Main AFK cloaky thread

I like how you can’t argue with ad hominem.

Anything you disagree with a ‘lie’.

Space can be cleared with a strong PvP presence? I must have missed the part where a strong presence makes cloaks scannable, forces them to move or in any other way puts them in danger.

Oh wait. Nope. They get to sit right there and lower the value of the space by their mere presence forcing that pvp force to stay right there. See, It’s a game and its supposed to be fun. You can pay a guy to play the game if there’s something for him to do, but it’s stupid to pay a guy to just sit there and be bored during his game time.

No, you don’t have to make 100% max profit at all times, but you should be able to fight toward that goal, not just sit there with no way to actually play against the other guy.

No, just the lies you keep posting. If you want me to stop calling things lies then you’re free to stop lying at any time.

Space can be cleared with a strong PvP presence? I must have missed the part where a strong presence makes cloaks scannable, forces them to move or in any other way puts them in danger.

This is you demonstrating your ignorance of PvP again. Let’s say there is a PvE farmer doing a PvE site. A 50-man fleet is on standby and ready to arrive within seconds, if not already in the site with the farmer(s). Space is clear because the threat will not dare to attack, the fact that they have a name in local while staying far away from your operation is irrelevant.

They get to sit right there and lower the value of the space by their mere presence forcing that pvp force to stay right there.

Again, you are ignorant of PvP (likely because, as you admit, you hate it and refuse to do it). Having that standing fleet is basic space-holding competence even when there is no cloaked threat. The fleet also protects against logon traps, interceptors jumping in and catching a farmer being a bit slow to warp, etc. But RMT farmers and renter trash feel entitled to some theoretical maximum ISK/hour they’ve calculated, and consider anything else to be unfair.

You can pay a guy to play the game if there’s something for him to do, but it’s stupid to pay a guy to just sit there and be bored during his game time.

Why is the PvP fleet just sitting there? What is preventing them from killing NPCs alongside the primary farmers? Do you, in your ignorance of PvP, think that PvP weapons magically can’t be activated against NPCs?

No, you don’t have to make 100% max profit at all times, but you should be able to fight toward that goal, not just sit there with no way to actually play against the other guy.

You can fight toward that goal. You just don’t like the fact that the answer means significant investment in PvP and not a magic “go back to farming” button you can press to make the PvP go away.

I have not told a single lie. You just characterize anything you don’t like as a lie, since you are so certain of your own blinkered view you can’t imagine you could possibly be wrong.

You want to take content that can be done with a single guy, maybe even a fleet of 5 or 6 if we are all just hanging out shooting the shizz, and impose the overhead cost of a 50 man fleet at all times?

Those 50 guys aren’t interested in shooting NPCs. If they were, they would be farmers. Even if they do, you just, with one magical nanny button, reduced the value of that space to 1/50th of it’s normal value, which you will somehow argue is it’s normal maximum value and everyone else in the universe is just being greedy for not wanting to be bored and stupid.

You aren’t fighting for a higher value with that. You are willfully cutting your profits by huge margins and patting yourself on the back for being stupid. Good Job.

Maybe the very largest entities can keep 50 or so dedicated PvP guys sitting around 23/7, but smaller groups can’t.

According to you those smaller groups just should not even have the chance to fight a larger group that has a few extra pilots to troll with. They would have lost anyway since the other group is bigger. Just like supposedly someone just warping between safespots is equivalent to someone asleep or at work while their ship is hiding under the nanny button.

As humans we adapt to our situations. Or give up when there is no feasible conclusion to address a problem. And by give up I mean do something else where our efforts mean something. Many do this silently. Most people do not speak up for themselves. They just leave.
This game is very enjoyable but it is missing pieces even though it so old. I am guessing that any “fixes” would just break the code in the game, that is why it hasn’t been dealt with.

That being said, being camped for 9 months continuously is a pathetic way to keep the top 10 lists organized. I have seen many characters just leave the game altogether. This must be bad business practices. With the determination people always find a workaround in life to deal with problems. They either invent or do something different to adapt to the situation.

The main problem is nothing is perfect. And there will always be some problem. Problems make people go and do something they can effectively manipulate. When adaption is not possible we just simply work/play with something we can make a difference with.

Cloaky  Camping  for extended periods of time like weeks or months on end is just a form of Griefing.   Which is illegal in most games after they realize just how much money they are losing in subscriptions.  

 Someone always finds a way.  My way is to just simply play other games until the camper leaves.  Since if we were in space we would certainly figure out and develop technology which would counter this out dated practice.

Humans adapt and overcome in their environment.  Digital environments are out of our control.   

So if you don't listen to your Player Base The game will just continue this downward spiral.

I hope they make a version of Eve that is single player so that when the game gets shut off we can still play a home version that has all of our ships and gear we collected from the last 15 years to play with.
   I hope you have a real nice day now.

self_awareness

2 Likes

There you go, lying again. You lie constantly about “zero risk” and such, because you refuse to admit that anything that goes against your wannabe-bot lifestyle could possibly be true.

You want to take content that can be done with a single guy, maybe even a fleet of 5 or 6 if we are all just hanging out shooting the shizz, and impose the overhead cost of a 50 man fleet at all times?

Welcome to nullsec. That content can’t be done by a single person, you’re just making the common wannabe-bot mistake of assuming that the challenge is the NPCs and not the PvP threats. It doesn’t matter if you can successfully kill the mindless loot crates without any help, they aren’t the point.

According to you those smaller groups just should not even have the chance to fight a larger group that has a few extra pilots to troll with. They would have lost anyway since the other group is bigger.

Welcome to EVE. If you can’t match the other side’s numbers you tend to lose. If I have a 50-man black ops fleet standing by to cyno in on any target you present and you can only manage to get 1-2 players in PvP ships, well, of course you lose. I have a 25:1 advantage on you. I fail to see the problem here, strong groups survive and weak groups either fail or become renter trash.

Just like supposedly someone just warping between safespots is equivalent to someone asleep or at work while their ship is hiding under the nanny button.

Of course it is not the same. But someone being asleep or at work while cloaked only happens because local exists. Remove local and AFK cloaking disappears as well. Nobody here wants AFK cloaking to be a thing, we just recognize that it’s the least-bad option as long as local remains in its current state. We would much rather fix the local problem.

1 Like

You are inconsistent.

You just want to reward bad play (camping afk under a nanny button) over those playing smartly (staying awake and aware, flying safely, mobilizing for threats" because that gets you easy kills.

100% safety isn’t a lie. Feel free to detail how someone hiding under a cloak is under any threat at all unless he willfully flies into something or drops it himself.

And it’s all because someone is making money and you don’t like that. so you want them to explode. Even though they aren’t in space with you.

The real hypocritical part of that is the farmer wants to make the camper explode and is mechanically prevented from even attempting it (yeah, they are super cowardly for not engaging an unengageable ship) despite actually being in space with it. They would actively hunt it if it were possible.

It’s fine you want them keeping an eye out for PvP, you just don’t like that they do it successfully. Rather than facing unprepared soft targets you are forced to face prepared defense fleets… or would be, if it were at all possible to bring one to bear.

Stop lying. I have clearly stated that I want AFK cloaking gone. Removing local removes AFK cloaking and solves the problem quite neatly.

100% safety isn’t a lie. Feel free to detail how someone hiding under a cloak is under any threat at all unless he willfully flies into something or drops it himself.

It’s a lie because you stubbornly ignore the fact that the cloaked ship can’t do anything while 100% safe. To engage a target they have to drop the cloak and take risks. If they are 100% safe you can completely ignore them and they might as well not exist. They’ve effectively logged out of the game.

And it’s all because someone is making money and you don’t like that. so you want them to explode. Even though they aren’t in space with you.

Sigh. Not this nonsense again. Being in space with me is irrelevant, I can argue for good game design even if I am not personally in space with someone exploiting the design flaws. I can argue for banning RMT bots without personally attacking them in space, and I can argue for changes that make PvE farming in general have balanced risk vs. reward instead of negligible risk and obscene rewards.

The real hypocritical part of that is the farmer wants to make the camper explode and is mechanically prevented from even attempting it (yeah, they are super cowardly for not engaging an unengageable ship) despite actually being in space with it. They would actively hunt it if it were possible.

Too bad, as has been pointed out, a ship can warp between safespots faster than anyone can catch it so the farmer is never going to accomplish their goal no matter how much you nerf cloaks.

Also, the idea that they would actively hunt a target is a lie, at least in your case. You have admitted that you will not do PvP, so why do you keep pretending that your goals are about anything other than making it easier to run away from PvP?

It’s fine you want them keeping an eye out for PvP, you just don’t like that they do it successfully.

There you go, lying again. I am fine with them succeeding in avoiding PvP. I am not fine with them being given an effectively 100% success rate for the negligible effort of looking at local. And I am not fine with you arguing for making local even more effective than it already is.

So you want all space to be wormhole space, only worse.

So it’s 100% safe or not? You say 100% safety for cloaks is a lie, and then immediately say they are safe until they choose otherwise. Pick a side.

Please do start arguing for good game design. I look forward to it.

So? That’s not the same as being 100% mechanically safe while asleep or at work. Safety through effort is fine. Safety through Nanny Button is not.

Ok, so reason me this

Farmer–not ok with avoiding PvP through ‘minimal’ effort of flying properly, staying aware of surroundings, responding appropriately to threats, etc.

Camper-- ok avoiding PvP through “minimal” effort of pushing button once when no one was around and for the rest of time thereafter.

Not really understanding why you need to call people who enjoy a certain aspect of the game that’s different from your play style trash, but to each their own, adding that phrase simply makes your argument less valid cause you have to resort to labeling to get your point across.

2 Likes

I’m not seeing the problem here.

Cloaked ships are 100% while they are at a safe spot…meaning they pose no risk to the other side. Now granted the other side my not know this, but there is nothing about this game where you are entitled to that kind of information. Is it in the EULA? No. Is it in the ToS? Again, no. Is it in something a Dev has said? No, in fact you were quite butt hurt when CCP Fozzie said something to the effect that a ship, while cloaked, has does amazingly little DPS.

So yes, a cloaked ship is 100% while at a safe–i.e doing nothing. A cloaked ship that engages is not 100% safe. I might be safe in that it can take down it’s target before it dies in turn…or friends of the target show up.

A cloaked ship gets the advantage of initiative. In exchange it loses DPS and tank. Facing the combat equivalent version of the cloaking ship and when said combat version is well fit the cloaking ship will likely lose such engagements. Yes, ratting ships are often tanked badly for such engagements which is why refitting when a hostile shows up is the smart course of action. Yes, ratting in a PvP gimps your ratting. And yes, so much so you might need to rat with a friend or 3.

But why are you entitled to ratting whenever you want? Why are you entitled not only to just the intel local gives you that lets you get safe and merely imposes the cost of lost ratting/mining time and also gimping cloaks not just for the cloak campers, but everyone else who uses a cloak? Why should the guy using a blockade runner to move stuff around have his game nerfed? Why should a guy using a hauling fit T3 to run stuff in to and out of NS have his game nerfed? Why should the guy doing exploration in NPC null have his game nerfed?

You keep whinging and whinging about how OP cloaks are, but you never explain why these other forms of game play should be nerfed.

possible middle ground idea. just spit-balling and its probably bad, but whatever.

with the new intel structures coming, how about a “counter-intel” deployable. requires anchoring, and once anchored either creates a beacon in space (or has a massive sig so is joke easy to scan down)
this beacon causes a 2-5 minute local delay in the constellation its anchored in (possibly dependent on the type of anchorable, t1 t2 etc).

reasons why I think this might be a decent middle ground, 1. its not a blanket removal of local, simply a delay and limited to a small area of space. 2, until one gets anchored, a ship will still have to sneak in under standard local, which makes finding a quiet system and setup of the trap require actual effort and planning. 3. if people are paying attention, they are able to notice the delay in local, possibly before the trap can actually be sprung, but this counter play requires actually paying attention (death to afk miners right?) 4. it still gives enough time for a whaling fleet to get in, hit their target and get out if they are willing to put a little bit of work in to set up the trap.

yes perfect intel is bad, this gives you an option to disrupt it. but kills shouldn’t be free either, you gotta work for them. yes, having eyes in every system in a constellation would help to counter this. but even thats not perfect.
speaking from experience, having campers in our region for months now, we mostly just ignore them. with a module like this, one of those campers could probably manage to anchor it, and blops cyno in a small fleet before anyone noticed. but still leaving local intel on the whole as a useful (if slightly more unreliable) tool.

I call them trash because they are trash. Sorry if the truth hurts, but we’re talking about PvE farmers who are too weak to survive on their own and have to buy space from players who are strong enough. It’s just one step above complete failure and being evicted back to highsec. Unfortunately this group also seems to have the strongest sense of entitlement to maximum PvE income, even in PvP space.

2 Likes

It says a lot that the only difference you can see between WH space and nullsec is the existence of your overpowered pro-RMTer intel tool.

So it’s 100% safe or not? You say 100% safety for cloaks is a lie, and then immediately say they are safe until they choose otherwise. Pick a side.

They are only 100% safe if you only look at a small part of the cloaked ship’s activity, much like trying to argue that a PvE farmers is 100% safe because nothing can kill them while they are in warp to a site. Outside of the temporary safe period the cloaked ship faces considerable risk if it wants to do more than keep a name in local and force RMT bots to auto-dock. A cloaked ship that insists on 100% safety indefinitely might as well not exist because it can not hurt you.

So? That’s not the same as being 100% mechanically safe while asleep or at work. Safety through effort is fine. Safety through Nanny Button is not.

As I said, remove local, problem solved. Nobody will stay logged in while asleep or at work anymore and you don’t have to worry about this problem.

Ok, so reason me this
Farmer–not ok with avoiding PvP through ‘minimal’ effort of flying properly, staying aware of surroundings, responding appropriately to threats, etc.
Camper-- ok avoiding PvP through “minimal” effort of pushing button once when no one was around and for the rest of time thereafter.

Farmer - makes billions of ISK farming the most profitable PvE content in the game, while being 100% safe if the player makes the absolute minimum effort to use the automatic safety guarantee.

Camper - sits idle in space accomplishing nothing besides keeping a name in local and forcing RMT bots to auto-dock.

Can you honestly see why one activity should involve a much higher level of risk?

1 Like

Nope, that’s why I said WH space, Only Worse.

Hmm, active 23/7 for a month… all of it just sitting under a nanny button. Small part. Ok.

How does removing local put a cloaked ship at risk again? I’m pretty sure no one is supposed to be safe, right?

Seems like they can’t farm in 100% safety while sitting in a dock, so it’s one or the other. Either they are at risk, and making their money, or not, and not making money.

The difference is the camper gets to be totally safe while accomplishing his goals and the farmer has to stay at risk to accomplish theirs.

And has been pointed out, Local isn’t even a part of this. You want local to go away so that it becomes even safer for the already completely safe cloaker to set up his ambush. Seriously. That’s the dumbest thing ever.

watching

and without local:

It’s local that tells you he is there in the first place. But no, local chat absolutely has nothing to do with it, right?

2 Likes

If a cloaked ship is sitting cloaked 23/7 for a month straight then they are doing nothing and might as well not be logged in. Stop behaving like a bot and going into full panic mode just because a name is in local.

How does removing local put a cloaked ship at risk again? I’m pretty sure no one is supposed to be safe, right?

Removing local does not make an active cloaked ship at risk because no active ship, cloaked or uncloaked, is at risk as long as they are willing to warp between safespots. Removing local removes the situation where a cloaked ship is 100% safe while the player is asleep because nobody will stay logged in while asleep anymore. The only cloaked ships will be ones with active players, and none of your proposed ideas will allow you to catch those players.

Seems like they can’t farm in 100% safety while sitting in a dock, so it’s one or the other. Either they are at risk, and making their money, or not, and not making money.

Sigh. This is not complicated. Stop looking at individual moments in time and look at the bigger picture. Across a month of farming the farmer will make obscene amounts of ISK and has essentially zero chance of losing anything during that time. The worst-case scenario is that they spend some of that month docked, but being forced to dock is not the same as risk of loss.

The difference is the camper gets to be totally safe while accomplishing his goals and the farmer has to stay at risk to accomplish theirs.

The camper is only safe while accomplishing their goals if their only goal is to force RMT bots to auto-dock because the bot sees a name in local. If the camper has goals like “kill a farmer and take their loot” then they have to accept significant risks.

And has been pointed out, Local isn’t even a part of this. You want local to go away so that it becomes even safer for the already completely safe cloaker to set up his ambush. Seriously. That’s the dumbest thing ever.

Stop lying. Local is part of this because local is the only reason the situation you are constantly whining about, a cloaked ship with an AFK player being 100% safe, only exists because local exists. If local no longer exists then your complaint is no longer relevant.

If a non cloaked ship is 100% safe anyway why are you so opposed to having any form of counter against cloaks?

Cloaks are self countering, and there isn’t a problem with them anywhere.

Those who dock when a name appears in local will do so irrespective of whether it’s a cloaked ship. Clearly the cloak isn’t the problem.

1 Like

Because they are afraid to undock when a cloaked ship is in the system.

Pixel Fear drives 99% of these posts.