Main AFK cloaky thread

[Jint_Hikaru]

@Derath_Ellecon

However if it was the way that cloaked ships don’t show up in local from the beginning, pilots would have learned from early on how to fly safely in dangerous space.

Which is the basis for my (rather Old now, ive been posting it for years) idea.

Cloak removes players from local (and denies them Local)
If they break cloak for any amount of time, they stay in local for a minimum 30 sec.

This makes cloaks really cloakie, still gives other players Local… Makes it pointless to AFK cloak, and makes it so people have to work to both actively hunt while cloaked and pay attention while ratting.

Now, the Covert-ops cloaker has to make themselves visible/detectable to gain intel on the local system. He can warp from belt to belt, but if he wants to probe, or check on the local channel (or possibly even dscan) to see how many & where people are in system, then he must break cloak. This gives the residents the time to spot him, if they are paying attention.

This 30s visibility in Local between cloaks would also activate when jumping into the system, between coming through the gate-cloak and activation your cloak module (the flip from gatecloak to module-cloak would not change, but you would appear in Local when coming through for a minimum of 30sec). Defenders of a system should really watch whats going on around them and they will be able to notice a cloaker is coming in, and act accordingly.

Here we make:
AFK-Cloaking pointless
Active Cloakers can catch botters
Even system defenders can use cloaks to hide their defense ships (spring a nice bait trap on that cloaker in your system)

Anyway, the idea will be shot down by the null-bears and Botters. They want all cloaks nerfed on the pretext that AFK is bad mkay!

[Litsea_Reticulata]

@Merin_Ryskin

Good. You are weak and do not belong in nullsec. Being driven out by the most minor of inconveniences is a success for EVE.

No doubt this same attitude is what took over 15 years for war declarations to get looked at.

@Merin_Ryskin

There is very little impact against competent alliances. The only people hurt by this are renter trash farmers who think they’re entitled to farm 23/7 because they paid someone to put their name on a system. People who understand that nullsec is PvP space and farming is the reward for active and constant PvP activity to defend their space are barely inconvenienced by AFK cloaking because an AFK ship is not a threat.

If there was one thing the DDOS instability showed is that a lot of the cloaky campers are AFK owing to the fact that "CloakyCamperDweeb[1-99] would all DC at the same time and not come back for hours, only to DC again.

@Merin_Ryskin

There really haven’t been. What we have is a 6000 post thread full of RMT botters and bot-like players demanding various things that would do little more than remove the ability to stay logged in while cloaked and therefore make local a more effective tool for avoiding PvP.

So an individual in a system in a deep safe with a cloak on is not avoiding PvP?

[Brun_Warbear]

@Litsea_Reticulata

So an individual in a system in a deep safe with a cloak on is not avoiding PvP?

If they’re avoiding PvP why are you so threatened by them?

[Bronson_Hughes]

@Ishmael_Ronuken

The only legit complaint I really get is when someone has a concert cyno guy just hanging out doing nothing but making farmers in carriers nervous. Or am I missing something here?

This is the crux of the issue of this thread. The other items you mentioned are all active cloaking, meaning that someone is cloaked in-system and actually doing something. By and large, folks don’t tend to have much issue with those things.

AFK cloaking is the act of sitting in space, cloaked, 23/7, for the sole purpose of either keeping locals docked up in fear or desensitizing them to the presence of a cloaked hostile in local. It’s essentially a force multiplier; an small force (even a single pilot) can exert an over-sized influence (either in terms of economic loss or actual ship kills) against the right target.

It’s this economic impact that, I suspect, has driven this conversation for so long. People don’t like having their ISK streams dried up. But since this whole tactic is just advanced metagaming (i.e. shattering the illusion that safety means no threats in local) and there is no way to patch human psychology…there’s really nothing to do except sit around here and talk about it.

[Cade_Windstalker]

@Bronson_Hughes

It’s this economic impact that, I suspect, has driven this conversation for so long. People don’t like having their ISK streams dried up.

It’s not just the ISK impact, though that’s definitely part of it.

I think the larger key point here is that it’s so incredibly frustrating to deal with, because you can’t deal with it.

If you have uncloaked hostiles in system generally you don’t hear people complaining, you hear the sound of squealing warp-drives as they burn back to station to get their combat ships and go shoot the hostiles. Cloaky camping offers no such gameplay.

The problem is that every suggestion ever brought forward would have a significant negative impact on other aspects of cloaky gameplay that are, you know, actual gameplay, and CCP (rather understandably) doesn’t want to have to redesign somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 ships and a dozen or so different gameplay systems.

One of the reasons that “remove local” is one of the most common suggestions in association with this issue is because if there’s no local then the cloaky camper at least has to take some action to determine if there are people active in system, and that gives some chance to know that someone is looking for you and therefor react.

For all of the above reasons I also disagree with the folks saying this wouldn’t be an issue if cloaked ships were never visible in local. It would still be an issue, the conversation around it would just be different. An in my opinion louder.

[Scoots_Choco]

@Cade_Windstalker

I think the larger key point here is that it’s so incredibly frustrating to deal with, because you can’t deal with it.

How to deal with afk cloaky campers.
Step 1: they’re AFK, they can’t hurt you

WOW, WAS IT THAT SIMPLE ALL THIS TIME? YES!!
WHOAAAA!!

[Cade_Windstalker]

@Scoots_Choco

How to deal with afk cloaky campers.
Step 1: they’re AFK, they can’t hurt you

Wow, 4 years of this thread (and who knows how many years of the last one) and people are still giving this response…

How about this, if you’ll get CCP to implement an indicator saying when they’re AFK and when they’re not we can close this thread an all go home. Plus maybe a warning siren when someone with a cloak active goes from AFK to actually present.

Because, the funny thing here, is there’s no way to tell if someone cloaked up is AFK or not…

[Black_Pedro]

@Cade_Windstalker

I think the larger key point here is that it’s so incredibly frustrating to deal with, because you can’t deal with it.

You can, of course, deal with it.

You mean to say, you cannot make the name go away from local, thus removing any threat of attack and making your free proximity sensor 100% reliable again. The major problem is that some nullsec players think feel entitled to this perfect intel tool, yet it is nullsec space and suppose to dangerous.

Most people here would be fine if CCP comes up with a way to allow residents to uncloak a long-term cloaked camper, as long as it doesn’t just result in 100% safety for nullsec krabs. Which is what most of these suggestions would do or are explicitly designed to do.

So yes, there is room here for more agency and game play around this mechanic. But it isn’t a problem that someone can put a name in local and go away from their keyboard - it is the solution to an OP social-tool-cum-intel-source that is equally oppressive against those wishing to interact with the locals.

The reality is most nullsec groups operate just fine with neutral names in local chat. They organize and have a plan to react if a threat really shows beyond the AFK name in local chat. They aren’t frustrated nor paralyzed. They just prepare and get on with the game, ready to respond if danger shows up.

This honestly is how nullsec should work. It shouldn’t be a place where targets spawning massive resources into our shared economy can reliably flee to the 100% safety of tether before someone can get on grid with them. It should be a place where escalation can happen, not a place where the most effective defence is always fleeing from any threat. That is also very frustrating gameplay that needs addressing.

Yes, CCP can improve this for all, but the core problem is not cloaking, but rather the expectation of free, perfect safety many nullbears seem to have. Fixing AFK cloaking is possible, but I agree with you that when CCP finally gets around to it, the nullbears are going to howl even louder. CCP is not just going to make the bad people’s names go away thus returning to infallible their early warning system, but they are also going to rework how that warning system provides intel in the first place and it will not be the krab paradise they are imagining.

[Scoots_Choco]

@Cade_Windstalker

How about this, if you’ll get CCP to implement an indicator saying when they’re AFK and when they’re not

Why do you children feel entitled to know exactly when someone is at the keyboard or not? Like, are you THAT scared to lose your pathetic little krabbing Myrmidon that you’re THIS terrified of undocking when there’s a neutral WHOSE ACTIVE TIME PERIODS CAN ALREADY BE DETERMIED VIA ZKB.

Grow up and grow a spine. You are not entitled to so much handholding.

[Brun_Warbear]

@Cade_Windstalker

I think the larger key point here is that it’s so incredibly frustrating to deal with, because you can’t deal with it.

But you can deal with it. There are many methods outlined in this thread. Just stating repeatedly that the counters don’t exist doesn’t make it so when the reality is you just don’t want to implement those counters because you either don’t own the space or you don’t want to cough up the isk.

[Bronson_Hughes]

@Cade_Windstalker

I think the larger key point here is that it’s so incredibly frustrating to deal with, because you can’t deal with it.

But you can deal with it. It just takes teamwork, coordination, and a willingness to commit to a fight. If you can’t muster up enough of those three things to secure the system you’re operating in, they you can’t really claim to own the system regardless of what the sovereignty tag says.

Owning space is harder than some people like. The ability to disrupt the operations of space only tentatively held is why AFK cloaking is so powerful and also why you’ll pretty much never see folks from large nullsec organizations who own their space much more firmly complaining about it.

[Derath_Ellecon]

@Bronson_Hughes

But you can deal with it. It just takes teamwork, coordination, and a willingness to commit to a fight. If you can’t muster up enough of those three things to secure the system you’re operating in, they you can’t really claim to own the system regardless of what the sovereignty tag says.

It doesn’t even necessarily require teamwork. In the vast majority of situations, if you are on the ball and staying aligned you can escape most of the time.

Most covert ops ships have a targetting delay. so either they:

1. Decloak and spam target to lock and tackle you, if you are aligned you are gone before they can.
2. Decloak in warp so they can land and target immediately. Again if you are on the ball and aligned, you see them on short scan and you are gone before they can tackle you.
3. They do either 1 or 2, but light a cyno. It still takes time for them to land, light cyno, then for everyone to click on the cyno and come through, and then load grid, before they can even target. If you are aligned and on the ball you are gone.
4. They are flying a SB, which can lock immediately, but is also so squishy you can still potetnially pop it fast enough to warp away (since you were already aligned).

Really the only time you are truly vulnerable is when you land, and haven’t started aligning yet. So warp in at something other than zero. In these situations don’t fly a ship with a fat @$$ slow align time.

Is it perfectly safe? No. But it shouldn’t be. It also isn’t hard to mitigate a lot of the risk.

[Cade_Windstalker]

@Bronson_Hughes

But you can deal with it. It just takes teamwork, coordination, and a willingness to commit to a fight. If you can’t muster up enough of those three things to secure the system you’re operating in, they you can’t really claim to own the system regardless of what the sovereignty tag says.

Owning space is harder than some people like. The ability to disrupt the operations of space only tentatively held is why AFK cloaking is so powerful and also why you’ll pretty much never see folks from large nullsec organizations who own their space much more firmly complaining about it.

That’s not really it though. Plenty of people who complain about this stuff have the man power to secure their space from actual threats, and even casual harassment.

The problem with AFK cloaking is that it allows someone to project a threat for zero risk or effort to themselves besides the ability to keep a computer running. To counter that you need a bunch of people sitting around, bored, ready to respond to something that may never actually show up.

The problem here isn’t perfect safety or a lack there-of, at least for me. I’m all for risk and reward, but that needs to go both ways.

Right now the cloaky side is gaining a benefit for zero risk to themselves, or at least so close to zero as to be laughable, while anyone doing anything with an AFK cloaky ship in system is often risking a ship worth hundreds of millions or billions of ISK.

@Scoots_Choco

Grow up and grow a spine. You are not entitled to so much handholding.

Why is either side entitled to anything here? I’d say “risk free harassment” is pretty hand-holdy here.

Also if someone puts their out-of-corp cloaky scout on kills they’re incompetent.

Hells, I’d bet that if CCP ever actually finds a solution to this problem losses in Null will actually go up the same way they did when Cyno trains got nerfed. That change provided the illusion of safety because suddenly you knew you weren’t going to get dropped by a super fleet from clear across Null in 15 minutes, but the people doing the dropping adapted and suddenly there were a bunch of big dread/Carrier fights happening.

AFK cloaking creates a large perceived risk when the actual risk isn’t nearly that high, but that perception and the frustration at not being able to do anything to counter it is the problem.

A better dynamic here would have a single harassing player be counterable by 1-2 dedicated players. So a single player can still harm activity, but they’re still under risk themselves for that benefit, and if they want to cause an actual large scale disruption of activity they need to bring a commitment of resources and/or people that’s commensurate to the force they’re facing.

[Derath_Ellecon]

@Cade_Windstalker

To counter that you need a bunch of people sitting around, bored, ready to respond to something that may never actually show up.

No you don’t. Read my previous reply.

@Cade_Windstalker

Right now the cloaky side is gaining a benefit for zero risk to themselves,

It isn’t always just looking at Risk/reward. There is also opportunity cost. To be a true cloaky, you have to be omega. So you are tying up one entire omega account, running on a computer to do nothing but sit idle for most of the day. There is a cost to that which isn’t insignificant. Yes I understand all nullseccers are space rich, but an extra plex a month for an account that just sits there is still kinda expensive.

Blue ball the cloaker enough and they will find a better place to use that resource.

@Cade_Windstalker

AFK cloaking creates a large perceived risk when the actual risk isn’t nearly that high

Exactly. And basing policy (or “fixes”) based on perception is a bad way to do things.

[Brun_Warbear]

@Cade_Windstalker

That’s not really it though. Plenty of people who complain about this stuff have the man power to secure their space from actual threats, and even casual harassment.

Then they could implement a counter. If they can do it but choose not to, that’s not something CCP should be fixing for them.

@Cade_Windstalker

The problem with AFK cloaking is that it allows someone to project a threat for zero risk or effort to themselves besides the ability to keep a computer running.

Only because you are making the choice not to counter it. If you employed one of the many counters then it would be very high risk.

It’s your job to provide that risk, not CCPs.

@Cade_Windstalker

I’m all for risk and reward, but that needs to go both ways.

So introduce some risk. It’s only low risk for them because you and people like you surrender before you even undock.

It’s your job to provide that risk.

@Cade_Windstalker

Right now the cloaky side is gaining a benefit for zero risk to themselves, or at least so close to zero as to be laughable, while anyone doing anything with an AFK cloaky ship in system is often risking a ship worth hundreds of millions or billions of ISK.

Because people like you are cowards. A Black Ops BS, and the covops fleet it’s bridging into your system is worth billions. It’s only safe because you scurry to your stations and don’t defend yourselves.

It’s your job to provide that risk.

@Cade_Windstalker

Why is either side entitled to anything here? I’d say “risk free harassment” is pretty hand-holdy here.

It’s only risk free because you hide.

It’s your job to provide that risk.

@Cade_Windstalker

Hells, I’d bet that if CCP ever actually finds a solution to this problem losses in Null will actually go up

You are the solution. Your choices are all that makes them safe. It’s on you.

It’s your job to provide that risk.

Your risk vs. reward argument is intellectually dishonest and shameful. They’re safe because you have explicitly chosen to grant them safety. If they’re safe it’s because you allow them to be.

[Cade_Windstalker]

@Derath_Ellecon

No you don’t. Read my previous reply.

The problem with your previous reply is two fold.

One, it ignores any activity that can’t be done at speed and aligned to a station.

Two, it basically hand-waves Stealth Bombers as a non-issue to all of this, which is a pretty big wave. The SB is incredibly cheap compared to basically anything it’s going to be ganking, which means it only needs to survive long enough to call in the help, which isn’t that hard.

@Derath_Ellecon

Blue ball the cloaker enough and they will find a better place to use that resource.

AFK cloaking has been going on, and being complained about, since before “Omega” was a thing. The original-original AFK cloaking thread started in 2013, and complaints date back well before that.

This whole argument is basically divorced from reality.

@Derath_Ellecon

Exactly. And basing policy (or “fixes”) based on perception is a bad way to do things.

Why? All of this is perception, games are “fun” because of perception and mechanics are “not fun” because of that same perception. If people are complaining about something then clearly they have a problem, whether it’s being expressed clearly or they’ve correctly identified the problem or not.

Obviously not all complaints are entirely valid, and not all actual problems can be easily solved, but CCP has pretty clearly indicated that they’re looking at this one. It’s just a really problematic one to solve.

I think there was a comment from CCP Rise at one of the open Q&As at Fanfest a year or two back where he said that CCP folks frequently end up discussing this themselves and running into all the same problems we do discussing it here.

It’s not a question of “is this an issue” it’s “how do we solve it in a way that doesn’t create bigger issues”.

@Brun_Warbear

Then they could implement a counter. If they can do it but choose not to, that’s not something CCP should be fixing for them.

I don’t think most people are asking for this sort of thing to just go away outright. No one but a few ridiculous voices are asking for completely safe space. This problem is just extremely frustrating, and all the truly viable counters involve ridiculously disproportionate responses to a single AFK account, or are painfully boring to implement, or both.

@Brun_Warbear

It’s your job to provide that risk, not CCPs.

Sure, but it’s also CCP’s job to balance the risk on both sides, and right now it’s not balanced at all.

Also, to be clear here, I don’t have skin in the game on either side of this. I just think this is a bad set of mechanics and the gameplay it creates is bad.

@Brun_Warbear

Because people like you are cowards. A Black Ops BS, and the covops fleet it’s bridging into your system is worth billions. It’s only safe because you scurry to your stations and don’t defend yourselves.

Except unless you have people sitting on standby they can get their kills and be back out, or at least cloaked up, before you can respond. Hence the complaint about people having to sit around bored while one guy leaves a window open on his computer.

@Brun_Warbear

It’s your job to provide that risk.

Really I’d just like to tear this apart for a second, because it’s really quite a ridiculous argument, especially in the context of this thread.

You’re saying players need to provide risk for other players, which is fair. That’s a big part of Eve.

But all of these mechanics are created by CCP, and how risk is provided and how much is entirely dictated by CCP. If we pretend for a moment that cloaking doesn’t exist and never has, and this is a thread asking for cloaking to be introduced, I could make the same argument to you as someone who wants to gank ships. “It’s your job to provide that risk” and that CCP shouldn’t have to add mechanics to make that easier for you.

In essence this isn’t an argument, it’s just a pointless statement of fact. Yeah, there’s not much risk in a PVP centered game without PVP. Duh. That’s not an effective argument for or against any given mechanic except the ability to shoot other players.

This isn’t about removing risk entirely, it’s about how much risk is born out by each side.

The people cloaky camping right now will still be plenty able to “provide risk” to their “clients” without AFK cloaking. People have been blowing each other up all over New Eden with or without this for ages. This mechanic in particular just offers a skewed risk/reward setup when comparing the two sides.

[Salt_Foambreaker]

@Jint_Hikaru

Cloak removes players from local (and denies them Local)

Before you can list a solution, punish or balance you have to list a real problem…

We’ve been waiting 6357 post for one

[Brun_Warbear]

@Cade_Windstalker

Two, it basically hand-waves Stealth Bombers as a non-issue to all of this, which is a pretty big wave. The SB is incredibly cheap compared to basically anything it’s going to be ganking, which means it only needs to survive long enough to call in the help, which isn’t that hard.

And here again is the fallacy in your risk vs. reward nonsense. You’re only counting the stealth bomber on the gankers side despite them actually fielding billions of isk worth of ships. They’re probably putting more isk than you on the field. The stealth bomber isn’t ganking you solo and doesn’t represent the risk to the other side.

@Cade_Windstalker

If people are complaining about something then clearly they have a problem

The problem is with them and their expectations and lack of willingness to engage. A complaint does not and never will legitimise itself. Get your of here with your argumentum ad populam nonsense.

@Cade_Windstalker

It’s not a question of “is this an issue” it’s “how do we solve it in a way that doesn’t create bigger issues”.

No it’s not a question of if there’s an issue. The issue here is that you haven’t blown up the blops fleet despite having every opportunity to do so.

The issue here is you, not the game mechanic, which is easily countered.

@Cade_Windstalker

This problem is just extremely frustrating, and all the truly viable counters involve ridiculously disproportionate responses to a single AFK account, or are painfully boring to implement, or both.

A single AFK account is no threat. It is inactive. Unless somehow you think a single afk player can scan, position a cyno and simultaneously pilot an entire fleet.

Also how can you possibly suggest that using the exact same tactic as the enemy represents a disproportionate response? It’s a wholly equal response. But of course you’re selectively excluding the risk that doesn’t fit your dishonest narrative.

@Cade_Windstalker

Sure, but it’s also CCP’s job to balance the risk on both sides, and right now it’s not balanced at all.

The enemy are almost certainly fielding more isk than you. The risk is in your favour. You’re selectively discounting the ships that actually do the ganking. Which you can destroy.

@Cade_Windstalker

Except unless you have people sitting on standby they can get their kills and be back out, or at least cloaked up, before you can respond. Hence the complaint about people having to sit around bored while one guy leaves a window open on his computer.

Yeah you might have to have a response fleet on standby. Just like every other defence fleet in the game. However a single defence fleet can effectively cover dozens of star systems and can be alts.

If you can’t defend your space it’s not your space. If your argument is that you can’t cooperate with other people to form a standing defence then guess what?

That’s got nothing to do with cloaky camping. You don’t control your own space. It’s not yours. You don’t deserve to be safe in it.

And that’s what this boils down to. You aren’t defending your space you’re just docking up. Local allows you to dock up in plenty of time when a roam is in the area. Cloaky campers bypass your early warning system and make you too scared to rat. But they are still only successful because you choose not to defend yourself. The cost of maintaining a standing fleet is the cost of operating in nullsec. Suck it up or go back to high sec.

@Cade_Windstalker

Really I’d just like to tear this apart for a second, because it’s really quite a ridiculous argument, especially in the context of this thread.

Only because you’re dishonestly representing the risk on one side. The argument is wholly valid. You can meet that blops fleet in space. You choose not to. They’re only risk free flying the most expensive subcaps in the game because you choose not to defend your space.

@Cade_Windstalker

This isn’t about removing risk entirely, it’s about how much risk is born out by each side.

Which we’ve established you’re misrepresenting by suggesting only the camping ship counts, and not the billion isk battleship and fleet that actually conduct the combat.

[Scoots_Choco]

Here’s how it goes down, kid.

First off, you’re going to get used to it. Because this is how the game is, and it’s not changing.

Second, everything you’ve said has already been said before in the previous 5000+ whiny comments from other scared children.

Third, you are NOT entitled to krab in safety. If the appearance of a tiny little grey square in the corner of your screen causes you THIS much stress, I recommend getting professional help.

[Derath_Ellecon]

@Cade_Windstalker

One, it ignores any activity that can’t be done at speed and aligned to a station.

First off, nobody said anything about having to be aligned to a station. I’ve run plenty of PVE in my career, and I would have safe’s setup all over the system. That way I could be pointing in almost any direction and be aligned to something.

And outside of say, data/relic sites, what other sites can’t you do aligned? Given you KNOW someone is in system, running data/relics are an obviously riskier option. However you can mitigate the danger even in those cases. And especially in your home system you can run them in a super cheap frigate aka low risk.

@Cade_Windstalker

Why? All of this is perception, games are “fun” because of perception and mechanics are “not fun” because of that same perception.

Because exactly as you said (your words)

@Cade_Windstalker

AFK cloaking creates a large perceived risk when the actual risk isn’t nearly that high

The REALITY is the risk isn’t nearly as high as it is percieved.
If there is an actual game problem, you fix it. It isn’t necessarily a problem that needs to be fixed if some players are simply whining because they “perceive” it as a bigger threat than it is.

Lots of players HATE HS suicide ganking, they “perceive” it as a blight on the game. The reality is it doesn’t happen nearly as much as people perceive and CCP has made it crystal clear that its a valid part of EVE gameplay.

@Cade_Windstalker

Sure, but it’s also CCP’s job to balance the risk on both sides, and right now it’s not balanced at all.

No it’s not.
CCP may balance ships so one isn’t completely OP, but that has more to do with ensuring as many of the ships in game are viable options (it would be boring if everyone just flew the one “best” ship).

It should be abundantly clear if you follow the history of this game that balancing risk itself is not part of the equation. To clarify, obviously to a small extent there are always risk/reward calculations. If 0.0 was pure risk and no reward, nobody would live there. But in no way is the goal for risk to be balanced.

Circling back around to your statement again. As you said, the perceived risk is far higher than the actual risk. factoring in the amount of isk that can be generated in 0.0, the ACTUAL risk/reward balance concernting AFK cloaking is still too unbalanced on the reward side.