These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

AFK Cloaking Solution - From A Pro-AFK Cloaking Pilot

First post
Author
Mary Annabelle
Moonlit Bonsai
#61 - 2012-11-13 21:50:43 UTC
Wulfy Johnson wrote:
For one, they aint interacting, two login screen.. does that help you? you are still avoiding the imbalance in the module with goating.

im not here to wage the war against "afk`ers", as that is not my goal, i`d like balance so cloackers can be hunted as anything else floating in space. if its afk its lost, like everything else floating afk in space is lost.. balance.

Wait... whoa there horsey.....

Are you really suggesting that because some people can be hidden in a system, and of course be shown in local, that this is not balanced?

How do you know they are not watching stuff and getting intel? No, I mean real intel using eyeballs and sensors, not a chat channel.

Are you trying to put them out of their misery, because they must be AFK since you cannot shoot them?

Explain this please. Include the part where you aren't being risk averse too, since your objecting to something harmless, if we use your definition of it.
DeadlyStormZ
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#62 - 2012-11-14 08:58:51 UTC
Konrad Kane wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:

So how does this end up benefiting anyone besides the ultra rich alliances with the most memberships?
Why should the game stabilize for them?

This makes every system that has this upgrade a carefully chosen haven, that makes high sec look like a deadly trap by comparison.

This favors the powerful alliances with big wallets.


It's the null bear approach, don't solve a problem by playing the game better - moan until CCP gives you an easy button.

There is a rather effective counter to cloaking players, playing the game with a strategy and not begging for a module based fix button.

How about setting up a defence fleet, baiting this person and then killing them when they take the bait?

Shocking concept I know.


You apparently never experienced being camped 24/7 in null-sec by AFK alts for months.

If I have 24/7 playing eve and a bunch of friends having 24/7 playing eve, this would work.
Undeadenemy
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#63 - 2012-11-14 09:45:49 UTC
Mary Annabelle wrote:
Wulfy Johnson wrote:
For one, they aint interacting, two login screen.. does that help you? you are still avoiding the imbalance in the module with goating.

im not here to wage the war against "afk`ers", as that is not my goal, i`d like balance so cloackers can be hunted as anything else floating in space. if its afk its lost, like everything else floating afk in space is lost.. balance.

Wait... whoa there horsey.....

Are you really suggesting that because some people can be hidden in a system, and of course be shown in local, that this is not balanced?

How do you know they are not watching stuff and getting intel? No, I mean real intel using eyeballs and sensors, not a chat channel.

Are you trying to put them out of their misery, because they must be AFK since you cannot shoot them?

Explain this please. Include the part where you aren't being risk averse too, since your objecting to something harmless, if we use your definition of it.


I have no problem with cloakers showing up in local. I also have no problem with cloak-specialized ships being cloaked indefinitely. In general, I have no problem with the mechanic as it stands.

I've come up with a scenario, where alliances that hold sov could prohibit cloaking altogether. Nothing about this nerfs cloaking at all. You simply can't cloak at all in that system. Whether that benefits only "null-bears" or "rich alliances" I really don't care. They put the money in, if they want something to counter cloaking, then they can have it, but it should be expensive, inconvenient, and a double edged sword.

A lot of the nay-sayers seem caught up thinking I care about AFK Cloakers being around. I invite them to come around, go ahead, you're going to get shot. Give players options, but if they take those options, make those options cost them. People keep asking what gives null pilots the right to have a mechanic that prevents cloaking. I ask, what gives anyone else a right to an uncounterable ability in that null players system?

I think a lot of cloakers think they should be able to operate with impunity. My suggestion still allows cloakers to operate with impunity, but it allows a sov structure to disable cloaking for all parties. The cloaker can always go next door to a non-jammed system, or camp the system with regular ships. They can even take pride in the fact that they caused an alliance to expend significant time, effort, and funds to gain some "protection" in one system. Then to top it all off, they can camp those people in, and then gank their cloakers when they try to get eyes on.
TehCloud
Guardians of the Dodixie
#64 - 2012-11-14 09:54:18 UTC
Yeah that really doesn't nerf cloaking at all. Oh wait, it does.

You couldn't use any Cloaking Ship in their space thus making CovOps useless in Null because you can't use them for scouting or use stealthbombers to bomb a fleet.

Your idea is bad and you should feel bad. So should anybody else who thinks Cloaking should be prohibited and/or detectable.

My Condor costs less than that module!

Undeadenemy
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#65 - 2012-11-14 10:08:04 UTC
TehCloud wrote:
Yeah that really doesn't nerf cloaking at all. Oh wait, it does.

You couldn't use any Cloaking Ship in their space thus making CovOps useless in Null because you can't use them for scouting or use stealthbombers to bomb a fleet.

Your idea is bad and you should feel bad. So should anybody else who thinks Cloaking should be prohibited and/or detectable.


You probably either didn't read or didn't comprehend what I wrote in the OP:

Nothing about this nerfs cloaking, cloaking stays exactly the same.

CovOps would not be useless in Null simply because a Sov Upgrade exists that can disable cloaking altogether. The prohibitive expense will prevent it from being deployed over the vast majority of null, save for a few select systems. If I were suggesting a cheap upgrade, I could understand your concern, but I'm not and I can't.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#66 - 2012-11-14 10:28:13 UTC
DeadlyStormZ wrote:
Seems like this topic has been brought up 1000 times but stil some people think that it's not a problem.

Every machanics in EVE have their counter methods but cloaking in a system somewhere does not.
When there is someone AFK-cloaking in the system and I'm pretty sure what he is up for, the only way to counter it is log-off or do something else.

Let's say there is griefer using multiple alts camping multiple industrial systems 24/7 for black ops hotdrop.
Simple question, what can you do? AFK-docking.
It is not a risk to go out mining but a guaranteed death.
It is also a lose-lose situation and a very bad impression to new players.

Remove local like W-Space?
People failed to know that W-Space cannot lit cynos and WH has 24 hours lifetime.

Let's say now we can lit cyno in W-Space and you can jump to infinite range from anywhere and WH has a week lifetime.
Will you still go out mining or use your shiny nightmares to do C5, C6 sites?
I will use a cloaky sabre to camp your sites for days and check my monitors once per hour.

Let's say we have no local in K-Space.
The number of people who do PvE will be significantly reduced,
simply because it is too risky, oh sorry, it is a suicide.

CCP is aware of this issue but they didn't do anything about it, because it affects so few people.
Those people either already quit the game or leave null-sec and they are not dec-shield.

How long will it takes for us to see an improvement for this?
1 year? 2 years? I say 10 years until some attentive developers look at it.


Lmao at you saying the only thing you can to is log off. You utterly fail at nullsec. Get your candy ass back to highsec.

Here's what you do to deal with cloakers in system: Don't fly minmaxed pve ships - fit with combat in mind and wipe out the cov ops / tackle. Have a few buddies in a fleet ready, safety in numbers and all that. Move to the system next door, if he doesn't follow you he's AFK and no threat at all. Etc.

If you can't or are unwilling to do any of these kinds of things, then you have no claim to nullsec. Bye.
yugi272
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#67 - 2012-11-14 11:26:48 UTC
Id like to add my 2 cents by combining 2 ideas, one from the topic starter and the other from someone else. I agree afk cloaking is bad, teribad evenly, my suggestion is to make a beacon or something that would be anchored somewhere in a system, and i agree emiting a pulse every say 50min - 1hr 25mins (just for randomness sake) that would decloak the target and it wouldn't be able to cloak for say 10 seconds or so. I also agree that it should be a heavy penalty for keeping it online. Say give it 50mil armor 1bil per month cost and the ability to disrupt any forcefields in system making it unable to put up poses in said system.
I think it's a good tradeoff considering everything.

thoughts?
Akrasjel Lanate
Immemorial Coalescence Administration
Immemorial Coalescence
#68 - 2012-11-14 11:28:42 UTC
AFK cloakers are AFK Shocked

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude

Konrad Kane
#69 - 2012-11-14 12:01:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Konrad Kane
DeadlyStormZ wrote:
Konrad Kane wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:

So how does this end up benefiting anyone besides the ultra rich alliances with the most memberships?
Why should the game stabilize for them?

This makes every system that has this upgrade a carefully chosen haven, that makes high sec look like a deadly trap by comparison.

This favors the powerful alliances with big wallets.


It's the null bear approach, don't solve a problem by playing the game better - moan until CCP gives you an easy button.

There is a rather effective counter to cloaking players, playing the game with a strategy and not begging for a module based fix button.

How about setting up a defence fleet, baiting this person and then killing them when they take the bait?

Shocking concept I know.


You apparently never experienced being camped 24/7 in null-sec by AFK alts for months.

If I have 24/7 playing eve and a bunch of friends having 24/7 playing eve, this would work.


So you and your friends have had to dock up in a station because of a single afk cloaker. Damn, maybe CCP could come up with a feature that let's you put guns on ships and team up to fight? That would be cool.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#70 - 2012-11-14 14:44:55 UTC
Undeadenemy wrote:
CovOps would not be useless in Null simply because a Sov Upgrade exists that can disable cloaking altogether. The prohibitive expense will prevent it from being deployed over the vast majority of null, save for a few select systems. If I were suggesting a cheap upgrade, I could understand your concern, but I'm not and I can't.

This sounds more like pay-to-win now. I am sure we can think of at least a couple alliances that might abuse this, in order to further lock down their territory.

Pay-to-win is still pay-to-win, especially if a limited number are the only ones who can afford the feature. If not everyone could afford this, then it is a gift to the wealthiest alliances exclusively.

Your described client for this upgrade likely has been able to lock down their territory against brute force already. Take away covert interventions into their space, and what risk is left to them?

This is NOT balanced with local also functioning as intel. If you were to drop the intel aspect from local, the following might work:
The only realistic way this upgrade could make sense, and this fails for the simple reason alliances can be rearranged to take advantage of it:
Alliances with X systems or other condition can designate a capital system.
This capital system has an upgrade in each of the supporting systems, so that the capital system can be able to use your upgrade.
ONLY the capital system.
Only one capital system per alliance.
Taking out the upgrade in any of the supporting systems drops the protection in the capital.

At least that way, this broken mechanic could be spread around so it would be balanced.
Please understand, this is a strike against cloaking effectively the same as being able to hunt them, since they cannot cloak in the specified system. This is NOT balanced with local also functioning as intel, as stated above.
Matthias Vilmet
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#71 - 2012-11-14 14:57:13 UTC
You know, instead of negating all cloaking constantly with such a module....
... if it just let off a pulse ever 5-10 minutes. That would solve the AFK.... in the AFK cloaking problem.

Then, active cloakers can just reclick their cloak. AFK cloakers will have problems....

Really though, grow some balls. We cloakers own you with fear.
Mole Guy
Bob's Bait and Tackle
#72 - 2012-11-14 15:02:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Mole Guy
technically speaking, the power requirements needed to maintain a system wide anti-cloak pulse would be tremendous.

being on the receiving end, i personally dont like afk cloaking. but, i personally think its a very good tactic though and the psy-ops associated with it are long reaching and long lasting. a guy hiding in a system for days waiting for a kill or just to disrupt money makin is gay...but VERY effective.

a pulse, as mentioned, how about this though, a pulse that can be charged from a pos to hit a system. itll uncloak all ships, but they can recloak in about 15 seconds. its an active pulse and like pos guns, the module would have to me taken control of to be charged and fired.
this can translate into 3 different size mods for ships too.

ships will be limited in range. like frigs and dessies will be able to pulse a grid, cruisers get out to so many km (like maybe 1500km) incase they are sitting 400k away watching....bs maybe more. 3m km or whatever.

this would work like sonar on war ships. you're in the silent service stalking ships coming in for a quick kill when wll of the sudden you hear "BINGGGGG!!!" they fired up their active sonar and pulsed to see what was there. foiled, you retreat to the darkness with a war ship hot on your tail.

im throwing random numbers out, but its the idea i am trying to pass on.
maybe frigs get 100km, cruisers 500km and bs 1m km? a pos can hit system wide, but it uses ALOT of energy so its a slow 15 minute charge time.

thoughts?
Salm0neus
Dead's Prostitutes
The Initiative.
#73 - 2012-11-14 15:04:20 UTC
What about creating something like an EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse)?

This would offer an entire new style of play to the game.

- A skill book would be created for this, depending on your skill level depends on the area that would be effected Level 1 = 10km +25% each level (max 30.51km)
- The mod fits into the High slot, has to be used on something other then a T1 Frig.
- When discharged, it disables anything within the radius including itself for say 1 minute. You would be sitting in space not being about to do anything for that time. You take a chance every time you discharge it.
- A ship could be created for each race around this mod too. 10% increase in radius (49.15km maxed skills), -10% time (down to 35.43 seconds) you would be disabled per skill level.
- Cannot be discharged in High or low sec

Matthias Vilmet
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#74 - 2012-11-14 15:06:38 UTC
Dear god you come up with an solution and two people copy it right after you. lol.

Of course, I didn't read the entire thread, I might be copying someone else.
Mole Guy
Bob's Bait and Tackle
#75 - 2012-11-14 15:10:16 UTC
Matthias Vilmet wrote:
Dear god you come up with an solution and two people copy it right after you. lol.

Of course, I didn't read the entire thread, I might be copying someone else.


u and i started typing at the same time, my idea took longer to get on the page...
i didnt copy u what so ever.
altho, your idea has merit...mines a little more in depth..=)
Salm0neus
Dead's Prostitutes
The Initiative.
#76 - 2012-11-14 15:22:09 UTC
Mole Guy wrote:
Matthias Vilmet wrote:
Dear god you come up with an solution and two people copy it right after you. lol.

Of course, I didn't read the entire thread, I might be copying someone else.


u and i started typing at the same time, my idea took longer to get on the page...
i didnt copy u what so ever.
altho, your idea has merit...mines a little more in depth..=)


it was 4 pages of ideas, i read page one, half way through page two and said screw it, and just wrote that down. Sorry guys, never read your posts lol. If you did start it, it was a good idea lol
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#77 - 2012-11-14 15:54:28 UTC
How about instead of horrifically stupid and unbalanced modules, structures, etc you whining little babies just HTFU or better yet sod off back to highsec.
Mole Guy
Bob's Bait and Tackle
#78 - 2012-11-14 18:29:29 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
How about instead of horrifically stupid and unbalanced modules, structures, etc you whining little babies just HTFU or better yet sod off back to highsec.


oooh my goodness, im so skerd...
i better go back to high sec just like im told..

how about we dont bash or flame folks, have some respect like the rules say.
if WE want a change, we have the right to post it. thats what this forum is about.

if you dont like it, please, by all means let us know why. thats YOUR right...


anyway, i think its a good idea. if you suspect a black ops party in your system, get yours guys ready and pulse the beacon.
decloak folks to confirm it. bring in the QRF (gunslinger, that means quick reaction force..i figure someone who speaks as you must be about 13 and never been involved in real military ops like the rest of us who have respect for each other)
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#79 - 2012-11-14 18:37:32 UTC
Mole Guy wrote:
anyway, i think its a good idea. if you suspect a black ops party in your system, get yours guys ready and pulse the beacon.
decloak folks to confirm it. bring in the QRF.

Do try to keep in mind the only reason it is not considered balanced to hunt cloaked vessels as effectively as you are suggesting.

Cloaking has already been broken for some time. It is balanced, however.

Sound like a contradiction? Then you also assume balance implies functionality, which it does not.

Cloaking is broken by local reporting it, in an absolutely reliable manner. This is broken.

It is however, balanced by:

You absolutely cannot locate a cloaked vessel, unless they let you, or make a mistake. This is also broken.

Since both sides are countering each other, it is in balance.

Sadly, this leaves cloaking as a meta gaming tool. Many people enjoy this play, so to them there is no problem at all.
Jin alPatar
Entertainment 7wenty
The Burning Contingent Alliance
#80 - 2012-11-14 18:38:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Jin alPatar
Undeadenemy wrote:

You probably either didn't read or didn't comprehend what I wrote in the OP:

Nothing about this nerfs cloaking, cloaking stays exactly the same.

CovOps would not be useless in Null simply because a Sov Upgrade exists that can disable cloaking altogether. The prohibitive expense will prevent it from being deployed over the vast majority of null, save for a few select systems. If I were suggesting a cheap upgrade, I could understand your concern, but I'm not and I can't.


If this isn't a nerf, let's apply it to something different but similar.

Missiles. Missiles allow quite a bit of flexibility in damage type and have great damage projection. Let's invent a module that will prevent any sort of "ballistic guidance system" from working in a system wide basis. When active, missiles have a chance to hit their target based on range & sig radius. (< 1%)

We make it an expensive module and it affects EVERYONE, the people that put it up, and the people they're protecting themselves against.

In this scenario, would you say that missiles were getting a nerf?

Of course you would. And that's why people are saying your suggesting is effectively nerfing cloaks.

And one thing we should have all learned by now is that nothing in EvE can remain "prohibitively expensive" forever.


I'm sorry, but your idea is bad.