EVE Search - Defeating AFK Cloaking

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Defeating AFK Cloaking

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 12421	Posted - 2013.01.01 18:27:00 - [31] - Quote Sayf ulMulk wrote: The reason is why CCP is not going to fix it is money. GÇªor more likely, that there's nothing to fix. It's not like they're making any amount of money that makes any difference from it. 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. 13388	Posted - 2013.01.01 18:58:00 - [32] - Quote Sayf ulMulk wrote: 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. Plus all the sales of tin foil would drop dramatically. 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.
Kestrix Industrial Renaissance MinTek Conglomerate 52	Posted - 2013.01.01 19:05:00 - [33] - Quote Tippia wrote: 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. Oh right. Silly me, 0 risk to having a hostile in a system with a Covert cynosural field generator... Great lets grab the Rorquals , Orca's and Hulks and lets get some mining done! We'll all warp to that large hidden asteroid belt and sit in a large clump and get rich mining ABC's
Jessica Danikov Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District 59	Posted - 2013.01.01 19:05:00 - [34] - 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. Very good summary. I agree entirely with 3... an alternative is a perma MWD'ing ship that cannot be caught even if scanned down. 2 is also a very weak solution. I quite vehemently disagree with 1., even if it seems to be a very popular option... firstly, I don't think CCP would ever go for that, it's too significant a change. Secondly, it's what sets WHs apart and would reduce the charm/uniqueness of w-space. Basically, you're 'solving' the problem of being camped by making it EASIER to camp, and making those who are camped ignorant, when clearly a lot of the issue here is the disparity in effectiveness- AFK cloak campers are too powerful. They do not need to be more so. The only partial solution I can offer up is to de-tooth the biggest thread of cloaked AFKers- the Cyno. Have the Cyno module only usable within a certain time-limit of entering a hostile system. If you're in a non-friendly system for too long, scaled to the sovereignty level, your Cyno module becomes unusable until you traverse a gate (and NOT a WH... no CONCORD sub-space connections there... I'm sure some fluff can excuse this entire behaviour in the similar way to the SBU mechanics; hostile cynos are essentially system hacks that are shut down after an amount of time). This means that only a fresh red in system can hot-drop people... the less secure the system, the less fresh they have to be, but if they've been AFK too long, they have to risk running a gate and making it obvious they are active in order to have an active cyno. Camping cloaked is still viable, but the entire gang needs to be there, making their presence far more obvious in local. The biggest thread of AFK campers is eliminated, and no amount of macros is going to make traversing hostile gates safe. Interestingly enough, this applies equally well to both cynos and covert cynos.
Mag's the united Negative Ten. 13388	Posted - 2013.01.01 19:18:00 - [35] - Quote Jessica Danikov wrote: 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. Very good summary. I agree entirely with 3... an alternative is a perma MWD'ing ship that cannot be caught even if scanned down. 2 is also a very weak solution. I quite vehemently disagree with 1., even if it seems to be a very popular option... firstly, I don't think CCP would ever go for that, it's too significant a change. Secondly, it's what sets WHs apart and would reduce the charm/uniqueness of w-space. Basically, you're 'solving' the problem of being camped by making it EASIER to camp, and making those who are camped ignorant, when clearly a lot of the issue here is the disparity in effectiveness- AFK cloak campers are too powerful. They do not need to be more so. The only partial solution I can offer up is to de-tooth the biggest thread of cloaked AFKers- the Cyno. Have the Cyno module only usable within a certain time-limit of entering a hostile system. If you're in a non-friendly system for too long, scaled to the sovereignty level, your Cyno module becomes unusable until you traverse a gate (and NOT a WH... no CONCORD sub-space connections there... I'm sure some fluff can excuse this entire behaviour in the similar way to the SBU mechanics; hostile cynos are essentially system hacks that are shut down after an amount of time). This means that only a fresh red in system can hot-drop people... the less secure the system, the less fresh they have to be, but if they've been AFK too long, they have to risk running a gate and making it obvious they are active in order to have an active cyno. Camping cloaked is still viable, but the entire gang needs to be there, making their presence far more obvious in local. The biggest thread of AFK campers is eliminated, and no amount of macros is going to make traversing hostile gates safe. Interestingly enough, this applies equally well to both cynos and covert cynos. In what way is being AFK too powerful? And how does making local more powerful, give your ideas any merit? Also the cyno is a separate *active* mechanic. So if you have issues with that, make a thread about it. But you can already stop the majority of them, with a single pos module. 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.
Ines Tegator Towels R Us 203	Posted - 2013.01.01 20:25:00 - [36] - Quote Still nobody has discussed the cloaking-removes-you-from-local idea (I guess it was Narrel's idea originally? /shrug). 1. While cloaked, they don't show up in local, so there is no overt threat. 2. While uncloaked, they DO show up in local. Because of 1, you know for a FACT that they are a threat and can respond accordingly. 3. It allows cloaking to be used offensively, adding gameplay value. While I really like the option of scanning down cloaked ships, this has the virtue of simplicity. An hour or two of coding and boom, it's done and can be schlepped to the test server.
Nikk Narrel Infinite Improbability Inc Relativity Alliance 964	Posted - 2013.01.01 20:37:00 - [37] - Quote Ines Tegator wrote: Still nobody has discussed the cloaking-removes-you-from-local idea (I guess it was Narrel's idea originally? /shrug). I have proposed this in the past, for the reasons you list below. I also recommend including docked vessels and those within POS shields as well. Ines Tegator wrote: 1. While cloaked, they don't show up in local, so there is no overt threat. 2. While uncloaked, they DO show up in local. Because of 1, you know for a FACT that they are a threat and can respond accordingly. 3. It allows cloaking to be used offensively, adding gameplay value. While I really like the option of scanning down cloaked ships, this has the virtue of simplicity. An hour or two of coding and boom, it's done and can be schlepped to the test server. Oh, hunting cloaked vessels in a balanced manner is not difficult for the player side. I will get to the point. It is widely anticipated that any change to local which stopped free cloaking awareness would also include a means to hunt cloaked ships. The only reason such a system cannot predate changes to current intel, is that it would trivialize cloaking. The trade off for being hunted is, at minimum, not being known present without some kind of significant effort. And at that point, the craft that actually does the hunting needs to be balanced against the cloaked vessels, or else it will be one sided. There are plenty of ideas HOW to hunt a cloaked vessel already. Keeping it simple is probably best. The proper combination of skills / specialized ship hull / modules should let the hunting pilot see the cloaked vessel, and subsequently paint them with a target painter like module, thereby allowing other players to see and lock onto the craft. Differences between the hunted and hunter in skill and equipment quality would determine the time to lock and engage the target painter module, creating demand for the best available on both sides. This time to lock would be expected to affect whether the cloaked pilot could evade a successful hunt. Now, as to details how this works: The hunting craft activates the painter module. This activates an enhanced sensor decryption mode, which like cloaked vessels works better on certain hulls. The covops hulls themselves work better for this for many of the same reasons they work so well for cloaking devices. They can control and limit their own sensor emissions to a greater degree. You can launch probes prior to activating this module, and use them and or D-Scan / active scan. While in this operating mode, cloaked vessels appear to your sensors as if they were not cloaked, allowing you to detect them using normal means. The only device you can use beyond sensors / probes, is the painting function. Locking onto the vessel using this takes an amount of time determined by the difference between your skills and equipment, and the cloaked pilot with their vessel. Once you are locked on, they become visible to everyone, and can be locked and attacked normally. 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 964	Posted - 2013.01.01 20:42:00 - [38] - Quote Jessica Danikov wrote: The only partial solution I can offer up is to de-tooth the biggest thread of cloaked AFKers- the Cyno. Have the Cyno module only usable within a certain time-limit of entering a hostile system. If you're in a non-friendly system for too long, scaled to the sovereignty level, your Cyno module becomes unusable until you traverse a gate (and NOT a WH... no CONCORD sub-space connections there... I'm sure some fluff can excuse this entire behaviour in the similar way to the SBU mechanics; hostile cynos are essentially system hacks that are shut down after an amount of time). This means that only a fresh red in system can hot-drop people... the less secure the system, the less fresh they have to be, but if they've been AFK too long, they have to risk running a gate and making it obvious they are active in order to have an active cyno. Camping cloaked is still viable, but the entire gang needs to be there, making their presence far more obvious in local. The biggest thread of AFK campers is eliminated, and no amount of macros is going to make traversing hostile gates safe. Interestingly enough, this applies equally well to both cynos and covert cynos. This is not balanced. Forget what you want to see happening. If you do not have balanced gameplay, the sandbox will force feed it to you. AFK Cloaking and hot dropping are both past examples of this happening. Cloaking has already been broken for some time. It is balanced, however. Sound like a contradiction? Then you also assume balance implies functionality, which it does not. Cloaking is broken by local reporting it, in an absolutely reliable manner. This is broken. It is however, balanced by: You absolutely cannot locate a cloaked vessel, unless they let you, or make a mistake. This is also broken. *Since both sides are countering each other, it is in balance.* Sadly, this leaves cloaking as a meta gaming tool. Many people enjoy this play, so to them there is no problem at all. 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. 13390	Posted - 2013.01.01 20:55:00 - [39] - Quote Nikk Narrel wrote: Ines Tegator wrote: Still nobody has discussed the cloaking-removes-you-from-local idea (I guess it was Narrel's idea originally? /shrug). I have proposed this in the past, for the reasons you list below. I also recommend including docked vessels and those within POS shields as well. Yea yours includes docked vessels and pos stuff. But I think the originator was Ingvar Angst. Although I could be wrong. Linkage. 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.
Daichi Yamato Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire 480	Posted - 2013.01.01 22:20:00 - [40] - Quote Kestrix wrote: Tippia wrote: 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. Oh right. Silly me, 0 risk to having a hostile in a system with a Covert cynosural field generator... Great lets grab the Rorquals , Orca's and Hulks and lets get some mining done! We'll all warp to that large hidden asteroid belt and sit in a large clump and get rich mining ABC's u've never been hot dropped because of an afk player...surely he must be at his keyboard in order to light the cyno. what u want to nerf is cloaks and cynos in general. come back to hi-sec, there are no cyno's and afk cloaking is much less of an issue. Plus its where u really belong if u think about it null-bear
Daichi Yamato Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire 481	Posted - 2013.01.01 22:35:00 - [41] - Quote Jessica Danikov wrote: Very good summary. I agree entirely with 3... an alternative is a perma MWD'ing ship that cannot be caught even if scanned down. 2 is also a very weak solution. I quite vehemently disagree with 1., even if it seems to be a very popular option... firstly, I don't think CCP would ever go for that, it's too significant a change. Secondly, it's what sets WHs apart and would reduce the charm/uniqueness of w-space. Basically, you're 'solving' the problem of being camped by making it EASIER to camp, and making those who are camped ignorant, when clearly a lot of the issue here is the disparity in effectiveness- AFK cloak campers are too powerful. They do not need to be more so. its freaking null sec. if u cannot defend urself then u dont belong. come back to hi-sec.
Derath Ellecon Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal 1000	Posted - 2013.01.01 22:38:00 - [42] - Quote Ok, I have to admit I am very confused by the proliferation of these threads. I have spoken to friends in SOV holding alliances who laugh when I mention this "afk cloaking" problem that I read about on the forums. When they get an afk cloaker in system they do one thing, bait their hooks. They don't have a problem with afk cloakers because they deal with the problem head on. Why is it then that so many others can only complain and whine?
Daichi Yamato Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire 481	Posted - 2013.01.01 22:42:00 - [43] - Quote Derath Ellecon wrote: Ok, I have to admit I am very confused by the proliferation of these threads. I have spoken to friends in SOV holding alliances who laugh when I mention this "afk cloaking" problem that I read about on the forums. When they get an afk cloaker in system they do one thing, bait their hooks. They don't have a problem with afk cloakers because they deal with the problem head on. Why is it then that so many others can only complain and whine? cause they think they have the right to rat in null sec without interruption. all the rewards of null without any of the risk.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 12426	Posted - 2013.01.01 22:42:00 - [44] - Quote Kestrix wrote: Oh right. Silly me, 0 risk to having a hostile in a system with a Covert cynosural field generator... From an AFK player, absolutely. For the record, the same mechanic that is the cause of your problem is also your salvation should they ever use that cyno. If nothing else, AFK cloaking must exist to as the sole counter to that mechanic. 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.
Omnathious Deninard Extrinsic Operations 370	Posted - 2013.01.01 23:34:00 - [45] - Quote Currently is would seem that i did cover the common counter points in my first post, and nothing new from the pro-nerf cloaking groups. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting
Nikk Narrel Infinite Improbability Inc Relativity Alliance 967	Posted - 2013.01.01 23:40:00 - [46] - Quote Mag's wrote: Nikk Narrel wrote: Ines Tegator wrote: Still nobody has discussed the cloaking-removes-you-from-local idea (I guess it was Narrel's idea originally? /shrug). I have proposed this in the past, for the reasons you list below. I also recommend including docked vessels and those within POS shields as well. Yea yours includes docked vessels and pos stuff. But I think the originator was Ingvar Angst. Although I could be wrong. Linkage. I believe we are both drawing some of our inspiration from the active example of WH space. I don't quite agree with his changes to cyno use, although I respect the goals he seems to be seeking. I would address them in other ways, but for similar results. I find the crutch / training wheels / stabilizer association local has currently to be like an addiction. One that could be too much of a shock if changed all at once. This is why I recommend keeping it for active ships in space exclusively, as defined by who can target and be targeted. Players will discover a need to use sensors and associated effort to discover potential threats, if they are proactive. A proactive defense effort should become notable in creating a better environment to operate out of, above and beyond one where people merely watch local's pilot roster. Compared to High Sec, I firmly believe that PvE in null should be different in more ways than needing to just watch local. Local chat being the only needed source of intel for defense feels like the challenge supposedly present in null to be trivial. 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 52	Posted - 2013.01.02 04:55:00 - [47] - Quote Daichi Yamato wrote: Kestrix wrote: Tippia wrote: 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. Oh right. Silly me, 0 risk to having a hostile in a system with a Covert cynosural field generator... Great lets grab the Rorquals , Orca's and Hulks and lets get some mining done! We'll all warp to that large hidden asteroid belt and sit in a large clump and get rich mining ABC's u've never been hot dropped because of an afk player...surely he must be at his keyboard in order to light the cyno. what u want to nerf is cloaks and cynos in general. come back to hi-sec, there are no cyno's and afk cloaking is much less of an issue. Plus its where u really belong if u think about it null-bear I've already explained in a past post that because it's impossible to know if a cloaked vessel is AFK or not we must assume that it is active all the time. In most of 0.0 a cloaked vessel is not an issue. As pointed out by various people in this thread there are tactics that can be employed to deal with them. HOWEVER in a system raised to industry level 5, where you have players stripping the hidden belts it would be nice if we had a more pro-active method of dealing with the cloaked vessel. We have more at stake here than simply padding our pockets with ISK (although that is a very pleasant by product of what we did) When I was in 0.0 there were cloaked vessels in the system where I worked, no they did not stop me from mining and yes we did eventually deal with the issue. I don't want to nerf cloaking I want it to remain a viable source of intel gathering/harassment. I do want a method however that lets us punish dumb/distracted cloakers who aren't paying attention, something that keeps them active or logged off. Or gives us a simple piece of intel the ship class... from that we can ascertain it's threat level. The argument that AFK cloakers never killed anyone is not a valid one as there is no way to test the state of a cloaker at any given time.
Derath Ellecon Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal 1001	Posted - 2013.01.02 06:12:00 - [48] - Quote Your post is so full of contradictions I don't know where to begin. Kestrix wrote: I've already explained in a past post that because it's impossible to know if a cloaked vessel is AFK or not we must assume that it is active all the time. In most of 0.0 a cloaked vessel is not an issue. As pointed out by various people in this thread there are tactics that can be employed to deal with them. So there are tactics to deal with cloakers. So where is the issue? You even say in most of 0.0 a cloaked vessel is not an issue. Kestrix wrote: HOWEVER in a system raised to industry level 5, where you have players stripping the hidden belts it would be nice if we had a more pro-active method of dealing with the cloaked vessel. We have more at stake here than simply padding our pockets with ISK (although that is a very pleasant by product of what we did) When I was in 0.0 there were cloaked vessels in the system where I worked, no they did not stop me from mining and yes we did eventually deal with the issue. So what does Industry level have to do with it? Are industry upgraded systems exempt from having to be defended the same way as the rest of 0.0? I thought the point of 0.0 is being a place where you have to defend and police your systems on your own? Why not emply the same tactics referred to in your above quote? I would say if an alliance cannot protect it's industrial core, maybe they don't deserve to be there? Kestrix wrote: I don't want to nerf cloaking I want it to remain a viable source of intel gathering/harassment. I do want a method however that lets us punish dumb/distracted cloakers who aren't paying attention, something that keeps them active or logged off. Or gives us a simple piece of intel the ship class... from that we can ascertain it's threat level. But how do you know? You have already said many times there is no way to know if the player is afk? How active do they have to be? You have already said in other parts of this post that you have to assume the cloaker is not AFK, AND that there are ways to deal with them. What more do you need? Kestrix wrote: The argument that AFK cloakers never killed anyone is not a valid one as there is no way to test the state of a cloaker at any given time. Right, so as you have said, you have to assume they are not AFK. You have also said they never stopped you, and you eventually dealt with the issue. Seems the issue can be controlled and dealt with.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 12428	Posted - 2013.01.02 07:13:00 - [49] - Quote Kestrix wrote: I've already explained in a past post that because it's impossible to know if a cloaked vessel is AFK or not we must assume that it is active all the time. In most of 0.0 a cloaked vessel is not an issue. As pointed out by various people in this thread there are tactics that can be employed to deal with them. GÇªin other words, AFK cloakers are not a problem. Quote: I don't want to nerf cloaking I want it to remain a viable source of intel gathering/harassment. I do want a method however that lets us punish dumb/distracted cloakers who aren't paying attention, something that keeps them active or logged off. What's the point? If they aren't paying attention, then they will get themselves killed anyway or be completely irrelevant to anything. Quote: The argument that AFK cloakers never killed anyone is not a valid one As long as people keep complaining that AFK cloakers are somehow worse than regular cloakers, then yes, yes it is. 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.
TheGunslinger42 Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic 817	Posted - 2013.01.02 08:46:00 - [50] - Quote Summary of every "we need a decloaking thing or ability to find cloaked ships!!1" thread: Wah wah wah, I cannot rat/mine in 100% safety in 0.0 space, please ccp destroy the balance of the game and toss out the entire idea of what null should be so I can continue being a risk averse carebear wah wah wah The only thing that needs to be done is is making cloaked ships not appear in local.
Daichi Yamato Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire 483	Posted - 2013.01.02 13:28:00 - [51] - Quote Kestrix wrote: Daichi Yamato wrote: Kestrix wrote: Tippia wrote: 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. Oh right. Silly me, 0 risk to having a hostile in a system with a Covert cynosural field generator... Great lets grab the Rorquals , Orca's and Hulks and lets get some mining done! We'll all warp to that large hidden asteroid belt and sit in a large clump and get rich mining ABC's u've never been hot dropped because of an afk player...surely he must be at his keyboard in order to light the cyno. what u want to nerf is cloaks and cynos in general. come back to hi-sec, there are no cyno's and afk cloaking is much less of an issue. Plus its where u really belong if u think about it null-bear I've already explained in a past post that because it's impossible to know if a cloaked vessel is AFK or not we must assume that it is active all the time. In most of 0.0 a cloaked vessel is not an issue. As pointed out by various people in this thread there are tactics that can be employed to deal with them. HOWEVER in a system raised to industry level 5, where you have players stripping the hidden belts it would be nice if we had a more pro-active method of dealing with the cloaked vessel. We have more at stake here than simply padding our pockets with ISK (although that is a very pleasant by product of what we did) When I was in 0.0 there were cloaked vessels in the system where I worked, no they did not stop me from mining and yes we did eventually deal with the issue. I don't want to nerf cloaking I want it to remain a viable source of intel gathering/harassment. I do want a method however that lets us punish dumb/distracted cloakers who aren't paying attention, something that keeps them active or logged off. Or gives us a simple piece of intel the ship class... from that we can ascertain it's threat level. The argument that AFK cloakers never killed anyone is not a valid one as there is no way to test the state of a cloaker at any given time. wait, so there was an afk cloaker and u dealt with the issue and it didnt even stop u mining...so what it is the problem? u want to know the threat level of dumb and distracted cloakers? how about none...they are dumb, distracted, seemingly not paying attention and, lets not forget, unable to shoot u while cloaked. once he decloaks to do his thing then d-scan or overview provides all the intel ur asking for. how does it make sense to gather intel on a cloaked ship? its cloaked! mining in null sec is rewarding, so it should have its risks to balance it out. if u cannot deal with the risks then u should not be there. u seem to be completely ignorant of the fact that null sec is centred around PvP and if u and ur brosefs cannot defend eachother, including industry 5 systems, then u don't belong there. at best u belong in low sec. what ur also neglecting is that fact that u wouldnt even know the cloaker was there if it wasn't for local. i doubt u'd even be in null sec if it wasn't for local providing 100% certainty when enemies are inbound, cause then u'd actually have to work for ur money. right now it is too easy to identify if bad guys are in system, so null-bears are always able to avoid any form of PvP despite being in a PvP centric area of the game. What afk cloaking basically does is provides enough uncertainty to those who are risk averse and those who cannot be arsed to defend themselves that it prevents them from activities. what these null-bears should be asking themselves is: if i am really that risk averse and i cannot be bothered to defend myself, then what the hell am i doing in null sec?
Nikk Narrel Infinite Improbability Inc Relativity Alliance 969	Posted - 2013.01.02 14:31:00 - [52] - Quote Gee... it really is too bad that local displays the cloaked pilot constantly. You just can't tell from that when he is decloaking and might actually hurt anyone. It sounds like local would be a lot more useful defensively if it reported on the cloaked ships that were decloaking, rather than entering the system and switching to a mode where they cannot attack anyone. And hey, those docked pilots, they are absolutely worthless being listed like that. They aren't even IN a ship, technically, just floating around their CQ eating junk food.... how useless is that... And the POS guys.... seriously? You can see them like animals on display at a zoo. (Just don't get in range of the station guns) Now, knowing when they LEFT that shield has value... but if you wanted a list of pilots who you can't even target though, hey, we all get off on something I guess.... Just sayin! 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.
Buzzy Warstl The Strontium Asylum 417	Posted - 2013.01.02 14:43:00 - [53] - Quote Ruse Lander wrote: [list] 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. There's an interesting story about the dawn of automated computerized trading IRL. It seems that the first group to do so ended up violating the NASDAQ TOS by simulating the terminal transactions directly in software, so they ended up building a machine to actually type on the keyboard to ensure that they were not violating the TOS and thus avoided being banned from the market. I expect that there exists a subset of the EvE community competent enough with a soldering iron and screwdriver to rig up a frame with a couple of servos on it should they be inspired to. Detecting the botting in such a case would be something of a challenge. http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Nikk Narrel Infinite Improbability Inc Relativity Alliance 969	Posted - 2013.01.02 14:59:00 - [54] - Quote Buzzy Warstl wrote: Ruse Lander wrote: [list] 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. There's an interesting story about the dawn of automated computerized trading IRL. It seems that the first group to do so ended up violating the NASDAQ TOS by simulating the terminal transactions directly in software, so they ended up building a machine to actually type on the keyboard to ensure that they were not violating the TOS and thus avoided being banned from the market. I expect that there exists a subset of the EvE community competent enough with a soldering iron and screwdriver to rig up a frame with a couple of servos on it should they be inspired to. Detecting the botting in such a case would be something of a challenge. That goes beyond a challenge, it succeeds in bypassing realistic restrictions by becoming handicapped friendly. If Bob the pilot is physically impaired, and has an automated system helping him compensate for it, ethically he is playing with good intent. Whether it is a voice recognition system, a modified keyboard that allows him use, or an automated system that answers to his will... I do not recall any of the game requirements specifying the player must have hands. 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.
Sean Parisi Project Cerberus Caldari State Capturing 108	Posted - 2013.01.02 16:12:00 - [55] - Quote You cannot destroy that which does not exist. You cannot be effected by that which has no corporal form. Your fear of the ethereal realm is very unsettling - They are simply the lost AFK Cloaker Souls of the universe drifting midst local chat. Reaching out for a friendly miner to help them find home. Anyways going to AFK Cloak this thread.
Derath Ellecon Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal 1005	Posted - 2013.01.02 17:34:00 - [56] - Quote Buzzy Warstl wrote: Ruse Lander wrote: [list] 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. There's an interesting story about the dawn of automated computerized trading IRL. It seems that the first group to do so ended up violating the NASDAQ TOS by simulating the terminal transactions directly in software, so they ended up building a machine to actually type on the keyboard to ensure that they were not violating the TOS and thus avoided being banned from the market. I expect that there exists a subset of the EvE community competent enough with a soldering iron and screwdriver to rig up a frame with a couple of servos on it should they be inspired to. Detecting the botting in such a case would be something of a challenge. Way ahead of you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OkKhkJiJyo
Sidus Rado Sidus Rado Tax Free Corporation 1	Posted - 2013.01.02 19:59:00 - [57] - Quote I see nothing bad if player wants to cloak in the system and go afk.
Nikk Narrel Infinite Improbability Inc Relativity Alliance 971	Posted - 2013.01.02 20:06:00 - [58] - Quote Sidus Rado wrote: I see nothing bad if player wants to cloak in the system and go afk. I agree, but some of these guys are trying to make it seem like the cloaked pilot is hurting them. He targets nothing, he launches no weapons, and has no choice but to mind his own business while cloaked. Maybe the problem lies with their perception of the issue...? 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.
RoAnnon Strategic Acquisitions Group 41	Posted - 2013.01.02 21:55:00 - [59] - Quote How does anyone really know these folks are actually AFK? Seems to me unless you have a video feed to their desk chair and can see they're not sitting there, you can't know, and are merely surmising. The fact you can't see them and they won't reply to you is circumstantial evidence, at best. Can we stop trying to implement a mechanic that aims at preventing someone from doing something you can only guess they're doing?
Daichi Yamato Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire 486	Posted - 2013.01.03 02:20:00 - [60] - Quote RoAnnon wrote: Can we stop trying to implement a mechanic that aims at preventing someone from doing something you can only guess they're doing? i hope this one is done. see u all at the next one. same day next week?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.