| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Zen Dijun
Xoth Inc Unclaimed.
4
|
Posted - 2012.12.31 12:54:00 -
[1] - Quote
As hard as CCP works to make it so folks can't benefit from paying EVE away from the keyboard, I would like to suggest (and yes, I am sure it's been suggested before) the decloaking pulse.
This module could be ship or POS based and would force the cloaked pilot to tap a button to remain cloaked. If they're AFK, it would expose their ship and prevent the AFK nature of their encampment. If a cloak pilot has to tap a button every few minutes or so to remain cloaked, it would force them to focus on that activity rather than just log an account in and change screens for the rest of the day.
Another idea might be an "AWACS" ship specialized for scanning/decloaking/intel.
Is CCP planning on addressing the AFK nature of camped cloaked ships?
-- Zen |

Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
366
|
Posted - 2012.12.31 13:16:00 -
[2] - Quote
Wow another one, lets see i will try to get this all out with one post so here we go. first point that will be brought up is AFK cloaking only happend because of local is a flawed intellegence tool, to remove AFK cloaking remove local, at the very least remove the cloaked ship from local. second a AFK cloaker player has never killed any one. third a POS module that shuts off cloaking devices would have to affect every module on every ship to be balanced. I know i am missing something else. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |

TehCloud
Carnivore Company
22
|
Posted - 2012.12.31 13:34:00 -
[3] - Quote
Zen Dijun wrote:As hard as CCP works to make it so folks can't benefit from paying EVE away from the keyboard, [...]
So how exactly do they "benefit" for being AFK and Cloaked? Apart from gaining SP. My Condor costs less than that module! |

Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Relativity Alliance
949
|
Posted - 2012.12.31 14:15:00 -
[4] - Quote
Simply amazing.
It seems if you let players have a massive advantage, like free intel, that other players will find a way to counter balance it. That's where "AFK Cloaking" enters this picture.
Let's be clear: A person's willingness to glance at the roster for a chat channel does not equate to earning that intel. It simply means the bar on effort was lowered to discover who was in the same system as you are. This is not an intel tool. It is a chat channel.
It lists everyone in the system, regardless of their status. This includes:
Ships docked at an outpost: Go ahead, try to shoot them. Ships sitting inside the shields of a POS. I am sure they are waiting for your fleet. And, of course, cloaked vessels.
The FACT the information from local contains elements that are contrary to useful intel should be a warning, but since some avoid this realization there are cloaked pilots who reinforce this message.
By stripping away the ability to combat the flawless intel, you would unbalance the game.
It is not that cloaks should not change, but this stalemate effect is countering the free intel being given out by local.
We have right now, a case of: "I know you are there, but I cannot find you" (Absolute presence awareness countered by absolute location concealment)
You cannot change one side without the other, and still have balance.
Too much focus on how to remove AFK cloaking. You are addressing a symptom of a problem, not the problem itself.
If you want to remove AFK cloaking's game impact, remove cloaked ships from displaying in local.
When this is done, it becomes reasonable to consider means to hunt cloaked vessels. NOT before this happens.
So long as people in a system magically know cloaked pilots are present with them, cloaked vessels should not be vulnerable to being hunted effectively.
Cloaking will be earned when cloaking awareness is earned. Balance must be maintained. Cloaking being on a ten minute manual cycle timer? (Author: Bree Okanata) Fine. As long as there is a ten minute timer for being docked in a station. Also, you can't stop moving in the game. Just add in a way so every ten minutes you are randomly warped to the nearest other player. Keeps people from going AFK. |

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
11445
|
Posted - 2012.12.31 15:50:00 -
[5] - Quote
Zen Dijun wrote:As hard as CCP works to make it so folks can't benefit from paying EVE away from the keyboard, I would like to suggest (and yes, I am sure it's been suggested before) the decloaking pulse.
This module could be ship or POS based and would force the cloaked pilot to tap a button to remain cloaked. If they're AFK, it would expose their ship and prevent the AFK nature of their encampment. If a cloak pilot has to tap a button every few minutes or so to remain cloaked, it would force them to focus on that activity rather than just log an account in and change screens for the rest of the day.
Another idea might be an "AWACS" ship specialized for scanning/decloaking/intel.
Is CCP planning on addressing the AFK nature of camped cloaked ships?
-- Zen How do they benefit?
Also, why didn't you mention the reason for AFKing? The fact that you can AFK without a cloak and cause the same psychological effects, should speak volumes. Shouldn't it?
Your corp seems to have more than one pilot, seemingly unable to cope with life in 0.0. Maybe it's time to move back to empire?
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. |

Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
338
|
Posted - 2012.12.31 16:17:00 -
[6] - Quote
Remove local, then AFK cloaking becomes pointless, one might as well log out at that point.
AFK cloaking "defeated" - problem solved. |

Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate
981
|
Posted - 2012.12.31 16:32:00 -
[7] - Quote
No |

DSpite Culhach
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
35
|
Posted - 2012.12.31 18:13:00 -
[8] - Quote
The annoyance I've seen from people stems not from the fact they have a cloaked ship in system, but by the fact the player is playing tennis 30 km away, THAT level of AFK seems to annoy them.
I'm AFK a lot, but I'm in the room, or in the bathroom. I once had to really go pee while I was warp scrammed in mission, and while I did look around for convenient containers, I just went to the damn bathroom.
... if you put something in place that requires player "interaction" to stay cloaked, wont people just use some automated program to cause some "input noise" anyway?
|

Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Relativity Alliance
952
|
Posted - 2012.12.31 20:22:00 -
[9] - Quote
DSpite Culhach wrote:The annoyance I've seen from people stems not from the fact they have a cloaked ship in system, but by the fact the player is playing tennis 30 km away, THAT level of AFK seems to annoy them.
I'm AFK a lot, but I'm in the room, or in the bathroom. I once had to really go pee while I was warp scrammed in mission, and while I did look around for convenient containers, I just went to the damn bathroom.
... if you put something in place that requires player "interaction" to stay cloaked, wont people just use some automated program to cause some "input noise" anyway?
Maybe they would. Noone can deny many players are very creative.
The unreasonable request of this whole affair, however, is the one asking to make it necessary.
They are asking, effectively, to have other players lose the ability to counter the flawless intel provided by local.
Now, just to be plain about the sandbox, if balance is not provided on one level, the players will force feed it on another. AFK Cloaking is the COUNTER to the instant free intel provided by local chat.
It is used, almost exclusively, as a tool of psych warfare against groups of pilots who abuse local by using it to avoid conflict in a region of the game based around requiring effort to achieve this.
To put it another way, these local users are mining and ratting, but not defending. Instead of defending, they are using local to avoid this need. This is a VERY effective tactic, even with a few AFK Cloaking pilots, and it pushes the bar of gameplay down for everyone who would compete against these PvE players. You either match their play style, or they make more ISK by exploiting the difference.
Now, if you want to test to see if this style is risk averse, consider what happens when risk enters the system. If the answer is something besides group together to fight, maybe that bar needs to be raised. Cloaking being on a ten minute manual cycle timer? (Author: Bree Okanata) Fine. As long as there is a ten minute timer for being docked in a station. Also, you can't stop moving in the game. Just add in a way so every ten minutes you are randomly warped to the nearest other player. Keeps people from going AFK. |

Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
917
|
Posted - 2012.12.31 20:40:00 -
[10] - Quote
Zen Dijun wrote:As hard as CCP works to make it so folks can't benefit from paying EVE away from the keyboard, I would like to suggest (and yes, I am sure it's been suggested before) the decloaking pulse.
This module could be ship or POS based and would force the cloaked pilot to tap a button to remain cloaked. If they're AFK, it would expose their ship and prevent the AFK nature of their encampment. If a cloak pilot has to tap a button every few minutes or so to remain cloaked, it would force them to focus on that activity rather than just log an account in and change screens for the rest of the day.
Another idea might be an "AWACS" ship specialized for scanning/decloaking/intel.
Is CCP planning on addressing the AFK nature of camped cloaked ships?
-- Zen
Sure. But I get an undocking/kickout pulse to use. I come roaming through your system, your guys all dock up, I fire it up and it force undocks everyone in the station, and kicks everyone out of their POSes.
Can't have people being AFK now, can we. |

Seranova Farreach
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
401
|
Posted - 2012.12.31 20:54:00 -
[11] - Quote
AFK cloakers.. keeping afker PVE site campers paranoid since forever :P |

Seranova Farreach
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
401
|
Posted - 2012.12.31 20:55:00 -
[12] - Quote
Verity Sovereign wrote:Remove local, then AFK cloaking becomes pointless, one might as well log out at that point.
AFK cloaking "defeated" - problem solved.
i like this idea.. removeing local is an instand +1 from me. |

Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
476
|
Posted - 2012.12.31 21:23:00 -
[13] - Quote
+1 for remove local |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
12413
|
Posted - 2012.12.31 21:25:00 -
[14] - Quote
Why does AFK cloaking need to be defeated? Your post doesn't explain this. Also, how do you propose to do it so that non-AFK cloaking remains untouched? Your idea doesn't address this GÇö quite the opposite, they all seem to screw over normal cloakers as much as anyone.
SoGǪZen Dijun wrote:Is CCP planning on addressing the AFK nature of camped cloaked ships? GǪno, why would they address something that isn't a problem? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan. |

Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
202
|
Posted - 2012.12.31 22:16:00 -
[15] - Quote
Best suggestion i've seen (it wasn't here): Remove cloaked ships from local. They still get their intel, and you know for sure that if someone is in local then they are a threat. |

Ruse Lander
M. Corp Institute
1
|
Posted - 2012.12.31 23:48:00 -
[16] - Quote
- Local Chat is a flawed intel asset. It only states the names of the people currently in the system.
- AFK Cloaking is a psychological tool used to force people to dock or log off.
1) Solutions have included removing them from the Local Chat list, which actually makes cloak ganking become a much more viable tactic. 2) Cloaking requiring a pilot to interact with the game to maintain their cloak, which leads to some sort of macro system being used violating the EULA. 3) Making cloaked ships able to be scanned down, which defeats the purpose of the cloaking module, or does it?
Making cloaked ships able to be scanned down (with considerable consideration to the difficulty that should be imposed upon this new ability) seems like the best solution in my estimation. |

Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
477
|
Posted - 2012.12.31 23:56:00 -
[17] - Quote
Ruse Lander wrote:
- Local Chat is a flawed intel asset. It only states the names of the people currently in the system.
- AFK Cloaking is a psychological tool used to force people to dock or log off.
1) Solutions have included removing them from the Local Chat list, which actually makes cloak ganking become a much more viable tactic. 2) Cloaking requiring a pilot to interact with the game to maintain their cloak, which leads to some sort of macro system being used violating the EULA. 3) Making cloaked ships able to be scanned down, which defeats the purpose of the cloaking module, or does it?
Making cloaked ships able to be scanned down (with considerable consideration to the difficulty that should be imposed upon this new ability) seems like the best solution in my estimation.
1. why shouldnt cloaked ganking be a viable tactic? |

Michael Loney
Skullspace Industries
59
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 02:36:00 -
[18] - Quote
I would imagine that when the cloaker is cloak and remove from local, they also cannot see local. To get the Intel they want / need it will take lots of warping around and looking. |

Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Relativity Alliance
955
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 02:46:00 -
[19] - Quote
Ruse Lander wrote:
- Local Chat is a flawed intel asset. It only states the names of the people currently in the system.
- AFK Cloaking is a psychological tool used to force people to dock or log off.
1) Solutions have included removing them from the Local Chat list, which actually makes cloak ganking become a much more viable tactic. 2) Cloaking requiring a pilot to interact with the game to maintain their cloak, which leads to some sort of macro system being used violating the EULA. 3) Making cloaked ships able to be scanned down, which defeats the purpose of the cloaking module, or does it?
Making cloaked ships able to be scanned down (with considerable consideration to the difficulty that should be imposed upon this new ability) seems like the best solution in my estimation. It is widely anticipated that any removal of cloaked vessels from local chat, removing the free warning of the presence of cloaked vessels completely, would include a means to hunt them.
In other words, you can only have number 3 if the cloaked vessels can have number 1.
Diminishing cloaked gameplay further is not balanced, no matter how many threads appear from the risk averse who feel entitled to null sec rewards with a high sec attitude.
Remember: Local chat is not intel simply because you choose to use it as such. That is your problem. Cloaked vessels can never hurt you, so long as they are cloaked.
If you concede the free warnings, they will concede a balanced means to hunt them. Cloaking being on a ten minute manual cycle timer? (Author: Bree Okanata) Fine. As long as there is a ten minute timer for being docked in a station. Also, you can't stop moving in the game. Just add in a way so every ten minutes you are randomly warped to the nearest other player. Keeps people from going AFK. |

Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Relativity Alliance
955
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 02:53:00 -
[20] - Quote
Michael Loney wrote:I would imagine that when the cloaker is cloak and remove from local, they also cannot see local. To get the Intel they want / need it will take lots of warping around and looking. Very likely, as has been stated in other threads.
I have gone so far as to suggest that cloaked vessels, docked vessels, and any vessel in a POS protected by shields, should be removed from local. I also specified they should not be able to see local either, using a completely delayed version of local chat with no pilot roster visible.
This would allow local as an intel tool, but only showing vessels that could be targeted and PvP available.
AFK Cloaking would not be possible. They would have to work harder for intel, but in exchange they would be harder to find. A means to hunt them, under these conditions, is widely considered balanced as well.
Proper effort for defense finally worth making, and excuses no longer worth bothering with. Cloaking being on a ten minute manual cycle timer? (Author: Bree Okanata) Fine. As long as there is a ten minute timer for being docked in a station. Also, you can't stop moving in the game. Just add in a way so every ten minutes you are randomly warped to the nearest other player. Keeps people from going AFK. |

Mary Annabelle
Moonlit Bonsai
93
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 04:02:00 -
[21] - Quote
Ruse Lander wrote:AFK Cloaking is a psychological tool used to force people to dock or log off. Force how?
Mind control?
Because they can't shoot, heck, can't even target you while they are cloaked Get some buddies in combat ships, or move back to high sec sheesh |

Mary Annabelle
Moonlit Bonsai
93
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 04:04:00 -
[22] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:1. why shouldnt cloaked ganking be a viable tactic? THIS
We aren't talking about high sec here |

Asudem
Asen of Asgard
41
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 05:13:00 -
[23] - Quote
I have a better idea: a 6th point in this thread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6341&find=unread that forbids threads about AFK-Cloaking and threads about cloaking as long as the cloaking mechanics have not been changed dramaticly. |

Kestrix
Industrial Renaissance MinTek Conglomerate
50
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 10:51:00 -
[24] - Quote
I would like to put this out there in this discussion that I have arrived at the conclusion that there is no such thing in relative terms as an AFK cloaker. There is no way of knowing if anyone is behind the controls of a cloaked vessel or not so we must assume that the player is there and attentive at all times.
Now that we have removed the AFK aspect from the equation the only problem here is how do we cope with a cloaked vessel in a system?
The whole point of having a cloak on a vessel is to avoid detection so as to provide the pilot with the ability to gather intel in a hostile environment. Another option for that pilot having gathered intel is the ability to open a covert cynosural field to allow more hostile's into the system.
The only counter if you can call it that is constant vigilance from the residents of that system. You can't even use a Cynosural system Jammer as they are ineffective against Covert cynosural fields.
My solution here is to add a Covert Cynosural system Jammer that can be run instead of the Cynosural system Jammer from a POS and uses the same fuel to run. Normal cyno's can still be used.
Now at the cost of the Fuel from the jammer the residents can remove the cloaker's ability to covertly bring fleet members into the system. They can still be brought into the system via a normal cyno. This still leaves the cloakers purpose intact whilst giving at a cost to the residents the ability if vigilant to see any attack coming. |

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
13386
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 10:55:00 -
[25] - Quote
Ruse Lander wrote:
- Local Chat is a flawed intel asset. It only states the names of the people currently in the system.
- AFK Cloaking is a psychological tool used to force people to dock or log off.
1) Solutions have included removing them from the Local Chat list, which actually makes cloak ganking become a much more viable tactic. 2) Cloaking requiring a pilot to interact with the game to maintain their cloak, which leads to some sort of macro system being used violating the EULA. 3) Making cloaked ships able to be scanned down, which defeats the purpose of the cloaking module, or does it?
Making cloaked ships able to be scanned down (with considerable consideration to the difficulty that should be imposed upon this new ability) seems like the best solution in my estimation. While one could argue that easy mode intel system local is, is flawed. The 100% risk free, instant intel it gives is not. The flaw comes with the user misreading the intel and acting upon this bad conclusion.
No one AFK, cloaked or not, can force anyone to do anything. They cannot force you to dock, undock, stay in the system, not use your modules, not mine, rat etc. etc.
1) The idea to remove cloaked vessels from local, is only part of that type of change. But the point being made and one you seem to have missed, is that cloaks are not the problem these people are having.
2) Any system made that promotes macro use, is bad. If you mean and AFK timer in this regard, it's just as bad because they are so easily bypassed without breaking the EULA.
3) Yes, scanning down ships does defeat the purpose of cloaking. But if locals easy mode intel system was changed, then many could see the need for a limited cloak hunting ship. But as and until the reason for AFKing remains, cloaks should not be nerfed.
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. |

Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Relativity Alliance
961
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 15:15:00 -
[26] - Quote
Kestrix wrote:I would like to put this out there in this discussion that I have arrived at the conclusion that there is no such thing in relative terms as an AFK cloaker. There is no way of knowing if anyone is behind the controls of a cloaked vessel or not so we must assume that the player is there and attentive at all times.
Now that we have removed the AFK aspect from the equation the only problem here is how do we cope with a cloaked vessel in a system?
The whole point of having a cloak on a vessel is to avoid detection so as to provide the pilot with the ability to gather intel in a hostile environment. Another option for that pilot having gathered intel is the ability to open a covert cynosural field to allow more hostile's into the system.
The only counter if you can call it that is constant vigilance from the residents of that system. You can't even use a Cynosural system Jammer as they are ineffective against Covert cynosural fields.
My solution here is to add a Covert Cynosural system Jammer that can be run instead of the Cynosural system Jammer from a POS and uses the same fuel to run. Normal cyno's can still be used.
Now at the cost of the Fuel from the jammer the residents can remove the cloaker's ability to covertly bring fleet members into the system. They can still be brought into the system via a normal cyno. This still leaves the cloakers purpose intact whilst giving at a cost to the residents the ability if vigilant to see any attack coming. The only valid change to "AFK cloaking" must involve the reason it exists, or it will simply be a further buff to local intel's ability to help risk averse pilots avoid PvP outside of High Sec.
This would be a foolishly short sighted change, as AFK cloaking was the sandbox's response to local intel, followed by hot dropping.
Do you really want to give the player base a reason to develop a new tactic, so balance can be restored? Cloaking being on a ten minute manual cycle timer? (Author: Bree Okanata) Fine. As long as there is a ten minute timer for being docked in a station. Also, you can't stop moving in the game. Just add in a way so every ten minutes you are randomly warped to the nearest other player. Keeps people from going AFK. |

Kestrix
Industrial Renaissance MinTek Conglomerate
51
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 16:04:00 -
[27] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote: The only valid change to "AFK cloaking" must involve the reason it exists
The reason it exists is because it's a tactic with 0 risk to the cloaked person and a very real risk to the industrial inhabitants of that system. The risk being a Covert cynosural field opening and a hostile fleet entering the system with no possible means of a warning.
This risk remains the whole time the cloaked vessel remains on-line. As I stated there is no way of knowing if the person controlling the vessel is present or not so we must assume they are there.
Industrial vessels are expensive and vulnerable which makes them tempting targets and disrupting an Alliances industry can also have far reaching consequences. All done though a 0 risk activity by an alt.
|

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
12418
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 16:25:00 -
[28] - Quote
Kestrix wrote:The reason it exists is because it's a tactic with 0 risk to the cloaked person and a very real-ázero risk to the industrial inhabitants of that system. Fixed.
No, an AFK cloaker can't do anything to you and no, there is plenty of warning when a hostile fleet enters the system.
The reason AFK cloaking exists is because of local. Want to fix AFK cloaking? Fix local. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan. |

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
13387
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 17:47:00 -
[29] - Quote
Kestrix wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote: The only valid change to "AFK cloaking" must involve the reason it exists The reason it exists is because it's a tactic with 0 risk to the cloaked person and a very real risk to the industrial inhabitants of that system. Wrong, there is no risk until they decloak. Then you can shoot them. But again, you've missed the reason for AFKing.
Answer me this. Whilst they are AFK, what mechanic are they using to interact with those in the system?
Kestrix wrote:The risk being a Covert cynosural field opening and a hostile fleet entering the system with no possible means of a warning. If you have an issue with covert cynos, then make a thread about them. They are a separate mechanic and an active one at that.
Also the warning comes when they are lit. This is not a mechanic that only happens in null and does not require a cloak to be effective.
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. |

Sayf ulMulk
Royal Starlancers
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 18:19:00 -
[30] - Quote
The entire mechanic is beyond broke including local. The reason is why CCP is not going to fix it is money. Since every account needs to be payed there is lot of money. Every alliance in eve has at least 10-20 accounts just for that purpose. Do you think CCP would do anythink that would endanger their income in any way? In fact one of the test pets has around 40 afk accounts just for that purpose.
People are pleading with ccp to stop or change it for several years as it is going since game started and it will not change anythink becouse you pay to CCP less then people who own those afk cloaky accounts. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |