Except I am not. Its you whining and crying about changes when you still don’t know the specifics.
You should do something about those salt leaks. Lunging at me won’t cure them.
You are overly focused on one playstyle and further expecting everyone to multi-box. You are all manner of wrong.
I am expecting that, in the space where organized player groups claiming and defending sovereignty over their space is a key mechanic, that people will understand this weird concept of “cooperate with your friends”.
Or, if like you, they have no friends they can always multibox I guess.
Except I am not.
Only after most of your posts doing exactly that were deleted.
Nonsense. My posts defending myself from your crazy personal attacks were deleted. I am not sweating any anti-cloaking mechanics being added to the game. YOU ARE. You are having a proper melt-down over the prospect.
Nobody wants to play body guard. That’s even less rewarding than mining.
Boo hoo. I’m sorry that you’re selfish enough that you don’t care about protecting your fellow alliance members or understand the value of cooperative effort, but perhaps that just means that you aren’t going to succeed in nullsec.
All of this presupposes that the non-blue hasn’t already been spotted and referred in an intel-channel, which I think is wishful thinking in a lot of scenarios. But where it isn’t, there should still be time for fast tackle to warp around and you’re still disrupting the guy from doing what he wants to do, even if you don’t catch and kill him. Depending on the reason for the hunting, that can be as effective as the AFK cloaky camping aspect.
It all comes down to decisions both sides need to make, and that’s how I prefer it.
It’s problematic because it’s bad game design to create a scenario where the most effective tactic to respond to another players behavior is to log off and do something else. That’s currently the best tactic to ensure you don’t get hit by what you think is an AFK cloaky camper who happens to not be. I don’t think it’s realistic to say “the denial is easy to counter with active PvP defense fleets” because those fleets aren’t available 24/7, and not everybody is going to be willing to drop whatever they’re doing to go help somebody else who is tackled, especially in a subcap. With the various nerfs to a variety of ships, the only ship class that has the potential to put together a meaningful response fleet these days is a Rorqual, unless you’re in a super or a carrier and it’s like three dudes in an ESS roaming gang that has you tackled, and those you can usually deal with yourself.
This issue isn’t about certain nullsec players wanting immunity. Fixing the AFK part of cloaking camping, if done right, won’t make things that much safer for those krabs. What it will do is requiring more commitment on the part of the group doing the denial.
What I actually expect is that when the changes get rolled out, guys like you and Merin and are going to scream at how horrible they are and have destroyed your gameplay, and the krabs are going to scream that they don’t go nearly far enough and are basically worthless, and that’s how we’ll know that this is probably the best solution.
I wasn’t talking about me. Why do you think everything is about me? Its not. I am just telling you my view on people’s general sentiments. Calm down and patch those salt leaks.
LOL and YUP!
What is bad game design is local. Free unlimited intel that makes cloakies not actually stealthy. So, to counter local you have to psychologically work the enemy with being cloaked for a long time to appear AFK. You appear in local and everyone docks up within seconds. You have to wait hours, days, etc for them to come back out. That is what causes “AFK Cloaking”, - the attempt to counter the BS of local. Any nerf to AFK cloaking without nerfing local is a massive nerf to already imperfect stealth and a massive buff to krabbing.
It doesn’t. Intel channels just make it even easier to use local to get 100% safety, since you can initiate warp back to a station before the non-blue player even enters your system. The only counter to local is to have your name present in local at all times so that it is ambiguous whether you are a real threat or just a name.
But where it isn’t, there should still be time for fast tackle to warp around
There isn’t. An alert player will initiate warp back to station before the fast tackle clears the loading screen, and even relatively slow aligning ships are guaranteed to enter warp before any ship in existence can catch them. The only way to get tackled is to screw up and let yourself be caught.
Depending on the reason for the hunting, that can be as effective as the AFK cloaky camping aspect.
How exactly is forcing someone to dock for 15 minutes as effective as forcing them to dock permanently unless they are willing to take the risk of being in space with a non-blue name in local?
It’s problematic because it’s bad game design to create a scenario where the most effective tactic to respond to another players behavior is to log off and do something else.
But that isn’t the most effective tactic. The most effective tactic is organized group PvE activities with PvP ships present at all times. Logging off is only the best tactic if you’re a PvE-only player who feels entitled to solo farming and treating your rented system like highsec.
those fleets aren’t available 24/7
So what? Why should PvE players be entitled to safe 23/7 farming? Why is it unacceptable that an alliance is unable to do PvE effectively outside of its active hours?
Fixing the AFK part of cloaking camping, if done right, won’t make things that much safer for those krabs.
Only if “done right” involves a major nerf to local. Otherwise it absolutely will make things much safer and be a straight buff to PvE farming.
As much as I agree its going to be slow or never to make up for things like that, there is truth there.
If long term AFK cloaking is actually and totally removed, my response to your issue with local would be to have cloakers intermittently appear in local, flashing or some other difference, so you don’t confuse them with people who logged on or jumped in. This would be like for 10 straight seconds every 5 minutes or something like that.
It probably won’t happen. In fact, no change to local is likely. Oh well. Folks will have to adapt.
I agree that local is too good of an intel tool.
Unfortunately, it’s been around for 18 years and everybody has come to depend upon it. There are places in the game now with no local and players who want that experience, whether it’s hunting or being hunted, have the opportunity to enjoy it, whether it’s in wormholes or in Pochven.
We’ve seen that removing local anywhere else is pretty unpopular, so it’s unlikely we’ll see any other major changes to it. I would support a ship or a module that could make you not appear in local, but I think that would be a minority view, honestly.
Do it often enough and they’ll go do something else, or log out. The difference between that and the existing mechanism is that I prefer requiring the person trying to engage in the denial to have to do more than move X ship to system, cloak, go enjoy life.
That’s not the most effective tactic, because it’s not 100% effective. The only 100% effective way to avoid getting dropped by a cloaky camper is to not log in. And you can be a PvP player who is trying to krab who doesn’t want to have to have a fleet available 24/7 to be able to do that.
They’re not and I’m not suggesting they are.
Fixing the AFK part of cloaky camping isn’t going to suddenly make krabs safe everywhere.
Like I said above, you guys can ask for nerfs to local, and I’d probably even support them, but I would be in the minority and they’re unlikely to get done. Sorry.
There is always going to be a downside. Part of the equation is to try and go with the least downside. Compared to local, allowing players to affect the game play of others while AFK is pretty horrible. Unfortunately even if AFK cloaking will no longer do that, docked and AFK still will.
Then AFK cloaking needs to stay. I get that people don’t want local changed but if that’s the case then the only counter to local needs to remain as well. Anything else is a massive and inappropriate buff to farmers.
I’d ask that you hold the conclusions until you’ve seen the solution.
Granted, I know what you’re going to say anyway, but at the very least, give CCP a chance to do this in a way that isn’t horribly in favor of the krabs.
Why the hell should 100% effectiveness in avoiding loss be the standard by which things are judged? Why not the standard of “good at avoiding loss but still allows you to play the game and gain ISK/minerals/etc”? And why, if people are so risk-averse that any non-zero chance of loss makes them log off, should they be able to have any success in nullsec?
Fixing the AFK part of cloaky camping isn’t going to suddenly make krabs safe everywhere.
Then you don’t understand how local works.
So has the way cloaking has been. If one bad mechanic has to stay, then that is the trade-off, the other has to stay as well as a counter the local that whiners want to keep.
Then CCP needs to publish the solution, because in literal years of discussion of this subject there has not been a single proposal, other than removing/nerfing local, that would nerf AFK cloaking without buffing farmers.
Well, I see them announce “A new intel tool is also coming to New Eden in the next months, one that will offer novel defenses against covert operations in New Eden.” and nothing on the other side. This doesn’t really give an indication of a balanced, good solution, only indication of a one-sided half baked solution. On top of that, if history of CCP’s “solutions” to many supposed “problems” in the past is any indicator, it doesn’t bode well.
I think it needs to be kept in mind that local can be changed in other ways besides just removing it.
If you cannot imagine how local could be changed besides removing it, then I suggest calming down about this anti-cloaking change because its probably not as extreme as you might be thinking.
Because when I use the word “most effective” it means “most effective” - that’s the one that’s 100%.
Don’t start this stupid ■■■■, please.
Nobody is suggesting taking cloaking away. We’ve already had a taste of taking local away and it was an unmitigated disaster. If this is similar, it will be iterated upon.
Of course they’re going to do that.
That was a teaser, not an in-depth explanation of what’s going to happen, and I’ve already explained about as much as I can within the confines of the NDA.
Like I said before, I expect that you guys are going to hate whatever is proposed, regardless.
Exactly.
Again, I’ve been advocating for changes to local - I campaigned on this - so I am with you guys. At the same time, I also campaigned for changes to AFK cloaky camping. If we get the cloaky camping thing done, I think it’s more likely we can persuade them to provide a tool to adjust local than if they do nothing at all.