Main AFK cloaky thread

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
1066

There is also a reason why economists convert everything over to currency value.

As for real value, yes I understand it quite well. It is the basic fact that we really don’t care about money, but about goods and services–i.e. the real aspects of the economy.

But the point still remains. AFK cloaking does not put ISK in a players wallet and if anything comes with a cost.

Oh, and yeah, your time does have a monetary value or do you work without getting paid? Your time has a value in terms 1-5 of the definition.

Nope still wrong.

I do not support changes to local without changes to cloaks.

1067

AFK (NOT COOL) - Cloaking (AWESOME).

No one supports AFK - CLOAKING. I want you to watch me :wink: but not afk.

Problem lays no one idea is “good” everyone on the forums is “Congress” they wont vote for that bill!
I’m sure CCP will come up with some ideas in do time, with more stru going to roll out over next few years.

1068

This debate will probably only be solved when the servers wind down and stop. Two side with the same issue.

Cloakers dont want to die helplessly while afk and cloaked. (maybe running program to report local)

Anti-cloaker dont want to die helplessly when the cloaker comes back from work and sees an opportunity. (when they get lax and forget about the cloaker in local)

Both sides are afraid of death but neither side sees that in themselves… 2 parties fighting for an advantage.
The defense for one is having to do nothing (the cloakers) the defense for the other is standing fleets and constant vigilance. One takes constant effort the other does not.

That is how i see it. Then again maybe I’m blind?

1 Like
1069

Perhaps not blind, but not seeing the big picture. Most of the people here arguing that the status quo is at least acceptable, aren’t “afraid of dying” or even that AFK cloaking is an especially compelling way to hunt people. Rather, they are arguing that AFK cloaking is really the only tool to disrupt an opponent’s income generation. AFK cloaking one of the few sources of risk in a game with perfect and free intel provided by local.

There should be no way to make yourself perfectly safe and still be generating resources into our shared economy. Without the tactic of countering the free intel of local by leaving a name in there 23.5/7, the intel provided by local becomes near perfect and ratting/mining near perfectly safe. This is bad yet this is usually the core motivation behind every “idea” to fix AFK cloaking - more work for thee so there is less risk for me.

I think almost all of those who use cloaking and AFK cloaking to hunt others would be happy with some change to the current paradigm as long as it allows cloaks to still be useful for operating in hostile space and still leaves a reasonable window open to catch a target. So whatever change CCP finally gets around to implementing won’t be just to nerf cloaking modules into the ground or add more free intel like an AFK flag. It will be something semi-wholistic that both gives sov holders the ability to force a fight with a cloaker or uncloak an AFK cloaker but also keeps the ratter/miner at some risk to someone dropping in on their resource generating activities.

2 Likes
1070

I have lived in sov null with cloakers in system. I would wave and go about my business in a pvp fit ship and did pve like that. Not optimum but effective. They would stay in the same general systems for days and weeks. Thats got to be really boring.

I suppose the cloaker is trying to recreate the fear induced by terrorism in their enemies. Overall not many people die from terrorism but its effects have been world shaping. And a cloaker is no match for a convention fleet and has no ability to take or hold the field.

I suppose the counter argument to the no resources without risk of loss should also be the same for intel. A cloaked ship can d-scan and move about to pin down prey. They are immune to attack while doing so unless they mess up.

I dont have a side to defend in this just trying to condense years of debate into a manageable packet.

1071

Well, if they are on-grid with someone they can theoretically be decloaked so they are not zero risk, even if it is really small. Again though, if you made it so cloaks turned off dscan and made you immobile it would reduce their utility for operating in hostile space in addition to making AFK cloaking a less viable way to harass other players. That hurts those who use cloaks to evade the big groups. Plus, there is the obvious problem that nerfing cloaks like that will make ratting/mining in nullsec safer which I think most detached observers think is something it does not need right now.

I think the take home message usually is most complaints about AFK cloaking come from a self-interested place by those earning an income in nullsec frustrated that someone is disrupting the free intel of local they have come to rely on. Players like you who use other methods like PvP fits and standing fleets to counter the risk of a name in local don’t run to the forums asking for the game to be changed so their free intel source is perfect again.

I guess you can say that some of the defenders of AFK cloaking are also coming from a self-interested place as they rely on the ability of covert cloaking modules to operate in wormholes or other hostile space where stations aren’t around to dock up when they need to step away from the game. I would say though that very few of them are actually concerned about dying to the PvE’ers that can be disrupted by this tactic as they could easily just not go AFK cloaking in such a system if cloaks were nerfed. They are probably more concerned about their own resource generation and travelling though hostile space, and rightly so. Why should their tool for moving around New Eden be nerfed/removed just so some null-bear can have more reliable free intel provided by local?

There must be some solution that would make both sides more happy or at least make AFK cloaking a less viable tactic while still providing something to make local less viable as an evasion tool. Such a change will likely involve changing multiple things at once though, maybe with the Observatory Array coming later this year. But whatever it is, it won’t be to just make resource generation in nullsec safer by making interfering their activities harder without some additional compensatory changes.

As you say, this is one of the least productive topics for discussion on the forums as every simple solution provided by those who don’t like AFK cloaking as a tactic is a direct nerf to someone else’s game play. I think most will agree there could be more gameplay - counters, and counters to counters - around the tactic, but where you fall on the issue is probably decided by whether you think resource generation should be perfectly safe, or whether relying simply on local should be viable so you can rat or mine away in a full-yield fit ship and only rely on evasion for safety. Most of the agitators in this and similar threads are generating resources in null and want it to be safer/easier while most of those arguing against them use the cloak modules for other things and don’t want that to be nerfed.

While I have never used AFK cloaking as a tactic, my sympathies are much more with those who use cloaking to generate content in many diverse areas of the game rather than those who want cloaking nerfed so they can eek out a bit more ISK/h with even less risk in nullsec, but to each their own. CCP has stayed resilient for a decade on the issue despite a constant din of complaints, and I fully expect them to continue to ignore the null-bears until they can find the time to put in a cohesive and complete fix to the issue that creates more gameplay around resource and/or local intel disruption and leave most of the utility of cloaking in the game.

2 Likes
1072

Truth is spoken. AFK cloaking does something, it “disrupts”.

The great irony here is not what you said, but that when it’s said by someone who wants to nerf cloaking (or even a neutral party like myself) it gets jumped on by certain people insisting it doesn’t “do” anything, yet when you said it, it gets a like.

@Black_Pedro your points here are true, other than just the one I highlighted, and your honesty on the topic is appreciated. It would be refreshing if others who “like” your honest approach could be more honest themselves on the topic. :slight_smile:

1073

Thanks for that insight. I always figured the ferocity of the debate indicate both sides like you mention have a large stake in the cloaking mechanics. 07

1074

A cloaking ship that runs d-scan is not an AFK cloaking ship. That is an ATK cloaking ship. And moving about is not risk free. A can or other object can decloak you and if you are hunting then as soon as the cloaked ship decloaks they can be attacked and are at risk. What you are describing are technically outside the scope of the thread.

More importantly why should an ATK cloaker who is moving around looking for targets or doing something else have their game nerfed? They are not causing the AFK cloaking “problem”. Do you routinely punish people who have done no wrong to try and impose a burden on those who have? This is simply lazy game design, IMO.

You really are sensitive too aren’t you. Nobody has denied they have an effect. You clearly have trouble with logic and reading comprehension don’t you.

It would also be nice if you were honest and not ascribing a position to others.

1075

Salty much? You lie a lot…

The whole time I’ve been saying;

An afk cloaker doesn’t do anything. But the ‘problem’ people have is we don’t know if he’s actually afk or not. And what people need to understand is, you’re not supposed to know.

1076

Why?

I understand this is how it’s always been… but why shouldn’t we know? He’s not playing… it’s not a negative to his gameplay. It makes gameplay worse for those who try to interact with him.

What’s the harm on letting everyone know he’s AFK? I have trouble seeing why anyone who isn’t actually playing the game should have a say in the matter… he’s not playing.

1077

Cloaky camping. One more of the million issues that CCP has never gotten right… I mean you guys have had this game for how long and you still can’t get basic mechanics to work in a fun way? You half ass everything…
“Oh yea, we’re awesome, we can handle 5 thousand players at once”…
No you can’t… The server crashes and becomes completely unplayable… That’s not “Running with 5 thousand members in a fight” That’s a constant state of crashing and relogging… Game has such basic ass, half working mechanics… Fix them already…

1078

Lame mentality from a lame person, who probably has 20 accounts…

1079

You said:

“Do anything” is to do at least one thing of a set of all things. An effect is a “thing”, having an effect is “doing a thing.” In fact “do” actually means “to have an effect”.

So to say “not do anything” includes “not have an effect.”

Therefore, what you said has the meaning “Players who are AFK can not have an effect.”

Clearly you (not just anybody) have denied they have an effect. If this is not true which part of my argument here are you denying?

A) The quote you wrote?
B) The meaning of “do”?
C) Or the meaning of “anything”?

This is logic, you have to show that either the form or one of the premisses is false, if you can’t then the claim is sound and valid.

So, If A AND B AND C → Q

I understand that this could be new and confusing for you, because it’s logic, and as you have already shown you aren’t good at and not familiar with logic. But, it’s not that hard, I’ve taught it to middle school students, so I’m sure you’ll be able to get it.

If I have incorrectly ascribed your position, please by all means show me.

And once again, when you use words and don’t mean their meanings, it isn’t a reading comprehension problem if someone understands what you said according to the meaning of the words you used.

This is exactly what I said you were saying, so I’m not seeing the “salt” or the “lie”.

The AFK cloaker causes doubt, which is having an effect, which puts us back to the start of this post. So, same to you, what is wrong in my argument, A, B, or C?

P.S. This is looking like an is-ought fallacy.

And Lena has correctly called you on it. You go girl, good job.

1080

For a practical reason, since you’re never going to understand the concept of why free intel is bad and why your “empty chair” problem is stupid, because an AFK flag brings nullsec farmers a major step closer to 100% safety by removing the main threat they face. If a farmer knows that any ship with no AFK flag is a threat they can just stay docked, and ignore anyone with an AFK flag. After all, if you just watch for the AFK flag to disappear you can immediately dock before they can threaten you. This removes the ability to keep a character in local for a long period of time and force the farmer to decide between accepting a degree of risk or having zero income forever.

You can have your AFK flag when you remove local.

1081

Cloaky camping is working just fine, and is fun. “WAAAAAAH I CAN’T FARM WITH 100% SAFETY AND MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY” is not a problem that needs to be fixed, nor does the lack of “fun” experienced by farmers as a result of this state anything to be concerned about. If your fun is ruined by the slight potential for PvP in a PvP game then get out of EVE.

1082

You are right, we should get rid of free intel.

As (I think it was) Yellow pointed out, since we can’t tell if a person posting here is a botter or not, if they have a position that could be exploited by botting we have to assume they are botting.

Putting these two ideas together, we are only left with one option: Remove all AFK! Because any logged in AFK account could be running a bot to feed intel networks. This isn’t just AFK cloakers, but also AFK station sitters, and it isn’t even connected to local as an AFK cloaker could be in a position to visually monitor a gate without using local. Since any AFK account could be a bot feeding intel, we just have to treat all of them like they are.

Stop free intel, end AFKing!

Everyone who is against free intel and bots will agree with this, so if you disagree in anyway it’s only you showing us all that you are an AFK intel botter.

Or you know, maybe some people just don’t like AFK as a “play style.”

1083

No. He has an effect. It is not “he does and effect”.

1084

I assume you meant “he does an effect”?

As you said on the other thread: “The fact that your vocabulary and knowledge of these concepts is limited is not really my problem.” That is the case here.

I could also make a silly sentence as an example, that doesn’t really change things. Your argument is that I am wrong because you don’t know how to use a dictionary, or construct English sentences. I can’t really help you there.

Do: "to be the cause of (good, harm, credit, etc.); bring about; effect. " [dictionary]

The AFK cloaker is the cause of something.
The AFK cloaker brings about something.
The AFK cloaker effects something.
The AFK cloaker does something.

Your special private language in which “do” appears to only have the meaning “to preform an action” does not have any bearing on reality. You have a problem with things like words.

You also have a problem with things like logic. I have now more than once shown you that “effect” is one of the meanings of “do”, you have not addressed the definition in any way. You keep repeating the thing that isn’t true without providing any proofs, or even reasons, why it might be true.

Using reliable sources and logical arguments can you in anyway establish that “do” does not mean “effect”? Or is your only “argument” something like “because I want it to be”?

1085

Then remove local and nobody will bother staying logged in while AFK.