad loser...

Come and camp me so I can blow your sad ass up...

What a ******* cry baby you are...

PS I know many people in Bombers bar who want a piece of your ass, come at it loser... so let me see if you are able to get a kill on a useless carebear, who is top scorer against PL in their attempts to evict my alliance.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#9419 - 2017-04-30 17:56:14 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
No one needs a defense from AFK campers.

Everyone deserves a chance to hunt any ship in space, even cloaked ones. It does not have to be cheap or easy, we can start with simply making it possible.


You should be able to hunt a ship that can't shoot you and can't earn isk?

And why would you care about hunting ships when you've never done any PvP since you started playing? Is it that you want to make PvE even safer than it already is?


He does.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#9420 - 2017-04-30 20:02:34 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Lets skip the part where the cloaked ship isn't interacting with the game....


Okay, so it is not interacting with "the game" why should "the game" interact with it.

Oh and should I take your lack of reply to my last post as you capitulating?



No, you are just not worth arguing with. We have been doing it for years, and you have changed your tune a few times only to change it right back when a new poster showed up.

You aren't reasoning. You have nothing but empty dogma and trolling to offer. You just want to make false statements and take things out of context.

You understand the points being made, you just choose to pretend like we haven't covered the same ground before so that every post we have to keep a huge checklist of buzzwords to keep you from just circling back around to something dealt with 200 pages ago.


I think you describe yourself Mike... but whatever. You have completely failed to show a cloak is superior to a station or citadel.

I'll take this as a win.


That's you trying to twist things out of context again. They aren't, and should not be comparable. One aspect- safety- happens to be something that unfortunately is comparable, and it is in the cloaks favor. No doubt you will once again snip out the rest of the post and try to make some kind of point with it.

You aren't worth arguing with.


No Mike, you are quite wrong here. On one dimension are cloaks and stations are similar, safety. Yes, at a secret safe spot I can be as safe as I am in a station. However, to obtain that safety means I can't do very much (pretty much nothing) and it means you are safe from me too...just as if I were docked. What is really bothering you, IMO, is not the safety, but the uncertainty that I may or may not be at my keyboard. That was your view when you first joined this discussion. I don't believe it has changed, my belief is you changed your argument to try and "back door" a solution to your real concern. You have an answer and are using whatever you can come up with to justify that answer.

See here is the thing. Lets suppose you got your way. Would a ship cloaked at a secret safe be vulnerable? No. Why? Because that ship would not be there by the time you got there. What your change would do it is remove the uncertainty. Is he there or not? The only people left would be ATK cloakers. As such, I do not believe your views are indeed simply as you state them. I believe they are to try an mask an ulterior motive....the removal of uncertainty from this aspect of the game.

That is why I do not like Dracvald's idea of an AFK flag either. It removes uncertainty. Uncertainty is a feature not bug.

"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