These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Bye Bye AFK Cloaking

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#281 - 2015-04-01 16:26:08 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
You will with an organised defence. We do it day in day out.
You'll only kill a cloaker if he chooses to attack. A guy in station would have to leave his ship and clone behind to get out without getting killed.

baltec1 wrote:
No, what you want is the ability to ensure a perfect safety net via local intel.
Wrong, perfect safety doesn't exist even with local in a system with no AFK cloakers. What I want is for people to actually have to play the ******* game if they want to have any effect on a system. I have no problem with active players running around threatening everyone, but the ability to dump alts into systems and chuck up some permanent 100% safety while completely AFK is just a terrible mechanic.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nina Lowel
Echelon Research
Goonswarm Federation
#282 - 2015-04-01 16:26:25 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Which can only be done in null space and begs the question:

I you would dedicate people to defending a system from someone docked why are you unwilling to do the exact same thing with an AFK cloaker?
A docked player has only one point of exit and has to go through it to do anything and can be guarded by one person if they have the ship and skill to fight the docked player. An AFK cloaker can appear right next to any target they choose or can simply choose to leave. Short of a massive gatecamp and an enormous amount of luck, you're not going to stop him.


You will with an organised defence. We do it day in day out.

No, what you want is the ability to ensure a perfect safety net via local intel.


Look at you still trying to compare AFK cloaking to being docked in a station. It's so cute!
Eve Solecist
Shitt Outta Luck - GANKING4GOOD
#283 - 2015-04-01 16:26:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Eve Solecist
Nina Lowel wrote:
Eve Solecist wrote:
PvE efficiency.

Carebears who want to play in nullsec, because it means more money ...
... but want it to be as safe as highsec, because they are cowards.

Because the only thing that matters to them is their greed ...
... and the safety and isolation that allows them to fill their egos.

PvE efficiency.



So only people who want to pick on those PvE's are allowed to have fun? Why don't you engage those fit to PvP? Right, you want to bad your board too :)

I don't participate in this.

Your whole reply is built on the wrong idea that anyone is allowed to have fun,
or allowed to do what he wants. It's not. If others don't let you, that's your problem.

If people who PvE can't even follow the most basic rules and laws of the game,
then they certainly aren't allowed to have fun.

If you try to converse with the false belief that you deserve anything,
then it makes sense that you assume you have ground to complain.

Ignoring actual reality is much easier than accepting the facts,
getting over yourself and stopping whining...

I like threads like these. They give insight into how degenerated and
disconnected people have become.

So... thanks and go on.


The fact that CCP does not like you "people" to play in absolute safety,
as if nullsec was highsec ... is a good thing.
  • All incoming connection attempts are being blocked. If you want to speak to me you will find me either in Hek local, you can create a contract or make a thread about it in General Discussions. I will call you back. -
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#284 - 2015-04-01 16:28:01 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Yet here you are pushing for a 100% foolproof intel system that would mean pve players could avoid any attempt at pvp on them.
People already can avoid any attempt at PvP on them, often unsuccessfully. Even if AFK cloakers didn't exist, that would be no different. Again, what I'm pushing for is actively playing players, that's all. It's not a new concept.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#285 - 2015-04-01 16:29:03 UTC
Nina Lowel wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Which can only be done in null space and begs the question:

I you would dedicate people to defending a system from someone docked why are you unwilling to do the exact same thing with an AFK cloaker?
A docked player has only one point of exit and has to go through it to do anything and can be guarded by one person if they have the ship and skill to fight the docked player. An AFK cloaker can appear right next to any target they choose or can simply choose to leave. Short of a massive gatecamp and an enormous amount of luck, you're not going to stop him.


You will with an organised defence. We do it day in day out.

No, what you want is the ability to ensure a perfect safety net via local intel.


Look at you still trying to compare AFK cloaking to being docked in a station. It's so cute!




We shut down entire systems in the ice interdictions simply by having one flashy red docked in the station. Same result.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#286 - 2015-04-01 16:30:34 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Yet here you are pushing for a 100% foolproof intel system that would mean pve players could avoid any attempt at pvp on them.
People already can avoid any attempt at PvP on them, often unsuccessfully. Even if AFK cloakers didn't exist, that would be no different. Again, what I'm pushing for is actively playing players, that's all. It's not a new concept.


You get the result you want by removing local.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#287 - 2015-04-01 16:30:52 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Yet here you are pushing for a 100% foolproof intel system that would mean pve players could avoid any attempt at pvp on them.
People already can avoid any attempt at PvP on them, often unsuccessfully. Even if AFK cloakers didn't exist, that would be no different. Again, what I'm pushing for is actively playing players, that's all. It's not a new concept.


You're pushing for actively playing players... by advocating for something that removes the one barrier to completely free afk ratting in nullsec.

Lol. You're advocating for naked, selfish self interest, exactly like in the ISBotter thread, be honest for once.

"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.
Nina Lowel
Echelon Research
Goonswarm Federation
#288 - 2015-04-01 16:34:50 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Yet here you are pushing for a 100% foolproof intel system that would mean pve players could avoid any attempt at pvp on them.
People already can avoid any attempt at PvP on them, often unsuccessfully. Even if AFK cloakers didn't exist, that would be no different. Again, what I'm pushing for is actively playing players, that's all. It's not a new concept.


You get the result you want by removing local.



So you want WH space? Then go to WH space.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#289 - 2015-04-01 16:34:53 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Yet here you are pushing for a 100% foolproof intel system that would mean pve players could avoid any attempt at pvp on them.
People already can avoid any attempt at PvP on them, often unsuccessfully. Even if AFK cloakers didn't exist, that would be no different. Again, what I'm pushing for is actively playing players, that's all. It's not a new concept.


That may be what you want, but many behind the "death to afk cloaking" campaign don't really want that. If you take away "afk cloaking" they will find a way to morph the argument to "I pay for/foguht for this system and should be able to rat in it without some cloaky guy dropping on me, Death to Cynos!!".

If CCPs observation arrays have a decloaking feature like people are talking about, I'd bet you a large sum of Chribba secured isk (I'm talking 10s of millions of isk, perhaps enough to buy a whole Battlecruiser!) that this will happen. After CCP finalizes and announces their new structure scheme, if they do that anti afk cloaking thing I will be come back here to offer you that bet.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#290 - 2015-04-01 16:39:41 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Yet here you are pushing for a 100% foolproof intel system that would mean pve players could avoid any attempt at pvp on them.
People already can avoid any attempt at PvP on them, often unsuccessfully. Even if AFK cloakers didn't exist, that would be no different. Again, what I'm pushing for is actively playing players, that's all. It's not a new concept.
You get the result you want by removing local.
Indeed, I've agreed many times. Unfortunately the removal of local also has other effects, like emptying out null of PvE, since all other PvE would be lower risk, some for better rewards (such as wormholes).

In the same way though, removing of cloaking altogether also fixes the AFK cloaking issue, does it not?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#291 - 2015-04-01 16:44:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
You're pushing for actively playing players... by advocating for something that removes the one barrier to completely free afk ratting in nullsec.
Lol? "completely free afk ratting in nullsec" isn't really possible if you've got people actively flying about blowing you up. I'm guessing this was written in a hurry since it literally makes zero sense.

Jenn aSide wrote:
That may be what you want, but many behind the "death to afk cloaking" campaign don't really want that. If you take away "afk cloaking" they will find a way to morph the argument to "I pay for/foguht for this system and should be able to rat in it without some cloaky guy dropping on me, Death to Cynos!!".

If CCPs observation arrays have a decloaking feature like people are talking about, I'd bet you a large sum of Chribba secured isk (I'm talking 10s of millions of isk, perhaps enough to buy a whole Battlecruiser!) that this will happen. After CCP finalizes and announces their new structure scheme, if they do that anti afk cloaking thing I will be come back here to offer you that bet.
That would be called a slippery slope/slide. I'm sure just like in everything people will always whine for more and more changes, but that doesn't mean no changes should ever be made just because someone might whine about something else later. AFK cloaking is a completely safe completely AFK activity, and that's bad in my books and should go. If later someone then whines that cynos can go you can expect a swift "HTFU" from me.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#292 - 2015-04-01 16:50:17 UTC
Nina Lowel wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Yet here you are pushing for a 100% foolproof intel system that would mean pve players could avoid any attempt at pvp on them.
People already can avoid any attempt at PvP on them, often unsuccessfully. Even if AFK cloakers didn't exist, that would be no different. Again, what I'm pushing for is actively playing players, that's all. It's not a new concept.


You get the result you want by removing local.



So you want WH space? Then go to WH space.


If you want risk free pve go to highsec
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#293 - 2015-04-01 16:51:57 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
If you want risk free pve go to highsec
We're not asking for risk free PvE, we're asking for risk to be added to AFK meta PvP. I guarantee that if AFK cloaking stopped existing tomorrow, thousands of players would continue to die every day in null.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#294 - 2015-04-01 16:53:10 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Yet here you are pushing for a 100% foolproof intel system that would mean pve players could avoid any attempt at pvp on them.
People already can avoid any attempt at PvP on them, often unsuccessfully. Even if AFK cloakers didn't exist, that would be no different. Again, what I'm pushing for is actively playing players, that's all. It's not a new concept.
You get the result you want by removing local.
Indeed, I've agreed many times. Unfortunately the removal of local also has other effects, like emptying out null of PvE, since all other PvE would be lower risk, some for better rewards (such as wormholes).

In the same way though, removing of cloaking altogether also fixes the AFK cloaking issue, does it not?


That results in an uncounterable safety net that would be unbalanced. If you want afk cloaking gone then local intel needs to go too.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#295 - 2015-04-01 16:55:03 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
If you want risk free pve go to highsec
We're not asking for risk free PvE.


Thats exactly what you get when you remove afk cloaking.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#296 - 2015-04-01 16:57:23 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
[We're not asking for risk free PvE


Yeah, that's exactly what you're asking for, the rest is a smokescreen.

"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.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#297 - 2015-04-01 17:03:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Epeen
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
[We're not asking for risk free PvE


Yeah, that's exactly what you're asking for, the rest is a smokescreen.


I fail to see why you're so agitated over this.

It's not like it will affect your risk free PVP in any way.

Mr Epeen Cool
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#298 - 2015-04-01 17:08:41 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Yet here you are pushing for a 100% foolproof intel system that would mean pve players could avoid any attempt at pvp on them.
People already can avoid any attempt at PvP on them, often unsuccessfully. Even if AFK cloakers didn't exist, that would be no different. Again, what I'm pushing for is actively playing players, that's all. It's not a new concept.
You get the result you want by removing local.
Indeed, I've agreed many times. Unfortunately the removal of local also has other effects, like emptying out null of PvE, since all other PvE would be lower risk, some for better rewards (such as wormholes).

In the same way though, removing of cloaking altogether also fixes the AFK cloaking issue, does it not?
That results in an uncounterable safety net that would be unbalanced. If you want afk cloaking gone then local intel needs to go too.
No it doesn't lol. Removing AFK cloaking or even cloaking as a whole doesn't result in total safety. And no, they certainly don't need to go together. There's been numerous ideas to tackle AFK cloaking without affecting active cloakers or local, and those are the ideas I support.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#299 - 2015-04-01 17:10:35 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
If you want risk free pve go to highsec
We're not asking for risk free PvE.
Thats exactly what you get when you remove afk cloaking.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
[We're not asking for risk free PvE
Yeah,
that's exactly what you're asking for, the rest is a smokescreen.
lol, bad trolls are bad. So you are saying AFK cloakers are the only risk to PvE players? Interesting.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#300 - 2015-04-01 17:11:21 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Nina Lowel wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Yet here you are pushing for a 100% foolproof intel system that would mean pve players could avoid any attempt at pvp on them.
People already can avoid any attempt at PvP on them, often unsuccessfully. Even if AFK cloakers didn't exist, that would be no different. Again, what I'm pushing for is actively playing players, that's all. It's not a new concept.


You get the result you want by removing local.



So you want WH space? Then go to WH space.


If you want risk free pve go to highsec




Most of the PVPers in highsec are there for the lack of risk too. I've seen some very expensive goon loss mails in nullsec and lo and behold the player pops up in the Niarja-Uedama pipe looking for an easy target next day.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!