EVE Search - Bye Bye AFK Cloaking

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Bye Bye AFK Cloaking

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5226	Posted - 2015.03.22 21:18:38 - [1] - Quote Pok Nibin wrote: If I read "afk cloaking" one more time I'm going to all of your houses and stuffing a potato in your exhaust pipes. This is like, "I saw a spider in my bathroom last week and I'll never be able to shower again for the rest of my life." (That's why people who never play tennis keep a tennis racket in the closet - spider control ... well, yeah, to drain spaghetti as well, but I digress.) It's not the afk cloaker I worry about. It's the one not afk...like ME! It's not quite the same, it's more like you got into your shower once and got skewered in the chest by a spike from the wall. Now when you shower you can tell that the spike is there, but have no idea if its going to pop out or not. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5226	Posted - 2015.03.23 00:16:22 - [2] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Gimme Sake wrote: Cancel Align NOW wrote: I think this idea goes hand in hand with the removal of local Can't wait for local removal. This is the most inane idea that people have latched onto for years. They remove local from Null Sec and I would just go to a Worm Hole You get more ISK and they can't hot drop you there. This I feel is the biggest problem with this idea. Not just wormhole space, but the more risk averse (which is most) will simply move into highsec for isk generation even more. I think long term it would just lead to PvPers whining that nullsec is too empty (even moreso than they already do) because there's no ratters to prey on. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5229	Posted - 2015.03.23 16:57:02 - [3] - Quote Pak Narhoo wrote: I know many cases where Im not afk cloaked but am cloaked and quite vulnerable if someone turns on that are device. 30 seconds in EVE is a loooong time to be able to get recloaked and no matter what they know now where I am. There is also no incoming message saying: 'warning anti cloak device is about to be turned on'. One moment you are cloaked the next not. Defeats the purpose of being cloaked at all. Since they haven't even announced what the change would be, there's no reason to assume you wouldn't be able to see it incoming or react to it. Chances are it would be trivial for an active cloaker to avoid being blown up, and so cloakers would continue to exist. Pak Narhoo wrote: [To be honest I don't mind pinging the AFK cloaker, even though it means that CCP once again bend over to the whiners. In this case those afraid of someone who isn't there, but for the rest I feel it takes away all that is about cloaked gameplay. If this gets in as some hope it will I say goodby to my low sec/ nul sec PI/ exploration for example. F-ck it. I find it amusign that you talk about CCP bending over to the whiners, yet are stating you would dump an entire playsytle if they made it so cloakers could be pinged once in a while. You want to retain the ability to have 0 risk of being detected for indefinite periods of time without even having to be in the same building as your PC, yet it's everyone else that is the whiner? The way I see it, this is long overdue. AFK cloaking is an anti-gameplay pattern. It's a player not playing specifically to cause other player not to play too. If they can get rid of that and safely preserve the ability for people who use cloaks actively to continue to do so, I'm all for it. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5229	Posted - 2015.03.23 17:00:11 - [4] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Kiandoshia wrote: Seven Koskanaiken wrote: New meta: AFK speeding. If your overheat it, you wont be AFK speeding for terribly long. What you you need to overheat an almost 9km/s Svipul lol? [Svipul, AFK again] Micro Auxiliary Power Core II Micro Auxiliary Power Core II Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II Cynosural Field Generator I [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] Small Auxiliary Thrusters II Small Auxiliary Thrusters II Small Polycarbon Engine Housing I While yes, something like this could be used to be AFK in a system, you're missing out on a key point, which is that a ship that isn't cloaked can be actively observed. While few ships would be able to catch it, it would be viable for someone to monitor it for changes to determine if it was turning from a passive threat to an active threat, something which can't be done with AFK cloakers currently. A fast ship flying along without being caught is no different from a docked player. He can be watched and if he changes from his current state be considered a threat and reacted to. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5229	Posted - 2015.03.23 17:40:25 - [5] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: This is where unintended consequences happen. AFK cloakers do serve a purpose, they do put a damper on the liquid isk generation in null. Without them sometimes scarring off the fair weather ratters, their would be even more isk in circulation that it is even null, because null is the primary liquid isk faucet in the game (because CCP decided to make anomalies the center of the Domino Sov upgrade system, anoms were never designed for that).. No, AFK cloakers allow people who aren't playing the game to have an effect. Removing that ability has very intended consequences. The intention is clearly across the board to make actual activity, not passive activity the driver in null, hence the entire sov revamp too. Jenn aSide wrote: Eventually, if CCP does away with afk cloaking, people will try to cloak ratting systems less (because every once in a while they will have to pay attention to that cloaker ship. That means that people LIKE ME are gonna absolutely STUFF isk into this economy. People already stuff isk into the economy. I think the number of players affected directly by afk cloakers is relatively minimal, and the effect of their removal on the economy will be much the same. People on both sides will oversell it as having some profound effect, but realistically it's the removal of a zero risk passive activity which added the appearance of risk to a limited number of systems. I'm all for making sure that when you are logged in and undocked you have to play the game to have an effect. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5230	Posted - 2015.03.23 17:53:06 - [6] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: What the above is is dislike of a particualr aspect of a thing over-shadowing the entire thing (which happens in real life politics, people don't like a certain thing, ban all of it without looking at the beneficial parts, and then wonder why other things went ** up) If you focus on the 'afk' part you miss the entire rest of what I'm saying. It's the same thing that happens with gankers, people dislike gankers and want everyhting about ganking to go away not understanding the good things that activity adds to the game (like in some case how getting ganked creates a need for revenge, which is enough of an emotional "tie" to keep someone in the game who might otherwise have left out of boredom). But the AFK part is the entirety of the issue. An active cloaker is actively choosing to have an effect. An AFK cloaker is not. He's not playing the game knowing full well there will be an effect. whether or not you like that effect is irrelevant. If there's a balance issue with that being removed, then that balance issue should be addressed separately. People not playing the game should not be a crutch for bad balance. Jenn aSide wrote:** In other words it's a short sighted way to look at things. There are already ways to deal with cloakers (afk or otherwise) and standing on the 'afk is always terrible' ideology is as senseless as saying "all afk miners must die" lol. I don't like AFK miners either, AFK gameplay is not good gameplay. That said, there's a couple of significant differences between AFK cloakers and AFK miners. - AFK cloakers are effective indefinitely, AFK miners are only effective until the rocks runs out of their hold is filled (~20 mins) - AFK cloakers are 100% safe as they cannot be interacted with, AFK miners - quite obvious - are not. Quite honestly, you should be able to go AFK wherever and whenever you want, but a cloaker going long-term AFK in null sec should be in the same situation as a miner going long-term AFK in nullsec. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5233	Posted - 2015.03.24 12:43:22 - [7] - Quote Josef Djugashvilis wrote: Sorry, but your response is your, well, Iogic, not mine. If a miner is afk and gets ganked it is his fault for being afk, if the same player is afk in a cloaked ship he is now a threat? Weird. Dude, it's real simple. A cloaked pilot who is not AFK is definitely a threat, as he can come and kill you. There is no way to tell whether a pilot is AFK or not, thus an AFK pilot cloaked shhould be considered as much of a potential threat as a non-AFK one. And for what you said, why doesn't that work both ways? A miner is AFK - he gets ganked. Why then if a cloaker is AFK should he not get the exact same treatment? Why can a cloaker go AFK indefinitely and retain 100% safety? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5233	Posted - 2015.03.24 13:01:25 - [8] - Quote kitsune Sabre wrote: somebody using cloaking device no big deal if I get attacked by that person then one of my friends could come over and help me deal with them I'm not going to be a coward over one person Good for you. I guess it's completely fine to have mechanics which allow people to have an effect - regardless of how minor - while they are asleep or at work with 100% safety because you don't care. At the end of the day, to play EVE you should play EVE. If you **** off to work and leave yourself logged in and in space you should expect to be dead by the time you get back. It's really that simple. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5233	Posted - 2015.03.24 14:23:48 - [9] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Because the afk cloaked, unlike the afk miner, can't interact with the environment in the same way. An AFK miner also can't interact with the environment long term. At the very most he can mine up to 3 rocks until they dissappear, or his cargohold is full. Effectively he can mine at most about 8 million isk before he is no longer doing anything. Less in fact than if you drop sentries in an anom them go to bed. The difference is though that when encountered, a miner or a PvE player can be hunted down and destroyed. A cloaker has a small meta effect which will last indefinitely. Nobody can deny that AFK clokaers do cause a change in behaviour, otherwise they wouldn't exist, there would be no point in doing it if it had no effect. So why after 20 minutes (the approximate time for a miner to be no longer useful if AFK) should the cloaker not stop being effective too? Jenn aSide wrote: The 'danger' narrative is a false one, people don't dock up because a cloaker is present, which is why 'afk cloaking' isn't a problem in worlmhoel space. The problem is that in dominion CCP took anomalies and made the the center of the systems up grade scheme. Becasue anoms are open sites like belts, a cloaker can warp to one, decloak, point a pve ship and light a cyno, dropping enough ships on the pve boat to kill it quickly. In other words, afk cloaking is the emergent gameplay counter to the anomaly farms Dominion created. And some of the farmers don't like it. So for 6 years now they yhave complained about it (while failing to complain about our anomaly farms that spew liquid isk every 20 minutes like old yeller). People don't necessarily dock up, but their behaviour changes. Wormholes have less of this as they are naturally places where you are more aware by choice, and they are so much easier to lock down. Wormholes can be closed down, classes restrict what size of ship you will see, and force projection doesn't exist. In addition, wormholes necessitate omnitanking, which isn't really an option for null PvE, which makes most player far more suited to surviving a PvP attack. Jenn aSide wrote: This is why I could never bring myself to 'hate' cloakers, I KNOW the benefit I get from farmable anomalies (according to that niffty stats website, across the 3 characters I use in null I made 250 BILLION isk last year from null sec, mostly anoms, and another 100 bil from high sec incursions and mission on a 4th character. I have 2 bil in my wallet because budgeting is not my thing lol). Complaining about afk cloakers would be dishonest because even with them there I pried a quarter TRILLION isk out of null. I certainly don't hate cloakers, I just believe that players in all aspects of the game should need to be active, and where they choose to be undocked and away from the computer, they should be put at the same risk. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5235	Posted - 2015.03.25 03:17:39 - [10] - Quote Adriana Nolen wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: kitsune Sabre wrote: somebody using cloaking device no big deal if I get attacked by that person then one of my friends could come over and help me deal with them I'm not going to be a coward over one person How about this scenario that I have seen: - The covert hot dropper has alts in every system. - Knows how many you have and how many can respond. - Drops a force that wipes out you and any of your friends that can respond in time. Sits there for weeks. Slow strangling death for an alliance. While him? He gets to pick exactly when he plays those alts while all the others have play denial. "Fun" game. If you can't handle the heat, maybe you shouldn't be in null/low. Yeah Jenshae! If you can;t handle someone being able to be completely invulnerable in your space even when they are asleep, clearly it's your fault and not dumb mechanics. You should just move out of null, that way people can happily continue to actively not play the game. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5236	Posted - 2015.03.25 10:53:14 - [11] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: I certainly don't hate cloakers, I just believe that players in all aspects of the game should need to be active, and where they choose to be undocked and away from the computer, they should be put at the same risk. You say, whilst being one of the most ardent defenders of mining, miners, and ISBotter. Really? I Certainly defend mining as in I want the activity to continue, though I'd prefer it's AFK play to be addressed. That said, long term AFK isn't something you can do with mining, and short bursts of AFK are generally fine and exist in nearly all activites. ISBoxer I have no problem with them removing, I've even suggested ways to make it completely useless. My issue with the ISBoxer situation was a combination of how they chose to address it, via fuzzy rules and not fixed mechanics, and their lack of communication over it. Of course you didn't realise that because you make wild assumptions rather than reading people's posts. Amusingly even if you read the post of mine you just quoted, it states that people ho are AFK should be at risk, which miners for example are. I want that for cloakers too. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5241	Posted - 2015.03.26 08:23:36 - [12] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: If a highsec miner or hauler can't be AFK, then the nullsec hot dropper can't be AFK either. The "AFK" cloaker is not earning personal income via that mechanic. They're two totally different things. But hey, if you want to start that ball rolling, I'll go ahead. Mining lasers should not auto cycle. A hauler doesn't earn personal income by doing that. A miner makes as most ~8 million isk if they manage to live. A cloaker has the same effect indefinitely and without risk, and while they don't make isk from it, they obviously benefit or they wouldn't do it. You know this, nobody can be as oblivious to the facts as you claim to be. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5241	Posted - 2015.03.26 08:49:53 - [13] - Quote Baneken wrote: Best solution would be a POS module that simply allows probing cloaked targets while you sit uncloaked on grid with it and with the purposed removal of POS shields from future structures this solution would put equal risk to both sides especially if the device would actually work without it's probes being seen from a d-scan so that the purposed cloaker has to actually work for his meal. Obviously this device would otherwise work identical to current probing mechanics so you would still need to warp to 0 to actually de-cloak after 100% ping and yes you could still afk-cloak as usual but now with some actual risks from the defenders factored in. The problem with that is that you'd never decloak a cloaker who is in motion, which and AFKer can do too. You'd not know whether someone is actively avoiding you or just in motion, so you're back to the same issue. Ideally it would just be a module that you can trigger once in a while which decloaks the entire system. You can then cloak them as normal. If they aren't AFK, they'll be back cloaked and warped away by the time you get to them. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5242	Posted - 2015.03.26 14:38:50 - [14] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: People are still too scared like little childreen. Just rat in pairs.. or BE ON COMMS LIKE YOU ALL SHOULD, and the chance of dieing to a single cloak ship is small. The only real risk is that cloak ships opening a cyno/covert cyno. If the AFK ship is not from a large corp, just put that corp into your watch list and you will know when there is a chance of something like that happening. But if your group is not organized enough and on comms enough to listen to a call and arrive with 2-3 ships on the belt before anyone died, then the problem is on your group. The only ones that might die fast enough are miners, but just change to the tanky version of your mining ship and you will take a while to die as well to a single ship. Still some risk? YES, but not enourmous risk. When I lived in 0.0 I never stopped my activities because of an AFK cloaky ship, jsut made small adjustments, and NEVER EVER lost a ship. Dude, you are still missing the point entirely. Even if you are mitigating the risk, the fact that you have to take specific action due to the presence of another player is an effect they are having. IF they are to have that effect, they should not be able to be impervious to being attacked, and if they are AFK, they should find themselves rapidly getting dunked. How someone reacts to their presence, whether or not activities stop, and whether or not you want to insult them because you think you're somehow superior is irrelevant. At the end of the day, it's simple. If you are in space and you **** off to bed you should expect to wake up podded, no matter what activity you are taking part in. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5242	Posted - 2015.03.26 14:43:55 - [15] - Quote Lan Wang wrote: baltec1 wrote: Cant wait to hear the screams out outrage when CCP changes local chat in null to the same as WH space. people will just leave nullsec, rather go to a wormhole if they ever done that, more money and safer This. The majority of screams would be from the PvP players who would suddenly find there's no ratters to kill, since wormholes would be both safer and more lucrative, and anyone who wasn't interested in that would move to highsec. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5242	Posted - 2015.03.26 14:49:29 - [16] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Even if you are mitigating the risk, the fact that you have to take specific action due to the presence of another player is an effect they are having. The fact that you admit the behavior would be totally different if they didn't know the other guy was there thanks to local is really pretty damning. You know, unlike wormholers, who have to act like that all the time. I've never said that removing local wouldn't resolve this issue too, it would simply add other, more serious issues. Wormholes have mass limits, are difficult to locate specifically and have no force projection. Nullsec doesn't. The removal of local would fix afk cloaking but kill off null PvE and in turn null PvP. It's like suggesting a server wipe as a fix for RMT. Sure, it works as it removes the masses of gathered isk, but it causes other problems. Kaarous Aldurald wrote: That alone just goes to show what the true motivation behind all this is, and it's about as selfish as it could be. I can't wait until CCP disappoints you again. And what exactly is this selfish motivation? I selfishly want other players to have to interact with the game in order to play it? Such selfish. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5242	Posted - 2015.03.26 14:51:56 - [17] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Here, I'll go ahead and counter your emphatic statement with one of my own. If you are out in space generating income, you should HAVE to act like there is always another player out to get you. There should not be any other option, no matter what part of space you live in. I don't disagree, and currently there is no other option. The only players that can be undocked and mechanically safe are cloakers. Every other player has to act like there could be an incoming tackler at any minute and take precautions against that. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5250	Posted - 2015.03.27 07:54:03 - [18] - Quote Josef Djugashvilis wrote: I have never ever been afk and left a ship in space. I dock up even for bio breaks. But I do love scaring the bejasus out of folk with one ship. Then that's fine, you'd be unaffected by the change since you would simply move and recloak. The point is that cloaking is good, cloaking is great, but the ability to remain completely safe while AFK in space is not. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5250	Posted - 2015.03.27 07:55:31 - [19] - Quote Trii Seo wrote: Hey, if they remove local - AFK cloaking won't even be needed anymore. Sure. I mean a lot of things wouldn't be needed since the vast majority of null players would move to wormholes or high sec and null would become a desolate wasteland covered with the tears of players looking for ratters to kill, but sure, AFK cloaking would be gone too. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5262	Posted - 2015.03.28 11:51:22 - [20] - Quote baltec1 wrote: You people pushed and this is the end result, local intel tool is getting nerfed so you can hunt down something that wasn't an issue to start with. Just like with the freighter nerf people are going to get what they asked for along with everything else required to balance out the change.I feel another round of I told you so coming soon. I'd be very surprised if they did push forward the local change. Null sec would empty out. The bulk of the people crying about it will be the ones flying system to system for hours on end and finding no PvE players to kill. To be honest I don't really care if they kill null with a change like that, since it will prove a point to all of the idiots that think PvE players would just hand themselves over to be farmed if the mechanics changed. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5263	Posted - 2015.03.29 11:29:34 - [21] - Quote Benny Ohu wrote: isn't the usual attack 'you just want local to remain so you can kill pve players easier'? or was it 'you just want local to remain so you can pve with no risk, nullbear'? maybe it was 'you just want local to be removed to catalyse the summoning rituals of the dark lord' frankly human sacrifices work just fine in wormholes and there's no hotdrop there to interrupt long chanting sessions please explain how an afk player can summon an elder monstrosity from beyond reality Quite honestly we can go on back and forthing over this ad infinitum with you screeching on about how AFK players do nothing. The fact is that if that were true, people wouldn't AFK cloak. You can act like you're ignorant of the facts all you want but that won't change them. And lol, keep comparing null to wormholes. If local were removed from null, there would be no point in not moving to a wormhole for better rewards and increased safety. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5263	Posted - 2015.03.29 11:32:50 - [22] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Its going to happen when you get your nerf to afk cloaking, CCP have more or less admitted this. We did warn you. Warn me? Why would you warn me? It will affect me to the sum of zero either way. The only reason I support the removal of AFK cloaking is because the ability to sit in space for hours AFK with 100% safety is ludicrous. As for PvE players which I imagine you were assuming me to be, why would they care? They can get just as much isk in highsec, and more in wormhole space and be safer in both cases than null without local. If local goes from null, so does the vast majority of the population, and the ones crying about it will be players who used to PvP there. But no, I don;t see it happening to be honest. CCP barely hinted at it, and speaking to the devs at fanfest there's absolutely nothing set in stone for it. I reckon they'd realise it will kill off null population and give it a miss. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5267	Posted - 2015.03.29 20:33:45 - [23] - Quote baltec1 wrote: CCP hinted at it as much as they hinted at a nerf to AFK cloaking. They also gave me what I have been asking for for years, sov null mission agents. Yeah, and in both cases is "take with a grain of salt", but realistically which is more likely to be something CCP pushes. I honestly can't see them nuking null even more my removing local. Forcing players to actually have to be active though, that's something I can see them doing. Infinity Ziona wrote: Why will null sec empty out? If anything the change will encourage PvE. Problem with PvE in null is players can instantly see you in local. A quick d-scan and they know exactly what you're flying. With nerf to local, as long as you shoot your wrecks regularly you'll blend in with the ships floating in POS so only the real hunter rather than the person travelling from a to b and seeing a non-blue in local and calling some friends, will be hunting you. Even if they see your ship on scan and realise its not in a pos (local knowledge), they're not instantly going to know you're neut or red and the majority of null sec players are lazy or in a rush to get somewhere so most won't bother. Without local people still know where you are. Spies aside, it's not a difficult task to figure out where in k space activity is occuring, especially when there is sov. If null didn't have local, it would effectively be wormhole space that's easy to navigate, with worse income, chance of escalation, no ability to be sealed and no ship class restrictions. Anyone that chose to PvE in null instead of just moving to a wormhole would be on crack. Why would you choose to be at more risk and earn less? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5267	Posted - 2015.03.30 07:18:50 - [24] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Yeah, and in both cases it's "take with a grain of salt", but realistically which is more likely to be something CCP pushes. I honestly can't see them nuking null even more my removing local. Forcing players to actually have to be active though, that's something I can see them doing. Cant have one without the other. Remove AFK cloaking without dealing with local and you wind up with the perfect intel tool that you cannot counter. If you want AFK cloaking nerfed then you have to deal with the other balance changes that would be needed. Of course you can have one without the other. Not only did local exist pre AFK cloaking, but AFK cloaking isn't even a counter to local intel. That's something a random came up with a couple of years ago as an excuse for why local should be removed. If anything AFK cloaking is a counter to sov holding alliances who small groups can't fight - something which is already being dealt with. I can't see them puttign all this effort into changing null then going "oh and we're going to take away local too, just so noone bothers using our new system because all other space is better than null now". I doubt they'd put in the local change into null unless it came hand in hand with the removal of jumping and a massive increasing in the amount of rewards in null - two things I can't see happening also. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5267	Posted - 2015.03.30 07:20:31 - [25] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: It is nice to see them dealing with map intel such as average players in space etc. Nullsec intel should be a benefit for the space owners not merely anyone in the region. So intel should only be available to defenders, making it easier for defenders, harder for aggressors? That's pretty much the opposite of what CCP are pushing for with their sov changes. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5268	Posted - 2015.03.30 20:31:37 - [26] - Quote baltec1 wrote: AFK cloaking is the only way to mess with the intel from local. Yes, they will have to nerf local as there would be zero counters to it if they nerf afk cloacking. CCP are doing a total overhaul of everything including intel gained from local. Rewards are being improved and with the evidence that will live in space with no local its clear to see the argument for keeping local intel chat is a hollow one. I look forwards to posting I told you so in many whine threads from the null bears. AFK cloaing isn't a way to mess with the intel. The intel remains clear - there's a player in system - and the response is the same regardless of whether or not he is active. Local is one of those long standing mechanics which a small group hates but most of the game relies on. The tried without it with wormholes and it ended up being underused because it's simply no fun to get randomly attacked and lose everything you've been working on. I'm sure if they removed it a tiny group of players would exist in null shooting each other much like there is in wormhole space, but for the most part CCP would be shooting themselves in the face to nuke null in that way. If local does go it will have to be replaced by another skill or module based mechanic which does exactly the same thing that everyone can do with ease, making it a completely pointless change. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5269	Posted - 2015.03.30 21:33:24 - [27] - Quote Baaldor wrote: Where do you get your information about a "tiny group" left in NULL. if we are talking strictly anecdotal? I can too say I have read many large alliance forums with a the jewbears cheering in unison for no local. Lol, yeah, I'm sure you have, in favour of a POS based mechanic giving almost exactly local but only to defenders. I've read those ones too. Blanket removing local and turning into "unsealable, unrestricted, easily navigated wormholes with force projection" I've not seen that much support for, especially since the combat recons changes. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5270	Posted - 2015.03.31 06:01:14 - [28] - Quote Infinity Ziona wrote: They know someone is ratting or in system with the map but that's all. Its unlikely alliance chat is going to be happy answering 100's of "is anyone in xxx system" every hour. Quite honestly that's not all, if you know null well you know exactly where people are doing PvE. The map stats and sov stats give it away more. Following the new changes sov will shrink a bit meaning it will be trivial to find an entire groups area of operation. Infinity Ziona wrote: Null is different from WH's not just in its inclusion of local. The lowest truesec is all soloable, officers included, which is not the case with the highest class wormholes. There's no worrying about the next system to you suddenly changing from happy carebears to hardcore pvpr's (new wormholes) on a regular basis. There's a consistent and reliable navigation system that doesn't change or collapse suddenly. The changing of navigation is a benefit in wormholes, it means that if someone wants to hunt you down specifically they need to find an entrance which isn't as simple as setting a route and following it. Navigating out of your wormhole is far easier than navigating into it, not to mention you can flip the static if you want a new location. And don't forget you can restrict what ships that hardcore PvP group can be in by the class of wormhole you live in, plus they have to come in from the wormholes which will collapse behind them if they bring in too much, while you can build whatever you want in the hole. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5271	Posted - 2015.03.31 21:03:02 - [29] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: AFK cloaing isn't a way to mess with the intel. It is the only way to mess with it. No matter what ship, fittings or tactics you use you show up in local chat the second you enter or leave the system, it is impossible to avoid. we can only use one tactic and that is to sit in local for days at a time and prey the targets do something stupid like go ratting without an organised defence. Remove AFK cloaking and there is nothing to counter the intel from local. But it's not a counter to local. It doesn't stop local working, it doesn't counter it's ability to detect new players. It uses local as a tool to counter PvE activity, that's all. And no, that's not all you can do. thousands of kills occur every single day without AFK cloakers being involved, so obviously there's other things that work. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5271	Posted - 2015.04.01 16:14:01 - [30] - Quote baltec1 wrote: AFK cloaking is currently the only way to get around being detected instantly in local and that only works if people chose to not organise a defence. It doesn't get around it. People are still instantly detected even when there's an AFK cloaker in system. And if people organise a defense it's actually more effective, since you've now got a whole group of players not doing what they would normally be doing because you're in bed but logged on. baltec1 wrote: No, I am pointing out the stupidity in your argument. I can do the exact same thing as afk cloaking using stations. I will also point out that you ignored my second question. Actually it's not the same thing, since as has been stated multiple times including a few posts above, a docked player can be observed, his location is known and can be guarded. Once he's in that station he committed himself to that. If the station is camped he's out of luck. An AFK cloaker doesn't have that worry. baltec1 wrote: As to why we should be able to afk cloak. Its the only counter we have to local for our ships. It doesn't counter local. It's a guerrilla warfare tactic to attack PvE efficiency. Local remains just as it ever has whether there's an AFK cloaker or not. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5271	Posted - 2015.04.01 16:17:48 - [31] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Which can only be done in null space and begs the question: I you would dedicate people to defending a system from someone docked why are you unwilling to do the exact same thing with an AFK cloaker? A docked player has only one point of exit and has to go through it to do anything and can be guarded by one person if they have the ship and skill to fight the docked player. An AFK cloaker can appear right next to any target they choose or can simply choose to leave. Short of a massive gatecamp and an enormous amount of luck, you're not going to stop him. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5271	Posted - 2015.04.01 16:22:08 - [32] - Quote Eve Solecist wrote: PvE efficiency. Carebears who want to play in nullsec, because it means more money ... ... but want it to be as safe as highsec, because they are cowards. PvE efficiency. That's not it at all. Null players have no problem with risk, what there's a problem with here is players who can retain 100% pure safety while away from their computer. If anyone's carebearing here it's the AFK cloakers telling everyone how entitled they are to their zero effort, 100% safe mechanic. If someone wants to actively stay in system threatening PvE players, that's no problem. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5273	Posted - 2015.04.01 16:26:08 - [33] - Quote baltec1 wrote: You will with an organised defence. We do it day in day out. You'll only kill a cloaker if he chooses to attack. A guy in station would have to leave his ship and clone behind to get out without getting killed. baltec1 wrote: No, what you want is the ability to ensure a perfect safety net via local intel. Wrong, perfect safety doesn't exist even with local in a system with no AFK cloakers. What I want is for people to actually have to play the ******* game if they want to have any effect on a system. I have no problem with active players running around threatening everyone, but the ability to dump alts into systems and chuck up some permanent 100% safety while completely AFK is just a terrible mechanic. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5273	Posted - 2015.04.01 16:28:01 - [34] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Yet here you are pushing for a 100% foolproof intel system that would mean pve players could avoid any attempt at pvp on them. People already can avoid any attempt at PvP on them, often unsuccessfully. Even if AFK cloakers didn't exist, that would be no different. Again, what I'm pushing for is actively playing players, that's all. It's not a new concept. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5273	Posted - 2015.04.01 16:39:41 - [35] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: baltec1 wrote: Yet here you are pushing for a 100% foolproof intel system that would mean pve players could avoid any attempt at pvp on them. People already can avoid any attempt at PvP on them, often unsuccessfully. Even if AFK cloakers didn't exist, that would be no different. Again, what I'm pushing for is actively playing players, that's all. It's not a new concept. You get the result you want by removing local. Indeed, I've agreed many times. Unfortunately the removal of local also has other effects, like emptying out null of PvE, since all other PvE would be lower risk, some for better rewards (such as wormholes). In the same way though, removing of cloaking altogether also fixes the AFK cloaking issue, does it not? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5273	Posted - 2015.04.01 16:44:19 - [36] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: You're pushing for actively playing players... by advocating for something that removes the one barrier to completely free afk ratting in nullsec. Lol? "completely free afk ratting in nullsec" isn't really possible if you've got people actively flying about blowing you up. I'm guessing this was written in a hurry since it literally makes zero sense. Jenn aSide wrote: That may be what you want, but many behind the "death to afk cloaking" campaign don't really want that. If you take away "afk cloaking" they will find a way to morph the argument to "I pay for/foguht for this system and should be able to rat in it without some cloaky guy dropping on me, Death to Cynos!!". If CCPs observation arrays have a decloaking feature like people are talking about, I'd bet you a large sum of Chribba secured isk (I'm talking 10s of millions of isk, perhaps enough to buy a whole Battlecruiser!) that this will happen. After CCP finalizes and announces their new structure scheme, if they do that anti afk cloaking thing I will be come back here to offer you that bet. That would be called a slippery slide. I'm sure just like in everything people will always whine for more and more changes, but that doesn't mean no changes should ever be made just because someone might whine about something else later. AFK cloaking is a completely safe completely AFK activity, and that's bad in my books and should go. If later someone then whines that cynos can go you can expect a swift "HTFU" from me. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5273	Posted - 2015.04.01 16:51:57 - [37] - Quote baltec1 wrote: If you want risk free pve go to highsec We're not asking for risk free PvE, we're asking for risk to be added to AFK meta PvP. I guarantee that if AFK cloaking stopped existing tomorrow, thousands of players would continue to die every day in null. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5277	Posted - 2015.04.01 17:08:41 - [38] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: baltec1 wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: baltec1 wrote: Yet here you are pushing for a 100% foolproof intel system that would mean pve players could avoid any attempt at pvp on them. People already can avoid any attempt at PvP on them, often unsuccessfully. Even if AFK cloakers didn't exist, that would be no different. Again, what I'm pushing for is actively playing players, that's all. It's not a new concept. You get the result you want by removing local. Indeed, I've agreed many times. Unfortunately the removal of local also has other effects, like emptying out null of PvE, since all other PvE would be lower risk, some for better rewards (such as wormholes). In the same way though, removing of cloaking altogether also fixes the AFK cloaking issue, does it not? That results in an uncounterable safety net that would be unbalanced. If you want afk cloaking gone then local intel needs to go too. No it doesn't lol. Removing AFK cloaking or even cloaking as a whole doesn't result in total safety. And no, they certainly don't need to go together. There's been numerous ideas to tackle AFK cloaking without affecting active cloakers or local, and those are the ideas I support. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5277	Posted - 2015.04.01 17:10:35 - [39] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: baltec1 wrote: If you want risk free pve go to highsec We're not asking for risk free PvE. Thats exactly what you get when you remove afk cloaking. Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: [We're not asking for risk free PvE Yeah, that's exactly what you're asking for, the rest is a smokescreen. lol, bad trolls are bad. So you are saying AFK cloakers are the only risk to PvE players? Interesting. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 5288	Posted - 2015.04.04 14:14:40 - [40] - Quote Ren Oren wrote: There is no station you can dock up and save your stuff in (even if the station gets flipped you can still get your stuff if you get it back), in WH space if someone gets the jump on you, there is no evac, no insta-undock, no jumpbridge, no cyno... the only option is to pay a HUGE ransom, wait for death, or self destruct everything you own to deny the enemy the full pleasure of crushing you. Wormholes are not easier than null, if thats your argument against no local, then its a weak one You're only real argument there is lack of stations, which is irrelevant since you simply wouldn't pile trillions of isk into a POS in wormhole if you couldn't defend it. Since there's no cynos in wormhole space it means noone can use force projection to crush you. As wormholes have mass limits you can choose what the max size of ships you want to attack you is when you pick your space, and you can even build ships bigger than that to give you an edge in defence. You can also seal up wormholes leaving just the static(s) if you have any. Importantly, if someone decides to attack your group, they can't just fly to your space. You can't simply route to a wormhole like you can in nullsec. Wormholes also have omnitank PvE, meaning the ships you use can take a beating from all type too, while null PvE is specific resists, meaning that you either have to take more damage from rats to omnitank or risk having a gaping hole in your resists that anyone can predict. So I can quite comfortably say that null without local would be more risky and less rewarding that WH space. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!

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.