These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2801 - 2013-11-11 10:26:56 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Well if it isn't local giving the advantage then changing local should not be a problem because it conveys no advantage.

Kinda messed there didn't you?
No, not at all. I'm beginning to think you are mentally deficient with these responses.
First I'm going to explain:
How does local give a PVE player an advantage? It doesn't. Gate Mechanics give a player in a system an advantage. That's all that can be said.
If local were not there, but there was an effort based system this would STILL BE THE CASE. A player entering system would not magically be able to react before the grid loaded.
Also, it's not a PVE advantage, it's a "whoever's not jumping" advantage.
If player A is in a system and Player B jumps in, gate mechanics give Player A half a second to react over player B. It's doesn't matter what type of player either Player A or Player B is.

And now I'm going to thank you.
Thank you. You are correct. Local is not giving any advantage. I'm glad we've now cleared that up. Can we now proceed with this discussion which is about AFK players, NOT about local?
If you still want to discuss changes to local that you support, which in fact would ADD an advantage, Nikk's thread is specifically for that.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2802 - 2013-11-11 10:29:43 UTC
Gothikia wrote:
There's nothing wrong with cloaking. You idiots are just too butthurt because you got caught off guard by cloakies at one point or can't ~continue normal operations~ of afk mining with your dicks hanging out.

Stop whining about a mechanic when it's your own attitude to it that is at fault.
I'm not complaining about cloaks. I'm complaining about AFK players. I want AFK players to be warped to deadspace and marked in local as such, so it's the equivalent of logging them off but still allowing them to be logged on (to log chats and save hassle). I have no issue with cloakers.
Thanks for the well thought out response though.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2803 - 2013-11-11 10:33:25 UTC
Barbaydos wrote:
now suggestion no.1 is that for any ship in space with/without a cloak or is it for any client all together so even people afk in stations are auto-logged off?
Realistically it would have to treat all AFK players the same, which is why IMO, it's better to not log off, but to mark in local and warp to desdspace if in space. Coming back to the PC would be the same as logging on. It just saves the hassle of having to go through all of the launcher when you return, but resolves the issues around AFK players.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Barbaydos
Kraken Exploration and Janitorial Services
The Initiative.
#2804 - 2013-11-11 11:41:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Barbaydos
Lucas Kell wrote:
Barbaydos wrote:
now suggestion no.1 is that for any ship in space with/without a cloak or is it for any client all together so even people afk in stations are auto-logged off?
Realistically it would have to treat all AFK players the same, which is why IMO, it's better to not log off, but to mark in local and warp to desdspace if in space. Coming back to the PC would be the same as logging on. It just saves the hassle of having to go through all of the launcher when you return, but resolves the issues around AFK players.


whilst that might sort out the afk issue (at least until someone makes a clicking bot... oh wait) you would be nerfing the primary reason for having a cloaky afk in a system (to deny the enemy access to easy isk). now dont get me wrong, when a couple of constellations of space can be shutdown effectively by one dude and a handful of clients, its not just annoying or aggravating, its a game breaker. When entire corps just sit afk in station or log out instead of playing because of one person and his alts its a problem that needs to be addressed, but not removed entirely.

removing afk cloaking would be taking any advantage away from smaller game entities and giving it back to larger ones, that said its still a broken mechanic.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2805 - 2013-11-11 12:08:35 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Gothikia wrote:
There's nothing wrong with cloaking. You idiots are just too butthurt because you got caught off guard by cloakies at one point or can't ~continue normal operations~ of afk mining with your dicks hanging out.

Stop whining about a mechanic when it's your own attitude to it that is at fault.
I'm not complaining about cloaks. I'm complaining about AFK players. I want AFK players to be warped to deadspace and marked in local as such, so it's the equivalent of logging them off but still allowing them to be logged on (to log chats and save hassle). I have no issue with cloakers.
Thanks for the well thought out response though.

This should apply to AFK station people as well. Many null players AFK in station. When I'm travelling in null which lately is pretty much always there's a station every couple of jumps with players AFK. They can be there 23 hours a day.

What this means is every couple of jumps I have to run the AFK or Not gauntlet either stopping travel, run the risk they're cloaked at a gate rather than AFK in station and red rover it and risking getting blown up or find a longer way round.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2806 - 2013-11-11 13:15:00 UTC
Barbaydos wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Barbaydos wrote:
now suggestion no.1 is that for any ship in space with/without a cloak or is it for any client all together so even people afk in stations are auto-logged off?
Realistically it would have to treat all AFK players the same, which is why IMO, it's better to not log off, but to mark in local and warp to desdspace if in space. Coming back to the PC would be the same as logging on. It just saves the hassle of having to go through all of the launcher when you return, but resolves the issues around AFK players.


whilst that might sort out the afk issue (at least until someone makes a clicking bot... oh wait) you would be nerfing the primary reason for having a cloaky afk in a system (to deny the enemy access to easy isk). now dont get me wrong, when a couple of constellations of space can be shutdown effectively by one dude and a handful of clients, its not just annoying or aggravating, its a game breaker. When entire corps just sit afk in station or log out instead of playing because of one person and his alts its a problem that needs to be addressed, but not removed entirely.

removing afk cloaking would be taking any advantage away from smaller game entities and giving it back to larger ones, that said its still a broken mechanic.

But big groups care the least about AFK cloakers. I'm in the CFC. I have countless regions to play in. No group will ever shut down enough of our space to matter.
A small group with a handful of systems however can be shut down by one guy.
I have 8 accounts. I could shut down 8 systems solo, all the time I'm at work or asleep, so like 18-20 hours a day. Who do you think would feel that most, a small group or a huge alliance?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2807 - 2013-11-11 13:16:29 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Gothikia wrote:
There's nothing wrong with cloaking. You idiots are just too butthurt because you got caught off guard by cloakies at one point or can't ~continue normal operations~ of afk mining with your dicks hanging out.

Stop whining about a mechanic when it's your own attitude to it that is at fault.
I'm not complaining about cloaks. I'm complaining about AFK players. I want AFK players to be warped to deadspace and marked in local as such, so it's the equivalent of logging them off but still allowing them to be logged on (to log chats and save hassle). I have no issue with cloakers.
Thanks for the well thought out response though.

This should apply to AFK station people as well. Many null players AFK in station. When I'm travelling in null which lately is pretty much always there's a station every couple of jumps with players AFK. They can be there 23 hours a day.

What this means is every couple of jumps I have to run the AFK or Not gauntlet either stopping travel, run the risk they're cloaked at a gate rather than AFK in station and red rover it and risking getting blown up or find a longer way round.
Sure, AFK players in stations should also be marked AFK, and get the usual "logon, can't undock" timer upon return.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2808 - 2013-11-11 13:34:46 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Gothikia wrote:
There's nothing wrong with cloaking. You idiots are just too butthurt because you got caught off guard by cloakies at one point or can't ~continue normal operations~ of afk mining with your dicks hanging out.

Stop whining about a mechanic when it's your own attitude to it that is at fault.
I'm not complaining about cloaks. I'm complaining about AFK players. I want AFK players to be warped to deadspace and marked in local as such, so it's the equivalent of logging them off but still allowing them to be logged on (to log chats and save hassle). I have no issue with cloakers.
Thanks for the well thought out response though.

This should apply to AFK station people as well. Many null players AFK in station. When I'm travelling in null which lately is pretty much always there's a station every couple of jumps with players AFK. They can be there 23 hours a day.

What this means is every couple of jumps I have to run the AFK or Not gauntlet either stopping travel, run the risk they're cloaked at a gate rather than AFK in station and red rover it and risking getting blown up or find a longer way round.


The thing is the system is not shut down it just is not completely safe. There's a big difference. The only thing I do sympathize with is the hotdrop fear but thats an issue with hotdropping and not cloaking.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2809 - 2013-11-11 15:25:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Well if it isn't local giving the advantage then changing local should not be a problem because it conveys no advantage.

Kinda messed there didn't you?
No, not at all. I'm beginning to think you are mentally deficient with these responses.
First I'm going to explain:
How does local give a PVE player an advantage? It doesn't. Gate Mechanics give a player in a system an advantage. That's all that can be said.
If local were not there, but there was an effort based system this would STILL BE THE CASE. A player entering system would not magically be able to react before the grid loaded.
Also, it's not a PVE advantage, it's a "whoever's not jumping" advantage.
If player A is in a system and Player B jumps in, gate mechanics give Player A half a second to react over player B. It's doesn't matter what type of player either Player A or Player B is.

And now I'm going to thank you.
Thank you. You are correct. Local is not giving any advantage. I'm glad we've now cleared that up. Can we now proceed with this discussion which is about AFK players, NOT about local?
If you still want to discuss changes to local that you support, which in fact would ADD an advantage, Nikk's thread is specifically for that.


Wow, look at the attempt to save your argument.

It is clearly local and the gate mechanic/client updating that gives the advantage. Nikk explained this about 60 pages back, so you can cut out the condescending ****** attitude. It just makes you look petty and petulant.

And it paints you into a corner. If local has nothing to do with the advantage, then removing local would not be an issue.

We know it is an issue for you since you think it would ruin null, so we know your argument is a load of horse ****.

[Hint: time to try a new tactic Lucas]

"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
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2810 - 2013-11-11 15:30:13 UTC
Barbaydos wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Barbaydos wrote:
now suggestion no.1 is that for any ship in space with/without a cloak or is it for any client all together so even people afk in stations are auto-logged off?
Realistically it would have to treat all AFK players the same, which is why IMO, it's better to not log off, but to mark in local and warp to desdspace if in space. Coming back to the PC would be the same as logging on. It just saves the hassle of having to go through all of the launcher when you return, but resolves the issues around AFK players.


whilst that might sort out the afk issue (at least until someone makes a clicking bot... oh wait) you would be nerfing the primary reason for having a cloaky afk in a system (to deny the enemy access to easy isk). now dont get me wrong, when a couple of constellations of space can be shutdown effectively by one dude and a handful of clients, its not just annoying or aggravating, its a game breaker. When entire corps just sit afk in station or log out instead of playing because of one person and his alts its a problem that needs to be addressed, but not removed entirely.

removing afk cloaking would be taking any advantage away from smaller game entities and giving it back to larger ones, that said its still a broken mechanic.


I agree, which is why I think going to the root of the problem is the best solution.

AFK cloaking works because of local. It lets everyone know there is greatly increased risk due to this new uncertain element and one response is to dock up/log off.

"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
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2811 - 2013-11-11 15:31:58 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
I'm in the CFC. I have countless regions to play in.


No you don't.

You can rat and PvE in some regions, not in all of them.

"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
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2812 - 2013-11-11 16:07:39 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
It is clearly local and the gate mechanic/client updating that gives the advantage. Nikk explained this about 60 pages back, so you can cut out the condescending ****** attitude. It just makes you look petty and petulant.

And it paints you into a corner. If local has nothing to do with the advantage, then removing local would not be an issue.

We know it is an issue for you since you think it would ruin null, so we know your argument is a load of horse ****.

[Hint: time to try a new tactic Lucas]
It is clearly the gate mechanic NOT the local. How many times does it need to be said. If there were no such thing as local, but there was a beacon announcing your presence, the problem would still be there... surely? Surely in that case the inhabitant would still be able to react first?

And no, it doesn't paint me into a corner, since I'm not asking for local to be changed.
You want to change local so it gives cloakers a HUGE advantage over all other players. I want it to stay far and balanced like it is now. I want to talk about AFKness of players, you want to talk about local. You realise this is an AFK cloak thread right? Not a "nuke local" thread? You should, you made it.

I'm honestly confused how you can possibly respond thinking I'm somehow being tripped up by my own words and thus must conclude that a god awful change for local needs to be agreed. But please, by all means, proceed with telling me how flawed your comprehension of simple concepts is.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2813 - 2013-11-11 16:12:10 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
I agree, which is why I think going to the root of the problem is the best solution.

AFK cloaking works because of local. It lets everyone know there is greatly increased risk due to this new uncertain element and one response is to dock up/log off.
Wrong.
Local is not the cause. Once again I'll note that local is no more the cause of AFK cloaking as your monitor is the cause of popups.

Also, even if it was the cause, it still wouldn't change the fact that removing local makes cloakers much more powerful and makes non-covops ships useless for roaming. Removing local is a stupid idea, and you can dress it up as much as you want and chant "it's not removal, it's change to effort based systems" as much as you want, but it's still removing local. The first step of the plan is "remove local". Whether or not there some flawed PoS mechanic dumped in it's place is beside the point.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2814 - 2013-11-11 16:14:46 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
I'm in the CFC. I have countless regions to play in.


No you don't.

You can rat and PvE in some regions, not in all of them.
That's funny, I don't remember saying "I can mine/rat in ALL CFC space". Oh right, yeah, that's cos I didn't. The number of systems I can mine and rat in (bearing in mind as well as SMA space, we also surround several groups of NPC null) is considerably higher than many small alliances, and spread across multiple regions.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Kenpo
The Guardians of the Beam
#2815 - 2013-11-11 18:40:49 UTC
The mind is a terrible thing and it must be stopped before someone else becomes paranoid.

Caution, rubber gloves and faceshield required when handling this equipment.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2816 - 2013-11-11 19:01:22 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:

And to Teckos, I do not change my position on cynos, hotdrops, etc.. They are OP, but I can manage them well enough through evasive practices. Evasion does not create balance. It just allows OP mechanics to not ruin the game. Mark these words: True balance is found when evasion is neither needed or desired!
...

And if you can manage them (cynos/hot drops)...they are by definition not OP. OP is something for which there is not a reasonable response. Example tracking titans. There was pretty much no reasonable response there other than to bring even more tracking titans. That is not balanced, that is unbalanced. Hence the nerf.

I love it when people use lots of words to say that they agree. .. except on the evasion, I'll grant that.

I'll put it like this: Titans one shot carriers. IMHO, that is OP. So I do not allow my carrier to be in a position where it could be 1 shotted by a Titan. Does that avoidance mean that my management of the risk negates the Titan being OP? Not at all. It just means that I won't let OP ships take advantage of me. Risk mitigation does not lend a blanket endorse against something being OP. The fact that I decided to evade means that there may be something OP about the other ship/mechanic. If there was an effective way to fight it, I wouldn't choose to evade. So we can say that the cloaky cyno forces the evasion behavior. If there were no cyno, I promise you that I would always be prepared to fight the hostile. I hope that makes sense and clarifies what I am saying well enough.


There is an effective way to fight...bring more people. No, this isn't an argument for blobbing, but just showing up with 5 guys in PvP fit ships to rat will prevent the hot drop (at least the covert ops variety). In this case you don't have to evade, but you may not actually fight...which according to some martial philosophies is the highest level of skill....winning and not fighting.

If you bring 5 battleships to your op, the hotdropper will just pass on that their are 5 times the number of juicy targets and they will increase their blob to easily overpower your 5 BS. It isn't that hard when you already see your enemy and their ships. 5 cruisers, then they will adjust what is dropped on you to handle them. This isn't to say that they will always be able to adapt to your fleet composition, but if your ships are worth anything significant, they will find a way, promise.

Quote:
Fit your carries better.

To Astro, only the Archon can survive a DD and only if it sacrifices its cap so that its RR is trivial; and it will be into structure after the first DD. And that is only if you know in advance which Titan/damage type will hit you.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2817 - 2013-11-11 19:13:27 UTC
Barbaydos wrote:

my issue with 2 is that you then limit potential pvp, e.g. i use a cloaky alt to scout and scan when on pvp ops if i manage to get a warp in on a hostile then without the scram/point he can just warp out before i can decloak, light cyno and then wait 5-10 seconds for the rest of the crew to jump in and load grid from the blops or the titan, now granted this situation only applies to small scale pvp or solo ganks, but in doing so you nerf BLOPS dropping or covert ops gangs in general, seeing as they would be primary people to want a point/scram on a ship with a covert ops cloak.

now suggestion no.1 is that for any ship in space with/without a cloak or is it for any client all together so even people afk in stations are auto-logged off?

PVP is changed not limited. Non-cyno ships would grab the point while working in partnership with the cyno ship. Changed tactics for the same kill. Successful afk cloak of a system requires 2 ships; twice the requirements halves the number of systems tied up. Blops would also follow the same tactic shift using two ships working together (teamwork) to get the blobbing gank.

My auto-log suggestion applies to all ships, docked or not. No need to discriminate or to give out free intel on the state of the ship logged off. Just a generic auto-logoff.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2818 - 2013-11-11 20:44:27 UTC
Here is another perspective that might help.

Reasonable: The ability to place destructible infrastructure that notifies a channel when a gate has been activated. It could go so far as to cross reference friendly transponder tags, and disregard activations by friendly pilots.
Unreasonable: Identifying any pilot to a hostile force while still under a gate cloak effect, or while in transit resulting in the gate cloak effect.

Being able to know pilot identity prior to them even loading system allows you to online boosters, launch drones, and activate propulsion mods, all in preparation to ambush.
It is more than enough to know that all entries must enter through the bottleneck of the jump gates, being spoon fed decision making intel beyond that is simply beyond need.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#2819 - 2013-11-11 22:34:52 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:

To Astro, only the Archon can survive a DD and only if it sacrifices its cap so that its RR is trivial; and it will be into structure after the first DD. And that is only if you know in advance which Titan/damage type will hit you.

Confirming that fleet carriers never refit mid fight ever.
Vas Eldryn
#2820 - 2013-11-12 06:30:56 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Here is another perspective that might help.

Reasonable: The ability to place destructible infrastructure that notifies a channel when a gate has been activated. It could go so far as to cross reference friendly transponder tags, and disregard activations by friendly pilots.
Unreasonable: Identifying any pilot to a hostile force while still under a gate cloak effect, or while in transit resulting in the gate cloak effect.

Being able to know pilot identity prior to them even loading system allows you to online boosters, launch drones, and activate propulsion mods, all in preparation to ambush.
It is more than enough to know that all entries must enter through the bottleneck of the jump gates, being spoon fed decision making intel beyond that is simply beyond need.


let me get this strait.... you're against gates, local, attacking players that are ready for a fight, just cut to the chase and say "I just want free kills!" already! Yes Defenders get a slight advantage, there is a reason for this i believe and that is that PVE is an important part of null sec, without it most alliances would crumble. But you seriously cant see beyond your own killboard can you?