open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Afk Cloakers and why they think its a good idea
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6

Author Topic

Mister Rocknrolla
Posted - 2011.04.02 18:24:00 - [31]
 


The counter question to the people afraid of AFK cloakers...IF CCP removed instant local, what would you do? How would you change your tactics?

Then the follow-up question would be..."why don't you just do that now?"


BlackSparrowHawk
Posted - 2011.04.02 18:28:00 - [32]
 

Edited by: BlackSparrowHawk on 02/04/2011 18:31:20
Its common knowledge there are more carebears in low/null sec then there are in high sec. This thread partly supports this... I can't believe how so many null sec corps cringe at the sight of carebears and their 'peaceful' frame of mind of "leave me alone i just want to make money'. Fact is these hardcore pirates have carebears in their own corps. Sadly to say i've even got some in my corp... Those who choose to farm sanctums or beltrats over Roaming. The way i see it, is anything that encouges pvp in low/nul/wh is good... those regions aren't meant to feel safe...If you want safety go back to Empire!......................... Oh and to OP, all those anologies are compared to RL scenarios. You may as well say Podding in eve should be abolished since we can't kill in RL. Point is RL has restrictions, in eve ANYTHING goes. TBH i feel more empathy for the guy in another thread who got ninja'd and Popped in his mission... i feel more for that dude than all these carebear threads about afk cloaking and Sanctum nerf.

Feligast
Minmatar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.02 18:29:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Mister Rocknrolla

The counter question to the people afraid of AFK cloakers...IF CCP removed instant local, what would you do? How would you change your tactics?

Then the follow-up question would be..."why don't you just do that now?"




You mind if I steal this? +1 rep to you, sir.

mkmin
Posted - 2011.04.02 18:29:00 - [34]
 

Edited by: mkmin on 02/04/2011 18:31:11
Originally by: Max Godsnottlingson
Originally by: baltec1

AFK cloaking makes no isk, gets you no kills, provides no intel and poses a threat to nobody. The only thing you manage is to show up in local chat.


That's not the point. The point is, you are not playing against another player, but an empty chair. Now you prove to me that an empty chair has the ability to pay it's subs and play Eve on it's own, then I will be more then happy for it to play the game, until then, it's on a par with macro-mining

This really. AFK cloaking is PVP with no user input. Just because it's bad at it, doesn't mean it isn't PVP.

And yes, an AFK cloaker is a threat. It may not actually be dangerous, but it is a very potent and very real threat. People do AFK cloaking because it is a threat. It's a message to the people in the system saying "If you don't play the game the way I want you to play, I might drop a supercarrier fleet on you" which sounds like a threat to me.

If a counter to the threat in the form of "drop the fleet or get out" was added (i.e. cloaks use fuel) then it would be balanced.

Jean hunt
Posted - 2011.04.02 18:33:00 - [35]
 

to the op......take ur .45 stick it in ur ass and pull the trigger.

Goodbye !

Feligast
Minmatar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.02 18:33:00 - [36]
 

IF he's AFK, how can he drop a fleet?

And here's another answer: cynojam your system. Done and done.

baltec1
Posted - 2011.04.02 18:35:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: mkmin
Edited by: mkmin on 02/04/2011 18:31:11
Originally by: Max Godsnottlingson
Originally by: baltec1

AFK cloaking makes no isk, gets you no kills, provides no intel and poses a threat to nobody. The only thing you manage is to show up in local chat.


That's not the point. The point is, you are not playing against another player, but an empty chair. Now you prove to me that an empty chair has the ability to pay it's subs and play Eve on it's own, then I will be more then happy for it to play the game, until then, it's on a par with macro-mining

This really. AFK cloaking is PVP with no user input. Just because it's bad at it, doesn't mean it isn't PVP.

And yes, an AFK cloaker is a threat. It may not actually be dangerous, but it is a very potent and very real threat. People do AFK cloaking because it is a threat. It's a message to the people in the system saying "If you don't play the game the way I want you to play, I might drop a supercarrier fleet on you" which sounds like a threat to me.

If a counter to the threat in the form of "drop the fleet or get out" was added (i.e. cloaks use fuel) then it would be balanced.


Then people will afk in umprobable ships while bombers become near useless thanks to your nerfing of their range.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.02 18:38:00 - [38]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 02/04/2011 18:39:40
Originally by: mkmin
If a counter to the threat in the form of "drop the fleet or get out" was added (i.e. cloaks use fuel) then it would be balanced.

How about if EVERY ship would require fuel just to move in space ?
No, make that "use fuel to refill capacitor", and put a cap usage on cloaks, and also put a cap usage on simply moving around.
HAPPY NOW ?
Rolling Eyes

Swynet
State War Academy
Posted - 2011.04.02 18:39:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: baltec1
Then people will afk in umprobable ships while bombers become near useless thanks to your nerfing of their range.


Or you can grow some balls and show everyone you are a hull tanker without 30man support behind you.

Forget it, I was just joking. You can dock again until you can outnumber.

mkmin
Posted - 2011.04.02 18:41:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Feligast
IF he's AFK, how can he drop a fleet?

And here's another answer: cynojam your system. Done and done.

well played.

He can make the threat whether he's afk or not. Whether he can actually do it regardless of afk status is another question. Although an afk inactivity flag to chat channels might be a good counter. Added functionality to friendly chat channels, and removes the power from those gaining PVP advantage while not even sitting at their computer.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.02 18:42:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: mkmin
Although an afk inactivity flag to chat channels might be a good counter. Added functionality to friendly chat channels, and removes the power from those gaining PVP advantage while not even sitting at their computer.

Yeeees, because people could never find a way to make the mouse move or click every now and then while still being AFK, would they ?
Rolling Eyes

Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
Posted - 2011.04.02 18:44:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Feligast
Originally by: Mister Rocknrolla

The counter question to the people afraid of AFK cloakers...IF CCP removed instant local, what would you do? How would you change your tactics?

Then the follow-up question would be..."why don't you just do that now?"




You mind if I steal this? +1 rep to you, sir.


+ 1 from me too ...

Plenty of ways to cope...might raise the dificulty, and lower the net isk/hour per player of certain pve activities if scouts , logis and less efficient fits are needed, but there are ways to cope . This cut in income might get too extreme with the anomolie changes and push players back to lvl4s if not continually balanced.. but tweaking income balance is an ongoing thing in any mmo

maybe different from those above I like some aspects of local but behaving like it isn't there is perfectly acceptable . Cutting down somewhat on the speed and reliablity of the info in local might be a good idea.

(imo local adds a stronger sense of players creating time and space in the virtual enviroment by seeing each otheres faces and being able to easily see thier corps...alliances etc...you don't need to chat to interact.. warping off to a pos when a gang comes through is player interaction too)

mkmin
Posted - 2011.04.02 18:44:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: mkmin
Although an afk inactivity flag to chat channels might be a good counter. Added functionality to friendly chat channels, and removes the power from those gaining PVP advantage while not even sitting at their computer.

Yeeees, because people could never find a way to make the mouse move or click every now and then while still being AFK, would they ?
Rolling Eyes

Um... then that would be botting to get a PVP advantage, rather than getting an active PVP advantage from not playing, and hopefully get their accounts banned. Sounds fair to me.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.02 18:49:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: mkmin
Um... then that would be botting to get a PVP advantage, rather than getting an active PVP advantage from not playing, and hopefully get their accounts banned. Sounds fair to me.

Good luck detecting THAT. It's virtually indistinguishable from a person barely paying attention to the game but still around.

mkmin
Posted - 2011.04.02 18:54:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: mkmin
Um... then that would be botting to get a PVP advantage, rather than getting an active PVP advantage from not playing, and hopefully get their accounts banned. Sounds fair to me.

Good luck detecting THAT. It's virtually indistinguishable from a person barely paying attention to the game but still around.

You're right... because the EULA could be broken, every thing that could be botted should just be locked down. Whoops, you can bot the login? Let's shut that down too! Rolling Eyes

Feligast
Minmatar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.02 18:57:00 - [46]
 

mk, I respect the fact that you feel as strongly about this as I, even if the opposite way. I would, however, like to get your response to this question.

Originally by: Mister Rocknrolla

The counter question to the people afraid of AFK cloakers...IF CCP removed instant local, what would you do? How would you change your tactics?

Then the follow-up question would be..."why don't you just do that now?"



mkmin
Posted - 2011.04.02 19:04:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Feligast
mk, I respect the fact that you feel as strongly about this as I, even if the opposite way. I would, however, like to get your response to this question.

Originally by: Mister Rocknrolla

The counter question to the people afraid of AFK cloakers...IF CCP removed instant local, what would you do? How would you change your tactics?

Then the follow-up question would be..."why don't you just do that now?"




I haven't thought that hard about it actually. I'm not sure I've ever really been affected by it that much, I'm going through the mental exercises that why should it be fair that someone completely afk can affect the game in the same way as someone who's not afk. I agree with the OP that it's about as fair as allowing botters.

I figure if it does become a problem for me, I'd just start doing things a little bit differently, as a lot of people have suggested. That doesn't make it any more fair that afkers are getting an advantage without even playing the game.

Soi Mala
Whacky Waving Inflatable Flailing Arm Tubemen
Posted - 2011.04.02 19:14:00 - [48]
 

WAH Crying or Very sad

Spam removed. Zymurgist

MeBiatch
Posted - 2011.04.02 19:19:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Mister Rocknrolla

The counter question to the people afraid of AFK cloakers...IF CCP removed instant local, what would you do? How would you change your tactics?

Then the follow-up question would be..."why don't you just do that now?"




my point too... 0.0 is carebear land... i think afk cloak should stay but also give me delayed local...

if you dont want to die do this:

1: make bk at all belts (i do about 70km from pin)
2: make a ss or better yet have a pos
3: log in your alt in a falcon (make sure is is cloaked near you)
4: make sure you are allways aligned to the ss or pos
5: right click highlight ss and keep cursor over it
6: dude uncloaks tries to lock you down
a: warp
b: if you cant warp decloak the falcon and jam him then warp

do this and you will be fine ratting in 0.0...

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.02 19:21:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: mkmin
You're right... because the EULA could be broken, every thing that could be botted should just be locked down. Whoops, you can bot the login? Let's shut that down too! Rolling Eyes

Ah, yes, taking everything through highly specific cased down to its absurd final conclusion, nice...
There's no point in adding a new feature designed to combat a tiny minority of players when you can easily circumvent that method in undetectable ways while also harming legitimate players that do not fit in the target category, all the while the entire rationale for even adding that being up for debate.

Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2011.04.02 19:31:00 - [51]
 

Edited by: Mag''s on 02/04/2011 20:01:55
Originally by: mkmin
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: mkmin
Um... then that would be botting to get a PVP advantage, rather than getting an active PVP advantage from not playing, and hopefully get their accounts banned. Sounds fair to me.

Good luck detecting THAT. It's virtually indistinguishable from a person barely paying attention to the game but still around.

You're right... because the EULA could be broken, every thing that could be botted should just be locked down. Whoops, you can bot the login? Let's shut that down too! Rolling Eyes

At least think about it for a minute, before dismissing what Akita T said.

There are perfectly legit programs out there, that stop the screen saver from kicking in.
They are completely unrelated to Eve, so how could you say they are breaking the EULA?

I'm not sure how long you've argued about this topic, but some of us are seasoned veterans on the subject.
We've seen almost every idea possible.
I've yet to see an idea that works, other than the removal of local in null sec.

Serenthris Landry
Posted - 2011.04.02 19:35:00 - [52]
 


Hieronimus Rex
Minmatar
Infinitus Sapientia
Hav0k.
Posted - 2011.04.02 19:47:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: Soi Mala
WAH Crying or Very sad

Spam removed. Zymurgist


SOMEONE CALL THE WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHMBULANCE Crying or Very sad

Josefine Etrange
Gallente
Posted - 2011.04.02 19:53:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: mkmin
Um... then that would be botting to get a PVP advantage, rather than getting an active PVP advantage from not playing, and hopefully get their accounts banned. Sounds fair to me.

Good luck detecting THAT. It's virtually indistinguishable from a person barely paying attention to the game but still around.


Than your problem seems anyway not to be that someone is afk cloaked. Your problem is, that your ****ting your pants because that dude in your local which is not blue. If that dude would be NOT afk for hours, you would be even more scared. Hmm. Sounds like fun.

Actually I do that anyway, watching people and uncloak right on the top of them ;-)
But well, I am a strange person with a sick sense of humour.

War Kitten
Panda McLegion
Posted - 2011.04.02 19:57:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: Marcus Welbey
Edited by: Marcus Welbey on 02/04/2011 16:11:33
I have read a number of posts on this topic, too many in fact and i would like a few things cleared up.

1. AFK cloakers do no harm if they are afk. Well how about I come to your house and stand in your living room with my .45. I wont point it at you, i wont even say anything, im just standing there, AM I a threat?


Fail analogy - you're not cloaked or afk with the 45, nor does a character own the solar system people cloak in. But if you stand in my living room with a 45 I'll kick your ass, take it from you, and send you packing.

Quote:

2. Your just mad because you cant make any Isk. OK your right I like to make isk, I like to enjoy the game I pay 15.00 a month to play, not sit in a station and spin my ship. So tell ya what ill stand outside your job with my .45 and see if you like not being able to make any money, but hey the argument is you can go somewhere else right.


More failure to analogize, but whatever. You go right ahead and stand outside my job with a 45, I'll keep working and making money.

Quote:

3. There is no need for a counter since anyone can do this. So by that logic eve turns into a game in which 50 percent of 0.0 players sit in each others null sec systems afk and they other 50 percent of null-sec players stay in station sounds like a game I would continue to play doesn't it?


Yes, logically 100% of eve players will stop playing the game. Well, if they were cowards anyway. The counters have been given to you in this thread. Pay attention.

Quote:

4. NO-One is suggesting that people cannot cloak in 0.0 no-one is suggesting a major change in the actual combat of eve. Whats being suggested is that some form of control or counter be placed on this tactic to give people who god forbid dont want to sit afk in a system be given a chance to hunt down someone who apparently enjoys spending 15 bucks doing nothing.


Actually there are people suggesting it - but they're just as afraid of playing the whole game as you are. Suck it up cupcake and learn to deal with the threat. Be happy that you at least know the threat is there in local. Wormholes don't have that luxury, and what do you do if he logs off in your system? He's not there anymore at all - or is he? Did his whole fleet logoffski? Will you ban logging off next?

To recap:
- AFK cloakers are no threat by definition of AFK.
- Cloakers are no threat by themselves if you learn to align and pay attention.

Or were you trying to AFK rat?

Quote:

Flame away trolls and enjoy, but I hope at least one person tries to answers these questions intelligently. Given what I have read so far tho that hope seems quite forlorn.



Flames + answers, you get everything you asked for :)

Cambarus
Malicious Destruction
War Against the Manifest
Posted - 2011.04.02 21:10:00 - [56]
 

TBH I find it hilarious how religiously people defend afk cloaking. With the current mechanics surrounding covert cynos and the fact that you can't actually TELL if someone's afk, the ability to sit in someone else's system 100% safe for any amount of time is rather silly. It's as bad as the people defending the lack of agression on salvage by saying that carebears are too safe as it is. You can't defend an activity that is essentially without risk by claiming that said activity provides a needed risk to something else.

As far as removing/delaying local in 0.0 goes, the only way that would be an even remotely reasonable suggestion is if they either made space easier to defend OR made the available isk in nullsec much higher than it is now. It works in WH space because of generally low base numbers and how difficult it is to access in the first place, put something like that into 0.0 and it'd be impossible to make isk for all but the largest alliances. I'm not actually AGAINST these sorts of changes, but simply nerfing local would kill all of the smaller alliances trying to get a start out in nullsec, you just can't give ALL the advantages to the attacker it makes it impossible to defend.

Feligast
Minmatar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.02 21:22:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: Cambarus
TBH I find it hilarious how religiously people defend afk cloaking. With the current mechanics surrounding covert cynos and the fact that you can't actually TELL if someone's afk, the ability to sit in someone else's system 100% safe for any amount of time is rather silly. It's as bad as the people defending the lack of agression on salvage by saying that carebears are too safe as it is. You can't defend an activity that is essentially without risk by claiming that said activity provides a needed risk to something else.


Both of which are working 100% as intended. Good point!

mkmin
Posted - 2011.04.02 21:35:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Cambarus
TBH I find it hilarious how religiously people defend afk cloaking. With the current mechanics surrounding covert cynos and the fact that you can't actually TELL if someone's afk, the ability to sit in someone else's system 100% safe for any amount of time is rather silly. It's as bad as the people defending the lack of agression on salvage by saying that carebears are too safe as it is. You can't defend an activity that is essentially without risk by claiming that said activity provides a needed risk to something else.

As far as removing/delaying local in 0.0 goes, the only way that would be an even remotely reasonable suggestion is if they either made space easier to defend OR made the available isk in nullsec much higher than it is now. It works in WH space because of generally low base numbers and how difficult it is to access in the first place, put something like that into 0.0 and it'd be impossible to make isk for all but the largest alliances. I'm not actually AGAINST these sorts of changes, but simply nerfing local would kill all of the smaller alliances trying to get a start out in nullsec, you just can't give ALL the advantages to the attacker it makes it impossible to defend.

Don't worry... sooner or later CCP will make it so only people in an alliance with their mushroom stamp of approval will get access to local. I mean, didn't you know? EVE is played in hotel rooms in Iceland, not on the internet.

Chesty McJubblies
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2011.04.02 21:45:00 - [59]
 

This again? Sweet.

AFK Cloaker
Amarr
Imperial Academy
Posted - 2011.04.02 22:04:00 - [60]
 



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only