These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

In regards to Cloaks and AFK-Cloaked Campers
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1 - 2013-08-02 19:14:49 UTC
my mind was wandering down one of it's usual strange paths when the various discussions I've run across on the forums in regards to this issue showed up along the way... (I think it was a bush cloaked in shadows and whispering about stabbity stabbity!).

lol, anyways, because of this, an idea formed and tried to sneak up on me, but didn't pay enough attention to the light of my attention...

What about introducing a 'flaw' to cloaks?

Something along the lines of, for example, every 15 minutes there's a % chance of it 'glitching out,' (based on meta level of the cloak, and introduce a new skill that will reduce it) that would make the cloak continue to cycle, but not actually function for several cycles (reduced by a new skill) and then the cloak would auto-correct for the glitch and the cloak would go back to functioning normally?

Non-afk cloakers would of course be able to easily avoid the glitch by simply cycling the cloak every so often and just hopping around between some bookmarks till it was re-activated...

And even afk cloakers wouldn't be guaranteed destruction due to the fact of the skills reducing the chance/duration of the glitch, on top of the fact that someone would still pretty much have to already have probes out and scan them down before the glitch does auto-correct... This would simply be introducing a reasonable element of risk to the practice of afk-camping while cloaked.

And, yes, they could use a bot to cycle the cloak, but then, that would be a violation of CCP's anti-botting practices (those that are enforced, at least) and thus force them to risk being caught and banned if they are dumb enough to resort to such a practice.

Thoughts? Ideas for actual numbers to introduce to this, including names for the proposed 2 new skills?
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2 - 2013-08-02 19:32:31 UTC
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2013-08-02 19:40:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Pelea Ming
It would add that currently completely lacking element of risk for afk-cloaky-campers. At the moment it's an entirely one sided matter when it comes to risk, and if there's nothing else I understand about eve, I do feel that I understand that when it comes to the pvp, there should always be a reasonable amount of risk for all involved. And there's certainly no need for afk-cloaky-campers except in relation to pvp, so shouldn't they also have to shoulder a certain amojunt of risk for doing it?
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#4 - 2013-08-02 19:46:06 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
It would add that currently completely lacking element of risk for afk-cloaky-campers. At the moment it's an entirely one sided matter when it comes to risk, and if there's nothing else I understand about eve, I do feel that I understand that when it comes to the pvp, there should always be a reasonable amount of risk for all involved. And there's certainly no need for afk-cloaky-campers except in relation to pvp, so shouldn't they also have to shoulder a certain amojunt of risk for doing it?


And just how is an AFK person engaging you in pvp?

Supposing this AFK cloaky camper does somehow become engaged in pvp, are they winning?

If the answer to the 2nd question is yes, the problem does not lie with cloaking.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#5 - 2013-08-02 19:51:54 UTC
I did not say engaging in pvp, I said related to pvp. I have no problems with engaging in a debate over it all, but please at least get what I have to say correct. :)

And the biggest reason to have an afk-cloaker, of course, is that they can be non-afk at anypoint, and at that point attempt to engage in pvp, typically by lighting a cyno and scramming a target.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#6 - 2013-08-02 19:57:02 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
It would add that currently completely lacking element of risk for afk-cloaky-campers. At the moment it's an entirely one sided matter when it comes to risk, and if there's nothing else I understand about eve, I do feel that I understand that when it comes to the pvp, there should always be a reasonable amount of risk for all involved. And there's certainly no need for afk-cloaky-campers except in relation to pvp, so shouldn't they also have to shoulder a certain amojunt of risk for doing it?

Oh, lol, risk.


Well, the complete concept is risk vs reward, in that you need an incentive to promote the logic that risk is necessary.

I agree. But, we now need to buff up that reward to compensate.
What would you say cloaked vessels want, in order to expose themselves to risk?

Well, in the context you present, the risk is only truly present if the cloaked pilot is AFK, so this penalizes that type of play.

To use AFK tactics, they are usually hunting PvE pilots. Those are the only ones known to evade hostiles so successfully, that nothing short of a cloaked camper can remove them.

It balances like this:
PvE pilot in null, equates to being an irresistible force.
Nothing short of pilot error can keep them from reaching safety in the time between local announcing a hostile pilot, and the time they are safely in warp to either a POS or outpost.

Hostile cloaked pilot in null, equates to being an immovable object.
Since you cannot locate them, (once they are past the gate into the system), they cannot be moved from the system by force.

Irresistible force counters immovable object, balance exists.

Now, you want to make the object movable, by making it possible to find cloaked vessels if they go AFK. This breaks the stalemate.

As this is one sided, and clearly favors the players seeking to PvE without hostile intervention, I fear it may not be balanced.

Wait, I got it.
Create some risk for the PvE pilots.

Maybe a 30 second delay to local's update for new pilots entering system?

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#7 - 2013-08-02 20:05:28 UTC
We have 5 of these threads PER DAY.
Use search.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#8 - 2013-08-02 20:12:44 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Pelea Ming wrote:
It would add that currently completely lacking element of risk for afk-cloaky-campers. At the moment it's an entirely one sided matter when it comes to risk, and if there's nothing else I understand about eve, I do feel that I understand that when it comes to the pvp, there should always be a reasonable amount of risk for all involved. And there's certainly no need for afk-cloaky-campers except in relation to pvp, so shouldn't they also have to shoulder a certain amojunt of risk for doing it?

Oh, lol, risk.


Well, the complete concept is risk vs reward, in that you need an incentive to promote the logic that risk is necessary.

I agree. But, we now need to buff up that reward to compensate.
What would you say cloaked vessels want, in order to expose themselves to risk?

Well, in the context you present, the risk is only truly present if the cloaked pilot is AFK, so this penalizes that type of play.

To use AFK tactics, they are usually hunting PvE pilots. Those are the only ones known to evade hostiles so successfully, that nothing short of a cloaked camper can remove them.

It balances like this:
PvE pilot in null, equates to being an irresistible force.
Nothing short of pilot error can keep them from reaching safety in the time between local announcing a hostile pilot, and the time they are safely in warp to either a POS or outpost.

Hostile cloaked pilot in null, equates to being an immovable object.
Since you cannot locate them, (once they are past the gate into the system), they cannot be moved from the system by force.

Irresistible force counters immovable object, balance exists.

Now, you want to make the object movable, by making it possible to find cloaked vessels if they go AFK. This breaks the stalemate.

As this is one sided, and clearly favors the players seeking to PvE without hostile intervention, I fear it may not be balanced.

Wait, I got it.
Create some risk for the PvE pilots.

Maybe a 30 second delay to local's update for new pilots entering system?


Well, what I'm proposing isn't any sort of a counter to an active, non-afk camper, they would still essentially have the same benefits they already have when camping cloaked, since with just a BM or 2 they can easily warp around and cycle their cloak to avoid the glitch safely, it would only be providing a counter to AFK cloaked campers, who currently are presented with no risk for their actions while also attempting to force the PVE'rs to ignore them and go back to mining/ratting, thus exposing the PvE'rs to risk in regards to PvP once the camper goes back to being active.

Ergo, where exists this balancing of risk for the afk camper?
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#9 - 2013-08-02 20:14:11 UTC
Note, I'm not trying to get rid of the afk camper here, I've done it myself, as well as having been the PvE'r who had to deal with afk campers in system. I'm simply trying to propose a reasonable balance to it all, as currently, there is no balance, all the risk is on the PvE'r, and none on the afk camper.
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#10 - 2013-08-02 20:35:07 UTC
My god, the Boogeyman is everywhere.

On a another note, the Searchyman is nowhere to be seen...

Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#11 - 2013-08-02 21:41:53 UTC
What about introducing a flaw to stations and POS?

Every 15 minutes, there is a % chance it'll kick you out into space. non AFK dockers would of course be able to avoid the glitch by simply redocking...

If you want a cloak nerf, I want a POS and docking nerf.
ninjaholic
Tactical Feed.
Pandemic Horde
#12 - 2013-08-02 22:14:13 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
What about introducing a 'flaw' to cloaks?
X

Support Eve's own built-in Battle-Recorder!
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#13 - 2013-08-02 22:19:22 UTC
Danika, plz save the trolling for somewhere else.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#14 - 2013-08-02 22:22:40 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
Danika, plz save the trolling for somewhere else.



Then explain how AFK cloaking is in any way different to AFK docking or POSing. All three leave you utterly invulnerable to attack, though the cloaking does at least have the vulnerability at the gates. If you want to kill me when I'm cloaked, I should get to kill you when you're docked.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#15 - 2013-08-02 23:42:39 UTC
Your argument makes no sense. Docking is entirely different situation then sitting in space.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#16 - 2013-08-03 00:56:26 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
Well, what I'm proposing isn't any sort of a counter to an active, non-afk camper, they would still essentially have the same benefits they already have when camping cloaked, since with just a BM or 2 they can easily warp around and cycle their cloak to avoid the glitch safely, it would only be providing a counter to AFK cloaked campers, who currently are presented with no risk for their actions while also attempting to force the PVE'rs to ignore them and go back to mining/ratting, thus exposing the PvE'rs to risk in regards to PvP once the camper goes back to being active.

Ergo, where exists this balancing of risk for the afk camper?

But your statements about AFK camping having no counter are misleading.

It is the only strategy available to threaten PvE assets in sov null space, and thus is itself a counter.

Consider, if you please:

All ships, as you point out, should have risk.

This certainly should include mining and ratting ships.

Currently, they can avoid hostile attention by staying aligned to a safe structure, and watching local.
This method is reliable, and ONLY fails if the pilot does not pay attention, or other pilot error.

That means they can't be caught by new arrivals into a system, whether they arrive by logging in, or a gate.

Taking out a POS is not a realistic threat, and besides they can safely flee before the timer expires. Same with an outpost.
Obviously not a practical approach.

All that remains, is the hope of fooling them into ignoring local, since you can never be attacked by an enemy not shown there.

So, since it has been demonstrated that a PvE pilot can avoid risk using local, and only by pilot error or simply ignoring local can they be threatened, how do we bring a degree of risk to balance what you want to do with cloaked ships?

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#17 - 2013-08-03 01:02:02 UTC
What I propose won't stop afk-cloaky-camping, only inject an element of risk to it, and of course, if your only partially afk, you can still easily cycle it every so often to avoid the glitch effect. and I don't see cloaky camping as a counter when it's directed at a non-pvp event... not saying that ratters shouldn't have a risk, hence why my suggestion isn't designed to stop afk-cloaky-camping, just make it harder, and introduce a proper amount of counter-risk to the practice, as by your own words, as things currently stand, the only risk involved as things currently stand is entirely upon the ratters.
(typically, I do ratting these days in a pvp capable fit, but not everyone can figure out a workable one for their style)
Balthazar Lestrane
Dirt 'n' Glitter
Local Is Primary
#18 - 2013-08-03 02:33:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Balthazar Lestrane
Why can't the AFK cloaking tears just go away? Cry

Someone proposed almost the exact same thing YESTERDAY and it was met with similar responses, i.e. this idea sucks, cloaks are fine and need no change, if you are that butthurt about an AFK cloaker, FFS move to a different system or bait them and kill them and their hotdropping friends.

Or stop playing EVE.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#19 - 2013-08-03 02:48:00 UTC
Mighty angry of you there, Balthazar... did someone forget the lube and the reach around?

Instead of a hate rant, why not try proposing valid, reasoned arguements... or do you prefer it when people start ignoring your posts?
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#20 - 2013-08-03 02:51:02 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
What I propose won't stop afk-cloaky-camping, only inject an element of risk to it, and of course, if your only partially afk, you can still easily cycle it every so often to avoid the glitch effect. and I don't see cloaky camping as a counter when it's directed at a non-pvp event... not saying that ratters shouldn't have a risk, hence why my suggestion isn't designed to stop afk-cloaky-camping, just make it harder, and introduce a proper amount of counter-risk to the practice, as by your own words, as things currently stand, the only risk involved as things currently stand is entirely upon the ratters.
(typically, I do ratting these days in a pvp capable fit, but not everyone can figure out a workable one for their style)

No, the ratters do not have risk, as determined by effort vs effort

There is no tactic for entering a system that has a chance of influencing a failure. Local reports all new entries the same, and all can be avoided the same way.

By making cloaking more difficult, by the exact same degree you make their target's play less difficult.

The ratter or miner experiences only voluntary risk, and not even that if a would be cloaker is driven off by this.

I am a miner in null, and my lack of risk is being compensated out by devs reducing ice and ore into limited belts.

I would rather risk being shot at, than being perfectly safe but with nothing left to mine worth my time and effort. The server may as well not even be up if you can't mine the items you need.

It's too safe, and the game won't balance with a free ride, they yank the rewards to be a race between what should be allies, diminishing trust to being who left the scrub items up preventing belt respawns.

We used to have unlimited ice, now it is like the ore. High sec has more risks than null for a miner, right now.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
123Next pageLast page