These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The AFK cloaky problem.

Author
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#121 - 2013-04-07 02:56:19 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Lucien Visteen wrote:
from the top of your head, what could that re-tooling be.

I want to completely redo the cloak, yes. This will also involve basicly everyone to adapt. I might be looking too far ahead of myself.

But one can hope.

Oh, I can be pretty specific on that too.

You might even like the concept details, who knows....

How I would change local, and eliminate AFK issues:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2369739#post2369739

How would cloaking be adapted after such changes:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2668453#post2668453


Worked like a summoning charm P

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Iagus Damaclese
Doomheim
#122 - 2013-04-07 03:32:42 UTC
Universal fact

AFK cloakers are only as effective as the system owners allow them to be.

Viable solutions

If you have an AFK cloaker in your system, move one system over, or two systems over, or into a friendly system for the time being.

Make an unrelenting effort to scan the AFKC down, he will eventually screw up or make a move it is only a matter of time, and in doing so he will leave himself obpen to be scanned down.

from my experience, the primary issue with AFK cloakers is that most people just seem to lose their patience with them and as a result the AFK cloaker wins in the end. In dealing with AFKCs it is like playing a game of chess, you have to wait, move, deceive, wait some more, attack/bait. The key is keeping a random unpredictable pattern of behavior amongst everyone. In the end there is only so much one can do, and this is the nature of war, no one likes their enemy having an advantage over them, but it is the way war is and there is nothing fair about it. So why should it be fair in a place like nullsec.

Another idea is to setup an AFK cloaker of your own in the home system of the AFK cloaker in your own, and in a sense creating your own little russo-american stand off.

The only problem I see with AFK cloaking is that it is unlike anything else in the eve universe in that no one has found a sure fire tactic that works against it. For a game like eve this is healthy, because predictability kills a game. As soon as you take the unknown away from the game you may as well not even play it anymore be
supernova ranger
The End of Eternity
#123 - 2013-04-07 15:09:42 UTC
Lucien Visteen wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
1. Psy warfare is part of emergent game play.
2. Going AFK can lull the residents into a false sense of security leading to a kill.

Showing that a player is AFK also means it shows when they are not...that will prevent both 1 and 2.


AFK though is not emergent gameplay.

And lulling the residents can be achieved easier if they see that you are afk.

The main issue again though seems to be about the killing, and again linked to ambushing.

To supernova:

Im not sure I follow you here. It kinda reminds me of another idea someone had. It involved some sort of module that could "hide" ships within it but that was also dependent on the local system being redone.

Hopefully something to consider if CCP gets brave enought to do just that.

OH, perhaps you could too, tell me why you would think showing afk is a bad thing in relation to cloaking?

DataRunner Attor wrote:
It because, many AFK players HAVE to go afk in a system to even get a chance to getting a Kill, as soon as they stop being AFK, and that's been shown, then his possible kill will...guess what...Warp away.


Thank you.


I think the biggest issue is there isn't another option for characters to safely not get blown up when they need to take a break... players are vulnerable when they are logging on/off and (un)docking, docking isnt even an option sometimes. So going afk while cloaked is the only answer.

I would still say afk cloakies are emergent because they can be used for griefing or as a part of much larger operations. Your not checking whats going on often but that makes it no different then PI which you can access once a week and collect once a month... Over a period of time though your still doing something.

In regards to the shimmer, I only say make it big enough so that people know that the person hasn't touched his/her computer through D-scan but can't use it to pinpoint their location to a celestial. Most afk players will just hide at a planet is they are being lazy and if they forget to move... The mechanic could be used to hunt them down or prepare combat probes for when they have to decloak. Having any means to hunt down a cloaky is taking things way too far.
El Geo
Warcrows
#124 - 2013-04-07 17:02:13 UTC
Just tie in the local channel with some sort of SOV upkeep ISK sink and have done with it, the SOV holder pays the amount to have a local channel bang you have one, if not, welcome to w-space with gates. (This would also fit in lore wise as empire space pays its bills, npc space gets paid by the npc's and ofc no one pays for w-space local, but maybe they could with some sort of pos module....)

Who knows, but I sure am tired of people complaining about AFK cloakies in nullsec, I think they are playing the wrong game.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#125 - 2013-04-07 19:25:51 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
From my point of view, the problem is not with AFK at all, it is with the potential threat projected by an invunerable ship.


Instead of trying to find a way to nerf cloaks, how about we just make it so you cant fit a cyno and a cloak on the same ship?

Now you have your intel gathering tool, your threat to bots (though you may have to bring several to properly roll some mining and PvE type ships, etc... but the threat level of the ships can be properly evaluated. Without the possiblity of a cyno and hotdropping the threat the ship projects can be accurately determined and properly prepared for, though not actively removed.

Other adjustments can be made instead. Make Cyno's able to gate in only one ship at a time, with a substancial cool down and/or bulky fuel use per ship brought in this way. Each ship gated in could then gate another ship, making moving a large fleet time consuming and a bit more of a logistics chore to organize.

I know that the folks that enjoy the SOV games will hate this, but it does solve most of the "problem" without touching cloaks.


You're in nullsec, if you can't deal with the threats inherent in that type of space then do not live in that type of space
supernova ranger
The End of Eternity
#126 - 2013-04-08 02:35:26 UTC  |  Edited by: supernova ranger
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
From my point of view, the problem is not with AFK at all, it is with the potential threat projected by an invunerable ship.


Instead of trying to find a way to nerf cloaks, how about we just make it so you cant fit a cyno and a cloak on the same ship?

Now you have your intel gathering tool, your threat to bots (though you may have to bring several to properly roll some mining and PvE type ships, etc... but the threat level of the ships can be properly evaluated. Without the possiblity of a cyno and hotdropping the threat the ship projects can be accurately determined and properly prepared for, though not actively removed.

Other adjustments can be made instead. Make Cyno's able to gate in only one ship at a time, with a substancial cool down and/or bulky fuel use per ship brought in this way. Each ship gated in could then gate another ship, making moving a large fleet time consuming and a bit more of a logistics chore to organize.

I know that the folks that enjoy the SOV games will hate this, but it does solve most of the "problem" without touching cloaks.


You're in nullsec, if you can't deal with the threats inherent in that type of space then do not live in that type of space


but I need to pee!

edit: but seriously though this statement is far too greedy... your telling the afk players that they have to pod themselves now instead of going cloaky afk... I definitively put that in the the "failed" solutions category.
Lord Fudo
Doomheim
#127 - 2013-04-08 04:01:20 UTC
Cardano Firesnake wrote:
I know that is an excellent way to reduce the farm in the game.
But I do not think it is the better solution.

I don't mind having an hostile in my system. The problem to me is the fact I cannot be sure he is behind his computer.
There is no way to bait a guy that is not playing. So it is useless to try.
It is alreday really hard to catch a cloak ship but it is even more boring to try to catch a player that is not playing.

Their should have a counter measure for each action in the game but the only counter measure for AFK cloaky is going to AFK cloak the farming zone of the Afk cloaky corpmates . Quite annoying and simply not a funny game.

Please Fix that.


All you nullbears and your "fix afk cloakers but don't take away my local"........... The day CCP removes local, I'll be flying around nullsec collecting all the tears.

Problem: AFK Cloakers
Solution: Remove Local Channel
Onomerous
Negative-Impact
Sedition.
#128 - 2013-04-08 12:40:45 UTC
The only problem with AFK cloaking is all the tears and moaning about it (and they number of threads starting about it). They need to nerf that!!!
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#129 - 2013-04-08 16:08:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Lord Fudo wrote:
Cardano Firesnake wrote:
I know that is an excellent way to reduce the farm in the game.
But I do not think it is the better solution.

I don't mind having an hostile in my system. The problem to me is the fact I cannot be sure he is behind his computer.
There is no way to bait a guy that is not playing. So it is useless to try.
It is alreday really hard to catch a cloak ship but it is even more boring to try to catch a player that is not playing.

Their should have a counter measure for each action in the game but the only counter measure for AFK cloaky is going to AFK cloak the farming zone of the Afk cloaky corpmates . Quite annoying and simply not a funny game.

Please Fix that.


All you nullbears and your "fix afk cloakers but don't take away my local"........... The day CCP removes local, I'll be flying around nullsec collecting all the tears.

Problem: AFK Cloakers
Solution: Remove Local Channel


And if they remove local you will be producing loads of tears as all your targets are in HS running incursions, then you will be asking to nerf HS.

Its fine as it is, cloaking and local, it works, the only people who moan are those that can't deal with it, be it the carebears who cannot operate with a threat in local or the gankbears who cannot gank someone because they use local for intel, HTFU both of you!

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#130 - 2013-04-08 16:17:53 UTC
I rearranged these items for the sake of my response.
Dracvlad wrote:
Its fine as it is, cloaking and local, it works, the only people who moan are those that can't deal with it, be it the carebears who cannot operate with a threat in local or the gankbears who cannot gank someone because they use local for intel, HTFU both of you!

Well, I would not call them all gankbears.

Some of them are legit PvE players who are sick of rewards being dumbed down to levels comparable to high sec space.
And why, might some ask, are these rewards so much alike?

Because the risks are.
When you dumb down one side, the other drops because they are tied together.

Dracvlad wrote:
And if they remove local you will be producing loads of tears as all your targets are in HS running incursions, then you will be asking to nerf HS.

What targets?

Noone running off to high sec will be missed, ever, because they were never PvP targets to begin with. Their presence in null sec may have created the impression that null was busier, but they avoided combat more successfully than their high sec brethren who could still be suicide ganked.

The only time any of these ever died was due to pilot error, since they never chose deliberate risk.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#131 - 2013-04-08 16:26:40 UTC
DataRunner Attor wrote:
I just want to pick apart this real quick.

First, you say we want to remove local so we can get easy kills. Of course, that would be incorrect, you fail to take note that without local, it that much harder for a /hunter/ to find usable targets, that means your hot drop cyno alts will have to go out deeper and deeper to find said target, which in turn will cause the hotdrop fleet to move around. This will reveal a notable footprint on the map that you can easily check up on every 30 minutes. Also, what is this..."Other intel?" You speak of? D-scanner? Sure, you can D-scan people down, but, they can D-scan you back, and they don't require probes to find your probes hunting for them.

Cloaking, and Cyno was developed as a counter to local, Cloaking makes local unreliable, if you have someone sitting there 24/7, not knowing if he there or not. And Cyno bypasses local's report system, until the very last minute, also known as hot dropping to some.

I think the current problem is we are having is that local is the biggest issue, that caused a-lot of band-aids to be placed ontop of one another, Local is the starting point of it all, band-aids were applied, and thus now we have cloaking, and Cynos, or Hot-dropping as some called it. Now, what I think CCP fears is that, if they remove local, what will happen to their band-aid bridge? Will it keep standing or will it....Fall and burn?


Let me get this clear, you are telling me that you do not use Dotlan and the in game map to locate systems which have a target in them? The perfect intel for the hunters is there, I have used it. The hot drop fleet will often sit in one place next to a Titan, they have a Titan range and they operate within that, at times they will use a Titan in another system for different ranges, now with the in game map you can see active cyno's, so you can get some warning, but not if there are beacons. Also are you telling me that I can D-scan a cloaked ship?

And I am perfectly happy to have cloaking and cyno's, it may be that what you say here is correct, I have been playing since 2009, but it seems more like that cloaks were, not cyno's.

Local is a tool, and as I tried to point out in another thread (and got insulted for it) that people think its infallible, but its only as good as the person/people using it, I gave an example of how when multi-tasking you can initially miss a person coming in local, anyway, I do not think CCP will nerf cloaking or change it, I do not think they will remove local and all these threads bleating on about AFK cloaking and remove local are wasted hot air.

I will try again, I pointed out in the other thread the intel on Dotlan and on the game map is akin to local, my suggestion (attacked by gank bears) was to remove that data too, so that space would become big dark and unknown so that people would have to scout for targets and that blowing up wrecks actually was worthwhile, but the wham bang I got a kill wheres my next one crowd did not like that, its not fair to have to work for a kill. If I had the ability to hide my activity in 0.0 then I would be happy to lose local, in fact I would welcome it!

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#132 - 2013-04-08 16:39:15 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
I will try again, I pointed out in the other thread the intel on Dotlan and on the game map is akin to local, my suggestion (attacked by gank bears) was to remove that data too, so that space would become big dark and unknown so that people would have to scout for targets and that blowing up wrecks actually was worthwhile, but the wham bang I got a kill wheres my next one crowd did not like that, its not fair to have to work for a kill. If I had the ability to hide my activity in 0.0 then I would be happy to lose local, in fact I would welcome it!

I want my mining to stop being comparable to any PvE activity in high sec.

I want it to be more dangerous, and the only way to make that happen is to make it more dangerous for everyone. If I voluntarily were to ignore local's warnings I would place myself at an obvious disadvantage.

Raise the bar on effort, and raise the bar on risk.
This will raise the bar on rewards.

People who prefer low effort can still play in high sec, and good for them.

If people want to profile PvE locations through the tools you describe, they leave themselves open to intel manipulation too.
Pilots who will deliberately look for low activity areas to avoid the hunters seeking the high activity places.

Tactics that we cannot use effectively, because right now a hunter pokes his head in, sees the menu of all the locals present, and needs do absolutely nothing to know they are present to be hunted.

Dumbing it down hurts rewards.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#133 - 2013-04-08 16:42:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I rearranged these items for the sake of my response.
Dracvlad wrote:
Its fine as it is, cloaking and local, it works, the only people who moan are those that can't deal with it, be it the carebears who cannot operate with a threat in local or the gankbears who cannot gank someone because they use local for intel, HTFU both of you!

Well, I would not call them all gankbears.

Some of them are legit PvE players who are sick of rewards being dumbed down to levels comparable to high sec space.
And why, might some ask, are these rewards so much alike?

Because the risks are.
When you dumb down one side, the other drops because they are tied together.

Dracvlad wrote:
And if they remove local you will be producing loads of tears as all your targets are in HS running incursions, then you will be asking to nerf HS.

What targets?

Noone running off to high sec will be missed, ever, because they were never PvP targets to begin with. Their presence in null sec may have created the impression that null was busier, but they avoided combat more successfully than their high sec brethren who could still be suicide ganked.

The only time any of these ever died was due to pilot error, since they never chose deliberate risk.


I would call them gankbears, its like the ganking of mining ships, when mining ships had the tank of a wet paper bag they were all at it, now they have moved on to industrials, while only dedicated people go after mining ships. They are gank bears and want it made easy for them to get a kill and moan if it is not easy, but as for your comments can you explain what you are getting at as it makes no sense.

In terms of your second point, the player concerned was talking about going after the ones I suggested would be running off to HS, so I was pointing out that he would be disappointed coming to Null Sec to kill them. Not everyone who rats in 0.0 is totally risk adverse, as far as I am concerned those people who dock up and stop doing something in system with an AFK cloaker in system are just as lame as the AFk cloaky camper.

EDIT: From you're next post I see your a nerf HS player, nah, HS is a boring place

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#134 - 2013-04-08 17:05:52 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
I would call them gankbears, its like the ganking of mining ships, when mining ships had the tank of a wet paper bag they were all at it, now they have moved on to industrials, while only dedicated people go after mining ships. They are gank bears and want it made easy for them to get a kill and moan if it is not easy, but as for your comments can you explain what you are getting at as it makes no sense.

You need to stop assuming that PvE pilots want local.

I am speaking as a PvE pilot, and because of local my rewards in null sec are very similar to what I could earn in high sec.

The only PvE pilots who want local, are the ones with poorly functioning support, who cannot get either enough intel or defense, possibly both.
They should return to high sec until they can arrange for proper coverage.

Dracvlad wrote:
In terms of your second point, the player concerned was talking about going after the ones I suggested would be running off to HS, so I was pointing out that he would be disappointed coming to Null Sec to kill them. Not everyone who rats in 0.0 is totally risk adverse, as far as I am concerned those people who dock up and stop doing something in system with an AFK cloaker in system are just as lame as the AFk cloaky camper.

And my point was that the players who docked up the moment a threat appeared would never be missed, since they never participated at all.

Those who are not risk averse are likely to find a more effort intensive null to be worth their play time.

Dracvlad wrote:
EDIT: From you're next post I see your a nerf HS player, nah, HS is a boring place

Nerf high sec? I would never suggest high sec be nerfed. Null is already nerfed to high sec levels, and I would not wish that numbing frustration on even more players.

My point is that the rewards in null need to be significantly more than you could earn in high sec, but for that to happen the risks need to be higher too.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#135 - 2013-04-08 18:39:07 UTC
I see where you are coming from now. You do not want local as you are in a big enough alliance/corp that can setup intel around gates. Your main focus as a player is mining which apart from the people in space on the Eve map does not show as active, so local not being there enables you to hide you activity as long as you are far enough away from D-scan range of the gate. Your point of view is understandable, but those doing carrier ratting would want local, do I really have to explain why?

You talk about people docking up as soon as a threat turned up in local, but would I go and fight them with a PVE ship, or should I dock up and get into something more PvP orientated. To sit there and engage a PvP ship with one fitted for PvE is gross stupidity. If you mean at that point those that docked up and did not come out to fight then I would agree with you, but in my experience the majority of people I came across in SAS, Pirate Nation, IRC and briefly Executive Outcomes would dock up and go out to fight unless the fleet was too big to engage.

When in Pirate Nation an engagement with Convicted comes to mind, they came into UQY, we were ratting in Apoc's, we went back to the POS to reship, there was a Loki which was in scan, I jumped through into the next system in a Falcon, saw the Rook and Cynabal, so we got into combat ships and went after them, result one dead Loki, and before you asked I changed to a Rapier. But to sit there in PvE Apoc's and say come on bro is the height of stupidity.

Without local, only at peak times when you have full on hot drop support would you risk a carrier ratting, many of you would say that is a good thing, but then again that person who rats in a carrier is now going to be in HS doing Incursions or level 4 missions, but they are both so mind numbingly boring that he will soon decide to leave the game and if you think that is a good thing, then your wrong.

Anyway, I tend to makae a lot more ISK in 0.0 than in HS, because at the end of the day I would rather have all my teeth pulled out then run Incursions...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#136 - 2013-04-08 19:16:38 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
I see where you are coming from now. You do not want local as you are in a big enough alliance/corp that can setup intel around gates. Your main focus as a player is mining which apart from the people in space on the Eve map does not show as active, so local not being there enables you to hide you activity as long as you are far enough away from D-scan range of the gate. Your point of view is understandable, but those doing carrier ratting would want local, do I really have to explain why?

.....

Anyway, I tend to make a lot more ISK in 0.0 than in HS, because at the end of the day I would rather have all my teeth pulled out then run Incursions...

You assume much.

I ask for nothing more than the ability to EARN better rewards. Not have preset levels of risk dictated by having intel given to everyone for free. Are we all happy being spoon fed intel as if we could not get this on our own?
Oh, goody goody, we can see each other in local. Now I can get safe before you have any chance to reach me, and you know exactly where I am from the possible systems around.
If I shift over you know instantly. You may not know which belt I am in, but you know I am there somewhere.
A small child could work with this level of difficulty.

This is the definition of boring. Oh, and bonus! Because the rewards are dumbed down to match that risk, I need to mine or rat even longer to compensate.

In any case, the big alliances could not care less, since you won't be popping into their space without major effort. That is probably the most likely place to find a ratting carrier anyways....
supernova ranger
The End of Eternity
#137 - 2013-04-08 19:28:31 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
I would call them gankbears, its like the ganking of mining ships, when mining ships had the tank of a wet paper bag they were all at it, now they have moved on to industrials, while only dedicated people go after mining ships. They are gank bears and want it made easy for them to get a kill and moan if it is not easy, but as for your comments can you explain what you are getting at as it makes no sense.

You need to stop assuming that PvE pilots want local.

I am speaking as a PvE pilot, and because of local my rewards in null sec are very similar to what I could earn in high sec.

The only PvE pilots who want local, are the ones with poorly functioning support, who cannot get either enough intel or defense, possibly both.
They should return to high sec until they can arrange for proper coverage.

Dracvlad wrote:
In terms of your second point, the player concerned was talking about going after the ones I suggested would be running off to HS, so I was pointing out that he would be disappointed coming to Null Sec to kill them. Not everyone who rats in 0.0 is totally risk adverse, as far as I am concerned those people who dock up and stop doing something in system with an AFK cloaker in system are just as lame as the AFk cloaky camper.

And my point was that the players who docked up the moment a threat appeared would never be missed, since they never participated at all.

Those who are not risk averse are likely to find a more effort intensive null to be worth their play time.

Dracvlad wrote:
EDIT: From you're next post I see your a nerf HS player, nah, HS is a boring place

Nerf high sec? I would never suggest high sec be nerfed. Null is already nerfed to high sec levels, and I would not wish that numbing frustration on even more players.

My point is that the rewards in null need to be significantly more than you could earn in high sec, but for that to happen the risks need to be higher too.


War targets, I need local to see war targets and potential gankers when I'm mining - and don't say get a defense fleet, it isn't efficient or done... for some reason pvpers don't like to babysit miners.............. can't imagine why..............

So local does have it's purpose and is one of the stronger game mechanics of this game being that it provides allot in terms of capability for the attacker or defender. If you just yank it from the game, operation mechanics and a whole lot of other things will also have change to make a monstrous butterfly effect.

Without a local, clandestine tactics will rule the skies and be able to move deep into enemy territory while not tipping anyone off. If that happens... well no one will be safe or able to defend. Disappearing into the shadows to reappear at your back with a knife...

So here is an alternative:

Each game client checks so the player's activity over the last 30min on every half hour (11:30, 12:00, 12:30, etc.).... If there is player activity, nothing happens. If there is no player activity a system message that locks out your client pops up saying "you are afk" and requires you to hit "OK" to unlock it. While you are afk you are removed from local regardless of the state of your ship (cloaked/uncloaked) or in a station and this would be applicable to all players in null low or high.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#138 - 2013-04-08 19:43:24 UTC
Bolded my responses within the original message, it doesn't like end quotes happening so often.

supernova ranger wrote:
War targets, I need local to see war targets and potential gankers when I'm mining - and don't say get a defense fleet, it isn't efficient or done... for some reason pvpers don't like to babysit miners.............. can't imagine why..............
War targets are meaningless in null. Typical policy of NBSI defines everyone outside your allies as a target.

So local does have it's purpose and is one of the stronger game mechanics of this game being that it provides allot in terms of capability for the attacker or defender. If you just yank it from the game, operation mechanics and a whole lot of other things will also have change to make a monstrous butterfly effect.
Without being spoon fed intel, we will need to rely on ourselves and our allies to make up the difference.
This means effort.
With effort, it is possible to compete against those performing similar tasks, as well as against those seeking to attack you directly.
This means competition, and consequently risk.
With risk actually present, and not forced to preset levels by automatic intel, rewards can become balanced to match.
This means null and high sec won't be comparable like they are now.


Without a local, clandestine tactics will rule the skies and be able to move deep into enemy territory while not tipping anyone off. If that happens... well no one will be safe or able to defend. Disappearing into the shadows to reappear at your back with a knife...
An assumption, based on the idea that noone will adapt or even attempt new tactics. Not realistic.

So here is an alternative:

Each game client checks so the player's activity over the last 30min on every half hour (11:30, 12:00, 12:30, etc.).... If there is player activity, nothing happens. If there is no player activity a system message that locks out your client pops up saying "you are afk" and requires you to hit "OK" to unlock it. While you are afk you are removed from local regardless of the state of your ship (cloaked/uncloaked) or in a station and this would be applicable to all players in null low or high.

This makes that free intel more certain, since you will know only verified threats are present.

This game is not intended to be uniform levels of risk everywhere, so why should high sec and null have som much in common that the rewards in both places compare so closely?
a newbie
Kenbishi Heavy Industries Inc.
#139 - 2013-04-08 20:31:01 UTC
Cardano Firesnake wrote:

Again someone who do not understand.
I always see a cloak ship in a system as a potential threat. In fact I hope it is a potential threat. But if he is not here all my efforts to catch him are as useless thant my effots to avoid him.
I just want to play the game with players who are actually playing.


I think you are the one who does not understand. Nothing you have suggested is original, you just wanted to post your frustrations to the public, and are getting indignant because the group as a whole are not siding with you.

Cloaking works as intended, and requires no fix. If you nerfed cloaking in any of the manners you are suggesting, the day you board a capital ship and have to throw on a cloak, I bet you would be here posting how you got killed because your capital ship somehow decloaked and it should have a super massive bay just to fuel this.

Additionally, I DO sit there, active at the keyboard gathering intel. Its called a second monitor, Netflix or Amazon Prime, and some munchies. However since you can't tell what I am doing, you would be here posting yet another thread, demanding change that informs you everything I am doing, tantamount to invasion of privacy just so your not confused about what I am doing.

Please.. just do us all a favor and unless you have something original to contribute, post to existing posts as those go to the top of the pile as well, but have far more input and concept of thought than pointing the finger at everyone but yourself claiming higher intelligence.

...um.. fire?

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#140 - 2013-04-08 20:47:05 UTC
supernova ranger wrote:
So here is an alternative:

Each game client checks so the player's activity over the last 30min on every half hour (11:30, 12:00, 12:30, etc.).... If there is player activity, nothing happens. If there is no player activity a system message that locks out your client pops up saying "you are afk" and requires you to hit "OK" to unlock it. While you are afk you are removed from local regardless of the state of your ship (cloaked/uncloaked) or in a station and this would be applicable to all players in null low or high.


So how long would it lock the client before he can do anything when he comes back, if its instant then all we get is people cloaking up, waiting to go from local and then waiting for local to show activity and ratting to be reported and then become active and warp to the nearest Horde, and wham bang hot drop o'clock!!! Go the entire hog or leave as is!

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp