Not looking to start yet another AFK Cloaky thread, but I’m asking the newly elected CSM15 members directly: what is your current position on possible changes to cloaking mechanics that may affect the ability to AFK cloak? If you feel AFK Cloaking is fine the way it is and does not require any changes, please say so.
Normally I wouldn’t bother asking, but I was very surprised to see @Brisc_Rubal mention on his website he’d look into cloaks + cap consumption, so I was hoping for some elaboration. What do you have in mind, Brisc? Guaranteed-cap-consumption-to-zero and/or a straight up timer to decloak? Passive-consumption to emerge from cloak with cap % depending on your cap fittings (eg. battery fits emerge with higher cap %, if consumption is too high then you decloak after a while)? Flat max cap % penalty when active so you basically (could) lose some of your cap instantly, but all cloak users would suffer the same drop in max cap % while active (rather than some suffering more-or-less based on their cap fittings) and emerge from decloak with cap at that % until recharged? Something else cap related? Or have you changed your mind on the mechanics of AFK Cloaking or your position on AFK Cloaking altogether?
And since I’m asking Brisc, I’d like to know what the other CSMers think as well.
For obvious reasons, this thread should be confined to:
The things about Eve is there should be a counterplay.
Now I do want to modify how I answer by one ‘word’ AFK, If the person is AFK it does not matter where they are, they are not an influence on you except in your own fears and worries.
But cloaked? Where is the counter play aside from casting nets near gates etc? What choices exist for a person looking to find the intruder?
none.
A counterplay should exist.
What said counterplay would be? Well during the campaign many of use said that we were NOT developers. I still am not one. I would love to see what the devs at CCP think of counterplay and options and yes I read a fair amount of the afk thread, some idea had merit, others were just thinly veiled ‘make cloaks useless’.
When a counterplay option is made? My question will be IF both sides play well can the cloaker be found? IF the cloaker is afk? The answer should be yes. IF not? well there lies the heart of the matter.
Cute attempt to try and disregard every and any opinion that’s not CSM.
But before you even get to that, you need to clarify.
Are you talking about AFK Cloaking in general or specifically in instances where your personal krabbing is impacted in nullsec?
In general, there are a number of uses for AFK cloaking, from camping wormholes (for sale or for scouting), hostile space, or even going to the bathroom after running your 12th relic site for the hour.
And what do you define as “AFK”? Is 5 minutes away while you take a restroom break enough to qualify for “AFK”? Or does it only kick in when you’re out grocery shopping? What if the door bell rings and you need to rush out to pick up some delivery pizza and it takes you only 40 seconds?
It seems pretty clear which specific use case scenario you’re trying to imply with your comments. But I believe it’d be more conducive to actual discussion if you clarified what you mean.
Not sure why you’re making unprovoked personal attacks (again). If boundaries aren’t established, this will turn into yet another AFK Cloaky thread and CSM won’t get to steer the conversation. I started this thread, but they’re supposed to be the ones taking control of it. The fewer non-CSM replies (including from myself), the better for this thread specifically. Also: I don’t krab in nullsec, w-space, or anywhere else for that matter. Just saying .
AFK Cloaking embodies several different use cases and potential concerns for each use case. I specifically left the question open ended since we need to consider which use cases are “acceptable” and which ones are “problematic”. The one that appears to be most concerning (to others) revolves around camping and scouting as you said, but any cloak changes in general would need to consider the various “acceptable” and “problematic” use cases and compromise accordingly. Personally I’m fine with cloaks running indefinitely, but I do think decloaking with diminished cap would be healthy for PVP to promote counterplay - I assume this is what Brisc has in mind with his vague entry on his website, but I’d rather hear it from him and any other idea other CSMers have.
I lived in nullsec for years, in the typical constant pvp zone that is Providence. We had cloaky campers regularly, especially in the mining systems, but also in fleet formation systems. Campers are not invulnerable at all. You can hunt them down. Yes, not immediately, it takes patience, the occasional mistake, even lie in wait as soon as DT ends, planting (non-mining) alts as a deterrent, offer a smart bait, I even remember having planted cloaky campers in systems belonging to corps/alliances that had us under observation (returning the favor) etc, etc. But we killed quite a few of them, and all of them gave up sooner or later. It’s a psychological game. It would be a loss to the game if it were no longer possible, at least to those who learned how to deal with it. Even miners can move systems, although they proved hard to budge sometimes… Btw, a fresh wormhole in a nullsec system is a far greater risk than most cloaky campers.
A second consideration is the loss of the watch list. Cloaky campers serve the purpose of visual intel gathering, deep scouting, waiting for timers and the target’s response, activation of certain pilots and (super)cap ships, and all that tactical stuff that requires tons of time spent in the same systems.
Third, the best way to deal with cloakies is to learn to think like one, become one, learn how your future prey behaves. What worries you as a cloaky is what you can use later on against them. Again, it’s a patience game and quite interesting.
Bottom line, if people can’t defend themselves against cloaky campers (as you said, no need to talk about AFK campers - who ever knows they’re really AFK btw) perhaps they’re in the wrong place for the wrong reasons.
I think what Mike is getting at, and if i’m wrong tell me.
There are counters and such for any type of mod you can put on a ship.
Is there a counter to prevent your ship being scanned? idk?
So I think what he’s getting at is, why isn’t there a mod to scan for cloaked ships? or is there?
While there are certain DST’s that have built-in protection from being cargo scanned, any other ship can be target locked and scanned without you ever knowing it…
A cloaked ship in a deep safe can’t be found, period. That’s the point of having cloaks. The counter for that is patience, sooner or later that ship will move because it responds to a lure, drop cloak, etc . I remember we found one once right after DT, we probed him immediately before he could activate his cloak, bm’d it, warped to him, decloaked (plenty of tips on the web how to do that) and pointed him and asked for assistance to kill him.
Is there a counter to a cloak ? Yes, there are decloaking techniques. Should there be mods for that ? Personally I don’t think so because it would make cloaks completely obsolete.
Can you defend against a cloaky camper ? Of course you can, but it’s a bit more involving than point and click.
Are (covops) cloaked ships all powerful ? Many don’t even have tanks, and those that do suffer from considerable delays in targeting, or speed penalties etc. And a cloaked ship can’t do anything but gather some intel. As soon as it wants to do anything else but look, move/warp or dscan, it’s visible to anyone and just a normal ship. The reason why people fume against cloaky campers is because of the inherent (psychological) threat over sometimes long periods of time. Usually it’s the non-combat type pilot that complains, maybe even the ‘more AFK inclined’ ones *clears throat. But even miners have counters, keep an eye on local, stay aligned to safe spots etc. That they hate being interrupted is a result of how they ‘play’. Personally, I’d worry more about a freshly opened wormhole, tbh. Those guys do not joke around when they come through the hole, lol. The usual counter for that is to dock up if you don’t have a standing fleet for protection.
Just repeating that the game goes a bit deeper than just simple rock-paper-scissors (thankfully) of simple action and simple counter.
The counter to being scanned (by any means) is … a cloak (bar the transport ships that can’t be cargo scanned). Some t2 cruisers can’t be dscanned, but can be combat probed (but will require more than one ‘ping’ coz of no idea where it is, an idea you normally get from dscanning your target’s approx location). It’s all part of the richness of possible gameplay. Best counter to cloakies is brains
As an after thought, cloaky camping is a behavior. There are always counters to behaviors.
The community has developed dozens of different ways for potentially dealing with AFK cloaky camping, CCP has heard all of them and then some, so I’m not really wedded to any specific solution. What I do want is to make it clear to CCP that this is something the community has long desired, and they should move it higher to the top of their list of things to address.
I’m confident that if they choose to do this, it’s something that can be developed and implemented relatively quickly. The real issue is just getting enough attention to make the change a priorty.
Not every cloaked ship is an intruder. As outlined in the afk cloaking megathread there are many legitimate examples of cloaking for extended periods of time in order to defend against hunters. This is legitimate gameplay.
A cloak is its own counter.
A cloaked ship cannot interact with the environment. It cannot target, it cannot leave or enter the system (without dropping cloak). It cannot use any other modules. It cannot even get too close to anything else.
All these arguments have already been exercised in the proper thread - this whole thread should be merged with it (despite Jerry’s claim to own the forums).
@ISD_Dorrim_Barstorlode@ISD_Lord_Arranoth this thread needs clean up. Almost all non-CSM posters in this thread so far are deliberately choosing to treat this as an AFK cloaky thread instead of letting CSM speak as is the purpose of the thread. This thread will need constant pruning to keep it clear for CSM.
As stated in original post, only questions should be directed at CSM, not statements.
AKA - let’s get round the existence of a proper thread by imposing artificial conditions on the posters - as if this thread was in any way a real attempt to get CSM views, rather than a sneaky way of getting round the other thread’s existence and legitimacy.
I’m sorry, I’ve been trying to find where non-csm members are not allowed to voice their opinions. All I can find concerning posting rules is that as long as the posts are constructive they are allowed.
.
