Main AFK cloaky thread

The main problem with cloaky camping is, that it’s a disruptive influence accross the system/constellation that doesn’t come with any inherenct cost whatsoever.

No matter if the cloaky is AFK or not, you have to account for that when doing business in the system. Even if you would have no local, this still wouldn’t change (since you would need to have somebody sitting on gates which will eventually spot a cloaky).

As a result, business in that space requires more effort (either by slapping PvP-fits on there, or preparing for the worst of the worst, which is no undock at all). Now, I don’t want to make a case against or for it, but the fact that you can have an influence on others (no matter how small it is) while being afk, doesn’t seem right for the game. In essence, AFK cloaking is psychological warfare without risk. You will always impact decisions made, either by changing ships or by logoffskis).

The same is true for logoffs in hostile space, but I don’t see any fix for that, at all.

I also don’t think (anymore) that local should be pulled into this argument. Local benefits both sides and if one wants to use it to get to savety, that’s perfectly fine. PvP is not only killing ships, it’s also avoiding getting killed.

If one doesn’t want to commit to PvP, that’s also his free choice and eve allows you to make these choices. That is not what PvP’ers want, obviously, but denying someone a kill is also PvP and the PvPer can make an effort to try and force them into PvP, in worst case: by attacking their stations and evicting them. Once the stations are gone, this will ultimately become THE tool to do it.

Removing local (which has been abused as intel tool) also has it’s fair share of problems. Risk/effort vs Reward for 0.0 PvE would change for the worse (more risk, less reward) substantially. As anoms are completely visible and warpable to everyone, doing PvE would mean becoming a sitting duck ready to be shot at with subpar tools to protect yourself (cause PvE fits are, for the majority, exactly that).

It also opens the question if PvE in 0.0 is properly balanced in risk vs reward and, indirectly, if players should have the option to make their space more save (cause the reality is: 0.0 is decently save because players work for it).

This essentially means that PvE in 0.0 would have to be severely rebalanced at the same time. Making PvE worse is also a very questionable business move, as it’s a) absolutely necessary for the game and b) an activity enjoyed by many, evident by numbers (isk generation by PvE).

At this point, you have two options. Either increase ISK from sites, or require scanning for them. The first one, given the current isk-faucet situation, is problematic.

The other one is problematic too. It would require Hunters to fit Probes on every single ship. This essentially means every ship would have to have room for it. Major rebalance inc.

I wouldn’t know how to tackle all the issues that would arise from changes made. I don’t have answers to all of that.

Oh and, last but not least: The majority of the intel from local comes from players being in the system. Local makes it only effortless (just wanted to point that out). Question is: is it reasonable to make this a more effort thing (more effort should yield better rewards, shouldn’t it, so what’s in it for the defenders? How would they benefit from it?).

I also think this should be taken into consideration when talking about modules/structures against cloaking.

Ofc, you could make an argument that it could potentially be healther for the game to just blanket nerf 0.0, and there is certain evidence that this might indeed be good. The more elegant solution (imho) would be a steady and big ISK Faucet, cause a blanket nerf severe enough to tackle all the issues would drive people out of 0.0, back into HS and ultimately into the insanity that is carebearing in HS. Aka: Quit Eve.

You’re wrong, as Teckos will surely explain to you in detail. Or you could just scroll up.

CCP explicitly mentioned multiple times that nothing about AFK cloaking is going to change without also changing local, as the two are just too intertwined with each other. So your wet dream of perfect safety that can’t be countered in any way isn’t ever going to come true.

Right now, it’s completely unbalanced. It’s supposed to be high risk, high reward, just the same as highsec is low risk, low reward. Except there is zero risk in nullsec. Either introduce risk or change the rewards to reflect the actual risk.

1 Like

You can call the argument wrong as much as you want, it’s just the reality of the situation. If you deny this, you simply understand nothing about AFK cloaking. You don’t understand why people complain about AFK cloaking and you don’t even understand why people DO afk cloaking. :smiley:

the whole purpose of AFK cloaking is to disrupt iskmaking in a system. It’s the sole purpose for the people that do it. If you know a hostile is in system, it will always be a factor in your considerations. Even if you don’t put much weight in it, you will consider it. And I am pretty sure that CCP will see evidence for this being the case IF they WANT to look at it.

I am aware of that. I am just stating my oppinion on it, as I’ve made crystal clear.

Then why do PvP ships die all the time in 0.0, when there is no risk? You sir, are out of your mind. There is decent savety, I agree, but that’s also because players made agreements for it and fight to make it save on a daily base. I do find it quite risky to have hundreds of hours of “work” destroyed in mere minutes.

1 Like

You claim AFK cloaking doesn’t come with any costs and that’s wrong, as Teckos will surely explain to you in detail. I’m not going to waste my time explaining you something you don’t want to or won’t understand.

And that’s fair enough, that point was slightly exxagerated. While 5 million for a ship that can do it is insignificant, opportunity cost for the char that does it can be as high a plex per month. Considerable.

You don’t have any arguments to present anyway, and you have little clue about the topic either as displayed by your previous message. All you display is signifcant bias and jealousy, so I am not interest in reading your comments anyway. They have 0 weight.

1 Like

I haven’t posted a single idea mate. I am discussing concerns about the topic. Reading isn’t your strong suit? Oh wait, the problem isn’t the reading. It’s the part we call “understanding”. Sorry, my bad.

I mean, I don’t mind your destructiveness on the topic and your unwillingness to move forward. I just don’t share that attitude. You are entitled to your behaviour and your position on the topic.

I get it, you are not interested in any discussion, fine. Then just don’t try to argue with me on my oppinion cause you won’t be able to change it with your toxicity. :slight_smile: Aka stop pretending that you have any other interest than to be toxic in here.

PS: I don’t mind the level of discussion, just present counter-arguments to arguments and we might have a decent conversation.

Arguments you could elaborate on:

Why do you think 0.0 is (in your words) “Zero Risk” when there is clear evidence it’s not?
Why do you think a cloaky doesn’t affect anyone if he is AFK, when there is evidence he does?

Feel free to move forward, I will gladly continue to make this as easy as possible for you if that is what you need to have a decent discussion?

1 Like

Granted, I only read about 10% of your post and it was obvious that it’s just the usual entitled whining about “the bad afk cloakers impose risk on me and I have to take actions. Make them go away, CCP!”, so it wasn’t worth reading any more of it.

There is no discussion about AFK cloaking. There is only whining by RMTers, botters and failures that have no business being anywhere near nullsec, players that are better off in Hello Kitty Online, or World of Warcraft. This thread exists for the sole purpose so that people like you don’t spam the forums with your pointless whining and for absolutely no other purpose.

I’m not pretending. Literally the only reason I’m posting here is to have a taste of that endless supply of trash player tears. That’s all there is to get in here. Discussions with you lot are pointless, as all you’re capable of doing is make up ■■■■■■■■, twist words, present your purely emotional thinking as “logic” and ignore facts that don’t support your argument. We’ve been through it over and over and over again. Your kind isn’t interested in any discussion, if you’re even capable of having a discussion. You just want people to agree with you and CCP to give you perfect safety and no amount of logic or facts is going to change your mind about that.

I think you might have just a different experience with me, if you would give it a try? I try to point on problems I see with it and I am looking forward to have them dismantled with reasonable arguments.

Instead, what I got from you so far is: “Nah, CCP said not going to happen” (as if I would propose anything) + pointless arguments that are simply: pointless (because they are wrong).

In all honesty, I find this a very sad thing to experience on forums (a place for discussions), but I am not willing to give up yet. I would gladly accept a link to any argument that has been made against my, but this forum structure is bullocks and close to 2k posts is nothing I really want to read through first. Sorry if that annoys you.

I mean, some arguments made are not crystal clear because they don’t have an end all be all answer. We can talk about the gravity of impact afk cloaking has and if that’s a problem for you (CCP said it’s not for them, and it’s ok), but saying that is has literally no impact is, in my humble oppinion, make belief. (just as an example).

If you say 0.0 rewards too much for the risk involved, that’s also completely fine. Saying there is 0 risk doesn’t help anyone though, because it’s wrong. Then we could maybe talk about how to improve the balance there and what sorts of impacts that might have and if there is a plan to fix that.

Cause I don’t think removing local would just make ratting supers disappear and I think you don’t think that either. Players will come up with another form of security net. That is how the blue doughnut was created in the first place. In the long term, removal of local won’t help with that (it will help with other things but will create other problems etc. etc.).

If you read back through the posts you’ll see that all the arguments have been done to death. Then resuscitated and done to second death. Once the idea were undead the mob gathered with pitchforks and torches and hounded the ideas to their ultimate destruction. Until the sequel.

1 Like

“There’s someone in local with me” → Dock up.
You see him coming from up to 30 jumps away, you see him appearing in local several seconds before he even loads into the system and can take any action. It’s literally impossible to catch you, unless you’re a moron that ■■■■■■ up bad.

I never claimed that to be the case, but anyway. A cloaked player can, by definition, not interact with anyone. He has to decloak to do anything at all. Thus any effect he has on other players are the choices of those other players, not something the cloaker imposed on them.

If you want to make the argument that people are entitled to being alone in space, then no, they aren’t. They’re playing a multiplayer game with other players and sovereignty doesn’t, nor should it ever, give you the abilities to decide who can or can’t enter “your” space. Sovereignty doesn’t mean “it’s our space, it has to be perfectly safe”, it means that you get advantages you do not get in other space, like system upgrades, jump bridges, reduced structure fuel costs and the ability to build super capitals.
Nullsec is first and foremost a dedicated PvP zone in a PvP sandbox and that’s why it’s the last place that should be anywhere near “I’m 100% certain that it’s perfectly safe to PvE now”. Removing AFK cloakers would accomplish exactly that, thanks to the infallible nature of local chat intel.

AFK cloakers are the only option to prevent bots from 24/7 botting and to impose the tiniest amount of risk on carebears that just want to farm in perfect safety. Literally every player worth his salt doesn’t have a problem with AFK cloakers, because he knows how to deal with them. He even appreciates them, because it means content is coming to him and he doesn’t have to look for it. All he has to do is set the trap and wait.

Yes, cloaky players do affect how most of their future victims play the game, but that is the entire point behind afk cloaking. To play mind games. To take the perfect intel tool that local is and introduce a variable of doubt that otherwise wouldn’t be there. PvP players will welcome the opportunity and deal with it appropriately, PvE players will instead come crying to the forums about how they can’t farm the most profitable space 100% risk-free without taking any action to defend themselves.

There IS a cost to cloaky camping. Opportunity cost. The very same reason why the ore/minerals you mine are not “free”. If I put one of my alts out cloaky camping then I cannot use him for invention or PI or anything else. Just as you can’t be in two places at the same time neither can my alt. Your cost of going to a concert vs. going to a movie is not going to to the movie. If I am cloaky camping with an alt the opportunity cost is giving up the next best option for using that alt.

You are incorrect on this. Saying there is no cost is simply not true.

1 Like

There is no blue donut. This is something lazy thinkers like to say. NS goes through periods of upheaval and quiescence. This not uncommon in complex adaptive systems. We are in a quiescent phase right now. This is a good thing; people can farm and acquire wealth and resources to use during the next period of upheaval. We want both upheaval and quiescence. Going to either extreme is bad in that they are unsustainable.

and I admitted that earlier. Yes, you are right. You’ve quoted the wrong part though. :confused:

So, by definition, there is risk involved, the risk of loosing your stuff. I agree that, when you get killed by someone that came 30 jumps away, you are stupid. What if the guy logged in a neighbouring system? Now you are looking at 20-30 seconds, worse if he logged in the system.

For all intents and purposes, the cloaky camper that decides to stop AFK and start to hunt is as almost as bad as a login trap. They both need the same counters against them.

Perfect savety means that you would have to do nothing to be perfectly save. Again, by your definition of

“Dock UP”, this is just wrong.

If you would simply say that 0.0 can be perfectly save, I would say it’s wrong too, cause you can be catched in a super (even if the chance is slim) when a saber warps to your next site or when you are mining in a rorqual.

Mining in a rorqual is by far the most riskiest activity and you say it’s perfectly save. I find that dishonest.

Actually, you did. I said you the cloaker has an impact and you said you are wrong. That you now rephrase that into “the cloaker can not impose anything on you” is, by your own words exactly this:

Now that you’ve corrected that statement, I would say that a cloaky camper injects another variable into your considerations and while you could say that he doesn’t impose anything in the “physical” sense, he absolutely does in a psychological sense.

He can’t harm you if he is afk, but you can’t just assume that because he has the option to change it any minute. So you will always have to consider the risk of being suddenly dropped by a fleet of cloakies from the Not-So-AFK-anymore covert cyno.

that is an impact, by my definition. You influence player behaviour. I am not juding if the gravity of this influence is big, bad, ugly or good. Everyone is entitled to his personal oppinion on this question, but arguing like this is just dishonest (although I completely understand the reasons for doing so).

I agree with everything in this, except for “the status quo is near 100% at the moment” that you implied.

That’s not true either. You can actively hunt them 23:45:00 24/7 if you are up to them. It is an EASY way of doing it, but not the only thing. And once again: while you’ve said earlier that cloakies don’t have an impact, stopping bots is an impact (a good one, NICE!, I applaud everyone that actually manages to find a bot and prevent it’s usage/kill his ship.

Except that this isn’t the whole truth either. A dedicated player that want’s to kill the camper just can’t do it. Trying to wait for them gets boring quickly so imho, the most likely cause of action is: you will sit there, waiting for hours and eventually log off. Camper will (if he decides to do something) avoid getting caught by competent guys.

It’s absolute boring to wait for a camper creating content. It’s the second most boring activity in Eve I’ve done.

It’s one of the arguments I can partially agree with. The way you put it is just not everything there is to say about it, cause no competent cloaky hunter will engage in bad fights for him and that usually means only two people will have the content you speak about.

Just that local just isn’t the perfect intel tool that you claim it to be. It absolutely needs people. I agree it’s effortless and that effortless is a problem though, but without local, you would only need more people. So, removing local wouldn’t have the desired effect. It would certainly be a nerf to large alliances (which I consider a good thing), since they would need to find a way to distribute their people, but that is a balancing effort made to balance effort vs reward, not risk vs reward and it’s only indirectly related to cloaking.

Intel needs ressources (people). It’s not perfect, not at all.

There are no mutual agreements to not touch each others players? Not across all of eve, true. But the point that I’ve made was that players will find ways to make their space more save, and the current situation is undeniable evidence for that.

I didn’t. I called the “cloaky camping doesn’t have any inherent costs” wrong. Explicitly stated in the post after.

And nobody ever claimed otherwise. Hell, I’ve made the same point a hundred times, that cloaky camping is literally just psychological warfare and nothing more.

You could just move to a different system.

You hardly ever know what you’re getting yourself into. It’s a split second decision of tackling the target and holding it down, or moving on. There’s no time for extensive killboard lookups and there’s no fun in it either. I’ve always had the most fun when dropping against the odds (on gate campers with superior numbers, for example), or being counter dropped.

It tells you with 100% accuracy who is in the system with you. It can’t be shut down, it can’t be manipulated. If you’re in the system, you’re in local. That is literally a perfect and effortless intel tool.

1 Like

Oh well, Misunderstanding then. So you just disagreed with the costs, alright. Fair enough.

And the cloaky can follow you. Mood point now that I can say we agree ont he impact.

You have all the time in the world since noone can engage you while cloaked. You could sit there, 5km away from your target, wait till local is a bit more empty, light the cyno then smash and grab without any risk to you or your buddies (given a proper target ofc).

Yes, it might be fun to go in without consideration, but it’s not a requirment.

We disagree on “perfect”. I could now list all the things local doesn’t say but I think that would be pointless.

However, the conversation with you now opens the question whether a player that is afk should have influence on other players. Psychological is okey, “physical” is not?

Is that the general oppinion on that?

And also: how to tackle the Local problem effectively? Any ideas on that? I don’t think that removing local would solve all of it, do you?

And then you know he isn’t afk, but an active threat and you also have the chance at killing him when he jumps the gate.

You stated hunting. Hunting and AFK cloaking aren’t the same thing. A hunter is actively warping through an entire region, an afk cloaker is just sitting around.

It’s a multiplayer game, simple as that. Why would you play a multiplayer game and expect not to have any interaction with other players? What’s the point in then playing a multiplayer game over a single player game?
EVE isn’t just any multiplayer game, it’s a full-time PvP sandbox environment. You can do literally whatever you want, but so can I. I can’t force any rules on you, but neither can you force any rules on me. If you want to stay docked in the station 24/7, that’s your choice. I can’t do anything about that, whether I want to or not. If I want to go afk for whatever reason, that’s my choice and you can’t force me to sit at my computer.

When you play a multiplayer game, you have to accept that you play with other people that you can’t force to play the way you want. Especially not in a sandbox game that doesn’t enforce a specific playstyle. CCP declared some very rudimentary rule set (game mechanics) that everyone has to follow, but what we do within that rule set is entirely up to us. However, since we all share the same sandbox with the same sand in it, it’s a free-for-all survival of the fittest.

This picture demonstrates it fairly well:

1 Like

True, until it isn’t true. Right now things are “quiet”. It will not stay “quiet” though. Sooner or later something will cause the current period of calm to be shattered.

Like get in the standing fleet…

Standing fleet is no good when almost everyone is offline or taking care of things in other systems.

The fleet is realistically unable to be at sufficient mass at all times to support all players at all locations.