Player Features and Ideas Discussion

We have a winner!

The contest to determine the best solution to AFK Cloaking that shamelessly favors risk averse PvE.
(They ceased activity and docked to avoid a threat)

The cloaked player, while seemingly immune to threat in a similar fashion, is also supported by multiple claims from both sides, that they clearly intend violence upon other players in game, in keeping with game design.
Obviously they are playing, since noone is claiming them to be ignoring game play opportunities.
They would not be considered a risk if players felt they would be safely ignored.

This winner offers TWO potential solutions, showing great enthusiasm for the topic.



Seriously, noone believes this is to do anything but eliminate persistent cloaking obstacles.

You're not a CCP dev, so you can cram the "but think of the server load!" bunk. That really is the last, most desperate excuse imaginable. But lets think it through for a second, the amount of people afk cloaked is going to be tiny compared to those afk at a pos or in a station. I don't see you campaigning against people being able to do those things though.

I get the feeling you're just being dishonest.

You want to remove uncertainty and risk for carebears in null. Wanting to do that is just horrid for a number of reasons. It's unbalanced, it screws with the risk vs reward, it screws with economy in the long term, etc. It's just terrible, and why? Why do you want it? So you can feel 100% safe in the most dangerous area of the game. Its just insanely stupid to ask for these things. If you want more safety, go to highsec. It's that simple.

You do not belong in null if you can't handle the uncertainty and risk inherent to that area of the game. Crying for CCP to change that area of the game to meet your needs is disgusting.

Biomass yourself

why are we on page 3 already?

concept is simple,

since my original thread was locked
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=273085&find=unread

condensed version here, the discussion we had there was interesting....

the idea is roughly around submarine hunting tactics

imagine this... a small fleet... hunter killer mission,.... consists of a scanner ship and half a dozen specialized destroyers...

scanner ship launches gravimetric probes... these are designed to detect the gravitational anomalies caused by large objects... the ship sifts thru the data and determines a general location of possible cloaked enemy ship (it could be a false signal)

fleet warps to that area... they are now on grid with a possible cloaked enemy ship....

hunter killer destroyers activate gravitational sensor array and attempt to determine location of enemy... this system only gives a direction.. not distance.... the fleet then has to work together to attempt to triangulate the possible location of enemy ship... cycle time on said device could be around 60 seconds...

enemy ship is moving and thus the hunter killer destroyers have to stop and recalculate... if enemy ship is running in a straight line.. destroyers will quite quickly determine this and be able to jump in close to the enemy forcing a de-cloak and engagement.. if the enemy is constantly changing directions... this will cause more complications and require a larger hunter-killer fleet to lock down the enemy.

at any time, the hunted could become the hunter... decloaking and destroying one or two of the hunter killer destroyers.. then warping away and recloaking... or just remaining cloaked and warping away to a different location... forcing the hunters to scan again...

1) this does not stop people from afk cloaking
2) this is not an instant win button
3) this concept is possible but low chance of success with just 1 hunter killer ship.. more useful to a small fleet of ships
4) would require a special T2 class of destroyer, Hunter-Killer
5) the current scanner overlay works nicely with this potential... the symbol used for anomalies that show up, could have a different type showing the direction only of the potential gravimetric anomaly but not the distance

The gaping error is in not dropping local as a means of knowing cloaked presence.

It is never balanced gameplay to build effort on top of effortless, since you reduce the value of all items below that effort point to having no value.

Cloaking can never be more than local let's it be, if local is involved.
The arbitrary "you can't isolate the exact location" mechanic is equally broken, but at least counters the free intel in many ways.

All AFK cloaking + cyno, is.... is a god mode for people who haven't learned to pvp, aiming at industrial pilots trying to support their alliance.

allowing this is like saying ...."we don't care about the rest of this games mechanics, we just want cheap free kills that cant be countered!"

there are so many people with 10-50 accounts and all they do is put cloaked pilots in enemy systems 23-7, I can understand why CCP allows the abuse of the game, because it's money in their pockets, screw the average gamer, just pay us!

Why do people think CCP even want an auto log off feature? It's obvious that the more they can show to be logged on, the better it is for them.
Think about it this way, at any one time there must be quite a few players AFK. Why do they think it makes good business sense to remove players from the server and reduce your average players numbers? And for what? So people can feel better that some uncertainty has been removed? The funny thing is, it wouldn't it would actually add more.

Those who ask for this tend to raise server load as a reason why, but yet fail to show the load from someone AFK to show why it's a problem.

Also auto log off is so easily countered without breaking the EULA, which is why I said uncertainty would actually increase.

It is possible, in sov null mostly, to use local as an early warning system.

This works so well, that the actions of a hostile player are meaningless unless the evasive player makes a mistake.

The evasive player operates in a manner capable of warping on short notice, such as staying aligned, etc...
Local displays a neutral or hostile name in local chat's pilot roster. Evasive player hits warp, and is safed up before the would be attacker is capable of intervening.

The hostile, as evolved over time, is usually in a ship that has some cloaking ability. This allows it to remain in system, and numb the local alarm to their presence into uncertainty, based on the belief that the pilot could not be active after a certain point, and is probably AFK.

Evasive player sometimes takes risks after this time period, on the AFK belief. If the hostile is genuinely AFK, they are correct, and operate freely.
If the hostile returns to discover activity, they can attack.

That is the conflict here.

Yes, they have and in this very thread. My point is that getting a macro program that double clicks in space every 15 minutes or whatever is not a violation of the EULA. So auto-log off is not going to work unless you make macros against the EULA in general. Amd how these things would be detected is another issue entirely since it could also look very much like a player who is doing work on another screen/computer and has a timer reminding him to double click in space to keep from logging off.

ETA:
I have the luxury of working from home, and the above could very well apply to me. Set up my phone with a 15 minute interval for reminders to keep me logged in while cloaked in a system could look very much like a bot to a simple diagnostic.

I don't have to get emotional or upset, nor is it being dishonest, nor to I have to call you a troll.

The fact has so many threads and posts mean many people like the system the way it is and many people dont

Thats what a forum is for, to voice opinion and discuss the topic... simply saying i dont understand the mechanics is childish