Main AFK cloaky thread

Lets suppose AFK interceptor (AFK I.) flew “T” seconds before intercept interceptor (I.I.) started pursuing.

Every cycle with overheated mwd allow I.I. reduce this time on (in fact distance but if speeds are equal only time is matter)
N = 10sec * 50% speed bonus * 0.25-0.5 (acceleration factor) ~1.25-2.5s

so I.I. need ~T/1.25-T/2.5 overheated mwd cycles

lets suppose T = 45s which is good enough (scanner & I.I. in the same fleet and already in the same grid with AFK I.)

Spherical I.I. in vacuum needs
N = 18 - 36 overheated mwd cycles for success (don’t forget cool down rack between cycles)

Lets suppose mwd can bear heat damage 4 times before breaking

With help of probability theory we can calc that
mwd bears 18 cycles with 10% damage chance & up to 4 hits - 90%
mwd bears 36 cycles with 10% damage chance & up to 4 hits - 51%

mwd bears 18 cycles with 20% damage chance & up to 4 hits - 50%
mwd bears 36 cycles with 20% damage chance & up to 4 hits- 5%

So, I’m 5-90% sure you’d not burn out your prop mod before you caught up to them.

I tried it last night in a garmur (my cepters were all elsewhere and I didn’t want to burn my jump clone as we’re fighting a war). Out of 3 tries, I burned out my A-type 5mn in 6 cycles or less with full cooldown between cycles. Ship shouldn’t matter in this case as the cepter has no heat bonuses. One of the tries, I burned it out in 2 cycles (took a lot of residual damage, RNJesus said fuck you).

claw, 5mn y-t8, second mid slot is empty, wait for heat status 0-1% after overheated cycle
11 overheated cycles, damage 2 times, didn’t have time to burn out it completely
(need to check dramiel with 2 empty slots)

and by the way, I see you’ve undocked from the forum at last
could you check

  1. sniper naga fleet warped by scanner (is it possible lock&shot ceptor?)
  2. two ceptors
    – first almost burn out mwd
    – second warp on first
    – first repairs mwd
    – second almost burn out mwd
    – first warp on second
    – second repairs mwd
    – …
  3. minmatar fighters

and don’t forget initial question was “Is it possible to catch/?kill? afk interceptor fit for speed with the implant”

At least some good civil debate has come out of this thread at long last , good work guys

1 Like

Starting with the easiest:
With two drone nav computers, a wing of Einherji II will exceed 15.5k/s so they will definitely work. At three nav computers that goes up to 18.2 and if you faction them that goes up to 18.9. Kudos, I hadn’t even thought of using a capital ship to catch an interceptor (even if it’s a capital intended to kill subcaps). It is also in concept the easiest to implement, as two carriers can refit off each other and they should most certainly be carrying navcoms in their fleet hanger.

It would probably take a long time to catch up, as the time to exit warp is obscene to say the least (unless they cyno in ofc), but they’d certainly be able to maintain target lock long enough for the fighters to reach the target.

Second, I believe your two-ceptor strategy would probably also work. It has the disadvantage of requiring two accounts/players, but it certainly sounds like it should work, which meets the goals of the discussion.

Last, sniper naga… with mids used by tracking computers and sebos, the sniping range of a naga is utterly disgusting - it would easily be able to snipe one off. But as a caveat, you’d never want to to bring it to a fight, just to shoot an afk cepter. Easy enough to refit one though, rigs aren’t needed.

So TL:DR is that an AFK interceptor is hard to catch but is relying on “Can’t be arsed” tanking.

2 Likes

Probably the very best way to say it, yes.

In the context of “catching” (as in chasing down) really only the carrier or the multi-cepter could do it. But since you’d only be catching it to kill it (unless the pilot somehow ejected with the prop mod on, which would be fucking hilarious) killing works too.

Of course it has little to do with the topic.

It would be interesting to see the results if cloaking were adjusted to require the same level of effort to catch them… Dedicated fits, multiple pilots working in tandem, etc…

That’s all been suggested before, but it’s usually shouted down quickly as being unreasonable.

To entertain myself, while I agree that cloakers are an annoyance and nothing more, they can collect intel and even prep a hot drop, but if you are prepared to deal with them (or aligned and paying attention), then they aren’t too big of a deal. In my case, with present mechanics, if you decloak and tackle me I will MJD to a safe distance (already aligned) then just warp as you maintain direction and speed in mjd. If you are close enough to scram, you are close enough for my drones to quickly hit you as well as my neut. With a few exceptions, in the time it takes you to drop cloak, tackle, cyno, another pilot to bridge, the fleet to react and jump, then load grid, lock, and get extra tackle, I have plenty of time to explode or neut out the tackling ship and warp off. Plus most pve ships pay for themselves long before I loose them anyway.

However on a physics standpoint, cloaking should be nerfed. The main ways to detect anything are visual, radar/sonar (or similar such as gravametric), and thermal. From my understanding cloaking in eve, effectively bends light around the ship, making it NEAR invisible to the naked eye, while reducing EM emissions to a point it is extremely difficult to detect on scanners. Because of that, the current mechanic is if the ships gets within range it decloaks automatically. AKA you’re close enough to detect its EM emissions and/or see the telltail shimmer of light refraction. I do agree there should be modules made for larger ships that interfear with cloaks on a larger field, say 200k for ship based, that makes a sphere that interfears with cloaks. Perhaps a citadel fit version that covers multiple AU, if not a whole system. HOWEVER, this doesn’t take into account thermal. Ships require life support, and while eve lore says even capuleer ships do have a crew for day to day operation (Although its not a REQUIREMENT), this means there is heat generated as part of life support. This, in turn means waste heat radiates through the armour of the ship and out into space creating “hot spots”. Also the engines and reactors of the ships generating thrust and power likely cause at least some heat generation. Granted pure capsuleer crewed ships likely have contained life support so little to no waste heat generated by life support. This waste heat gives a clear way for cloak detection systems to function. Make it a range based active scanner, that scans the area around you for “heat signatures” at range. Make it give false readings too, all sorts of things CAN make a heat distortion. Then as you close in with the scanner, give it a secondary, far more precise EM detector, so detect the lower EM emissions to verify if there is a cloaked ship. Explorer ships and non cloaky recons would be perfect for this module IMHO. Example give recons a 100k range, 20 for EM and 100 for heat detection. Give explorer ships 30 / 150 (they are meant for exploration with a much stronger sensor suite). Then give battleships 75/250. if you make a citadel fit make it in au. 5 au for EM, and 25 for heat, and make it automatic, so that anyone who has docking ability who is in space can “interface” with the citadel and scan down the signatures to further investigate.

Beyond that, lore around local channels would give credit to getting rid of it. I could go either way, I play everywhere HS on alts, LS (facwar as well as 'bear stuff in LS), and predominantly live in nullsec. Concord established “local” networks for communication and pilot tracking, as you jump in, your transponder and ships on board computer link into the network. As concord has no presence in nullsec, it would make sense for local to go away. HOWEVER, as concord tied this system into the gate system (which is why wormholes don’t have it), it would make sense for concord to have established it into the entire gate system, even nullsec. So lore wise it could go either way, especially if they just announced that “pirate factions have begun to balk at concord interference, and so concord has decided to remove tracking from any gates outside of empire control”. As a player I understand it would increase the risk (as a nullbear, increase the fun with the risk), and likely decrease (better balance) the isk income. Intel would only come when people have snuck in and attacked. Well established groups would still be able to form and defend, but it would make safe living hell for smaller groups.

1 Like

This thread is everything thats wrong with EVE online. Nothing changes, everything stays the same. It is ■■■■■■■ hilarious there is a permanent afk cloak thread.

1 Like

As you appear to dislike the game, can I have your stuff?

1 Like

I googled ‘endless rant generator’ unfortunately none exists. At least there’s this thread.

3 Likes

You should try the postmodern article generator…it is amazing.

1 Like

When you’re against afk cloaking, you’re likely a botter and RMTer.

You’re not a botter or RMTer, are you?

:face_with_monocle:

1 Like

Wow, i didn’t know heat wasn’t on the electromagnetic spectrum. What’s infrared and microwave, btw?

1 Like

On these forums, as far as the average bear is concerned? Imaginations of your mind. Physics, laws of nature and logic have no place here. The earth is flat and we’ve all been lied to, we just don’t know it yet. And for some obscure, completely irrelevant non-sense reason, it all has to do with AFK cloaking, because it is not a symptom as has been proven time and again, it is the root of any and all evil.

If we just get rid of afk cloaking, earth can be round again! /s

Any form of afk should be deleted from any game,

I would change cloak to be able to function in two states passive you are cloaked and you cant have input from local and maps even.

Active ie how it is now you are hooked to intel systems thus you provide trail that is detectable back to you.

Cloak for cloaking sake fine,cloak for intel your skin is in the game.

This or any more advanced aproach require effort to be made…so lol.

Cloaky campers continue to have an unfair advantage over other players. This is clearly a game exploit and really should be fixed.

Getting paid to sit in systems online in EVE and not actively playing is abusing the system allow them to become vulnerable.

We would actively hunt this cloaky campers if eve allowed us more opportunities to scan them down.

With the current way cloaks work you are able to logon to your account, then go AFK until the next server reset.

I like using a cloak at times also but it should have limits, below I have made some suggestions.

Firstly cloaking should be more skill based.
For example lvl 1 10 minutes
lvl 2 12 minutes
lvl 3 15 minutes
lvl 4 18 minutes
lvl 5 20 minutes also required for T2

20 minutes being the longest timer and then there should be fatigue timers.

lvl 1 - 2.5 minutes
lvl 2 - 2 minutes
lvl 3 - 1.5 minutes
lvl 4 - 1 minute
lvl 5 - 30 seconds

There should be a maximum number number of hours you are allowed to use a cloak for in a day. This should work like jump fatigue. 4 hrs being the maximum, this is probably a little to much.

If a player fails to move his ship around or click in EVE within 15 minutes for example, his ship instantly becomes uncloaked and is unable to cloak for 15 minutes. This will be a penalty timer and works different to jump fatigue.

The problem with cloaky campers at the moment is we have know way to combat them or fight them off, and for the game to have balance this issue needs to be rectified.

Cloaks are important to game content and if used in the right way they should create more content.

Pilots can you please vote to Yes to recommending EVE addresses the issues of cloaks or No if you believe they are ok.

I opened a new topic today and within a few hours it was closed despite it generating some constructive comments.

My ideas are not welcomed by all and there have been many good suggestions.

  1. it’s not a new idea.
  2. only if every other type of AFK-gameplay gets the same timer
1 Like

Personally I am a HUGE fan of the idea that the universe is concave, that we live on the outter shell, and that the universe increases in depth the further we move “up”, which perfectly fits the physical expansion of the universe, which isn’t actually increasing in size, but in detail. (this part is actually physically correct)

Note: i am not saying i believe it. i am saying that i am a huge fan of it. you don’t see me telling anyone that it’s true, i simply find the idea fascinating and due to the impossibility of proving it, combined with the weird inflationary growth of the universe, it’s one of the best ideas i’ve ever heard. FlatEarthers don’t even come close.

i’m so happy about this thought, it makes the world so much more fun. :blush:

Also: This isn’t actually Hollow-Earth-Theory. :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like