These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

A way to find cloakers
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#41 - 2012-12-10 10:58:27 UTC
I never know if these threads are trolling

Let me just repeat the same old truths a few more times:
AFK cloakers are incapable of doing anything, they are not an issue
Any limitation (fuel, cap, probes to find them, etc) you introduce do nothing but cripple legitimate, active play. And also destroy wormhole space.

Summary: go back to highsec
Konrad Kane
#42 - 2012-12-10 11:12:23 UTC
Sigras wrote:
#1 is usually an option if you have enough space, and that is legitimate

however I want to focus on #2 for a second . . .

How much of a defense fleet would you suggest I have with me? Enough to kill a small gang? enough to kill a 50 man fleet that could instantly bridge into system on a cyno that was opened from a cloaked ship that you had no way of telling was right next to you? enough to kill the 10 carriers and 5 supercarriers they have waiting to escalate with should you field a defense fleet?

just how many people need to be protecting this one guy ratting?



How much stuff do you think people can jump through a covert cyno?
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#43 - 2012-12-10 12:48:53 UTC
Sigras wrote:
#1 is usually an option if you have enough space, and that is legitimate

however I want to focus on #2 for a second . . .

How much of a defense fleet would you suggest I have with me? Enough to kill a small gang? enough to kill a 50 man fleet that could instantly bridge into system on a cyno that was opened from a cloaked ship that you had no way of telling was right next to you? enough to kill the 10 carriers and 5 supercarriers they have waiting to escalate with should you field a defense fleet?

just how many people need to be protecting this one guy ratting?


How well you protect yourselves is up to your corp/alliance. If you can't even decide how much effort to put in defending yourselves, let alone actually doing it, then you have no place in nullsec.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#44 - 2012-12-10 14:33:29 UTC
Just how many people will quote this? Hard to say, but he asked a magic question that inspired many replies!
Sigras wrote:
#1 is usually an option if you have enough space, and that is legitimate

however I want to focus on #2 for a second . . .

How much of a defense fleet would you suggest I have with me? Enough to kill a small gang? enough to kill a 50 man fleet that could instantly bridge into system on a cyno that was opened from a cloaked ship that you had no way of telling was right next to you? enough to kill the 10 carriers and 5 supercarriers they have waiting to escalate with should you field a defense fleet?

just how many people need to be protecting this one guy ratting?

How many resources should be set aside to protect your PvE infrastructure?

As this is clearly not about high sec, you probably should expect some minimum investment. Concord won't be doing it for you here, after all.
But your question implies, given the context of this thread, that only a hot drop could create a need for such defense. That any fleet traveling directly could be successfully avoided by the obvious warning provided by local.

Having avoided the effective risk from a direct fleet, using local, you now want to remove what players were pushed into using to counter local.

My question, to counter yours, is this:
How do you take yourself seriously, asking for what little risk remains to be removed?
Your magic intel tool is already protecting you at levels rivaling safety in high sec.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#45 - 2012-12-10 16:11:32 UTC
I just stumbled over the obvious solution:
Swap local and constellation chat. Make Constellation chat the required, always on chat channel, and local the optional one that most people aren't in unless they have a reason to be.

This devalues chat channel intel because all you know for sure is that someone is in one of half a dozen or more systems, and still gives a "must have" channel for actual communication.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#46 - 2012-12-10 16:16:29 UTC
Sigras wrote:
#1 is usually an option if you have enough space, and that is legitimate

however I want to focus on #2 for a second . . .

How much of a defense fleet would you suggest I have with me? Enough to kill a small gang? enough to kill a 50 man fleet that could instantly bridge into system on a cyno that was opened from a cloaked ship that you had no way of telling was right next to you? enough to kill the 10 carriers and 5 supercarriers they have waiting to escalate with should you field a defense fleet?

just how many people need to be protecting this one guy ratting?

Rat in a fleet.

Not profitable enough, you say?

There's the problem, not AFK cloakers. Doing things as a fleet should *always* be the more profitable option.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Mag's
Azn Empire
#47 - 2012-12-10 18:20:10 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Just how many people will quote this? Hard to say, but he asked a magic question that inspired many replies!
Sigras wrote:
#1 is usually an option if you have enough space, and that is legitimate

however I want to focus on #2 for a second . . .

How much of a defense fleet would you suggest I have with me? Enough to kill a small gang? enough to kill a 50 man fleet that could instantly bridge into system on a cyno that was opened from a cloaked ship that you had no way of telling was right next to you? enough to kill the 10 carriers and 5 supercarriers they have waiting to escalate with should you field a defense fleet?

just how many people need to be protecting this one guy ratting?

How many resources should be set aside to protect your PvE infrastructure?

As this is clearly not about high sec, you probably should expect some minimum investment. Concord won't be doing it for you here, after all.
But your question implies, given the context of this thread, that only a hot drop could create a need for such defense. That any fleet traveling directly could be successfully avoided by the obvious warning provided by local.

Having avoided the effective risk from a direct fleet, using local, you now want to remove what players were pushed into using to counter local.

My question, to counter yours, is this:
How do you take yourself seriously, asking for what little risk remains to be removed?
Your magic intel tool is already protecting you at levels rivaling safety in high sec.
This.

Sigras do you realise that without cloaking and the seperate mechanic of cynos, that null would in fact be safer than high sec?
There has to be some risk in null.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Sigras
Conglomo
#48 - 2012-12-10 20:04:47 UTC
Konrad Kane wrote:
How much stuff do you think people can jump through a covert cyno?

well generally 5-15 people are a usual gang for BOPS in my experience, but when you open a full cyno, things escalate quickly Who even brought up a covert cyno anyway? you know you can also fit a full cyno to those ships too right?

as far as a general statement to the rest of you, i guess you answered my question. You want anyone doing anything but "uber 1337 pvp" to be flying with a defense fleet large enough to handle whatever can come through the uncounterable cloak + cyno

seriously, the cloak + cyno combination allows unlimited force projection with 0 risk giving full priority to the attacker

I dont actually care that the cloak + cyno CAN happen, in fact i kinda like that it can happen, what bothers me is that even if i saw the guy come in, and know what ship type he's in I cannot do anything about him. He can sit there for the rest of eternity cloaked, completely safe, and when the opportunity strikes him, he can open a cyno and instantly have 250 of his best friends drop in for a drink.

There is literally nothing anyone can do about a cloaker; you guys talk about "risk" and how everything in 0.0 should be "risky" then why is cloaked spying (which you're advocating) the only thing in 0.0 that is ok to be without risk?
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#49 - 2012-12-10 20:14:19 UTC
Cloaked spying is only without risk and effective if you have local chat intel.

Without local chat intel you need to scan and actually fly to various sites to see who's doing what, always with at least a small chance of bouncing too close to a ship or something else in space and getting decloaked.

This risk is only present now for cloaked ship operators when entering and leaving a system, and when actually looking for a target if they are planning on PvP or a hotdrop. They can sit in a system all day noting who comes and goes without risk thanks to that perfect intel channel.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#50 - 2012-12-10 20:23:13 UTC
Sigras wrote:
There is literally nothing anyone can do about a cloaker; you guys talk about "risk" and how everything in 0.0 should be "risky" then why is cloaked spying (which you're advocating) the only thing in 0.0 that is ok to be without risk?

First of all, the fact that you can even know a cloaked vessel is present, having made no effort beyond glancing at local, makes a mockery of cloaking as a play tactic.

Stealthy, hidden, balanced in exchange for this ultra secret stealth capability.... and broadcast like the main street electrical parade the moment it enters the system, thanks to local chat.

It has no effective stealth value, because everyone knows it is present.
Being able to hunt it under these conditions is simply overpowered for the opposing players.

If you want to remove AFK cloaking's game impact, remove cloaked ships from displaying in local.

When this is done, it becomes reasonable to consider means to hunt cloaked vessels. NOT before this happens.

So long as people in a system magically know cloaked pilots are present with them, cloaked vessels should not be vulnerable to being hunted effectively.

Cloaking will be earned when cloaking awareness is earned. Balance must be maintained.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Konrad Kane
#51 - 2012-12-10 21:38:46 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Who even brought up a covert cyno anyway?


Because there is a pretty good counter for normal cynos I assumed you had that covered.
Myfanwy Heimdal
Heimdal Freight and Manufacture Inc
#52 - 2012-12-10 21:40:39 UTC
As I have said earlier; a ship in space is in Local. We don't know if iit's cloaked or not.

If we have logs of all ships going in and out of the system (see my previous post) then the sum total of what's remaining in-system is Local. If a ship then cloaks then it's still in Local. This is why Local is a fair representation of what's in-system. And this is why I think Local is working correctly.

Now, you are correct in that hunting down cloaked ships isn't a game mechanic which should be explored because if there's a demand for a way to find these ships then there will be a demand for better cloaks and then a ridiculous battle for supremacy will go on forever.

Perhaps a cloaked ship shouldn't D-Scan is about the only compromise that I could accept. But other than that I believe that the mechanics work perfectly.

Pam:  I wonder what my name means in Welsh?Nessa: Why?
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#53 - 2012-12-10 22:02:18 UTC
Myfanwy Heimdal wrote:
As I have said earlier; a ship in space is in Local. We don't know if iit's cloaked or not.

If we have logs of all ships going in and out of the system (see my previous post) then the sum total of what's remaining in-system is Local. If a ship then cloaks then it's still in Local. This is why Local is a fair representation of what's in-system. And this is why I think Local is working correctly.

Now, you are correct in that hunting down cloaked ships isn't a game mechanic which should be explored because if there's a demand for a way to find these ships then there will be a demand for better cloaks and then a ridiculous battle for supremacy will go on forever.

Perhaps a cloaked ship shouldn't D-Scan is about the only compromise that I could accept. But other than that I believe that the mechanics work perfectly.

I tend to disagree here.

The idea that local is based on a higher level of technology than cloaking is not consistent with the games logic.
Since cloaking is not based off of second best technology, it should be able to counter local displaying it. There is no in-game explanation I know of to justify this, outside of the idea that players need the intel crutch it provides.

Gate logs exist, as you suggest?
The cloaked vessel, by virtue of having the cloaking technology, should be listed as no longer present while cloaked. The same as if the pilot had logged out removes them from being listed. Local has demonstrated awareness of pilot presence in this manner.
Naturally, they could not access local themselves without being reflagged as present, so they should lose access to local as well.

In my opinion, the presence of absolutes in a sandbox game, flawless local intel or undetectable cloaking, indicates a flaw.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Caprice Azar
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2012-12-10 23:51:15 UTC
Why not just institute an afk timer and remove afk from local? So they only show if they actually perform an action. Thus the afk'ers get to be in system for their intel gathering, and people in system arn't disturbed. The cloaker gets just as much info from locals as their targets, and there's even greater opportunity to catch them with their pants down.

I'm still one of those that think there should be some way of finding an afk cloaker; I always liked the depth-charge idea myself (would have been perfect for the new destros oh well).
Drakio Lemmont
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#55 - 2012-12-11 00:05:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Drakio Lemmont
I have read lots of posts complaining about the cloak. and the AFK cloak.
1. The cloak is what it is and shouldn't be changed except for a timer (IMO)
2. An AFK player should NEVER be rewarded!!!!!!
3. Local should only show peeps that use the system gates.. cyno or WH entries should not show up in local.

I have seen suggestions that the cloak should use fuel so that it can run out on a player while AFK; while I don't believe this is the answer I do think its on the right path.

My answer on how to fix the AFK cloak:
The cloak will only work for a set amount of time before it needs to be "re-calibrated".. lets say 1 hour.
This "re-calibration" is as simple as a button press no fuel no complex changes to the ships.
If the player is AFK and doesn't press the button then he/she is no longer cloaked and can be scanned down and destroyed.

Thanks
Mag's
Azn Empire
#56 - 2012-12-11 00:09:04 UTC
Caprice Azar wrote:
Why not just institute an afk timer and remove afk from local? So they only show if they actually perform an action. Thus the afk'ers get to be in system for their intel gathering, and people in system arn't disturbed. The cloaker gets just as much info from locals as their targets, and there's even greater opportunity to catch them with their pants down.

I'm still one of those that think there should be some way of finding an afk cloaker; I always liked the depth-charge idea myself (would have been perfect for the new destros oh well).
AFK timers are terrible things and so easily bypassed. Plus all your idea would do, is give AFKers another tool to use.

As far as AFKing is concerned, you can do it without a cloak and gain the same psychological effects. That alone, should speak volumes

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#57 - 2012-12-11 00:17:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Drakio Lemmont wrote:
I have read lots of posts complaining about the cloak. and the AFK cloak.
1. The cloak is what it is and shouldn't be changed (IMO)
2. An AFK player should NEVER be rewarded!!!!!!

I have seen suggestions that the cloak should use fuel so that it can run out on a player while AFK; while I don't believe this is the answer I do think its on the right path.

My answer on how to fix the AFK cloak:
The cloak will only work for a set amount of time before it needs to be "re-calibrated".. lets say 1 hour.
This "re-calibration" is as simple as a button press no fuel no complex changes to the ships.
If the player is AFK and doesn't press the button then he/she is no longer cloaked and can be scanned down and destroyed.

Just like BOTS are not allowed AFK tactics shouldn't be allowed

Thanks
Doesn't want cloaks changed, then suggests a nerf to cloaks and no mention of local. Nice work.

Also, what relevance do bots have to this discussion?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Sigras
Conglomo
#58 - 2012-12-11 02:39:35 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Cloaked spying is only without risk and effective if you have local chat intel.

Without local chat intel you need to scan and actually fly to various sites to see who's doing what, always with at least a small chance of bouncing too close to a ship or something else in space and getting decloaked.

This risk is only present now for cloaked ship operators when entering and leaving a system, and when actually looking for a target if they are planning on PvP or a hotdrop. They can sit in a system all day noting who comes and goes without risk thanks to that perfect intel channel.

Even without local, cloaked spying is risk free. Or i guess i should say risk free unless youre an idiot.

currently you can use your directional scanner and ship scanner to find out pretty much what anyone is doing at any time without even being on grid . . . Gasp! using the directional scanner for things other than spamming to see if someone is coming at you?!

seriously, all the distances are given to you by the ship scanner and the overview, beyond that, all you have to know is that 1 AU = 149,597,871 km and your directional scanner does the rest . . . you can tell who is where even from a non-covert-ops cloaked ship! its childs play.

At the very least, they need to disallow use of your directional scan or ship scanner or preferably both while cloaked.
Crimeo Khamsi
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#59 - 2012-12-11 02:45:18 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:
Sigras wrote:
they perceived some risk before and now they perceive a lot more risk.

Perceived risk doesn't blow up your ship. ACTUAL risk blows up your ship. Thus, game design and balancing should focus on ACTUAL risk, not perceived risk.

If you are perceiving things incorrectly, then you are making a mistake, and you need to learn to stop doing it. That's not an issue for game designers to worry about. It's an issue for you to worry about as you learn to be a better player who perceives things accurately

This is incorrect . . . players' actions are determined by their perception of risk regardless of how much risk actually exists . . .

For example, a regular guy will go ratting even if theres an enemy fleet next door that he doesnt know about because he has the same perceived risk as usual even though his actual risk is much higher.

I understand the confusion though because in a general sense, you are correct, For instance if you play starcraft and you think ravens suck, then some genius guy figures out that ravens are actually totally awesome and everyone switches to ravens because thats the meta, it isnt blizzards problem that everyone just didnt know how to play right.

The problem is that in Eve (unlike starcraft) there are consequences and major setbacks to experimentation. You cant just lose a match and say "oh well time to find another match" you have to absorb each of those losses in ISK value, and instead of being willing to do that, a large portion of eve will just move back to high sec.

There is already a large group of people who believe 0.0 just isnt worth it. There is definitely more isk to be made in high sec, it just requires a lot more work

If you take away the player's reliable intel, even though their actual risk is literally no higher if nobody is in system, they will feel the need to spam the directional scanner every .5 seconds to be sure there really is nobody in system.

There is no confusion, because I never said that players' actions are determined by actual risk. I said that game design should be based on actual risk.

It is then the responsibility of the player, if their perceptions do not match reality, to do a better job of playing the game, so that their perceptions DO match reality better. In your example, one way of doing this would be to have better scouting aroudn his system so that fleets can't be next door without him knowing about it. (OR using the starmap feature that tells you # of people in a system to detect approaching or nearby fleets).

CCP shouldn't coddle clueless people by changing game mechanics for them. They should try harder to not be clueless.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#60 - 2012-12-11 03:27:29 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Even without local, cloaked spying is risk free. Or i guess i should say risk free unless youre an idiot.

currently you can use your directional scanner and ship scanner to find out pretty much what anyone is doing at any time without even being on grid . . . Gasp! using the directional scanner for things other than spamming to see if someone is coming at you?!

seriously, all the distances are given to you by the ship scanner and the overview, beyond that, all you have to know is that 1 AU = 149,597,871 km and your directional scanner does the rest . . . you can tell who is where even from a non-covert-ops cloaked ship! its childs play.

At the very least, they need to disallow use of your directional scan or ship scanner or preferably both while cloaked.

With local, Cloaked spying is to spying AS as uniformed officers sitting in a standard squad car is to covert surveillance.

Sure, the people are present to observe things, but the ones being watched are fully aware of it. JimBob won't be logging in his carrier alt, those exhumers will be staying in the POS, and everyone knows they have a reason to behave more carefully than normal.

The intel is compromised and reflects only guarded behavior. Limited value, if any.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...