Main AFK cloaky thread

[Cade_Windstalker]

@Derath_Ellecon

Not for that reason. But there are many reasons to stay cloaked for extended periods of time, even if it means you are walking away from the computer for a bit.

To be fair, and I guess this isn’t so much for you, but it is the main reason I would be against the proposed “fixes” to cloaks, especially things like fuel.

Oh yeah, there’s plenty of reasons to stay cloaked for long periods in most parts of the game. In most of those though your main goal is either some kind of active scouting or to avoid attention, as opposed to this mess of a game dynamic.

I actually 100% agree with you on those “fixes”. I’m quite a fan of Wormhole gameplay, and I’m against those sorts of fixes because of the damage they’d do there and elsewhere.

It’s stuff like this that makes me think CCP won’t address this unless it’s incidental to some larger rework. Like if they completely reworked cloaking mechanics so that they’re almost completely different from what we have now, to the point that any impact on AFK cloaking isn’t even part of the raging hellfire of a debate a change like that would spark.

[Bronson_Hughes]

@Cade_Windstalker

@Bronson_Hughes

At its core, the scenario I just described is precisely analogous to AFK cloaking in nullsec, and neither one of the requires any kind of “fixing”.

It’s not though. It’s close, but the key thing here is that the other guys took down their POS. That’s an over-reaction on their part, and they probably should have at least waited until you were actually threatening the thing, though to some extent that’s risk/reward on their end.

And how is that any less of an overreaction than miners and ratters in nullsec staying docked up for hours or days on end when a cloaked hostile in local has done absolutely nothing to harm them?

In both situations, financial harm was inflicted by way of opportunity cost; the targets lost out on making ISK because someone got into their heads and convinced that disrupting their operations was less risky than continuing them. Even though nothing goes “boom”, ISK is still lost.

@Cade_Windstalker

Ultimately here though I have less of a problem with that dynamic because in High Sec the threat and the effects are known quantities. You can’t magic a force from nowhere who then disappear just as quickly.

Hello there Mr. Windstalker, let me introduce you to my friends “Wormhole” and “Login Trap”. It’s true that there are fewer avenues to surprise folks with in hisec, but there are still avenues to do it.

@Cade_Windstalker

I’m also curious whether or not this works with Upwell Structures.

I gave up this particular line of gameplay before Upwell structures were a thing so I can’t answer that with any authority.

My hunch is that it would be a mixed bag. Any structure with expensive rigs would almost certainly stay up because taking it down would defeat the purpose of trying to save it. Smaller structures, especially unrigged ones put up by very small or very poor corporations, may still come down because the cost of the structure itself makes it worth saving.

But, as I said, I have no firsthand experience with this.

[Brun_Warbear]

@Cade_Windstalker

Ultimately there’s just no point in someone AFK cloaking in a WH.

You’re joking, right?

You know after finding a decent target system it’s common to leave an afk cloaked alt behind to watch the traffic from the structures and to scan a route back in during inactive hours so you can take out another ratting or mining fleet.

And it works very much like a blops fleet, reinforcements are called directly on to grid from an adjacent system, with only seconds notice before their interdictors hit the grid. Which is less than you get with a cyno, by the way.

It works just like afk cloaking in null, but instead of targeting a 2 bill ratting BS they’re looking for a 20 bil Nestor fleet.

The difference is wormholers aren’t too scared to undock. They have to assume there’s an active cloaker in their system at all times. Not even an afk one.

[Cade_Windstalker]

@Bronson_Hughes

And how is that any less of an overreaction than miners and ratters in nullsec staying docked up for hours or days on end when a cloaked hostile in local has done absolutely nothing to harm them?

In both situations, financial harm was inflicted by way of opportunity cost; the targets lost out on making ISK because someone got into their heads and convinced that disrupting their operations was less risky than continuing them. Even though nothing goes “boom”, ISK is still lost.

My answer is basically “it depends”. I would call the case of those POSes an over-reaction because anyone that could afford to put up a POS likely should be able to defend it. Also a POS has a decent ability to defend itself, so unless you were part of a fairly large corp then waiting for a show of force makes a lot more sense to me than tearing down a POS without a shot fired against it.

As for players in Null, that determination is going to depend on the individual’s case. Someone who’s fairly new or low on ISK probably doesn’t want to risk an unlucky loss, so it does make sense for them to dock up. After all, as far as these players are concerned that person in the cloaked ship is always active.

@Bronson_Hughes

Hello there Mr. Windstalker, let me introduce you to my friends “Wormhole” and “Login Trap”. It’s true that there are fewer avenues to surprise folks with in hisec, but there are still avenues to do it.

Wormholes have limits on them, and travel delay once you’re in-system in a way that Cynos don’t.

Login traps require a great deal of pre-planning and require your target(s) to be in a very predictable pre-arranged position to achieve anything like the effect of a Cyno drop.

Otherwise there’s very little difference between this and just warping in through a gate or moving people in during quiet hours and logging them in at the station.

None of these is particularly close to the effect of a Cyno.

@Brun_Warbear

You’re joking, right?

No, just assuming that the context around that sentence would make what I meant clear. Apparently I need to be more specific…

What I meant was “AFK cloaking” in the sense of the intentional action being discussed in this thread. Basically there’s no point in just leaving someone AFK in a wormhole system for the purpose of intimidation.

Functionally the only difference between being cloaked and AFK and logging out when you’re not physically controlling the scout ship in the wormhole is that logging out gives a window for someone to probe you down and/or know that you’re there.

@Brun_Warbear

Which is less than you get with a cyno, by the way.

I really have to question the accuracy of this.

In some cases, sure, when the wormhole exit is very close to the fight location and the Cyno in question is having a little bit of lag before the bridge opens or people hit their jump drive and load grid… but in general I’d say no. You get more warning with the wormhole system, provided you have anyone at all watching the system while people rat and you’re not ratting right next to a wormhole.

@Brun_Warbear

The difference is wormholers aren’t too scared to undock. They have to assume there’s an active cloaker in their system at all times. Not even an afk one.

There’s more differences than that, but we’ve been over that up and down and back and front. Ultimately though you’re correct that that ‘fear of the unknown’ is baked into Wormholes and only people who want to deal with that are going to be in wormholes long term.

Which brings us back to my clarification of my point. It’s correct to say that this wouldn’t be an issue if there was no local, but we saw what happened with the local blackout, so that’s clearly not a workable solution.

[Merin_Ryskin]

@Cade_Windstalker

Sure a good attacker can probably bring in more people than the defenders, out-fight them, ect, but that’s a contest of skill and strategy, not “who can AFK harder” or “who can click one button faster when someone decloaks”. There’s actual gameplay there.

But why is it not a contest of skill and strategy when the attacker in nullsec brings in more people than the defenders? Why is it not a contest of skill and strategy when the attacker in nullsec only attacks targets they know they can kill? Why are you handwaving away all of these things when it comes to nullsec but then praising the “skill and strategy” when the same mechanics happen in WH space?

those require real effort and have some kind of counter play

There’s an easy counter play to AFK cloaking: stop being afraid of it and it loses the entire psychological value. You’ve admitted that simply ignoring the threat works because your farming income will be higher than the value of the lost ships, what more of a counter do you need?

instead it’s someone just sitting in system for days or weeks doing nothing.

Exactly. It’s a person sitting idle in space for days or weeks doing nothing. Ignore them and move on. It’s not a gameplay problem that some renter trash is so terrified of loss that they’ll lose much more ISK through inactivity. You can’t fix idiocy with game mechanics.

[Brun_Warbear]

@Cade_Windstalker

In some cases, sure, when the wormhole exit is very close to the fight location and the Cyno in question is having a little bit of lag before the bridge opens or people hit their jump drive and load grid… but in general I’d say no. You get more warning with the wormhole system, provided you have anyone at all watching the system while people rat and you’re not ratting right next to a wormhole.

Wrong, though.

If a player is solo they don’t have all the connections scouted.

If the system is large you can’t cover it with d-scan. If the system is small then fast warping tacklers are on you within seconds. Even if you timed your d-scam with their uncloaking you maybe get a few seconds to get into warp.

Cynos take a tick to light. A moment to communicate, and then the fleet has to load into the system.

In a wormhole they’re in the system and in warp before you see them, realistically, and their scout is already in an ideal place on-grid. If it’s a small system they only have to warp for a couple of seconds. If it’s a large system they might not even be on dscan when they decloak.

[Cade_Windstalker]

@Merin_Ryskin

But why is it not a contest of skill and strategy when the attacker in nullsec brings in more people than the defenders? Why is it not a contest of skill and strategy when the attacker in nullsec only attacks targets they know they can kill? Why are you handwaving away all of these things when it comes to nullsec but then praising the “skill and strategy” when the same mechanics happen in WH space?

I mean, I don’t think I’m hand-waving any of that. There’s still elements of skill and strategy there, even if they’re fairly simplistic.

Even in a losing fight like that the defender still has the ability to salvage what they can out of it and that’s something they can do that takes judgement, timing, and the sort of skills that Eve generally tests.

@Merin_Ryskin

There’s an easy counter play to AFK cloaking: stop being afraid of it and it loses the entire psychological value. You’ve admitted that simply ignoring the threat works because your farming income will be higher than the value of the lost ships, what more of a counter do you need?

I said that’s why people don’t swap down to cheap ships, but depending on how successful the attacker is, and how expensive your ship is, it may still not be a good idea to undock. Ultimately the risk vs reward is up to the individual player.

@Merin_Ryskin

Exactly. It’s a person sitting idle in space for days or weeks doing nothing. Ignore them and move on. It’s not a gameplay problem that some renter trash is so terrified of loss that they’ll lose much more ISK through inactivity. You can’t fix idiocy with game mechanics.

That’s effectively the win-condition for the AFK cloaky player. The whole point of the tactic is to either deny mining income or get the locals to ignore you out of frustration. In the former case you deny income, in the latter the target(s) are more likely to make a mistake and give the cloaky player an opening. And as previously established the cloaky player has effectively unlimited attempts since it’s very unlikely even a failed tackle attempt is going to result in a ship loss.

@Brun_Warbear

If a player is solo they don’t have all the connections scouted.

This is all assuming a solo player though, I was assuming someone living in the hole, since that’s the case where AFK cloaking is used. You can’t really “AFK cloak” a roaming site runner in Null, which is the closest equivalent to what you’re describing.

If someone’s solo site running in WHs then they’ve taken that risk and that has basically nothing to do with cloaking, AFK or otherwise.

@Brun_Warbear

In a wormhole they’re in the system and in warp before you see them, realistically, and their scout is already in an ideal place on-grid. If it’s a small system they only have to warp for a couple of seconds. If it’s a large system they might not even be on dscan when they decloak.

If it’s a group living in the wormhole then they’re going to have the connections at least scanned down, they’re going to have someone with probes out and watching, if not every connection, then at least the likely dangerous ones, and anyone in sites should have at least enough notice to warp off, which is far more than you get with a Cyno, let alone the bomber decloaking and trying to point you.

[Derath_Ellecon]

@Cade_Windstalker

If someone’s solo site running in 0.0 space then they’ve taken that risk and that has basically nothing to do with cloaking, AFK or otherwise.

FTFY:-)

[Salt_Foambreaker]

@Cade_Windstalker

That’s effectively the win-condition for the AFK cloaky player. The whole point of the tactic is to either deny mining income or get the locals to ignore you out of frustration.

You just don’t get it, I don’t know why she argues with you.

If you are afraid to undock when you are not alone then you don’t belong in null in the first place.

It is not a cloaking problem, it is a size of balls problem, specifically a LACK THEREOF.

[Merin_Ryskin]

@Cade_Windstalker

I mean, I don’t think I’m hand-waving any of that.

Sure you are. You’re talking about the “skill and strategy” in WH space, but then dismissing the same things in nullsec as a one-sided gank where the outcome is automatic and there’s no possible counter.

Ultimately the risk vs reward is up to the individual player.

Exactly. AFK cloaking is fine as-is, the fact that some people have their risk vs. reward expectations set overwhelmingly in favor of safety at all costs is not a game mechanics problem.

The whole point of the tactic is to either deny mining income or get the locals to ignore you out of frustration.

Well yes. But, as you keep failing to understand, the success of the tactic is 100% based on how lazy and/or incompetent the defender is. Competent players come out ahead, lazy idiots get ganked and hide in station for weeks at a time because they’re terrified of PvP.

And as previously established the cloaky player has effectively unlimited attempts since it’s very unlikely even a failed tackle attempt is going to result in a ship loss.

Again, only against incompetent players. Against competent PvP alliances the chance of loss is much higher, and black ops losses add up quickly.

[Scoots_Choco]

what’s the reward for going afk while cloaked? zero

so what should the risk be?

[Cade_Windstalker]

@Derath_Ellecon

FTFY

I mean, either one really, but being “solo” isn’t generally the problem here.

@Salt_Foambreaker

If you are afraid to undock when you are not alone then you don’t belong in null in the first place.

This isn’t the problem either, it’s the lack of counter play. Under normal circumstances if you have a hostile in system you re-ship to something combat-y and chase them off. Or get blown up. Either way there’s something to do about the fact that there’s a hostile in system.

Even if you don’t bother to dock up because of an AFK cloaker this is still a bad game dynamic because there is zero counter play to it.

@Merin_Ryskin

Sure you are. You’re talking about the “skill and strategy” in WH space, but then dismissing the same things in nullsec as a one-sided gank where the outcome is automatic and there’s no possible counter.

Ah, so, this is possibly a miscommunication. I’m not saying cynos in general are a problem, or cloaking in general is a problem, or some big mean force rocking up on your doorstep is a problem. Those are all parts of Null, and there are things a player can do in response that, even if they don’t resolve the problem, do something to respond to it. Even if it’s “pack up and go back to High Sec for a while”.

The problem with AFK cloaking is that there basically aren’t effective counters. If your cloaky guest has two brain cells to rub together he’s never at any risk. The best outcome is you docking up safely, and that’s not counter play.

@Merin_Ryskin

Exactly. AFK cloaking is fine as-is, the fact that some people have their risk vs. reward expectations set overwhelmingly in favor of safety at all costs is not a game mechanics problem.

The problem here isn’t the risk, the problem is that this is bad gameplay.

A good gameplay dynamic here should allow for some kind of counter play on the part of the target, preferably in a way that leads to a fight, rather than a brief flurry of activity where the attacking side either gets their kill or doesn’t and then goes and cloaks up until their cooldowns are over and it’s time to go home.

@Merin_Ryskin

Again, only against incompetent players. Against competent PvP alliances the chance of loss is much higher, and black ops losses add up quickly.

There’s still basically no risk here unless the cloaky player is a complete idiot and does something like drop on a Rorqual two systems over from Goons staging. Between two equally skilled groups the cloaked player has every advantage and is at effectively zero risk of actually losing anything.

[MB_ThePhotographer]

Are you still whining the bot program you wrote wont compensate for afk cloaks?

[Salt_Foambreaker]

@Cade_Windstalker

@Salt_Foambreaker

If you are afraid to undock when you are not alone then you don’t belong in null in the first place.

This isn’t the problem either, it’s the lack of counter play

The counter play is simple, grow a pair.

[Merin_Ryskin]

@Cade_Windstalker

The problem with AFK cloaking is that there basically aren’t effective counters.

Only because you define “effective” as “does not sacrifice farming ISK/hour”. We’ve presented you with various counters and you reject all of them because they aren’t profitable enough.

If your cloaky guest has two brain cells to rub together he’s never at any risk.

Only because there are so many farmer trash targets that don’t have two brain cells to rub together, allowing the AFK cloaker to only attack targets where victory is guaranteed.

A good gameplay dynamic here should allow for some kind of counter play on the part of the target, preferably in a way that leads to a fight, rather than a brief flurry of activity where the attacking side either gets their kill or doesn’t and then goes and cloaks up until their cooldowns are over and it’s time to go home.

How exactly do you propose to have “counter play” when 50 PvP players attack a single bot-like farmer? What mechanic allows this to be anything but an instant execution without breaking the rest of the game?

Between two equally skilled groups the cloaked player has every advantage and is at effectively zero risk of actually losing anything.

Only because the cloaked player also gets no reward. In a match of equal-skill groups the cloaked player can only sit idle in space because launching an attack is likely suicide.

[Cade_Windstalker]

@Merin_Ryskin

Only because you define “effective” as “does not sacrifice farming ISK/hour”. We’ve presented you with various counters and you reject all of them because they aren’t profitable enough.

I mean, yes, because that’s how risk vs reward works. If I told you to go do something in PvP that would guarantee you lost your ship and couldn’t do better than a break-even killboard you’d die laughing before you’d die doing it.

If the game mechanics say that something isn’t worth doing then no one’s going to do it. If you want CCP to change the mechanics to make your suggested counters viable then push for that, but don’t sit here and say “well people should just do it anyway” like that’s a solution.

Also, small addendum to this point. I ran some of the stuff in this thread past some other folks I know on both sides of this equation, and the actual answer at this point is apparently basically “don’t rat in sub-caps” for most people. You either fly something that’s effectively drop immune or you don’t fly, because if a drop actually goes off you’re just gonna die.

@Merin_Ryskin

Only because there are so many farmer trash targets that don’t have two brain cells to rub together, allowing the AFK cloaker to only attack targets where victory is guaranteed.

Nah, not really. Things are just massively stacked in favor of the hot-dropper right now.

Also we’ve been focusing on Blops drops, but a single Blops can just bridge in a Bomber wing, and you can whelp those all day and still break even with a single shiny kill. The entire fleet of Bombers may not even cost what a single Black Ops does, and the only Blops involved is at zero risk because he’s 7ly and 10 gates away.

@Merin_Ryskin

How exactly do you propose to have “counter play” when 50 PvP players attack a single bot-like farmer? What mechanic allows this to be anything but an instant execution without breaking the rest of the game?

Lets drop the hyperbole and the ridiculous examples here. Lets assume a reasonably active and engaged player who’s paying attention.

Counter play would be something that either lets him have a chance at killing the ship lighting the Cyno, or otherwise forcing that ship to take some meaningful risks to get off his tackle and Cyno. Heck, maybe at a spool-up timer to the thing. It only needs to be a few seconds to make it possible to kill him if you’re paying attention.

On the flip side, create PvE content that either includes more points to hold people on grid, or otherwise create situations where simply fighting aligned to a station isn’t the optimal solution to avoid risk, but where the rewards are increased to make up for it.

You’re never going to equalize a massively imbalanced situation, but you could create one where a one-sided Covert stomp-fest isn’t the best way to PvP, and where a single Bomber isn’t at basically zero risk engaging in this sort of gameplay. Maybe even come up with a set of mechanics that allows at least a few players to meaningfully respond to the drop before they all cloak up again.

@Merin_Ryskin

Only because the cloaked player also gets no reward. In a match of equal-skill groups the cloaked player can only sit idle in space because launching an attack is likely suicide.

No, I mean the player with the cloak here. Not someone remaining cloaked literally 100% of the time.

When this person jumps in and decloaks to point the target the two likely outcomes are:

• The target warps off. The only risk to the cloaky player is from NPCs in the pocket.
• The target fails to warp off in time, is scrammed and webbed, and dies in a hail of torpedoes. The attackers then warp off and cloak up until they can jump back out. At most they lose the Cyno ship.

[Merin_Ryskin]

@Cade_Windstalker

I mean, yes, because that’s how risk vs reward works.

It really isn’t. Risk vs. reward is just fine, you can absolutely make a profit farming in nullsec. And using the various counters is certainly more effective than sitting docked in station 23/7 because there’s a non-blue name in local, even if the farming ISK/hour is less than an optimal farming arrangement. The problem is that RMT botters consider any level of risk or any sacrifice in income to be unacceptable.

Nah, not really. Things are just massively stacked in favor of the hot-dropper right now.

Only because of the abundant supply of oblivious idiots solo farming in expensive lossmails.

Also we’ve been focusing on Blops drops, but a single Blops can just bridge in a Bomber wing, and you can whelp those all day and still break even with a single shiny kill.

Then stop offering up shiny kills! Bombers are only effective when you drop them with an overwhelming advantage in numbers, enough to insta-kill the target before it starts blowing up a paper tanked bomber with every shot. PvE in fleets of cheaper ships and bombers are no longer cost effective because losses are almost guaranteed.

Lets drop the hyperbole and the ridiculous examples here.

It’s not hyperbolic at all, it’s a realistic description of the scenario: a group of many players is attacking a solo target. In every other realistic scenario in EVE a 20v1 ends with the solo player dying immediately, why should this one be any different?

Counter play would be something that either lets him have a chance at killing the ship lighting the Cyno

You have that already. Remember that the ship lighting the cyno is either a bomber that dies in seconds if you shoot at it or a recon with a few seconds of delay before it can start to lock you, a delay you can spend warping out.

On the flip side, create PvE content that either includes more points to hold people on grid, or otherwise create situations where simply fighting aligned to a station isn’t the optimal solution to avoid risk, but where the rewards are increased to make up for it.

Cue all of the whining from farmers about how unfair it is that NPCs can fight back, as they did with triglavian spawns in highsec. And rewards do not need to be buffed, nullsec farming is already way too profitable.

Maybe even come up with a set of mechanics that allows at least a few players to meaningfully respond to the drop before they all cloak up again.

Good luck with that. If you get ganked 20v1 the fight is going to be over immediately and if the aggressors don’t cloak they’ll just warp off and escape.

When this person jumps in and decloaks to point the target the two likely outcomes are:

You’re ignoring another option or three:

• The PvE player is actually a group of players, all flying PvP ships, and so launching a bomber attack would be suicide. The AFK cloaker sits idle in space forever, never finding a target to engage, until they decide to go elsewhere and harvest some of the idiots instead.

• The target has a cyno of its own and drops in an even bigger force, killing every attacker that doesn’t warp out in time (and god help them if the target has an interdictor sitting cloaked next to it).

• The target is constantly using a MWD/MJD to maneuver around the PvE site faster than the cyno ship can chase it, and eventually the AFK cloaker goes somewhere else to harvest the idiots.

The only reason these scenarios don’t happen more often is that there is an abundant supply of idiot solo farmers to harvest. Take that away and black ops success rates go down considerably.

[Brun_Warbear]

@Cade_Windstalker

I mean, yes, because that’s how risk vs reward works. If I told you to go do something in PvP that would guarantee you lost your ship and couldn’t do better than a break-even killboard you’d die laughing before you’d die doing it.

If the game mechanics say that something isn’t worth doing then no one’s going to do it. If you want CCP to change the mechanics to make your suggested counters viable then push for that, but don’t sit here and say “well people should just do it anyway” like that’s a solution.

Except none of this is the case. Nullsec ratting is still the most profitable activity in the game. The provided counters do not negate this profit. Ratting is clearly worth it as it’s the biggest isk generator in Eve in spite of cloaky camping.

The counters are viable. They’re in use. They work.

You just don’t like them. That has nothing at all to do with viability and everything to do with wanting to eliminate risk and increase already significant rewards.

@Cade_Windstalker

If the game mechanics say that something isn’t worth doing then no one’s going to do it.

Greatest. Isk. Faucet. In. The. Whole. Game.

[Hillbert_Alexis]

Well if the right storm comes through, the risk is death

Otherwise there’s no risk whatsoever for being undocked, able to move around, get intel all manner of intel, hide from hunters, warp around in some cases, setup bombing runs, prepare pings and so much more.

But really, the issue you just described is… how does one know someones afk?
So your question is simply what’s the reward for being cloaked in space?
100% safety and immunity from both npc and player ships is a pretty big reward.

Still, I’m happy to see CCP making an attempt to change cloaking. Too bad it doesn’t help me at all when it comes to hunting cloaked wartargets in highsec, but I’m still working on getting something for that
It’s worth noting with this new CCP structure core thing I don’t agree with fuel for cloaking, players need an active option to hunt for cloaked ships.
People that prefer the 100% safety of cloaking will, always, cite random and repeat reasons as to why it’s fine as is. And most of them spend way too much time in this thread, I have concerns about the mental state of a few of them.

[Scoots_Choco]

@Hillbert_Alexis

players need an active option to hunt for cloaked ships.

“Need” is a strong word used by cowards and krabs who are afraid of a tiny little grey pixel box in local chat. I know you’re better than that, right?