| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Preybird MKII
M.I.M.M.S Apocalypse Now.
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 09:56:00 -
[1] - Quote
A common problem I have encountered is the serial AFK cloaker. Log in, go deep-safe somewhere, and just leave and go to work for 8 - 12 hours.
I understand cloaking is a good chance for intel, but its only useful if you are active.
An alternative solution to the cloak-fuel I have thought a fair bit about and quite plausable to a cloak, is a degredation of the cloak the longer it is activated continuously, and a cooldown as you approach the maximum cloak time.
It would work a little like this - You activate your cloak, and for the first 30 mins you can remained cloaked with no penalty. After the 30 mins, you begin to suffer a leeching of your signature radius which will gradually creep up over the next 30 mins, until the hour mark where your signature radius equals that of your uncloaked ship. Visually you will still remain cloaked, however you can be scanned which will allow proximity decloaking. As well as the leech, after the 30 min mark of continuous activation, the cloak will incurr a 5 minute cooldown, with a further 5 mins added at the 45 min and 60min mark.
No cooldown or leeching in the first 30 mins of activation, so you can deactivate and reactivate as much as you want, which will reset the clock.
This will not disadvantage those who want to use the cloaks as they are intended, and will not reduce the effectivness of the cloaked ship, but will purely stop people cloaking in a system and walking away for 12 - 23 hours.
Cheers,
Prey |

oldbutfeelingyoung
VIRTUAL EMPIRE VANGUARD Vanguard Ascendants
575
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 10:02:00 -
[2] - Quote
is it not more easier then to deactivate the cloak after an hour when there is no action if the cloaker doesn,t change his direction when flying or is stationary after an half hour/1 hour ,the ship will be visible pushing that button ,not expecting something. But suddenly the door opens and the next thing i see myself flooting in space,just before i wake up again. thank god for clones |

Francisco Bizzaro
65
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 10:30:00 -
[3] - Quote
Well, I don't really have much time/energy for this today so I hope someone can pick it up, but I guess I can get the ball rolling with the usual questions which are asked every time this non-issue comes up ...
Preybird MKII wrote:A common problem I have encountered is the serial AFK cloaker. Log in, go deep-safe somewhere, and just leave and go to work for 8 - 12 hours.
So the problem is ...?
Quote: I understand cloaking is a good chance for intel, but its only useful if you are active.
Exactly.
Quote: An alternative solution to the cloak-fuel I have thought a fair bit about and quite plausable to a cloak, is a degredation of the cloak the longer it is activated continuously, and a cooldown as you approach the maximum cloak time.
It would work a little like this - You activate your cloak, and for the first 30 mins you can remained cloaked with no penalty. After the 30 mins, you begin to suffer a leeching of your signature radius which will gradually creep up over the next 30 mins, until the hour mark where your signature radius equals that of your uncloaked ship. Visually you will still remain cloaked, however you can be scanned which will allow proximity decloaking. As well as the leech, after the 30 min mark of continuous activation, the cloak will incurr a 5 minute cooldown, with a further 5 mins added at the 45 min and 60min mark.
No cooldown or leeching in the first 30 mins of activation, so you can deactivate and reactivate as much as you want, which will reset the clock.
This will not disadvantage those who want to use the cloaks as they are intended, ...
How are cloaks "intended" to be used? Whose intentions are these?
Quote: ... and will not reduce the effectivness of the cloaked ship, but will purely stop people cloaking in a system and walking away for 12 - 23 hours.
Why would you want to do this? (See the first together with the second points above.)
There are a number of threads dealing with AFK cloaking. They propose "solutions" which differ from yours only in technical details of implementation. But they never go anywhere because they always fail to motivate why there is a problem that needs to be solved by a change of rules.
I predict much better success for your idea if you can come up with a coherent motivational argument from the outset: Why is an AFK player a threat to you? Otherwise, we'll see several pages of futile back-and-forth which essentially repeats previous threads, and whose length depends entirely on the quality of trolling involved. |

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
609
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 10:36:00 -
[4] - Quote
Copy-pasted from another thread:
I wrote:OP...
AFK cloaking was "born" because the instant you enter a system, you appear on local. Because you are now the ONLY non-blue person in local, the "natives" in that system will immediately dock/cloak/POS up until you leave or are destroyed.
The only way to get around this is to cloak up in some random spot in the system... and sit... often for hours. In doing this a cloaker "devalues" local as an intel tool and effectively forces the "native" to alter tactics.
How can you alter tactics? Easy. - Spare a high and mid slot on your ratting battleship for a heavy energy neutralizer and a long point... and make enough room in your drone bay for 5 Warrior IIs. Congrats, you are now immune to Stealth Bombers (or, can escape them at the very least). - Cloaky Recons got you down? Easy... they have a decloak timer of about 5 to 10 seconds where they cannot lock anything... add in actual locking time and you have a good 7 to 12 seconds where you can escape. If you stay aligned to something, you can warp off as soon as they appear on your overview. - Are your haulers being popped at gates/jumpbridges? Before you move something have a fast locking, high-alpha Tempest/Tornado meet up with you at the gate/jumpbridge. Ships that use the Cov-ops cloak are quite fragile compared to other ships in their class... and most are not fitted for buffer (btw... fitting your hauler completely with cargo expanders means that you migh have trouble withstanding ONE lousy bomb). - Move systems. - If you real fear is not the cloaker itself, but the hotdrop they can call in... opt to using smaller and/or "cheaper" ships that you can escape/replace more easily. For example: an Ishtar may not be able to clear out a sanctum the way a Marauder can... but it's MUCH cheaper and faster (and "small" to boot, which means that torps won't be as effective against it).
Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |

Belshazzar Babylon
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
35
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 10:42:00 -
[5] - Quote
cloak-fuel
Wow what a new and exciting idea that has never been brought up before at all.
I'm sure CCP will jump right on this exciting new idea. |

Graeme Rowney
Revenge of the Noobs Mortal Destruction
5
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 11:02:00 -
[6] - Quote
Belshazzar Babylon wrote:cloak-fuel
Wow what a new and exciting idea that has never been brought up before at all.
I'm sure CCP will jump right on this exciting new idea.
Read the thread thats not what its about ya ass hat!
The issue with afk cloaking is it messes up peoples enjoyment of the game not knowing if the person is there or not. What we need is no local or a way to tell an afk person like an away tag in local. |

EveTestDummy
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 11:07:00 -
[7] - Quote
Francisco Bizzaro wrote:Well, I predict much better success for your idea if you can come up with a coherent motivational argument from the outset: Why is an AFK player a threat to you? Otherwise, we'll see several pages of futile back-and-forth which essentially repeats previous threads, and whose length depends entirely on the quality of trolling involved.
Holy Crap Batman, someone offers a suggestion for constructive comment, and you don't have time to take it up and make any constructive comment, but you manage near a full page of "Trolling" on your own.
You 'Trolling" is completely negative in content without adding anything of use to the thread - Do you ever actually use you account for anything other than "Trolling" the forums?
I personally think Cloaking, and people who deliberatly cloak up in a system 23.5/7 and do nothing except deliberatly be there to disrupt other peoples game play is a worthwhile topic. The idea of a Cloak "Timing Out" so to speak as described is interesting.
You could have different timings and penalties for different Cloaking devices and ships, but ultimately you could be pinned down if the locals wanted to remove you from their system.
This would force peopel to actively play their account, not log on and do nothing except go out of their way to **** people off - A bit like being a negative Troll in the forums |

Francisco Bizzaro
65
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 12:04:00 -
[8] - Quote
EveTestDummy wrote:Francisco Bizzaro wrote:Well, I predict much better success for your idea if you can come up with a coherent motivational argument from the outset: Why is an AFK player a threat to you? Otherwise, we'll see several pages of futile back-and-forth which essentially repeats previous threads, and whose length depends entirely on the quality of trolling involved. Holy Crap Batman, someone offers a suggestion for constructive comment, and you don't have time to take it up and make any constructive comment, but you manage near a full page of "Trolling" on your own. You 'Trolling" is completely negative in content without adding anything of use to the thread - Do you ever actually use you account for anything other than "Trolling" the forums? Read it again. I'm not sure there's anything very negative in that paragraph you quoted, just a bit cynical. (okay, a lot cynical.)
The idea of cloak timers of one sort or another is not new. It has been debated over many (many) pages of these forums. The arguments always revolve around the same points, and the key points rarely depend on the technical details of the proposed cloak nerf.
Okay, this is F&I, so we can be creative here and kick new ideas around. But if the proposal is to change the rules, you need to provide a good motivation for the change - especially if you are planning a blanket nerf to a mechanic without a compensating buff.
The OP implies that AFK cloaking is universally regarded as a problem. I suggest the spectrum of opinion is broader than that, and you'll need to win over the doubters if you want the idea to fly. |

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
7408
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 13:03:00 -
[9] - Quote
What problem are you trying to solve here?
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |

Korg Tronix
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
50
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 13:11:00 -
[10] - Quote
Oh look its this 'problem' again Evil: If I were creating the world I wouldn't mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers, eight o'clock, Day One! [zaps one of his minions accidentally, minion screams] http://themabinogion.blogspot.com/ |

Astroniomix
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
66
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 16:43:00 -
[11] - Quote
I'm sorry to inform you that the daily "afk cloaking fix" thread has already been created. Therefore I am not allowed to make any meaningful contribution.
|

2ofSpades
Exploration and Intelligence Agency
4
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 16:49:00 -
[12] - Quote
AFK cloaking is a very important part of hunting PVE targets and it works like this.
-Pilgrim jumps in 0.0 system -Pilgrim is reported on intel, All PVE'ers dock up or run to a different system. -Pilgrim goes afk for hours. -PVE'ers start running missions again in 4 to 6 hours because the pilgrim guy didnt leave and looks afk and the PVEers just cant stand sitting in station so they start coming back out. -Pilgrims 6 hour wait has finally paid off and targets are back out. -Pilgrim gets the kill.
I think the the only problem caused from afk cloaking is to a carebears mental state. |

Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
95
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 18:59:00 -
[13] - Quote
Preybird MKII wrote:A common problem I have encountered is the serial AFK cloaker. Log in, go deep-safe somewhere, and just leave and go to work for 8 - 12 hours. ... An alternative solution to the cloak-fuel I have thought a fair bit about and quite plausable to a cloak, is a degredation of the cloak the longer it is activated continuously, and a cooldown as you approach the maximum cloak time.
It would work a little like this - You activate your cloak, and for the first 30 mins you can remained cloaked with no penalty. After the 30 mins, you begin to suffer a leeching of your signature radius which will gradually creep up over the next 30 mins, until the hour mark where your signature radius equals that of your uncloaked ship. Visually you will still remain cloaked, however you can be scanned which will allow proximity decloaking. As well as the leech, after the 30 min mark of continuous activation, the cloak will incurr a 5 minute cooldown, with a further 5 mins added at the 45 min and 60min mark.
.... Prey
nether idea is acceptable.. either one would cause trouble with non afk usage.. though I really hate the fuel idea the most as it takes an age to get in place for good recon (some times more than 50 jumps).... and you will run out of fuel for the return trip easily. The other idea would be trouble for blockade runners trying to get around gate camps and other things.
The bottom line is AFK cloaking does not effect you - the player is not there... The best solution is to remove all cloaked pilots from local.. that way you'll have no reason to complain about someone possibly not at their keyboard.....
Please stop making redundant threads as; this is one of the many... I'm going to go conservatively with 100s of threads on this topic. [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/OldST.jpg[/IMG] |

Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
246
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 21:36:00 -
[14] - Quote
As an expert in AFK Cloaking I will now cloak up in the system you live in and kill you and your friends repeatedly until you learn how to actually deal will AFK Cloakers or until you abandon 'your' space for highsec. If you consider this a teaching experience, then you can only learn from your failures. |

Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
280
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 23:14:00 -
[15] - Quote
It's not a problem. Local Chat is a problem!
And as to the stupid fuel idea, if Cloaks require fuel so should every other active mod. |

Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
270
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 02:34:00 -
[16] - Quote
Post-signing OP want cloaking nerfed.
Well I never! |

Haulie Berry
24
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 07:58:00 -
[17] - Quote
Oh, look. Someone is mistaking a personal problem for a systemic problem.
Again. |

Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
111
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 08:26:00 -
[18] - Quote
Dropping serial afks in your home system betch'es. Wuddup?!? |

Kale Kold
the united Negative Ten.
77
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 09:20:00 -
[19] - Quote
Lets get to the real point in this discussion.
- You want somebody's cloak removed because you don't feel safe.
Well, lets take the two only possible sides of the cloaked person.
- They are away from the keyboard and therefore they are no threat to you whatsoever.
- They are at the keyboard and are playing against you.
The first point shouldn't bother you, and the second point you should get used to because everybody is playing against you! That's the whole point of EVE!
These afk cloaking whines are always people basically saying "i want that cloak removed so that person gets killed and i can mine in peace."
It's the same as agreeing to play chess then telling the other person they are not allowed to take any pieces! Stop being such a wimp! GÇ£Some people call me insane for the destruction-áIGÇÖve caused, ...I believe I was just doing my duty!GÇ¥ -- Testimony submitted to Caldari Navy war crimes tribunal. |

Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
845
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 14:09:00 -
[20] - Quote
Cloak degrades over time? Cool story bro, please tell me more about it when I get back from writing a macro that double taps F1 once an hour.
Also, you don't understand or are deliberately ignoring the reason people use afk cloaking tactics.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |

El Geo
Pathfinders. Mining For Profit Alliance
18
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 14:09:00 -
[21] - Quote
no problem with afk cloakers imo but i still do love the idea of the old 'sonar' destroyer idea, i think it adds gameplay and more uses for destroyers = win  |

Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
845
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 14:14:00 -
[22] - Quote
El Geo wrote:no problem with afk cloakers imo but i still do love the idea of the old 'sonar' destroyer idea, i think it adds gameplay and more uses for destroyers = win  Any idea that kills AFK cloaking would have to be accompanied by some kind of associated buff, this game is weighted heavily enough already in favor of allowing people to avoid combat. Nerfing sand box PvP even further is unwarranted, and it certainly isn't worth doing purely to give an extra use for dessies.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |

El Geo
Pathfinders. Mining For Profit Alliance
18
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 14:22:00 -
[23] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:El Geo wrote:no problem with afk cloakers imo but i still do love the idea of the old 'sonar' destroyer idea, i think it adds gameplay and more uses for destroyers = win  Any idea that kills AFK cloaking would have to be accompanied by some kind of associated buff, this game is weighted heavily enough already in favor of allowing people to avoid combat. Nerfing sand box PvP even further is unwarranted, and it certainly isn't worth doing purely to give an extra use for dessies.
like blops being able to warp around cloaked you mean? to me the idea of adding something that gives more cat and mouse to a game is better than having just the cat |

Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
845
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 14:28:00 -
[24] - Quote
Not really, no. Black ops warping cloaked isn't particularly useful when the vast majority of targets are going to be docked up when your cyno 5 toon enters local.
30 second time delay on local would be more useful.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |

El Geo
Pathfinders. Mining For Profit Alliance
18
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 14:42:00 -
[25] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:Not really, no. Black ops warping cloaked isn't particularly useful when the vast majority of targets are going to be docked up when your cyno 5 toon enters local.
30 second time delay on local would be more useful.
yeah the lore isnt exactly correct, technically anything lighting a cyno (or via wh) into a system arent using gates so shouldnt show in local, lol theres tonnes of tweaks i'd like to see though, like not so direct cut off points for cyno's, like blops able to cyno into 0.5's or 0.6's (dont hate me)
|

Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
846
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 14:59:00 -
[26] - Quote
Lol I wouldn't be against black ops cynos working in 0.5 high sec, would be hilarious using a neutral cyno5 toon to jump in a war target black ops gang onto miners/mission runners. That would probably be OP as hell though 
I would prefer it if they just made it harder to evade war decs, because lets be honest they are an absolute joke as they stand at the moment and the upcoming changes seem only to serve as a nerf for a few griefer tactics. Even the pricing changes serve only to lower cost for attacking e-uni and their dec shielding ilk, and who gives a crap about ISK?
Anyway, in terms of null sec I would like to see logistics chains needed into the ground and for CCP to finally release some kind of Intel tool replacement for local.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |

El Geo
Pathfinders. Mining For Profit Alliance
18
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 15:22:00 -
[27] - Quote
lol, people who mine and mission during decs should pay attention, besides if they know you can blops into 0.5 or even 0.6, dont run missions there, just like if theres an afk cloaker in system, dont run the damned anoms like a tool |

Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
846
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 15:35:00 -
[28] - Quote
Aye, I have a widow on my alt, only thing I've ever used it for is breaking up the occasional gate camp with bait ship+recon/bomber gang. I rarely even jump it in until the fight is nearly over, even when you're out roaming its easier to just drop caps/supers or bridge a gang in than it is to try and jump cov ops ships in.
Still, I can't see CCP doing anything that would encourage killing miners or mission runner in high sec at the moment. Management at CCP atm seem to be of the opinion that making the game more difficult is counterproductive to increasing subs.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |

Alice Katsuko
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
103
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 16:37:00 -
[29] - Quote
Kale Kold wrote:Lets get to the real point in this discussion.
- You want somebody's cloak removed because you don't feel safe.
Well, lets take the two only possible sides of the cloaked person.
- They are away from the keyboard and therefore they are no threat to you whatsoever.
- They are at the keyboard and are playing against you.
The first point shouldn't bother you, and the second point you should get used to because everybody is playing against you! That's the whole point of EVE! These afk cloaking whines are always people basically saying "i want that cloak removed so that person gets killed and i can mine in peace."It's the same as agreeing to play chess then telling the other person they are not allowed to take any pieces! Stop being such a wimp!
The problem with this sort of argument, which unfortunately comes up all too often, is that there is no way to distinguish between an active cloaky and an inactive cloaky. Consequently, there is no way to determine the level of risk a cloaked player poses at any given moment. Any good EVE player will rightfully presume that the cloaked player is active and hunting for them; if he does not, and gets ganked as a result, he will be ridiculed for being stupid, and rightly so. So even if the risk at any given moment of being attacked by the cloaked ship is fairly low, to any individual player the risk is enormous.
Consider the case of a player who runs anomalies in a 200-million-ISK tech-1 battleship, and makes about 40 million ISK per hour after taxes. That price is a bit on the low end for folk who rat in Abaddons; a bit on the high end for those who rat in Dominixes. That player would need five hours of safe ratting in order to make back the ISK from his ship. Would anyone reading this like to bet their ship on those odds?
Now consider the position of an AFK cloaky. I take my alt into a popular mining/ratting system in a stealth bomber fitted with a covert cyno, cloak and point. The inhabitants see me come in. I sit in system for two days doing absolutely nothing, from downtime to downtime. The real risk I pose is zero, but the inhabitants have no way of knowing that. Objectively, I pose no risk to them, as you try to argue. But subjectively, I pose as much risk as though I were active and ready to pop that cover cyno, because there is no way to determine risk objectively in this situation. And in EVE, the subjective risk is the only one that matters.
Lastly, consider the effort needed to counter my presence, as some folk propose, with apparent seriousness. Say three of the system's inhabitants fleet up and go ratting, using semi-PvP ships (you can't really PvE in a properly PvP-fit ship). I find their anomaly, pop the covert cyno, bridge in ten or twenty recons, bombers, and black ops. So much for countering my threat. If you are fighting fair in EVE, you're doing it wrong. Unless the target system is in the middle of a wide cluster of inhabited blue systems, there is no way to detect the presense of a black ops gang until it drops in on you. And assuming that black ops gang is detected, it can sit AFK in a staging system just like I can idle in the target system, for days on end, posing the exact same amount of subjective risk regardless of activity levels.
So, in summary. Cloaking is fine the way it is for active players. The problem with cloaking is that there is no way to tell how much of a threat a player poses once cloaked. In every other case, we can tell with absolute certainty whether or not an undocked player is AFK: if an undocked player is AFK and not sitting inside a POS forcefield, he can be probed down and killed. This is why we do not see complaints about non-cloaky ships ganking people; a player can tell whether they pose a threat, and can form a fleet to go kill them or force them to log off. A fleet of cloak-fitted ships has no such counter; it can idle in a system for several hours, at no effort, completely defeating the much greater efforts of the players hunting it.
The Op's proposal is quite good, all things considering. It does not particularly affect active players. An active player can bounce between safe spots while his cloak recharges, or can eat the costs of signature radius bloom. At the same time, it allows for AFK cloaked players to be probed down and killed, same as for AFK uncloaked players. The system may be open to exploitation, depending on how it is implemented, and I do not think it is the perfect solution, but it is better than some proposals I have seen.
What about adding a cloak booster that offsets the sig radius increase?
|

Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
846
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 16:45:00 -
[30] - Quote
To the guy above: you don't understand the problems with AFK cloaking. It isn't merely hated because it ties up systems, we hate having to do it as much as you hate having it done to you.
Afk cloaking is just a symptom of a larger problem: local Intel and the ease with which combat can be avoided in Eve.
Also, your dominix and abaddon point is somewhat meaningless, relatively few people (excluding bots) bother to run anoms in crappy ships that make that little isk/hour. And 5 hours is not a long time, I've chained anoms for longer than that in a single session before. Although I used to use a carrier + a machariel and made considerably more than 40m an hour, all without risk due to local Intel.
Remove the risk free environment and we'll talk about removing afk cloaking. You cannot address one without the other.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |