These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2981 - 2013-11-18 18:52:39 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
I could definitely support ships entering a system through some point offgrid of the gates not being listed in local until they appear uncloaked at a known-space station, stargate, IHub, customs office, or local registry structure [below] (I'll call these "local" structures) OR until they chat in a known-space local chat channel.

I could support local listing all ships previously listed in local as disconnected after they cloak up, engage a jump drive to another system, or jump through a wormhole, until they appear at a "local" structure in any known system. Entering a system through an unmonitored (see local registry structure [below]) wh would not change any local listings, and each ship would remain listed as disconnected in the last previous known system, until it appear decloaked at one of the "local" structures.

The only exception would be that the listing would be removed upon logout and replaced upon login, even if logging was done away from those structures. The logging mechanic would be an extension of the contact list watch feature.

These adjustments to local should be balanced by themselves without needing a "hunter" module to counterbalance or justify them. The would reveal cloaky and wh activity. They would allow whs to mask activity.

I would probably also support the addition of a local registry structure to be anchored and onlined anywhere in space to report to local all decloaked ships appearing on grid. In unknown space, the listing would be isolated from all k-space local, so that a pilot could be listed in 1 k-space system local and multiple, isolated w-space locals with "disconnected" stamped on ships not visible to the registry structure. This would allow w-space to develop a very limited form of their own isolated local intel. The logging mechanic would affect these isolated listings. The isolated listings would be permanently dropped if a registry structure saw the ship leave the system through a wormhole or the k-space listings were updated for that pilot AND a member of the corp was in known space after the update and while the pilot was logged into known space.

These local mechanics changes follow the lore that local is tied to the gate system, but allows both stealth and logical mechanics. A stealth bomber could enter a system in known space through an unmonitored wh and strike a target with local notifying the target because his presence was not made known at a "local" structure, even for a brief period of time.

There still should be a 1 minute timer after decloak before a cyno can be lit/cycled. The auto-logoff will also still go well with this idea.

The primary benefit of Local Chat is to support and promote solo play. Even if used for chat, it benefits most players with no other channels to communicate with intended recipients.

Whether it is someone in an alliance who occasionally operates solo, or a player that rarely if ever does anything but operate solo.

Local's value is exclusive to the fact that it does not rely on player contribution or effort.

I have nothing against solo play itself, but I see this as a glaring discrepancy when it is at it's most effective in the section of space requiring group effort to establish presence in.

I remain unconvinced this mechanic benefits the game so much as enables solo play to the detriment of group activity.
Why go to the trouble of getting a group together, when you can achieve as much if not more alone?

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2982 - 2013-11-18 18:59:08 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
I could definitely support ships entering a system through some point offgrid of the gates not being listed in local until they appear uncloaked at a known-space station, stargate, IHub, customs office, or local registry structure [below] (I'll call these "local" structures) OR until they chat in a known-space local chat channel.

I could support local listing all ships previously listed in local as disconnected after they cloak up, engage a jump drive to another system, or jump through a wormhole, until they appear at a "local" structure in any known system. Entering a system through an unmonitored (see local registry structure [below]) wh would not change any local listings, and each ship would remain listed as disconnected in the last previous known system, until it appear decloaked at one of the "local" structures.

The only exception would be that the listing would be removed upon logout and replaced upon login, even if logging was done away from those structures. The logging mechanic would be an extension of the contact list watch feature.

These adjustments to local should be balanced by themselves without needing a "hunter" module to counterbalance or justify them. The would reveal cloaky and wh activity. They would allow whs to mask activity.

I would probably also support the addition of a local registry structure to be anchored and onlined anywhere in space to report to local all decloaked ships appearing on grid. In unknown space, the listing would be isolated from all k-space local, so that a pilot could be listed in 1 k-space system local and multiple, isolated w-space locals with "disconnected" stamped on ships not visible to the registry structure. This would allow w-space to develop a very limited form of their own isolated local intel. The logging mechanic would affect these isolated listings. The isolated listings would be permanently dropped if a registry structure saw the ship leave the system through a wormhole or the k-space listings were updated for that pilot AND a member of the corp was in known space after the update and while the pilot was logged into known space.

These local mechanics changes follow the lore that local is tied to the gate system, but allows both stealth and logical mechanics. A stealth bomber could enter a system in known space through an unmonitored wh and strike a target with local notifying the target because his presence was not made known at a "local" structure, even for a brief period of time.

There still should be a 1 minute timer after decloak before a cyno can be lit/cycled. The auto-logoff will also still go well with this idea.

The primary benefit of Local Chat is to support and promote solo play. Even if used for chat, it benefits most players with no other channels to communicate with intended recipients.

Whether it is someone in an alliance who occasionally operates solo, or a player that rarely if ever does anything but operate solo.

Local's value is exclusive to the fact that it does not rely on player contribution or effort.

I have nothing against solo play itself, but I see this as a glaring discrepancy when it is at it's most effective in the section of space requiring group effort to establish presence in.

I remain unconvinced this mechanic benefits the game so much as enables solo play to the detriment of group activity.
Why go to the trouble of getting a group together, when you can achieve as much if not more alone?

I see local as a way to tie players together with each other in system and to the system infrastucture of the gates and other "local" structures. It is not a solo mechanic, but rather a group mechanic because its directory makes us aware of others without requiring us to have a dozen accounts per player online and dedicated to watching various points in every system. It allows us to interact in a massive world even though our own resources are quite limited; even as little as a single account which can only be online for a single hour of the day.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2983 - 2013-11-18 19:10:22 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
The primary benefit of Local Chat is to support and promote solo play. Even if used for chat, it benefits most players with no other channels to communicate with intended recipients.

Whether it is someone in an alliance who occasionally operates solo, or a player that rarely if ever does anything but operate solo.

Local's value is exclusive to the fact that it does not rely on player contribution or effort.

I have nothing against solo play itself, but I see this as a glaring discrepancy when it is at it's most effective in the section of space requiring group effort to establish presence in.

I remain unconvinced this mechanic benefits the game so much as enables solo play to the detriment of group activity.
Why go to the trouble of getting a group together, when you can achieve as much if not more alone?

I see local as a way to tie players together with each other in system and to the system infrastucture of the gates and other "local" structures. It is not a solo mechanic, but rather a group mechanic because its directory makes us aware of others without requiring us to have a dozen accounts per player online and dedicated to watching various points in every system. It allows us to interact in a massive world even though our own resources are quite limited; even as little as a single account which can only be online for a single hour of the day.

Saying it is not a solo mechanic, when each and every example you cite is a solo benefit, seems incongruous.

Again, I have no objection to solo play, but I must question how this promotes it in competition to group oriented alternatives.

If we are to reclassify group efforts as those working towards a common goal, even if separately as individuals, then local could be said to enable this even as it also cancels the value of such contributions elsewhere.

I would suggest instead we be allowed to create enduring and opposable structures to perform roles in our stead, such as monitoring stations at gates, etc.
If we place local in the game, to be defended and or attacked, then it becomes more valid for the enormous impact it has on game play.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Electrique Wizard
Mutually Lucrative Business Proposals
#2984 - 2013-11-18 20:53:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Electrique Wizard
Listening to you two rant along it clearly shows me you have no idea how EVE works.
You've just admitted you want to kill solo play and dont care about it. Just because you dont like something doesnt mean its bad. What cloaks are used for and what a dumb suggestion you've been trying to push for the past 150 pages. It doesnt even have to do with AFK cloaking anymore, you're just hijacking this topic to get others to lower their IQ by reading your posts down to a level where someone might actually agree with your terrible ideas. I've been trying to tell you the impact of your absurd propositions but you just fling off back into your own world within 2 paragraphs.

I could write a whole story about how your analysis of the effect on bomber fleets is wrong but you wouldnt read it and would just spout your "but i can decloak afk bombers now!" again.

Please stop trying to mess with things you dont understand.

I am the Zodiac, I am the stars, You are the sorceress, my priestess of Mars, Queen of the night, swathed in satin black, Your ivory flesh upon my torture rack.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2985 - 2013-11-18 21:25:36 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:

Saying it is not a solo mechanic, when each and every example you cite is a solo benefit, seems incongruous.

Again, I have no objection to solo play, but I must question how this promotes it in competition to group oriented alternatives.

If we are to reclassify group efforts as those working towards a common goal, even if separately as individuals, then local could be said to enable this even as it also cancels the value of such contributions elsewhere.

I would suggest instead we be allowed to create enduring and opposable structures to perform roles in our stead, such as monitoring stations at gates, etc.
If we place local in the game, to be defended and or attacked, then it becomes more valid for the enormous impact it has on game play.

I'll put it in a different way. Without local, the world beyond your own corp/TS is disconnected from you a lot more. This means that interaction with that world is more limited. The limited interaction makes it more difficult to engage in activities which involve others. Hence a major reason why wormholes get so lonely. So with local, the Eve world becomes much more connected. It assists the player in connecting with the groups which roam through their systems .. for cooperative work, combative work, or evasive interactions. Local encourages, assists, and connects individuals to the Eve Universe and to groups. It also substantially reduces the overhead needed to get out there and interact with others. That said, I am in no way endorsing group work over solo play. If anything, I go on record for encouraging mechanics which allow the pilot to get out there without being totally at the mercy of the blobs.

You may have noticed that my non-sov "local" registry structure fulfills a similar role as your monitoring station, except that it may be anchored anywhere in space.

To Elec, their ideas do affect afk cloaking in that afk cloakies will be killable. That's a pretty big effect. I do not agree with being able to target and thus decloak cloaky ships up to 100km or more away, so I propose a counter proposal which does not include that mechanic and does include features which I could support; features which would not affect pve content that much, nor change the cloaky role much either. I imagine that many pilots would support my proposals.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2986 - 2013-11-18 21:31:09 UTC
Electrique Wizard wrote:
Listening to you two rant along it clearly shows me you have no idea how EVE works.
You've just admitted you want to kill solo play and dont care about it. Just because you dont like something doesnt mean its bad. What cloaks are used for and what a dumb suggestion you've been trying to push for the past 150 pages. It doesnt even have to do with AFK cloaking anymore, you're just hijacking this topic to get others to lower their IQ by reading your posts down to a level where someone might actually agree with your terrible ideas. I've been trying to tell you the impact of your absurd propositions but you just fling off back into your own world within 2 paragraphs.

I could write a whole story about how your analysis of the effect on bomber fleets is wrong but you wouldnt read it and would just spout your "but i can decloak afk bombers now!" again.

Please stop trying to mess with things you dont understand.

Sorry, but your displacement attempt at understanding fails to meet any logical standards.

You clearly do not understand these details of this subject matter, and are twisting things so they meet your expectations.

At no point, for example, am I trying to kill solo play. If your reading comprehension has translated "I have no objection to", into meaning "this play style must be removed", then you clearly misunderstood my post.

I could write a whole story about how mushrooms can sing and dance, story writing is not relevant here.

As to the bomber wing references, participating in one of these is a far cry from understanding how and why they are effective. You might as well take a drivers license as evidence that you can fix a car, at that level of expectations.

I do not mind voicing opinions, but please refrain from suggesting the posters here stop posting, simply because they do not share your views.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2987 - 2013-11-18 21:46:52 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
I'll put it in a different way. Without local, the world beyond your own corp/TS is disconnected from you a lot more. This means that interaction with that world is more limited. The limited interaction makes it more difficult to engage in activities which involve others. Hence a major reason why wormholes get so lonely. So with local, the Eve world becomes much more connected. It assists the player in connecting with the groups which roam through their systems .. for cooperative work, combative work, or evasive interactions. Local encourages, assists, and connects individuals to the Eve Universe and to groups. It also substantially reduces the overhead needed to get out there and interact with others. That said, I am in no way endorsing group work over solo play. If anything, I go on record for encouraging mechanics which allow the pilot to get out there without being totally at the mercy of the blobs.

You may have noticed that my non-sov "local" registry structure fulfills a similar role as your monitoring station, except that it may be anchored anywhere in space.

To Elec, their ideas do affect afk cloaking in that afk cloakies will be killable. That's a pretty big effect. I do not agree with being able to target and thus decloak cloaky ships up to 100km or more away, so I propose a counter proposal which does not include that mechanic and does include features which I could support; features which would not affect pve content that much, nor change the cloaky role much either. I imagine that many pilots would support my proposals.

I am all for things that help promote social interaction, but the circumstances need to be kept in context.

For sov null, most specifically, anyone you should really be talking to also probably shares either a corp or alliance channel with you. It is not uncommon for corp policies to include situational gag orders, specifically involving local chat.
It is simply an expectation that you are representing not just yourself, but your corp / alliance, and should not risk potential diplomatic incidents.

As to decloaking a ship at great distance, this is distinctly combat related. Any ship within targeting range is probably not simply watching, as they could do that from an obvious safer distance.
Additionally, active sensor boosters cannot be used directly from the ship using a hunting module, so unless someone has a remote booster running, lock time won't be terribly fast.
If you do have multiple pilots working together as a team, it is also reasonable that they should have better results with such teamwork. Either hunting cloaked ships, or cloaked ships hunting economic targets, group play should give leverage.

It is probable that cloaked vessels will find plenty of opportunities to run away, before they can be trapped and ambushed.
We can only guess what tactics someone clever might devise, which is why the devs keep tweaking items as the game moves along.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2988 - 2013-11-19 01:08:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Nikk Narrel wrote:

I am all for things that help promote social interaction, but the circumstances need to be kept in context.

For sov null, most specifically, anyone you should really be talking to also probably shares either a corp or alliance channel with you. It is not uncommon for corp policies to include situational gag orders, specifically involving local chat.
It is simply an expectation that you are representing not just yourself, but your corp / alliance, and should not risk potential diplomatic incidents.

Multi-alliances share an intel channel too and fleets share a fleet channel. But we are not just talking about connecting with text chats. We are talking about connecting in virtual reality with virtual ships meeting in virtual space. Those are more of an operational nature which do not cause diplomatic incidents but do greatly benefit from knowing that you are in system and do have specific standings set.

Nikk Narrel wrote:

As to decloaking a ship at great distance, this is distinctly combat related. Any ship within targeting range is probably not simply watching, as they could do that from an obvious safer distance.
Additionally, active sensor boosters cannot be used directly from the ship using a hunting module, so unless someone has a remote booster running, lock time won't be terribly fast.
If you do have multiple pilots working together as a team, it is also reasonable that they should have better results with such teamwork. Either hunting cloaked ships, or cloaked ships hunting economic targets, group play should give leverage.


Even if the hunter fitted ship had to be visible for enough time to warn off the cloaky, before the lock and decloak could take effect, the ship could work with another ship to create bubbles and delay the escape. It might happen like this. The hunter ship wing warps the dictor to the scan result and cancels his own warp. He enters warp shortly thereafter. The dictor bubbles on landing and catches the cloaked ship. The hunter ship has several signal amps in the lows and arrives on grid after the bubbles are up. He runs the hunter module and decloaks the cloaky ship. The dictor points it. The signal amp increases locking range primarily and also lock time.

Nikk Narrel wrote:

It is probable that cloaked vessels will find plenty of opportunities to run away, before they can be trapped and ambushed.
We can only guess what tactics someone clever might devise, which is why the devs keep tweaking items as the game moves along.

The opportunities to run away from the dictor/hunter pair seem fairly slim to be honest, and that combo can work anywhere in null sec where bubbles are allowed

Would you mind offering me your feedback on the cloak probes and changes to local ideas?

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2989 - 2013-11-19 14:57:43 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Even if the hunter fitted ship had to be visible for enough time to warn off the cloaky, before the lock and decloak could take effect, the ship could work with another ship to create bubbles and delay the escape. It might happen like this. The hunter ship wing warps the dictor to the scan result and cancels his own warp. He enters warp shortly thereafter. The dictor bubbles on landing and catches the cloaked ship. The hunter ship has several signal amps in the lows and arrives on grid after the bubbles are up. He runs the hunter module and decloaks the cloaky ship. The dictor points it. The signal amp increases locking range primarily and also lock time.

I am not aware of the ability to fleet warp to scan results, but if that is normally possible, I would have it blocked in this context.
It gives an indirect and unintended means of sharing the hunter module's benefit with ships that have not also made the fitting and skill requirements.

It is comparable to having two ships being able to share benefits restricted to being cloaked, while only one of them actually fitted one. (the most comparable example to this would be the cloaked ship somehow extending the unscannable aspect to the fleet-mate(s) on grid with it)

The natural extension of that is to simply send in a battleship equipped with smart bombs, and pop the sucker by total surprise. It is already presuming accuracy at least equal to the range of a dictor's bubble.

Also, point of detail, the hunter module ONLY lets you see the cloaked ships, thereby allowing you to target them normally, as if they had no cloak active.
Your ship, by locking them normally, is the means by which they are decloaked.

As to the local changes and probe bit, give me a while to sort through it first, so I can properly respond. I want to offer a proper feedback, not one done in haste.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2990 - 2013-11-19 15:15:06 UTC
Electrique Wizard wrote:
Listening to you two rant along it clearly shows me you have no idea how EVE works.
You've just admitted you want to kill solo play and dont care about it. Just because you dont like something doesnt mean its bad. What cloaks are used for and what a dumb suggestion you've been trying to push for the past 150 pages. It doesnt even have to do with AFK cloaking anymore, you're just hijacking this topic to get others to lower their IQ by reading your posts down to a level where someone might actually agree with your terrible ideas. I've been trying to tell you the impact of your absurd propositions but you just fling off back into your own world within 2 paragraphs.

I could write a whole story about how your analysis of the effect on bomber fleets is wrong but you wouldnt read it and would just spout your "but i can decloak afk bombers now!" again.

Please stop trying to mess with things you dont understand.


Well if you wont provide why the proposal is wrong, then kindly STFU. You just sit there in your arrogance spouting you know more than everybody else and we are wrong and just supposed to take your word for it. Argument from an anonymous authority anyone?

And noting that local promotes solo play and in an MMO, in a thread where most of the PvPers say, "Get some friends" in response to an AFK cloakers it quite ironic. Was that irony intentional?

Look 2 paragraphs and nothing about my ideas. Instead they are about your horrible posting. Next time try something other than simply asserting you are awesome and everyone else is an idiot.

Roll

"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
Electrique Wizard
Mutually Lucrative Business Proposals
#2991 - 2013-11-19 15:24:31 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Electrique Wizard wrote:
Listening to you two rant along it clearly shows me you have no idea how EVE works.
You've just admitted you want to kill solo play and dont care about it. Just because you dont like something doesnt mean its bad. What cloaks are used for and what a dumb suggestion you've been trying to push for the past 150 pages. It doesnt even have to do with AFK cloaking anymore, you're just hijacking this topic to get others to lower their IQ by reading your posts down to a level where someone might actually agree with your terrible ideas. I've been trying to tell you the impact of your absurd propositions but you just fling off back into your own world within 2 paragraphs.

I could write a whole story about how your analysis of the effect on bomber fleets is wrong but you wouldnt read it and would just spout your "but i can decloak afk bombers now!" again.

Please stop trying to mess with things you dont understand.


Well if you wont provide why the proposal is wrong, then kindly STFU. You just sit there in your arrogance spouting you know more than everybody else and we are wrong and just supposed to take your word for it. Argument from an anonymous authority anyone?

And noting that local promotes solo play and in an MMO, in a thread where most of the PvPers say, "Get some friends" in response to an AFK cloakers it quite ironic. Was that irony intentional?

Look 2 paragraphs and nothing about my ideas. Instead they are about your horrible posting. Next time try something other than simply asserting you are awesome and everyone else is an idiot.

Roll


Like I've said multiple times now, your proposal:

1. Has nothing to do with AFK cloakers, you are hijacking this thread.
2. Is flawed. Your decloaking mechanism and your "lets remove local!" ideas will never get implemented because of it. You'll have a higher chance of all of highsec getting reduced to 0.4 sec. This entire thread (aswel as your own topics with the 2 "suggestions") are filled to the brim with people telling you why your suggestion will never work and will never get implemented.
If you really have an issue with AFK cloaking I propose you'll think of a way to get around it. Not rewrite half of the mechanics in EVE to break the game.

That said AFK cloaking is a glorious thing and should never be changed.

I am the Zodiac, I am the stars, You are the sorceress, my priestess of Mars, Queen of the night, swathed in satin black, Your ivory flesh upon my torture rack.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2992 - 2013-11-19 15:48:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Nikk Narrel
Andy Landen wrote:
Would you mind offering me your feedback on the cloak probes and changes to local ideas?

Let me offer a different direction instead.

I could work this logic from the other direction entirely, and still satisfy my hopes for game play.

What could be done to make the current local balanced?

In the most basic logic, I would respond that it needs to be actually in the game on MORE levels.
The problem, is that it gives serious intel, but itself is not vulnerable or possible to counter directly.

Have local operate in degrees of quality.
Give it two dimensions for this as well.

Dimension one, quantity of intel.
Dimension two, quality of intel.

Dimension one, would give ship numbers, then types, finally pilot names.
Dimension two, would give presence of neutrals, reduce delay to zero, then give presence of cloaked vessels.

Dimension one structures, which would be harder targets, would be POS add ons.
Dimension two structures, which would be easier targets meant for roams or smaller gangs, would be only in open space away from overview beacon items. These would need to be scanned down.

Examples:
Dimension 1: Level 3
Dimension 2: Level 3
Full list of pilot names, with faction tag visible.
Ship type listed next to name, highlighted if cloaking active.

Dimension 1: Level 3
Dimension 2: Level 0
Full list of pilot names, with ship type next to name.
NO faction standings listed, not defining cloak status.
ALL UPDATES DELAYED by 30 to 60 seconds, (balance adjusting by devs)

Dimension 1: Level 1
Dimension 2: Level 3
No pilot names.
4 Numbers listed.
1st number is how many friendly pilots (2nd is how many are cloaked)
3rd number is how many neutral or hostile (4th is how many are cloaked)

I figure this eliminates any need for hunting cloaked ships specifically, although that can be sorted into if the devs see balanced opportunity.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2993 - 2013-11-19 15:57:45 UTC
Correcting the previous, I edited the above to be accurate, here is the actual for the 0-3 combo

Dimension 1: Level 0
Dimension 2: Level 3
A single light indicator
Not lit if no other pilots present
Green light lit if all friendly
Yellow light lit if hostiles present
Red light lit if hostile cloaked present

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2994 - 2013-11-19 16:21:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
This all still sounds like loads of added complexity (edit: for complex, see unnecessarily convoluted), and a system which would be considerably easier to work with for larger groups than smaller ones.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2995 - 2013-11-19 16:34:22 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
This all still sounds like loads of added complexity (edit: for complex, see unnecessarily convoluted), and a system which would be considerably easier to work with for larger groups than smaller ones.

I take this under advisement as a warning not to suggest something that cannot be understood by an average player.
I will do my best to meet this guideline, and thank you for pointing it out.

If done carefully, it can actually be effective, and a good support for everyone having a great game play experience.

The two dimensional system has one side for sov level support, only truly threatened by massive blob warfare, which only offers mass level intel.
The other side is for pilot level, whether operating solo or in small groups. The intel is more detailed, as well as quicker to install or destroy, depending on your perspective.

Both benefit strongly when the other side is present.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2996 - 2013-11-19 18:12:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
This all still sounds like loads of added complexity (edit: for complex, see unnecessarily convoluted), and a system which would be considerably easier to work with for larger groups than smaller ones.

I take this under advisement as a warning not to suggest something that cannot be understood by an average player.
I will do my best to meet this guideline, and thank you for pointing it out.

If done carefully, it can actually be effective, and a good support for everyone having a great game play experience.

The two dimensional system has one side for sov level support, only truly threatened by massive blob warfare, which only offers mass level intel.
The other side is for pilot level, whether operating solo or in small groups. The intel is more detailed, as well as quicker to install or destroy, depending on your perspective.

Both benefit strongly when the other side is present.

I approach changes by considering the least effect possible for the desired results, the broadest application so that no specific group is targeted any more than the next group, the level of agreement with current game theorycraft/mechanics and with logical sense, and the views of the membership regarding the quality of the new content available with respect to any content lost. You have godd ideas that are worthy of discussion, but that does not mean that the changes will be small or will be accepted readily.

Whatever ideas we develop must ideally meet those four criteria as best as possible. They must apply equally to null sov as to null npc or ls or hs .. or wh. The must encourage more gameplay and not less of it. If most people are inclined to stay in station, or log out in the presence of any particular mechanic, then there is probably something wrong with that mechanic. Something needs to be added, changed, or removed so that in most situations most people prefer activity to logging out of going afk.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Xcom
Eclipse Strike Unit
Jump On Contact..
#2997 - 2013-11-19 18:27:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Xcom
Just to recap. To fix AFK cloaking or maybe cloaking in general you want to do the following.

1. Add a new module called the hunter module that will detect cloaked ship on activation. Something similar to the new Bastian module on the new Marauders.
2. Remove cloaked ships from local.
3. Add new sov mechanics and pos modules to detect ships in space similar to the current local but with added benefits.
4. As stated on your thread in your signature. Edit the local mechanics for people in stations and pos shields as well.

You also state these changes depend on each other so they would all have to be added at the same time.

Try to understand that these changes are neither elegant or simplistic on there own. CCP wont just drop everything and implement all these successive ideas one after the other. You could try make a new PC game and add these features into it. I doubt the dev team will implement all of the listed changes above as its just to far fetched and they probably have there own payed staff to figure out something they would prefer over your idea.

Edit: Instead of focusing on pushing out a crazy idea. Try convince the devs to prioritize the current problem so they will take the initiative and find a solution for us. I'm sure they will do a fine job figuring out a solution for the current problem we have.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2998 - 2013-11-19 19:00:05 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Just to recap. To fix AFK cloaking or maybe cloaking in general you want to do the following.

1. Add a new module called the hunter module that will detect cloaked ship on activation. Something similar to the new Bastian module on the new Marauders.
2. Remove cloaked ships from local.
3. Add new sov mechanics and pos modules to detect ships in space similar to the current local but with added benefits.
4. As stated on your thread in your signature. Edit the local mechanics for people in stations and pos shields as well.

You also state these changes depend on each other so they would all have to be added at the same time.

Try to understand that these changes are neither elegant or simplistic on there own. CCP wont just drop everything and implement all these successive ideas one after the other. You could try make a new PC game and add these features into it. I doubt the dev team will implement all of the listed changes above as its just to far fetched and they probably have there own payed staff to figure out something they would prefer over your idea.

Edit: Instead of focusing on pushing out a crazy idea. Try convince the devs to prioritize the current problem so they will take the initiative and find a solution for us. I'm sure they will do a fine job figuring out a solution for the current problem we have.

I suspect the devs have already determined that this issue needs to be solved in an unexpected direction.

It is not an issue of "can it be balanced", by my idea or someone else's.
It is an issue of how too many voices have staked claims and opinions about the topic, so that any solution that is specific to cloaking or local risks being turned into an uproar of perceived betrayal.

Perception is the measure by which games rise and fall, and after the debacle around the captains quarters, and walking in stations, they probably want to avoid being painted by one side or another as ruining the game for everyone.

That means local and cloaking need to be rendered non-issues for the game play aspect they are being debated around.
To do this, they need to bring in the solution from a direction considered neutral, and therefore safe.

After this pressure is backed off from the issue, it can be quietly resolved. After all, it won't have the impact on game play previously expected, having been bypassed entirely.

Well played.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2999 - 2013-11-19 19:36:29 UTC
Electrique Wizard wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Electrique Wizard wrote:
Listening to you two rant along it clearly shows me you have no idea how EVE works.
You've just admitted you want to kill solo play and dont care about it. Just because you dont like something doesnt mean its bad. What cloaks are used for and what a dumb suggestion you've been trying to push for the past 150 pages. It doesnt even have to do with AFK cloaking anymore, you're just hijacking this topic to get others to lower their IQ by reading your posts down to a level where someone might actually agree with your terrible ideas. I've been trying to tell you the impact of your absurd propositions but you just fling off back into your own world within 2 paragraphs.

I could write a whole story about how your analysis of the effect on bomber fleets is wrong but you wouldnt read it and would just spout your "but i can decloak afk bombers now!" again.

Please stop trying to mess with things you dont understand.


Well if you wont provide why the proposal is wrong, then kindly STFU. You just sit there in your arrogance spouting you know more than everybody else and we are wrong and just supposed to take your word for it. Argument from an anonymous authority anyone?

And noting that local promotes solo play and in an MMO, in a thread where most of the PvPers say, "Get some friends" in response to an AFK cloakers it quite ironic. Was that irony intentional?

Look 2 paragraphs and nothing about my ideas. Instead they are about your horrible posting. Next time try something other than simply asserting you are awesome and everyone else is an idiot.

Roll


Like I've said multiple times now, your proposal:

1. Has nothing to do with AFK cloakers, you are hijacking this thread.
2. Is flawed. Your decloaking mechanism and your "lets remove local!" ideas will never get implemented because of it. You'll have a higher chance of all of highsec getting reduced to 0.4 sec. This entire thread (aswel as your own topics with the 2 "suggestions") are filled to the brim with people telling you why your suggestion will never work and will never get implemented.
If you really have an issue with AFK cloaking I propose you'll think of a way to get around it. Not rewrite half of the mechanics in EVE to break the game.

That said AFK cloaking is a glorious thing and should never be changed.


1. I am hijacking my own thread? (Where the OP is to list all the horrible ideas on nerfing cloaks in a boneheaded attempt to deal with AFK cloaking and not the ultimate cause.)
2. Tell us the flaws instead of spouting your bravo sierra. You are just back to your: I'm better than you therefore shut up.

If you have a concrete complaint then put if forward. Otherwise you just look whiny and petulant.

"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
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3000 - 2013-11-19 20:08:41 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:

It is not an issue of "can it be balanced", by my idea or someone else's.
It is an issue of how too many voices have staked claims and opinions about the topic, so that any solution that is specific to cloaking or local risks being turned into an uproar of perceived betrayal.

Perception is the measure by which games rise and fall, and after the debacle around the captains quarters, and walking in stations, they probably want to avoid being painted by one side or another as ruining the game for everyone.

The solution which removes local and reveals cloakies to be locked and decloaked would create an uproar because to brings great changes which target specific groups with added benefits and nerfs on those groups primarily.

The only way to not betray entire groups is to treat all groups the same. An afk log affects every exactly the same way and only nerfs those who are not at the keyboard anyway. I don't mind the idea of betraying those who do are not playing the game anyway. If the afk group goes away, the game is left with those who are active and probably even more active then before and less inclined to move on to another MMO.

Anything that encourages more people to engage the game by getting rid of those who are not playing is a good thing. Trimming the fat and increasing our love and engagement of the current game contents will certainly make Eve stronger.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein