I live in WH space and we are fine with cloaks as they are. If any area should want a means to hunt cloakies it’s us, yet we don’t ask for it. We just use the existing methods available to bait and catch the camper.
The point I keep making is that we have hard evidence of the change required to stop AFK cloaking, and it involves no module or ship changes.
You want to be able to create perfect ratting safety. The main whine about cloaky campers is that they can cyno in a large force. To do this they have to actually be ATK. Also it’s interesting that you aren’t asking for cyno changes, you are asking for cloak changes. This shows you are not concerned with force projection, just with that name in local.
You admit that this will not have any effect on active players, and inactive players will log off when they go inactive. Your proposal will produce zero additional PvP and have the sole effect of making local more effective as a tool for avoiding PvP.
By removing players from the game, thus removing content generation.
Again, the players who are removed are either RMT botters or renter trash who are too weak to defend themselves against even the smallest threat. Neither of them deserve any sympathy.
Why are we allowing a no effort tactic that can be done by one guy and however many alts he can manage to affect the game in this way?
Good question. You should ask the renter trash alliances that are losing a PvP fight against a single AFK player. Players have full control over the effectiveness of AFK cloaking already, the fact that renter trash fail to use the tools they have available and ragequit is a feature, not a bug.
Eve is so full of gameplay developed around Cloaks… just look around.
You keep saying that, but you have been told many times of ways to do this, and keep ignoring them or just claiming they are too hard or don’t work all the time or whatever excuse.
The information it to sensitive to share. I know that sounds like a cop out, but from what I gathered it effectively stems from “Bad guy in system, can’t do anything about him, might as well not play”
There’s no counterplay besides waiting.
A very small set of people play eve. Those players know eve is dangerous. Yet here we have an activity that requires almost no setup time + rewards the player who isn’t playing and can greatly reward the player based on their actions, of which they have an unlimited amount of time to make. All this, with no danger.
The tactic of afk cloaking is directly in how it interacts with the players. Yet how many people really decide to say something about it? How few even bother to log into an account to make a post somewhere, and how many of those posts have you not seen? The number shrinks exponentially on each step. Sadly the issue is larger than we are lead to believe, but it’s just one of many issues causing the game’s player population to drop.
While local providing intel and information seems to be and remain part of the game (outside of WH space) is the problem here the fact that intel is provided, or the speed in which that intel can be acted upon?
I want the permanent safety on cloaks to not be permanent. Slow the time it takes to enter warp while in a site, make it easier to find pilots out in space, hell make more npcs hold pilots in place so it’s even harder to get away, or even hold a pilot out of local while they have gatecloak.
I just want an option that takes a little of the safety away from cloaking. Just abit. Just enough to make it dangerous. If you don’t, I can’t stop you from being afraid of introducing danger into the game.
Now, for you scared pro-cloakers: Get used to seeing me post about this, get used to using your paste-able responses to try to bury it and get used to being afraid something might change. At least until it changes or the game’s no longer with us.
Oh and please delay your responses a bit, it’s incredibly sad to see people post almost instantly after I make a post.
Stop lying. There is plenty of counter play if you aren’t renter trash or an RMT botter. You can PvE with a fleet of PvP ships and ensure that if the AFK cloaker does anything but sit idle in a safespot your fleet presses F1 and gets easy killmails.
is the problem here the fact that intel is provided, or the speed in which that intel can be acted upon?
The problem is both. Local giving immediate information is a problem, but it’s also a problem that local provides notification of the presence of a potential threat even when that threat is cloaked/on the other side of the system/etc and there is no way to hide your presence.
Now, for you scared pro-cloakers: Get used to seeing me post about this, get used to using your paste-able responses to try to bury it and get used to being afraid something might change.
Nobody is afraid. CCP has explicitly stated that they are not going to change cloaking, at least until after local is nerfed. This thread exists for the sole purpose of being a trash can to collect all of the AFK cloaking whine threads and prevent them from cluttering up the forum. The only reason anyone bothers to respond to you is to make it clear to any newbies reading the thread that you are an apologist for RMT botters and renter trash and that they should not follow your lead in becoming a permanent victim.
You keep flipping from AFK Cloaks being bad as your reason, to nerfing all cloaks as a solution. This is not a solution.
Cover-Ops ships are paper thin and incredibly tight to fit. That is a huge layer of safety removed before they even leave the hangar. That is the balance that weighs against the ability to cloak (not to mention they can’t use any other modules while cloaked).
Once again there are other ways to catch cloaks over scanning them down after they overheat and warping straight to them for the PewPew. If you truly want to catch them, why not try some of those instead.
He doesn’t. He just wants the name in local gone and have local 100% reliable infallible intel so he can bot in peace.
He’s not going to stop whining about it. You’re wasting your time providing feedback and trying to explain it to him because his motivations rely on him not understanding it. You can keep this going for another thousand posts, or you can do the sensible thing and just ignore him.
Drifters can ping for cloaking ships if it detects them in system and players eventually will have a t3 module to radar on grid people who are cloaking
I do realize saying I have data and not sharing it in some manner is bad form, so I’ll give you the summary as part of my deal for the information was to not reveal the sources. I should have done this in my other post, sorry about that.
This information is compiled from highsec, lowsec and null players, in big and small groups, with or without fleet support and players that are/are not renters. Of note the only time it matters in highsec was war related stuff, but there are choice examples of players using a cloaked ship to harass miners and steal loot.
Generally speaking, a single cloaky camper entering the system causes player activity to drop by roughly 70% on average. These players may move somewhere else but they may also not wish to do so and just hope the guy goes away or gets dead.
Often times when stuck an unable to deal with the issue, these camped players tend to go play other games. around 87% actually do this. Sometimes they come back, or stay logged in, or just do whatever, but the data shows players just walk away.
Now, this value isn’t a standard. Sometimes the cloaky causes 100% of activity to drop off, there’s even cases where nothing changed (however, I’ve got bots living nearish, and I’ll be damned if CCP ever does something about them)
An important note is even with a support fleet and/or combat pilots on at most times, the 70% average drop in player activity remains constant. Many players responded they regularly switch to combat ships when enemies are in system because they can fight them, but they can’t fight the cloaked ship, so they just stay docked.
But now, the important numbers: Overall when a cloaky leaves a system/area for good, roughly 40% of the players that stopped being active come back to the game. There is a trend that shows the longer an area is camped, the heavier the damage to the returning player activity levels. Some groups have just disbanded, others folded into other corps, more still just head to highsec/leave corp to avoid the war.
In the same way the old highsec wars cause a massive exodus of active players from the game ( when affected by them) It would seem the data indicates the activity of cloaky camping has a similar effect.
While this isn’t my reasoning for why I want cloaks to be less safe, it does help the argument as it resolves two issues with one patch.
Specifically: Cloaking devices should generate very minor amounts of heat, causing extended cloaking to carry the risk of disabling your mods and putting your ship at risk.
In this way, the hunters can have a chance to find the target, without introducing any changes in how an active player uses the cloaking device, aside from being unable to remain cloaked for an unlimited amount of time.
IOW, you have nothing but empty claims. If your “data” doesn’t come from verified sources and exist in a public form that can be analyzed independently from you then it is no more valuable or relevant than my data that proves that AFK cloaking has zero impact on activity by legitimate (IOW, not RMTing) players.
fake data
That’s a nice bunch of lies, but even your lies are meaningless. So what if renter trash players stop playing and ragequit because they can’t farm, they should be driven out of the game because they suck. What happened to the idea that EVE is a cold and merciless world where the strong prosper and the weak are slaughtered? Why do you want EVE to become even closer to WoW in space?
In this way, the hunters can have a chance to find the target
STOP LYING
Nobody is going to stay logged in if heat will disable their cloak and allow them to be killed. There is zero risk and zero chance of hunting a cloaked target because that target will not be logged in at all. You know this already because it has been explained over and over and over again. You know perfectly well that the sole effect of your proposal is to make local more effective as a tool for avoiding PvP, and yet you continue to lobby for this change.
You made a claim. I demanded proof. You witholding that proof for mysterious reasons. Ergo, I can dismiss your claim out of hand because you have not met the burden of proof.
I didn’t even bother reading the rest of your post because your opening statement wholly invalidated it.
I don’t feel entitled to minimal risk solo farming, and all that. I am simply of the opinion that i should be able to work towards securing a system, for what ever reason.
All in the eye of the beholder, ships are optimized, at the very least, to some degree, toward the job they are doing. And controlling the system is exactly my point. I am willing, ready and quite frankly eager to put in the work, to control the systems that my corp have, supposed, sovereignty over. Problem is that one guy with some accounts can be bought to make that an impossible task, and do it while being maybe maybe not afk for extended amounts of time.
Which is exactly the point of my model of solving the issue. I have nothing against the notion that you can be a badass disruptive rogue, roaming the systems. What i am objecting against is the notion that you can just take a randomly timed nap/go brain dead (go afk) in hostile systems, in a mmo where you are supposedly a capsuleer flying a spaceship, without the risk of being found eventually.
My goal here is not to remove the possibility of camping a system, my goal is to actually get a tool to counter them, in the sense that they can’t just login after the servers come up, and rest easy knowing that the toon will be perfectly safe until the server goes down the next day
You are already able to do so. For example, a 1000 man PvP fleet provides great security.
All in the eye of the beholder, ships are optimized, at the very least, to some degree, toward the job they are doing.
And perhaps you need to accept that you can’t perfectly optimize for farming and, when in PvP space, you might need to consider PvP ability in addition to ISK per hour. Welcome to playing a PvP game, if you want optimized farming then go back to WoW.
I am willing, ready and quite frankly eager to put in the work, to control the systems that my corp have, supposed, sovereignty over. Problem is that one guy with some accounts can be bought to make that an impossible task, and do it while being maybe maybe not afk for extended amounts of time.
If one guy sitting AFK in “your” system is a meaningful threat then you aren’t ready to or capable of putting in the work to secure it. Complaining about AFK cloaking is an implicit concession that you are too weak to secure anything against even token PvP threats, and your primary means of defense is docking at any time someone else is nearby.
My goal here is not to remove the possibility of camping a system, my goal is to actually get a tool to counter them, in the sense that they can’t just login after the servers come up, and rest easy knowing that the toon will be perfectly safe until the server goes down the next day
IOW, you want to make local a more effective tool for avoiding PvP.
