Main AFK cloaky thread


(Lena Crews) #576

I’m not sure I can quantify market actions as interaction simply because you don’t interact directly with a player. For example, I cannot buy directly from the 3rd lowest sell order on the market… instead it causes me to buy from the lowest sell order at the price from the 3rd lowest sell order. The code that runs the market works the same if the orders are NPC generated as player generated. Our actions have an impact on the market application… but not with another player until they interact with the the market application.

That would be similar to reinforcing a structure owned by a player corporation when no players from that corporation are present. Your actions have an impact… but it’s not direct player interaction because they don’t see it until after the fact. Player vs Player isn’t happening unless the other player logs in and reacts to your attempt to reinforce.

But it is an intersting point to consider.

Well… if the logoff time were 20 minutes (which I suggested but am not set on)… it wouldn’t matter. If you wait longer… it takes you an extra 20-30 seconds to log in before checking the order after walking away for an hour to do something else. If you’re waiting 30 minutes between checking orders I’m not sure why an extra 30 seconds would be an issue.


(Teckos Pech) #577

Of course it is interaction.

What do you not understand about the word “arbitrary”. You want to enforce and arbitrary rule on how people should play the game. If somebody wants to come back to their computer every 30 minutes and check something, that should be allowed. The idea with the game is do what you want.

They disappear if he logs off too. You cannot force interaction in this case. You make it sound like you are losing out on interaction, but are not in either case.

And lets ask this suppose a player is AFK in space and not cloaked and you probe him down and shoot him, is that interaction?


(yellow parasol) #578

@Lena_Crews
You defend remote intel in the other thread, and demand to know if the afk cloaker is actually there.

What dangers are there left for you, in what is supposed to be a dangerous space?


(yellow parasol) #579

she ganks him when she knows he’s not there. she’d never engage him if he was, because of the illusion of the hotdrop…


(Teckos Pech) #580

Link please. I’d like to look at those posts. :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

Wanting both the power of local and nerfing AFK cloaking. Gee…no way somebody could see that as a buff for their preferred play style…especially since using the power of local and remote intel Lena will be docking up before I even get in system…and oh look…all that interaction disappearing. :roll_eyes:


(yellow parasol) #581

Starts here.

Please don’t call it a playstyle. It is not a playstyle. they just made that part up and get away with it. playing safe isn’t part of the ruleset!


(yellow parasol) #582

Damn, I didn’t see that one earlier.


(Linus Gorp) #583

You know, every time I think you can’t surprise me with even more stupidity, you actually manage to outdo yourself.
How retarded do you have to be to think that at any point I was even remotely interested in a discussion with you? All I did was point out the flaws in your limited way of thinking and what a stupid moron you are and of course you’re so god damn stupid that you don’t even get it when it’s pointed out clear as a bright sky for you.

And you also shouldn’t talk about logic without first showing that you indeed are capable of understanding it. So far all you’ve shown is that you have no clue what logic is. No surprise there.


(Lena Crews) #584

I wasn’t defending remote intel. I was laughing at those who tell people who get killed in pvp to “get gud” who are then complaining because they “got gud” enough to avoid being killed.

I find that humorous.

I literally never posted about remote intel itself… I just laughed at the “poor pvp players” giving salt because their prey is harder to catch.


(Lena Crews) #585

“I’m responding to you repeatedly but I am not interested in a discussion with you.”

I’m just going to say you’re not very good at showing a lack of interest in having a discussion. My advice… start with actually not having a discussion. You know… by not replying?

“Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong.”

Jean-Jacques Rousseau


(Lena Crews) #586

If I buy a BPO from a NPC source or a BPO from a player on the market, the experience is the same. Since only one involves another player, I have trouble calling either player interaction. I could be convinced though.

The rest of the post you ignored:

" it takes you an extra 20-30 seconds to log in before checking the order after walking away for an hour to do something else. If you’re waiting 30 minutes between checking orders I’m not sure why an extra 30 seconds would be an issue."

Sorry… you’re complaining about 30 seconds every 30 minutes (or whatever arbitrary time you choose). I don’t think that is a significant enough downside to matter.


(Lena Crews) #587

That’s fine… but doesn’t really change my response. The point is that a person hiding in station/citadel who’s at their PC has the ability to make decisions that can lead to interaction. And the fleet can try to press the issue by hanging around and goading the player into taking an action that makes them vulnerable. Offering 1v1’s, doing a log off trap at an abandoned MTU, trash talking in local… whatever.

Doing that is wasted time if the person who docks up went to bed. The fleet could be wasting time where they could be searching for other targets by trying to goad a AFK-station sitter into combat.

Logging off a afk-station sitter is just as useful as logging off an afk-cloaked camper to keep the active players from wasting time trying to interact with afk toons. Active players aren’t wasting their time taking steps to trap or goad a player into action who’s not present at their PC. The same benefits apply.


(Merin Ryskin) #588

And that can never happen. If you require activity every 30 minutes then I will glance at EVE every 29 minutes to push the “don’t be AFK flagged” button, but nothing more. Maybe I’ll even remote desktop in from my phone so I can press that button every 29 minutes even when I’m completely AFK. But since I’m occupied with something else I’m not even going to look at anything besides the “don’t be AFK flagged” button. You can’t force people to meaningfully interact with the game, so your empty chair exists either way.


(Lena Crews) #589

You have to sleep sometime. Even if it eliminates 6 hours of every 20 hours of AFK play it’s a positive step.


(Merin Ryskin) #590

It’s an irrelevant step. You’re adding extra complexity and potential balance problems to eliminate a negligible problem, and you don’t even eliminate it at all if your AFK cloaker is smart enough to use one of the 100% undetectable methods of automating anti-AFK-flag inputs. And either way you’ll still face lots of situations where a player is committed to not interacting with you and no amount of attempting to force an interaction can possibly succeed.


(Lena Crews) #591

AFK timers are not complex. They exist in virtually every MMO on the market. And having a timer makes the automation quite easy to detect.

“You’ve stayed logged in except for downtime for the last 5 days with an AFK timer in place. You’re either sharing your account or botting. BANNED.”

And yes… there are always ways to get around everything. That doesn’t mean a change can’t be made. The fact botting cannot always be detected is not a valid reason to avoid making botting against the rules. Some people get away with murder… it’s still a good thing to make illegal. The fact people can avoid something is not a good argument against that thing.


(Merin Ryskin) #592

No, the timer itself is simple from a coding perspective. But the gameplay implications are not.

And then people stay logged in for 4 days on one character, then 4 days on the alt, etc. I suppose this is good for CCP’s revenue, as long as alpha accounts don’t get access to cloaks, but it doesn’t do very much to stop AFK cloaking.

The difference, aside from bots being much more detectable than an anti-AFK tool, is that botting is doing clear harm to the game while AFK cloaking is only a “problem” for lazy and entitled carebears. When the value of a solution is in serious doubt before you even consider the implementation issues you should have very little patience for those issues.


(Teckos Pech) #593

It is still interaction. You are not only interacting with the player logged off you are interacting with all the other market participants as well. When you buy something, it has effects on more than just one market, but also other markets such as the input markets, and the markets that the person might spend is profits on, etc.

The market is actually more like an eco-system, a co-evolutionary eco-system. So you doing something changes just not your behavior, but the behavior of others and the fitness landscape–i.e. the eco-system itself–even if in a small way. And when you think of thousands and thousands of players doing this the changes can go from small to big, and they can move in ways people may not anticipate.

Further, these changes in the market will induce players to change their in game behavior. If the price of one good goes up, some people who manufacture stuff will switch and compete away the profits. If that change results in price increase of some or all of the inputs, some people harvesting those inputs may very well change their behavior.

Why should I have to be burdened every time with that?

I get that you think it will promote interaction, but it won’t. Logging people off does not promote interaction, it prevents it just as much or even more so than simply being AFK.

The safety of a station/citadel means that, that person is totally safe ignoring your attempts to interact. You complain about “wasting time”, but that time can and largely will still be wasted in this scenario as well. This is sill the empty chair scenario if the player in station wants it to be. In some instances interaction is simply not possible. In a station/citadel, a POS field, and when cloaked at a safe spot. Those are about the only time when interaction has to be cooperative–i.e. both sides want it.

Not just that, but setting up a macro that interacts with the client to keep you logged in would not violate the current EULA.


(Lukett MyDabb) #594

:fieriparrot:


(Xenon Aspirse) #595

Well, I’ve got some very simple answers and solutions to cloaky camping.

For starters, anyone who says that ‘cloaky camping generates content’. Yes, it does. But it only generates content for the camper themselves. Content is absorbed or rejected. This content is rejected by the opposing party which is being ‘camped’ on. Without any effort a ‘cloaky camper’ will gradually decrease the activity in the system.

To anyone who says that ‘cloaky camping stops the players in the system from making money - it’s a fair tactic’. You are also right. It decreases revenue in a system without (or with minimal) efforts for said ‘camper’.

Cloaky campers do not exist. They are mostly either paid by a 3rd party, an alt which is kept on screen with a macro for d-scan or a fully-automated bot.
I have not heard of a single person who would sit still and devote 100% of their attention to the ‘camper’ alt to try and ‘hotdrop’ onto an unsuspecting target. It doesn’t happen. Cloaky campers normally use tools to either automate or automatically inform them of new information.

Even without actively trying to ‘hotdrop’ players they have an affect also, people don’t feel safe. I wouldn’t feel happy undocking my Rorqual and doing a mining fleet for 6 hours knowing a neutral / red is in system. Without any efforts by the ‘cloaky camper’ he has stopped revenue from being generated.

For the people who dare to generate revenue when a ‘cloaky camper’ is about are put at a Major dis-advantage.

The ‘cloaky camper’ can easily chose to not engage. It’s like 3rd person in any other video-game. They can chose to engage what they think they can succeed with whilst the person being camped has no choice apart from trying to run or shoot them back. A battleship will lock a frigate in around 10-15 seconds (unless it’s fitted to take out the campers). An entire fleet can be on-grid within 3 seconds of a bridge being made.

The fundimental problem is, ‘cloaky campers’ aren’t actually people actively attempting to ‘hotdrop’ 95% of the time. They are bots, modified clients or input-automated alts designed to have minimal interfacing with a person and still perform at the same level.

You’re welcome to reply, but at least make some sort of effort in your reply to counter my argument without either:
‘AFK cloakers can’t hurt your because they’re AFK’
‘Cloaky Campers create content therefor; all content is good.’
‘Cloaky Campers are banned, you shouldn’t have to worry.’
‘Cloaky Campers don’t have any focus. If you keep aligned then you’re fine.’
‘AFK Cloakers attack an system by lowering the revenue gained by it’s inhabitants. This is a tactic in pvp.’

Good luck.