Main AFK cloaky thread

(Merin Ryskin) #4151

If there is no risk it is only because the target is weak and can’t fight back. The target is fully capable of applying any level of risk, up to “hot dropping is instant suicide” if they choose to. Stop being a victim and make risk for the attacker.

(Daichi Yamato) #4152

This is, again, down to local.

If a roaming gang wasn’t so easy to spot, people wouldn’t use hot drops.

And risk wise, there is nothing stopping you hot dropping the hot drop. Their risk is whatever you make it to be.

Don’t be a push over and you won’t be pushed over!

(Xcom) #4153

Strangely deep safes were removed, overloaded ECCM T3 were nerfed and any form of exploit getting around from avoiding being probed was fixed. Oddly they forgot to fix cloaks too along with all the anti-probable fixes. If you AFK in space you should be punished.

Everyone agrees that nothing will change if cloaks were nerfed given that anyone smart enough will ping-pong safespots gathering intel indefinitely and even get to hotdrop if catching anyone off guard. Nothing else matters in a cloaking discussion and are all complex topics on there own.

Avoiding local mechanics and being able to AFK in space for so long that people start to ignore you sounds like an exploit and should be addressed. Its not a counter, its the exact meaning of an exploit. Avoiding a fight till your ignored and collect intel and a chance to hotdrop sounds more like a proper imbalanced exploit.

(Daichi Yamato) #4154

They didn’t. It’s just not something that needs fixing.

If your afk in station you should be punished.

On the contrary everyone agrees it would allow nullbears to rat in safety. Which is why it’s been going on for years.

Using local as intel is an exploit and should be addressed.

Just like using local to see when someone enters system.

(Xcom) #4155

Did you even read or you just copyposta the same dumb response everytime. Nothing will change if cloaking is nerfed. Null bears will still be hunted except you cant AFK anymore, aka carebear PVP. If you also have issues with local then move to wormholes.

Edit: Also I agree, kick AFK people in stations after 15 min. Save performance.

(Lumukanda Theleraese) #4156

If we are all agreeing might as well include afk ratters and miners to the list then if gonna start kicking people.

(Xcom) #4157

Why not. But its probably off topic.

Botting is also another form of AFK exploit, except it gets you banned. Yet its ok to AFK and avoid PVP. Who knows how many bots are used alongside cloaking to auto gather intel as well, not like its possible to monitor clientside read only bots.

(boernl) #4158

@Daichi_Yamato i am not against the mechanic for hotdropping at all

im against the cloaky cyno alts

(boernl) #4159

@Lumukanda_Theleraese if ppl are idling in station/cloaked in space it helps server performarmance if they automaticly log off when not active

well afk mining is not afk if you are controlling the mouse is it ?

(Lumukanda Theleraese) #4160

For me, if a game is going to log people out to save server performance then there are bigger issues at play than afk players.

Why should someone who plays a game automatically be logged off if deemed inactive?, and at what amount of time is it determined to be deemed inactive? For the miner and ratters was talking about time, as there are periods where you may not input any commands for a bit so was more of a how far down the rabbit hole could we go but this thread is for cloaky stuff so will stick to that.

(boernl) #4161

you will be surprised how many games already have that implanted ( for years ) eve is 1 of the few that do not

(Lumukanda Theleraese) #4162

Yeah there are a few that do it, and how EVE doesn’t is another reason why I like it. If they ever decided to implement something one day just hope it is balanced for all and not a nerf to one particular style of play.

(boernl) #4163

that i agree on if that is includet it has to be general

(Merin Ryskin) #4164

AFK cloaking is not used to avoid PvP, it’s used to get PvP. If a player wants to avoid PvP they can log off instead of going AFK for hours at a time. The purpose of AFK cloaking is so that when you go AFK your name remains in local, preventing potential targets from using local as an intel tool and docking up the moment you come back from being AFK. Removing AFK cloaking is not going to magically let you get fights against those cloaked ships, they’re going to log off and continue to avoid you. All it’s going to do is give a major risk reduction to RMTers and renter trash.

But of course you know this, as it’s been said over and over again. The only question is if you’re genuinely failing to understand or just pretending to be ignorant so you can argue for a buff to RMT farming.

(boernl) #4165

can you perhaps make up new argument these are getting old
if pvpers cant operate without cloaky campers with cyno
they should realy start to learn pvp again
andf if you dont stop calling pvers rmt i am goign to report you for accusing us all

(boernl) #4166

actualy i just flag youre last post and let them figure it out sicne you insult and accused enough

(Black Pedro) #4167

Really? I’m curious where one learns to deal with the infalible, instant and free intel of local chat. It seems to me that using local as a perfect proximity detecter has no counter whatsoever, at least aside from using AFK cloaking.

Which is why CCP hasn’t touched the mechanic despite a decade-and-a-half of complaining. Nullsec is suppose to have risk. Ships are suppose to be caught and there be a chance of escalation. Pure evasion is boring game play for both sides, and already the nullsec PvP meta has too many evasion methods with the industrialization of intel channels to the point it is nearly impossible to catch anyone who is paying attention.

It’s easy to say the other guys should just “get good” and your game made easier, but it’s obvious to anyone that increasing the accuracy of local as an intel tool by removing AFK cloaking would be a major change to the game balance. Well, except for the willfully ignorant and totally self-centered I guess who think such a change would be great as it benefits them.

AFK cloaking can be changed - it isn’t a sacred cow or anything that needs to exist - but it won’t be by just removing it and unbalancing the game even more. Local chat needs to be addressed as well so that there is some risk. Maybe that is a delay to local, or some other way to subvert the intel of local chat, but it is just bad game design to give players a perfect and free “i’m safe”/“I’m in danger” sensor, especially in nullsec, what is suppose to be the most lawless and dangerous space. I really hope Observatory Array’s haven’t completely been pushed off the roadmap as I fear or we might never see any iteration on local chat as an intel tool.

(boernl) #4168

i do not fully disagree with you
but i guess you didnt see my post yesterday and 2 days ago wich is ok

a very proper “balance” would be that when cloaky ships can no longer carry cynos and cynos can only be fitted to ships that can not carry a cloak than they can still hunt and perhaps hotdrop
but cloaky eyes would become indeed cloaky eyes and than it still partly disrupts local but also ppl can still operate even that they know the enemie is getting intel on them

in short cloaky ships should not be able to carry a cyno generator and not cloaky ships that have a cyno fitted should not be able to fit a cloak

(boernl) #4169

and actualy the mechanics are already in place for that

named recon ships the non cloakable variation can carry a cyno and covert cyno so i dotn realy see the issue here it just get mroe based on huntign weith the cyno ship and be mroe calulating means the pvpers have to put in more effort so they need a lot mroe scouts out

(Black Pedro) #4170

Sure. But killing the utility of Black Ops fleets is also a major buff to safety in nullsec though. CCP could do this, but the ship class kinda exists exactly for the purposes of getting behind enemy lines, sneaking up on someone and hot-dropping them.

I don’t see why CCP would want to remove that game play, but yes, they could do that if they think nullsec needs to be safer. I don’t think it likely, nor do I think nullsec needs any more safety, but sure, removing hot-drops is easily done if the devs wanted to. But it doesn’t seem like a balanced compromise to me at all.