These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

AFK Cloaking Solution - From A Pro-AFK Cloaking Pilot

First post
Author
Undeadenemy
BOVRIL bOREers Mining CO-OP
Goonswarm Federation
#1 - 2012-11-13 08:51:55 UTC
First off, as the thread title suggests, I am in favor of the cloak mechanics as they currently stand, just want to put that out there. That said, here is a solution that I believe is amicable to both sides of the debate:

Cloak Jamming Array

-The Cloak Jamming Array is a POS module that becomes available at Sovereignty Level 3.
-It requires a Cloak Jamming Array Upgrade to be installed in the IHUB of the system.
-The upkeep costs for this upgrade costs 600,000,000 ISK per 30 day period.
-The Cloak Jamming Array takes 1 hour to online.

Effect:

The Cloak Jamming Array prohibits the usage of ANY cloaking devices in system, as long as it is online. That means FRIENDLY and ENEMY. If an alliance decides to install this module, NO ONE will be able to cloak in the system.

My Argument:


-We've heard the cries for years about AFK cloakers and the psychological effect they have. Personally, I think this is a perfectly valid tactic and effect, regardless of whether or not it rewards "doing stuff" vs "not doing stuff." That said, there is currently no counter to this activity, except for catching the cloaker moving between systems or during an attack on a friendly.

-The Cloak Jamming Array would disable the use of cloaks for ALL PARTIES, and its long online time would prohibit leaving it offline until needed.

-The tactical advantage of a Cloak Jamming Array comes at a tactical price: friendlies cannot cloak either, meaning no cloaking titans, haulers, carriers, super carriers, probe ships, T3s, stealth bombers, recons, battleships, or anything else for that matter for ANYONE.

-The upkeep cost of the module makes it prohibitively expensive to deploy widely, usage would probably be limited to very select systems, in the same way Cynosural Jammers are today. Even if cost is not an issue, the tactical disadvantage to the defenders own alliance will limit deployment.

Conclusion:


As I stated in the introduction, I have no problem with current mechanics with regard to cloaking. This idea was more born from talking with people that did, and finding a solution that I believe is fair to both sides. For example, when a POS in your system is being attacked by a large battleship gang, and you and 5 of your friends only have stealth bombers to defend with, you might wish you hadn't installed the Cloak Jamming Array. Alternatives to this plan include: increasing the online time to 5 hours, or rather than a POS module, simply installing the upgrade creates the effect, and it cannot be done away with without getting rid of the upgrade.

Thoughts? (And rather than just saying "NO!" explain why.)
non judgement
Without Fear
Flying Burning Ships Alliance
#2 - 2012-11-13 09:02:00 UTC  |  Edited by: non judgement
The whole point of having a blackop operation becomes completely pointless. Maybe if you had it so a system couldn't be cyno jammed if you're cloak jamming the system? and vice versa?

People would just turn off the cyno jammer and turn on the cloak jammer if they had a problem with cloaky afk people. Seems like an interesting idea. Probably has been suggested before though.

edit: grammar?
Undeadenemy
BOVRIL bOREers Mining CO-OP
Goonswarm Federation
#3 - 2012-11-13 09:06:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Undeadenemy
It wouldn't be pointless, it would just be harder, the Covert Cyno could still be used, and unlike a regular cyno, it still wouldn't show up on the overview. Main thing would be, you couldn't sit with it for days while staying logged in, at least not in that particular system.

Also, consider that in order to have a Cyno Jammer and Cloak Jammer in system, you would be paying 1.2B per month for that system. Sure, people would still do it, but if they were hit hard by an attacking force there, the online Cloak Jammer would prevent the FC from using cloaky scouts and probers to give him an on field tactical advantage, so there would definitely be some give and take with it. That's the whole point really, people have wanted something like this for years, I'm simply saying that if they want it, they should have to pay dearly for it, and it should go both ways.

EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it, you probably could sit for days waiting while logged in, and no one would probe you. I wonder how many "AFK CLOAKER!!!!11!" are actually just throw away alts in noob ships.
Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
#4 - 2012-11-13 09:10:55 UTC
The Issue:

There isn't an issue with AFK cloakers - There is not issue, so why do we harp on this topic?.

The only counter needed is the ability for people to lift themselves up by the boots and fire back.
Undeadenemy
BOVRIL bOREers Mining CO-OP
Goonswarm Federation
#5 - 2012-11-13 09:18:07 UTC
Sean Parisi wrote:
The Issue:

There isn't an issue with AFK cloakers - There is not issue, so why do we harp on this topic?.

The only counter needed is the ability for people to lift themselves up by the boots and fire back.


I believe there is an issue, but its more involved that "fire back." The issue, is that there is no counter to the act of sitting idle in space. My solution is to make it to where NO ONE can cloak in a system, and make receiving that ability expensive. If there were no issue, we wouldn't see people complain about it so much. Personally, I rarely, if ever, rat or mine, so the issue doesn't affect me. In fact, I might have an alt in someones system right now, playing games with their mind.

There is an issue, though, otherwise, we wouldn't be going back and forth about it for years like we have. Also, you cannot fire back at what doesn't engage you. You might respond by saying "if it doesn't engage then there is not threat, but there is a threat. The threat is the possibility that it might engage you, and there really is nothing else you can do but wait for that to happen.
Azrael Dinn
Imperial Mechanics
#6 - 2012-11-13 09:18:33 UTC
Sean Parisi wrote:
The Issue:

There isn't an issue with AFK cloakers - There is not issue, so why do we harp on this topic?.

The only counter needed is the ability for people to lift themselves up by the boots and fire back.


The issue is people like you who say there is no issue and I'm starting to think that by just removing people like you from the forums would be a positive thing cause you just do not know how to say anything constructive to anything.

After centuries of debating and justifying... Break Cloaks tm

Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
#7 - 2012-11-13 09:28:11 UTC
Undeadenemy wrote:
Sean Parisi wrote:
The Issue:

There isn't an issue with AFK cloakers - There is not issue, so why do we harp on this topic?.

The only counter needed is the ability for people to lift themselves up by the boots and fire back.


I believe there is an issue, but its more involved that "fire back." The issue, is that there is no counter to the act of sitting idle in space. My solution is to make it to where NO ONE can cloak in a system, and make receiving that ability expensive. If there were no issue, we wouldn't see people complain about it so much. Personally, I rarely, if ever, rat or mine, so the issue doesn't affect me. In fact, I might have an alt in someones system right now, playing games with their mind.

There is an issue, though, otherwise, we wouldn't be going back and forth about it for years like we have. Also, you cannot fire back at what doesn't engage you. You might respond by saying "if it doesn't engage then there is not threat, but there is a threat. The threat is the possibility that it might engage you, and there really is nothing else you can do but wait for that to happen.


And in doing so you completely remove a valid play style from the game. Where in its essence its entire purpose IS to act as a PSYOP. The best way to counter cloak's is by having a combat contingent. The counter is to out think your enemy and force them to reveal themselves or to prevent them from engaging.

Cloaking ships are relatively week unless picking on targets of opportunity or working in groups. I respect your opinion on the subject and by all means post away. But I personally do not think that stopping people from cloaking is a good way for the game to go. There is an easy and simple counter to them - the problem is most people just cant see it. Anyways, I'm going to sleep; cheers.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#8 - 2012-11-13 09:28:13 UTC
Two problems I can spot right away...

1. It does not matter if your anti-cloaking upgrade affects both friendlies and hostiles alike... the defender has no need to use cloaks as they have all the advantages of having POSs, stations, and back-up being nearby.

2. It still does not address why people afk-cloak to begin with. It's local. As soon as someone enters system all the locals see "non-blues" in system and warp their ships off to safety... leaving any small gang without any viable targets. As soon as that small gang is gone or cleared out everything goes back to normal.

Work on addressing problem number 2 and you'll see afk-cloaking go away.
Rordan D'Kherr
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#9 - 2012-11-13 09:43:05 UTC
Undeadenemy wrote:
The issue, is that there is no counter to the act of sitting idle in space.


That pretty much is the point you should think about again. Do you really believe there is an issue in just watching the screen aka "fishing for targets"? And even there is someone who just is afk and cloaks up in a system to do some griefplay, this allowed griefplay is what this game is all about...


Azrael Dinn wrote:
The issue is people like you who say there is no issue and I'm starting to think that by just removing people like you from the forums would be a positive thing cause you just do not know how to say anything constructive to anything.


So different opinions, replying with facts and figures to falsify things should simply wiped away from the forums? Shocked

Don't be scared, because being afk is not a crime.

Undeadenemy
BOVRIL bOREers Mining CO-OP
Goonswarm Federation
#10 - 2012-11-13 09:54:17 UTC
I understand completely that grief-play is allowed within the game and is in fact encouraged. As I've stated, I have no real problem with the mechanics as they are now. This is simply a possible solution that should be balanced for both sides. Some of you may have missed the cost-prohibitive nature of the module.

If there is a Cloak Jamming Array in one system, you can always go to a different system that does not have it. The problem is, there is no counter, nothing that can be done to prohibit or inhibit the activity. That is the real issue.

I think some people get so caught up in defending griefing, because they feel that a cornerstone of the game is threatened, that they don't look at an issue in such a way as to solve problems. There has to be some solution between what we have now, and what a total care-bear would have.
TehCloud
Guardians of the Dodixie
#11 - 2012-11-13 10:31:35 UTC
There is no Issue: You can still do your sites/mine the crap out of an asteroid belt - Just because you don't dare to do so isn't a reason to nerf cloaking.

My Condor costs less than that module!

Undeadenemy
BOVRIL bOREers Mining CO-OP
Goonswarm Federation
#12 - 2012-11-13 11:02:19 UTC
TehCloud wrote:
There is no Issue: You can still do your sites/mine the crap out of an asteroid belt - Just because you don't dare to do so isn't a reason to nerf cloaking.


There is nothing here that nerfs cloaking.
Azrael Dinn
Imperial Mechanics
#13 - 2012-11-13 11:21:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Azrael Dinn
Rordan D'Kherr wrote:

Azrael Dinn wrote:
The issue is people like you who say there is no issue and I'm starting to think that by just removing people like you from the forums would be a positive thing cause you just do not know how to say anything constructive to anything.


So different opinions, replying with facts and figures to falsify things should simply wiped away from the forums? Shocked


Now so that we stay on topic and to prove my point of view.

Tell me a way how I can go and shoot a ship that is cloaked (and stays cloaked) and I know is in the system? If you can answer this I will change my opinion and also start to say that there is no issue.

And no people should not be removed from the forums cause of their opinions. I'm just getting tired about stupid "there is no issue" comment. People use that way too much and can't even try to step into other peoples shoes and see could there actualy be a problem. So sorry about that comment. i still hate it and it gets me all worked up.

Oh yes and I like the ops idea. It would be equal to everyone but might need abit of tweaking. Not sure what yet. It will come to me soon.

After centuries of debating and justifying... Break Cloaks tm

Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
#14 - 2012-11-13 12:05:51 UTC
Or just do it a simple way, make the covert ops modul go unstable after having been online for a sertain amount of time.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#15 - 2012-11-13 12:32:03 UTC
The fact that TC thinks afk players is a "problem" is laughable.

How can you be so wrong.

Also your solution is stupid.
Undeadenemy
BOVRIL bOREers Mining CO-OP
Goonswarm Federation
#16 - 2012-11-13 12:47:20 UTC
Wulfy Johnson wrote:
Or just do it a simple way, make the covert ops modul go unstable after having been online for a sertain amount of time.


This is what I would rather avoid. I don't think the cloak mechanics themselves are a problem. Hence why the suggestion is to make it unusable for either side provided the defender wants to spend the money and do the infrastructure to nerf themselves.

If an AFK cloaker came over and wanted to AFK cloak a system, but it was Cloak Jammed, they always have the option of doing it next door in a system that isn't cloak jammed. If the Sov holder then wants to Cloak Jam that system they could, provided they install the upgrade that takes a freighter to haul, pay the additional upkeep, and deal with the risk of not being able to cloak themselves, they could do so. Even if an alliance cloak jammed every system they control, in the end, they might find they need to cloak themselves, but can't, because they made a tactical choice. That will be a nice feeling when their Blockade Runner jumps into a camp set up by a roaming gang, or an cloaky, interdicted T3 does the same.

That's the beauty of the idea, if cloaking is irritating the sov holder, they can then decide to disallow it altogether, and pay a steep price for doing so. What they can't do is have their cake and eat it too.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#17 - 2012-11-13 13:01:07 UTC
There's no problem with cloaking, just players unable to deal with it.

Move on to WH's, no more problem with afk cloakers.

brb

Glenn G
North Central Positronics LTD.
#18 - 2012-11-13 13:05:28 UTC
My view on it is that there should be a sov module that can destabilize a cloak with a pulse every hour or so, giving the player 10 seconds to hit cloak again or get de-cloaked, it will not nerf cloaking at all as any player at the keyboard will have plenty of time to hit his or her cloak again. It will however highly discourage afk cloaky camping.

Alternatively, in real life destroyers hunt submarines which are the equivalent of covert ships, Give destroyers a role to find cov ops ships in a similar way to probing maybe but taking much longer. an alert covops pilot will have no trouble avoiding this
Undeadenemy
BOVRIL bOREers Mining CO-OP
Goonswarm Federation
#19 - 2012-11-13 13:11:28 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
There's no problem with cloaking, just players unable to deal with it.

Move on to WH's, no more problem with afk cloakers.


If you read the OP, I stated that I don't have a problem with cloaking. Nothing about this nerfs cloaking, the only thing it does is give a counter to an AFK cloaker being in system all day, at great expense to the local populace. If anything, this solution prevents a possible nerf to cloaking that you'll probably like a lot less.

AFK cloaking is a great grief tactic that proponents will point out causes psychological and financial damage to the victims. With this, you would know that it causes AT LEAST 600M worth of financial damage per system, plus nothing would stop a person from logging off in a system, and logging in to harass the locals, then safing up, dodging the locals for 15 minutes, and then coming back later to do it again. It does nothing to stop griefing against miners and ratters, all it does is remove an ability in one system for great financial and tactical cost.

Hell, extend the online time to 5 hours, that way it prevents alliances from leaving the module off-line until it is needed.
Undeadenemy
BOVRIL bOREers Mining CO-OP
Goonswarm Federation
#20 - 2012-11-13 13:13:14 UTC
Glenn G wrote:
My view on it is that there should be a sov module that can destabilize a cloak with a pulse every hour or so, giving the player 10 seconds to hit cloak again or get de-cloaked, it will not nerf cloaking at all as any player at the keyboard will have plenty of time to hit his or her cloak again. It will however highly discourage afk cloaky camping.

Alternatively, in real life destroyers hunt submarines which are the equivalent of covert ships, Give destroyers a role to find cov ops ships in a similar way to probing maybe but taking much longer. an alert covops pilot will have no trouble avoiding this


Again, this is the type of thing I'm trying to avoid with this solution. I think that cloaking should be an all or nothing affair. Don't want AFK cloakers in your system? Fine, but you don't get to cloak either, plus you pay a hefty upkeep cost.
123Next pageLast page