Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
468
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 10:44:00 -
[1] - Quote
GÇ£SolvingGÇ¥ AFK cloaking is easy GÇö remove local. Then there is no AFK:ness to worry about. Until local is removed, AFK cloaking is not a problem, but a solution. It doesn't need a counter because it is itself a counter to the immensely overpowered intel mechanic that is local. You don't fix a counter by adding a counter-counter GÇö you fix it by addressing the initial cause that makes that counter a necessity.
Everything else that people incorrectly attribute to the GÇ£problemGÇ¥ of AFK cloaking has nothing to do with AFK:ness or with cloaking, and can be solved by adding spool-up time to cynos and/or to jump engines.
So how about those people try to actually solve the right thing (if, indeed, even that one is a problem, which is debatableGǪ)? GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
468
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 11:59:00 -
[2] - Quote
Mistress Motion wrote:Or am I missing something here? Yes: how the lack of local means that there is no such thing as GÇ£AFK cloakingGÇ¥ in w-space, and that.
GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
468
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 12:16:00 -
[3] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Removing Local is not a real solution to the AFK issue. Of course it is. Without local, you can't detect those AFKers and therefore can't worry about them.
Quote:Matter of fact it will mean even more risk free hotdrops. Not a solution. That is not an AFK issue.
Quote:To solve this issue you must remove the incentive to walk away from your computer while cloaked. Yes: remove local so your mere presence in it can't scare any remaining wits out of the already witless. Doing so removes the incentive to leave your ship AFK while cloaked, in the hope that people will be too afraid of it to do anything.
Quote:The issue is it does exist. CCP can easily pull up the history to show the many AFK cloakers turning active and hotdropping resulting in almost free kills. In other words, the issue is not with the AFK cloakers GÇö it's with hotdrops. GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
468
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 12:30:00 -
[4] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Removing local will not decrease free hotdrops it will increase them dramatically. GǪwhich is not an AFK cloaker issue.
Quote:The REAL solution is to remove the incentive to walk away from the keyboard Yes: remove local so your mere presence in it can't scare any remaining wits out of the already witless. Doing so removes the incentive to leave your ship AFK while cloaked, in the hope that people will be too afraid of it to do anything.
Quote:without destroying nullsec with a local change. Changing local does not destroy nullsec, and anyway, without a change to local, AFK cloaking can't be removed as it acts as the only counter to this overpowered intel tool.
The problem you're having is one of being hotdropped and of not wanting to lose your intel tool (which, unfortunately, needs to happen regardless). So address those actual problems instead GÇö not the non-issue of cloakers who have gone AFK. GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
468
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 12:56:00 -
[5] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:I ONLY want to remove the incentive to go AFK in a hostile system. GǪwhich the removal of local does perfectly. But even so: why does it need to be disincentivised?
Quote:Don't Destroy Nullsec with removing local How would it destroy nullsec?
Quote:I am talking about local with its main use now which is knowing instantly who is in system. That is a general term and I would be happy to support an external system that emulates or improves on it. Why on earth do you need to improve on a tool that gives you perfect, free intel? No, it needs to be massively nerfed into actually requiring some work to gain unreliable intel.
It does not need to be emulated or improved on GÇö it needs to be replaced with something that is worse in every way.
Oh, and yes, Ingvar Angst's solution is pretty much ideal if local isn't replaced. GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
470
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 13:13:00 -
[6] - Quote
Rico Rage wrote:What about a new type of probes, that allows you to scan down cloaked ships? It immediately raises the question: why is that needed? GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
472
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 13:40:00 -
[7] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:In a far too broad sense the reason would be to decloak and destroy those who are AFK. GǪwhich just shifts the question down the line: why is that needed? GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
474
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 13:51:00 -
[8] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:To provide risk to AFK cloaking. GǪwhich, once again, shifts the question down the line: why is that needed?[/quote]
How do you propose to add risk to sitting in a POS? Or sitting in a station? GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
475
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 14:00:00 -
[9] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:There is already risk. Bring your fleet to take down the POS or capture the station system. Not impossible. GǪyou mean those things that you immediately see coming and therefore can escape? YeeeeahGǪ no. By that token, there is already risk in AFK cloaking by the mere fact that you're AFK and can't react to any threats that might appear.
Quote:Not playing 20 questions. It's not 20 questions GÇö it's trying to figure out what the problem with AFK cloaking is and why it needs to be solved.
So far, none of the issues have had anything to do with that, but rather with completely different things. The best GÇ£solutionGÇ¥ to AFK cloaking remains to fix local.
GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
475
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 14:04:00 -
[10] - Quote
Renan Ruivo wrote:Still have a problem with anomaly denial though... it is like i said it is. CCP cannot fix that, so they say its an "accepted tactic". Do it mission-style (albeit with much more demanding time requirements)? I.e.: can't finish it within X hour from activation? Sucks to be you GÇö the pirates escaped *despawn*
GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
476
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 14:08:00 -
[11] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Removing local will not stop AFK cloaking. Yes it will.
The malicious cloaker can no longer scare people into shutting down their activities just by his mere presence, because his mere presence is unknown to them. At the other side of the fence, the scared people no longer have anything to be scared about, so there is no reason for them to shut down their activities.
Quote:That has already been talked about. We need to discuss removing the incentive to go away from the keyboard while cloaked in a hostile system. GǪwhich is exactly what removing local does. See above. GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
476
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 14:19:00 -
[12] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:The AFK cloaker will be able to get in and even if someone watches him come in he will be able to remain cloaked and then as usual come in for the hotdrop with no warning from Dscan.. Hell why am I even discussing this again? Because 1) you're ignoring the alternative solutions that have been presented, and 2) because you can't stay on the topic of AFK cloaking.
Quote:Removing local is of want of free ganks that ought to be obvious. That all depends on what other changes are made, but it most certainly removes AFK cloaking as an issue.
Quote:Removing the incentive to go AFK while cloaked is my goal. GǪwhich the removal of local will achieve. GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
476
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 14:24:00 -
[13] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:That would affect active cloaking! I want to target just the inactive cloakers. An active cloaker ought to be able to keep active and watch for prey to do somthing stupid and hotdrop on them. GǪand with his suggestion, they can.
Quote:My solution removes the incentive to be away from the keyboard while cloaked. GǪas does the removal of local.
GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
476
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 14:27:00 -
[14] - Quote
Renan Ruivo wrote:BY THE WAY
You guys here know that local as we know it is going to be removed, right!? Shhh! Don't scare the poor guyGǪ
GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
476
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 14:32:00 -
[15] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:IF that happens it will be replaced with somthing of equal use. Anything otherwise would wreck nullsec and CCP knows it. Actually, no. They know that it shouldn't be of equal use, because local is far too cheap and effective.
GǪand no, nullsec will not be wrecked by this downgrade.
Quote:No, I want something to say "Contact is decloaked" You already do.
Quote:If the contact is in my system and goes away from keyboard. I want to be able to kill it 15-30 mins later. I repeat: why is that needed? GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
476
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 14:38:00 -
[16] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:No I just want local to stay as it is Not going to happen. It's far too powerful and far too cheap, and it is already slated for removal.
Quote:and to be able to decloak those who are cloaked in system and away from their keyboards. Why?
Quote:I am just targeting AFK cloaking with my suggestion. So why are you so against the simple fix that will remove them?
Quote:So can we focus on the topic please? AFK cloaking wouldn't exist without local, so it is very much a part of the topic. GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
478
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 15:41:00 -
[17] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:Apart from the anon respawn issue still no one has given this thread one good reason why it needs to be looked at? Of course not, for the simple reason that AFK cloaking is not an issue. Not even with anoms is it an issue - that is a provlem with the despawn mechanics.
None of the supposed problems with AFK cloaking has anything to do with people being AFK, and hard+¦y any of them have to do with people being cloaked. GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
479
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 20:02:00 -
[18] - Quote
Renan Ruivo wrote:Which has been pointed out as something that can be achieved while being cloaked and afk. It can also be achieved while being drunk and in a Nomad.
So obviously, the problem is with alcoholic jump freighter pilots. 
GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
479
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 21:27:00 -
[19] - Quote
Renan Ruivo wrote:Kitty McKitty wrote:what exactly can an afk pilot do, apart from make cowards stop playing of their own volition? sit afk on an anomaly, cloaked, preventing it from despawning. GǪwhich still has nothing to do with AFK cloaking since the issue lies with the despawning mechanics of dungeons.
GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
481
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 07:20:00 -
[20] - Quote
SoGǪ even after all those pages, I can't help noticing that still is no explanation why AFK cloakers are supposedly a problem that needs to be solved. GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
482
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 08:42:00 -
[21] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Zendon Taredi wrote:Jesus, these people would never make it in a wormhole. Please keep this on topic. He is. You, with increasing frequency, are not.
Quote:Stating that I will use the forum report function to report posts that violate the TOS is not holding up a gun to someones head. Saying so is libel. No it's not.
Quote:A warp off to stop the probe process is quick and easy you just have to go off grid and come back. Which ought to take mere seconds. If you miss a kill it is because you have messed up your warp system. It also interferes with and disrupts active cloaking. GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
482
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 12:14:00 -
[22] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:If my plan interferes with you then so be it. Because just about any other plan would SERIOUSLY impact active cloaking. Funnily enough, no. The Angsty one's plan would have a very tiny impact on cloaking.
Quote:I will support them over nothing being done GǪand yet, the fundamental question remains: why does anything need to be done?
GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
486
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 14:07:00 -
[23] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:CCP Phantom wrote:Thread cleaned from off-topic posts. Please stay on topic. Thank you! CCP Phantom. Heya Phantom, I don't suppose you'd be willing to give CCP's perspective on things, would you? It could go a long way to reducing some of the more ridiculous ideas being vomited out... Looking at the 0.0 revamp discussions, their perspective seem to bee that the current intel tool (e.g. local) are too easy and too powerful...  GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
489
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 17:29:00 -
[24] - Quote
Lyris Nairn wrote:How many months or years has this thread or ones like it been going and accomplishing nothing? For about as many months and years that AFK cloaking hasn't been a problemGǪ so, roughly all of them.
GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
490
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 19:47:00 -
[25] - Quote
Renan Ruivo wrote:Because each side keeps failing to present valid arguments to the other? No. Because one side is immune to valid arguments because they want to remove cloaking but don't want to come out and say it (because they are unable to explain why such a change should happen). GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
491
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 20:55:00 -
[26] - Quote
Renan Ruivo wrote:Want to hear another failed argument from the other side? They want cloaked ships to remain 100% detection proof, but are also unable to explain how that is balanced with the rest of the game. That's their job.
It's balanced for the same reason that Hulks extracting Veldspar with their mining lasers is balanced.
The difference is that the cloak's job is being ruined by an overly powerful intel tool that ignores the protection the cloak is meant to provide. Cloaks are not the problem GÇö they never were. The problem is that people see them anyway and are afraid of the monsters their own minds conjure up from this piece of information.
GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
491
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 20:59:00 -
[27] - Quote
The Apostle wrote:No-one asked for cloakies to be removed. Yes they did. That is the result of the suggestions they provide.
Quote:The request is for non-active cloakies to be able to be located. GǪfor no adequately explained or even remotely useful reason whatsoever. GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
491
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 21:13:00 -
[28] - Quote
The Apostle wrote:Then I state that either do not or never have ratted or mined in 0.0. Ever. Like I said: for no adequately explained or even remotely useful reason whatsoever. Just because you can't think of a proper argument doesn't make me a trollGǪ quite the opposite in fact.
Renan Ruivo wrote:So the cloak is the only profession in this game that can be perfomed with absolute safety instead of just very-high safety? That seems right to you? Seeing as how the safety is not absolute, yes.
Quote:You are telling me that a tool that would make any semi-competent cloak pilot laugh while their adversary clumsily tries to locate him, would be the same as removing cloak alltogether and make your job difficult enough to the point of rage-quit? No. I'm saying that all the GÇ£solutionsGÇ¥ to GÇ£AFK cloakingGÇ¥ are complete gutshots to cloaking GÇö intentional or not, they're swinging wild and not hitting what they're (allegedly) aiming for. They also refuse to acknowledge some very simple fixes that would solve their supposed issue, often with such intensity that it is hard not to suspect that the supposed issue is not what they actually want to see solvedGǪ
GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
494
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 10:59:00 -
[29] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Now can we focus on discussing ways to provide risk for those who are cloaked while not active in their client? Sure. As soon as you explain why it is a even problem that needs to be solved and, if so, why the proposed solution of removing them from local (or, indeed, removing local entirely) is not adequate to solve that (supposed) problem.
GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
494
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 12:08:00 -
[30] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:The topic states "A possible solution to AFK cloaky alts" GǪand the question is: what is the problem with AFK cloaking that needs to be solved? Why are the proposed solutions to this (supposed) problem not adequate?
Quote:We are discussing solutions here. GǪwhich is completely pointless if you can't specify what the problem is.
Quote:Removing local will cause far more problems than solutions. GǪand yet, it 100% solves the problem of AFK cloaking.Quote:Removing local = highly buffed AFK cloaking not solves it. How are they buffed? They're not doing anything. Remove local and what happens? They're still not doing anything. GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
498
|
Posted - 2011.10.15 11:27:00 -
[31] - Quote
Gorefacer wrote:I think the best argument FOR AFK cloaking is that it's not a big deal, or that hey you just think having an impact on your enemies while AFK is OK. AFK cloaker not having an impact because they are AFK is a poor argument:
-Either the ratters/miners assume the AFK ship is active and take measures to mitigate the risk (loss of profit) OR -They assume the ship is AFK and risk being blown up (greater loss of profit) GǪin other words, this whole GǣAFK cloakerGǥ problem supposition can be boiled down to this:
GÇ£I am entitled to earn at max efficiency. Cloakers disrupt my privilege and therefore must be removed.GÇ¥
GǪto which the answer is GÇ£no, you're not, and no they don't.GÇ¥ GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
499
|
Posted - 2011.10.15 16:02:00 -
[32] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:let me explain... cloaking is ok infact its needed and great... but perma afk 23/7 cloaking is silly and op in its emotianal affect on the game. In what way? And why is it bad?
Quote:furhtermore after 28 pages there has not been a single post in favor of afk cloaking that was not just a sense of entitlement staw man arugment based on ad hominem fallacies... You haven't read it, I take itGǪ GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
500
|
Posted - 2011.10.15 16:23:00 -
[33] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:whats the more simple less complex fix as ccp has only so much resourses...
simply nerf afk cloaking but not wolf pack hunting?
or removing local and intorducing a totally new game mechanic for ship detection? They're already doing the latterGǪ
GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
503
|
Posted - 2011.10.15 17:42:00 -
[34] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:if its the latter then i would prefer them to first nerf afk cloaking. Sure. Now all anyone needs to do explain why that's neededGǪ
We're at 29 pages of no-one being able to so far. GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
505
|
Posted - 2011.10.15 18:36:00 -
[35] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:cloaking is a counter to local... afk cloaking is an exploitation of a game mechanic to make local obsolete... No. Cloaking is a counter to the overview and to scans; AFK cloaking is a counter to local, since it subverts its value as an intel tool.
Until that intel tool is fixed, AFK cloaking stays. GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
510
|
Posted - 2011.10.16 09:36:00 -
[36] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:The primary goal with dealing with AFK cloakers is that the cloaky should be forced to decloak after N hours and spend 10-30 seconds uncloaked before they can cloak up again. And the primary question (that no-one ever manages to answer) is: why should they be forced to do that? GÇöGÇöGÇö 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¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
|
|