We have made this distinction crystal clear in our conversations with CCP, and I think we’ll get a solution that ensures that the AFK part of cloaky camping goes away, but the tactic itself is still viable.
2 Likes
nice hope there can be a nice solution that don’t hit cloaking by active players too hard.
So does this include local being significantly nerfed, or are you merely saying “cloaking will be viable” to try to put a good spin on a blatant PvE farming buff that will provide near-100% safety for all but the dumbest players?
The risk is that any change that only nerfs AFK cloaking, is also implicitly a nerf to active hunting in null, because locals will know that anyone in local that isn’t nerfed through the anti-AFK mechanisms must be active.
There is more certainty for targets and they just dock up or don’t undock and active hunting is nerfed in a big way.
Hopefully the changes that CCP have been discussing with the CSM account for this and there are still chances to disrupt bots and ratters, opportunities for alliances to gather intel and lower ADMs semi-passively ahead of wars, mechanisms for wormholers to use alts to monitor incoming splashes, etc.
You realize that the whole and only point of cloaky camping is the AFK part? Else ratters can just dock until the camper/hunter gets bored of being active in an “empty” system and moves on.
If you don’t include a cloak from local as a benefit from being active, it is pure nerf for hunters/disrupters, increasing safety of prey.
I can’t go into more detail about what they’re working on, but we have told them that this should be focused on removing the AFK aspect of cloaky camping, and not have a massive impact on existing hunting and stealth bomber mechanics.
The no local thing is in Pochven and in wormholes. It’s unlikely to return to k-space any time soon, even though some of us would like it, in some form or another.
1 Like
Nope. If you’re willing to sit at your keyboard and stay cloaked to deny somebody the ability to safely rat, that’s fine - you do you. But allowing someone who is not actively playing the game to disrupt somebody who is actively playing the game is a problem.
I think the happy balance is you can cloaky camp, but you need to be present and paying attention to do it.
5 Likes
At which point local needs to be severely nerfed, otherwise everyone knows that a non-blue name in local means “dock immediately” with effectively a 100% guarantee of safety. It’s ok if there’s the expectation of actively playing the game but you and CCP need to understand how this is not compatible with local in its current state.
I think they will omly nerf AFK cloaking which is a 24/7 fun killer.
You are correct. My bad. I somehow missed the significance of your second sentence. Sorry about that.
Keep it on topic and civil. Thank you.
That’s what already happens. And yes, there’s a 100% guarantee of safety, but there’s also a 100% guarantee of not doing anything you wanted to be doing, so that’s the trade off. And you can’t tell just by seeing a name in local what that is. Is it a scout? Is it a hunter? Is it somebody just passing through? Is somebody looking for an ESS steal? That gives you the choice as to whether to dock up or to take the risk. All AFK cloaky camping does effectively is denial, which is problematic. If we address that and hunting completely dries up, I think that gives us some good arguments as to why local needs to be addressed next.
2 Likes
That’s the tradeoff with AFK cloaking. In the current system the ability to put a non-blue name in local 23/7 for days/weeks/months forces you to make a choice: get 100% safety at the cost of completely forfeiting all productive use of the system, or take the risk of being in space with a non-blue name in local.
In a world without AFK cloaking this tradeoff no longer exists in any meaningful way. A non-blue name in local will either quickly disappear and let you get back to farming (a ship just passing through) or remain in local telling you to stay docked (someone who is actively trying to kill you). Because the only time a non-blue name appears in local for more than a brief time is when the threat to a PvE ship is effectively at “certain death” levels the choice here is obvious: dock until the non-blue name leaves local. And because there is no way to safely remain in space for long periods of time the loss of income will be short before the non-blue name is forced to leave.
All AFK cloaky camping does effectively is denial, which is problematic.
Why is it problematic? The denial is easy to counter with active PvP defense fleets. Why is it a problem that people are unable to solo PvE farm with near-guaranteed immunity to PvP attack in what is supposed to be very dangerous PvP-focused space?
This is the root of the problem: certain nullsec players feel entitled to treat it like highsec with safe 23/7 farming as long as they put their name on a system, instead of accepting that PvE is a privilege earned by constant PvP vigilance. Why is this ok? Why does nullsec PvE have to be highsec-style solo farming instead of a coordinated group effort including active PvP defenses?
3 Likes
Oh, that sounds like you actually expect that outcome, based on your knowledge, that alone is bad enough. Yeah, I’m looking forward to not being able stay cloaked in a system for a bio break, or some food …
1 Like
The very second you stand up from your computer chair, your ship will uncloak. Yep, I got the same information you did. Big Brother is watching. You better be 110 percent concentrating on maintaining the cloak or its gone…POOF! Then your ship goes BOOM! in the next second. If you want to eat or pee you will have no choice but to dock.
1 Like
Brisc will likely give you other reasons, as there are several, but you just stated one yourself. A fleet of people playing the game is need to effectively counter a single individual who is not even playing the game half or more of the time.
I can neither confirm nor dispute the idea that null-sec is meant to be “very dangerous PVP focused space”. Source?
Clearly PVP leverage is meant to be a privilege earned by actually playing the game. If someone can treat some part of null as if its high-sec, then PVPers aren’t PVPing and making null as dangerous as you insist its supposed to be.
In other words, if you don’t want to play there, then don’t. If you do want to play there, then go play there.
Yup. And not just one type either.
A fleet of people is required to counter a single individual and a major fleet that could potentially attack. If all you care about is the one AFK player you can easily counter them with a single player.
I can neither confirm nor dispute the idea that null-sec is meant to be “very dangerous PVP focused space”. Source?
Source: understanding basic game design. Do you also require a source for the claim that 1+1=2 or that water is wet?
Clearly PVP leverage is meant to be a privilege earned by actually playing the game.
And guess what: if all you do is sit AFK in a safespot you won’t earn many killmails and the only people you will hold leverage over are EVE’s absolute dumbest and laziest renter trash.
In other words, if you don’t want to play there, then don’t. If you do want to play there, then go play there.
Funny that you’d say this given the fact that you’re whining and crying about the current state of things and insisting that CCP change them, while I’m happy to play the game as it is now.
No you can’t. You cannot do jack about a cloaked ship until the owner either chooses to uncloak or they screw up.
Source: one of your orifices. Sorry, not a valid source.
Then you have nothing to worry about.
You must have me confused with someone else. In fact, you are just confused. Why else are you accusing me of things I never did?
1 Like
Nope. You can’t kill the cloaked ship. You can put your counter ship next to your farming ship and guarantee that if the cloaked ship ever decloaks it will promptly die, ensuring that all it can do is sit there being irrelevant while you do whatever you wanted to do.
Why else are you accusing me of things I never did?
I’m accusing you of whining and crying about the current state of things, and here you are doing exactly that.
I think CCP is correct in their assessment - that the loss of cloaky camping accounts will be generously offset by PVE/mining alts. Probably in a big-big way. I can see it now - dscans full of Gilas and Ishtars and Hulks.
1 Like