These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals

First post First post
Author
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#2581 - 2015-08-02 03:41:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Rende Crow wrote:
I don't really feel I "missed the point". This whole thread is about afk cloaking in null space and you then chimed in saying that a ratting ship is not defenseless. I simply pointed out that it is, because MOST pvp in null space involves a 10 on 1 scenario and a ratting ship can't possibly win with those odds.

In any case, this is a little off topic so lets get back onto topic.


This thread pretty much boils down to:

1. People pointing out that someone cloaked can harass players in a system for days/weeks at a time with no counter, and that something like a log off timer or cloaks falling off after an hour or so would improve the issue.

2. Pvp white knights rushing to the defense of current cloaking and claiming that local intel is the issue.

3. Pvp white knights failing to realize that if you take away local intel and make it imperfect intel, then people in cloaked ships would have a MUCH easier time killing ratters. The end result would be ratting becoming impossible in null sec because cloaked ships would be able to sneak up on ratters on a daily basis.

Simply put the pro-cloak crowd has not provided a reasonable solution to AFK cloaking while the pro-ratter crowd has provided a somewhat decent solution, which is logoff / decloak timers.



1. Local is your counter. It tells you the bad guy is there and that is worth alot, you've even said so yourself (although I doubt you realize it). Knowing there is a bad guy out there tells you the following:


  1. Do not undock in a PvE ship and rat as if local were clear.
  2. You know the bad guys name--i.e. you can go look up information on him.
  3. You can also look around to see if he has buddies within covert cyno range.
  4. You can also move over a system, if he follows you he is active, if not he is AFK.
  5. In the case where he does not follow you, move a system and rat away.
  6. Get your buddies in fleet with you, ratting in numbers can help even the odds.


2. The issue of AFK cloaking is also inextricably linked with local. No local, no AFK cloaking. You have admitted this yourself. That is clearly not a viable solution, but it does suggest possibilities for more balanced approaches.

3. More ratters dying does not have to make ratting impossible. As I have tried to show to you guys on the PvE side, the issue is expected gains vs. expected losses. If you expect to gain 2 billion before you incur a loss currently and that changes to 1.4 billion gains before you incur a loss and you still come out ahead then ratting in null is still viable. Further, if you change your ratting methods (i.e. stop filling your head with 200 million ISK in implants--why for God's sake) then you could make out even better on an expected net gains basis.

BTW, null sec ratting does NOT need a buff at all. In fact, if it were up to me, I'd nerf the ever living f*** out of it as I think that is one reason why PLEX prices have gone sky high. The amount of ISK entering the game economy via null sec ratting is by any measure huge. So your claim to having a decent solution is just flat out wrong. All you have done is argue for your own special narrowly defined interests.

And here you have the gall to say I don't understand game balance. Roll

Edit:

BTW, this part,

Quote:
You can also move over a system, if he follows you he is active, if not he is AFK.


That is also additional intel you can get via local. Amazing how we keep coming back to local.... 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

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#2582 - 2015-08-02 03:49:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Rende Crow wrote:
Arya Regnar wrote:
Nullbears still cry over the lack of complete 100% safetly I see...

They always dock up when you enter local and the only counter to that is cloaky camping.

You cant have counter to both unless you also fix local.



Lets see..... At the very least I am out ratting in a 600 million isk ship and have another 200 million of implants installed. You, the pvper, have no implants installed and a 10 million isk ship. The risk vs reward of fighting you is simply not worth it. Best case I get a 10 million kill mail, worst case I lose almost a billion. Since we all know you probably have another ten friends waiting to jump into the system and kill me, that worst case scenario happens the majority of the time if I fight you.

Of course I am going to dock up! But you have a counter to that! You can catch me before I do. I on the other hand have no counter to getting you out of cloak.

On the one hand, you claim to be concerned about the difference in value between your ship and theirs.

I can see there is a wide gap in difference between the two.
Equally clearly, it is obvious that you are not worried about that cheaper ship. You are worried about being attacked by the real threats. A set of ships likely worth significantly more, possibly even more than your ship.

A set of ships not present, when you decide about undocking.
Which really makes a lot of sense, as you would not undock in the PvE ship if you DID see their names listed in local.

And, they are aware of this. They know they have effectively zero chance of shooting at you, when you know they are going to be present.

So, put yourself in their tactical position: How do they manage to get a meaningful chance to shoot at your ship?

If your answer works out to be never, or that they should simply give up hope, think about how safe you are asking to be.

We want to encourage player interaction, and this is falling short of that mark.

--emphasis added.

Nikk's point is extremely good.

What he is getting at is that the request is for ratting in a very safe environment. After all, an active roaming gang can be spotted by other friendlies and reported in intel channels well before they get to the ratter's system (oh and look, local again rearing its ugly head).

Even if they manage to go unreported in intel channels, the ratter still has the home advantage that...wait for it...wait for it...local provides. There is small yet significant time delay between when an entrant to a system is reported in local and when they load grid, let alone pick an anomaly and start aligning.

These requests to nerf cloaks, and indirectly buff null sec PvE, are based not on game balance, but on narrow special interests...those who primarily PvE in null. Even suggesting that both local and cloaks be changed to ensure balance and that null PvE is never "too safe" is almost surely meet by fierce opposition by the PvE side of the discussion (Nikk being one of the few exceptions).

"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
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#2583 - 2015-08-02 03:54:42 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Rende Crow wrote:
I've seen pvpers D-scan down people in 20 seconds flat. Get rid of local intel and the ratters wont stand a chance. A pvp frig will easily prevent a ratter from aligning to warp away until 39475439759834759873489 of their friends arrive to finish the job.

You are avoiding acknowledging a few important details.
You seem to ignore player driven intel, which is a major sov sided benefit for residents to use.

1. Cloaked scouts feeding intel for sov residents.
One account, with a cloaked ship at a gate, is enough to track passage through a pipeline system.
With enough players, it is not surprising to have full coverage of all key points of travel monitored.
A few bubbles around the right gate, and you have a lovely tarpit.

2. That cloaked hunter needs to check everywhere, or risk missing targets.
He no longer would have certain knowledge of target presence, so scanning everywhere, (within reason), becomes necessary.
(Map statistics can also be used by defenders, once they see they are a hotspot, relocate to less notable location, and the hunters only get told about past events, not current ones)


He is also leaving out that when that pvp frig lands and points the ratter, every rat still on grid will target the PvP frig, and if there are enough of them, alpha it off grid.

Funny how they leave out these kinds of things.

"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
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#2584 - 2015-08-02 03:58:58 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
1. Even your much touted intel channel relies on many people actively doing the work of keeping that space secure. They have to be awake and and aware to make reliable and timely reports. The power of local relies on active participation in securing space, and should not be significantly disrupted by afk activities.


I agree, but the problem is there are no viable ways to disrupt the power of local in an active sense.

1. Suppose I try to clog it up with many pilots as you've argued in the past. All this does is make it much more noticeable that hostiles are around unless I can somehow manage to clog it with blues.

2. There is nothing that can be done about the home advantage that local gives to the system's residents.

If you want to change cloaks, then you have to change these characteristics of local. Local MUST become vulnerable to attack/subversion.

"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
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#2585 - 2015-08-02 04:14:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Ulthanon Kaidos wrote:


Oh yes he does! I'm shamelessly re-posting it here.

Ulthanon Kaidos wrote:
Observation Arrays

For Observation Arrays, I have to work under a pair of assumptions; each assumption changes some fundamental characteristics of the OA. The first assumption is that null-sec Local will be removed as a baseline feature. Under that assumption,


Observational Arrays should, to some degree, return some version of Local Chat to their system. Keep in mind that doing so would burn fuel continuously; CCP has also stated that players will be able to anchor more than one OA in a system, so I think it would be fair to state that multiple OAs should return Local to its current state of operation, at the cost of all that fuel constantly running.
Other options for Local, should an alliance not have enough OAs for "Full Local" functionality (or if they're not turned on at a given time) could be: No local at all; a 'Doorbell' that provides a soft inbound/outbound noise played system-wide when a ship enters or leaves (but with no counter); or a 'Local Counter' as mentioned elsewhere that shows the number of ships, but not who.


Now, if we work under the assumption that null-sec local will remain as a baseline feature, then they obviously won't influence the Local Chat window since it wouldn't be going anywhere in the first place. Anyway, moving on.

If we envision OAs in the fitting window shown for stations, a multitude of different functionality options appear before us. For instance,

If an OA can be sat in, we'll assume it has a host of scanning equipment (because duh). We could tie OA scanning into the Beta Map and allow it to visually show us where D-scan pings come up; it could be equipped/rigged to scan down any signatures in its range; it could be equipped with specialized scanners that can penetrate cloaks.

After all, remember: the problem isn't cloaky campers, the problem is afk cloaky campers. If a dude has the day off and decides to spend it cloak-burning safes, bouncing around your system, ganking your Retrievers and then disappearing again- he deserves to do this. That player is active, and that's the key; he or she could dodge an OA scan by moving. An afk cloaky camper would get caught, which is good because that gameplay is totally lame.

Disabling Observational Arrays

Obviously shooting it or entosising it would turn it off, but here's a thought: Ships that entosis it or shoot it cause an alarm to go off, much like an ESS does today. "Ulthanon is attacking the OA!", and then everyone warps in and dumpsters me. Sadness reigns.

BUT, I have another option. I can fly a CovOps! And if I come in with my Data Module*, I can hack the OA into submission without triggering a system-wide warning. Maybe upon successful hack, I can chose one or more of its intelligence streams to turn off. Maybe I shut down local. Maybe I make all of the anoms in the system go to 0%, needing them to be scanned down like signatures. The what can be debated but it adds an interesting dynamic that exploration ships have never had before.

Obviously, if I fail the hack, I get locked out of the system and the warning is broadcast. Now everyone knows to scan for my Buzzard and I am once again hunted down like the dog I am. Maybe failure disables my cloak for a time!

As for the OA's module slots, maybe these would be more toward anti-hacking defenses than actual launchers or turrets. Perhaps certain rigs/mods increase the system core's strength, while others have an increased chance to spawn Restoration Nodes. In this way, we keep the OA's theme intact (lightly defended but highly advanced), we encourage active gameplay (discouraging afk campers and passive OA boosts), we add a new and interesting dimension to a previously PvE-only skillset and we balance risk with reward for both sov-holders and hunting gangs.


I have argue for very similar set ups. I like it.

I have also tried to "sweeten the pot" for the more PvE inclined:

The OAs form a network. That is, if you have an OA in each constellation they can communicate some additional information to other OAs. The primary benefit is that when one docks/moors with an OA that pilot can access the limited information from the other OAs as well....but only while dock/moored. I know CCP is inclined not to let ships moor/dock with the OA, so maybe have this specialty work while a ship is within 2000 meters of the OA and their ship is immobile for a period of time while interfacing with the OA.

This last part might be too much, IDK. Guess it depends on what modules are fitted on each OA and what information can be shared between OAs.

Edit:

To be clear, I see this set up doing the following:

1. Killing AFK cloaking dead.
2. Making local vulnerable to both attack/subversion.

"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

Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#2586 - 2015-08-02 09:24:09 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
1. Even your much touted intel channel relies on many people actively doing the work of keeping that space secure. They have to be awake and and aware to make reliable and timely reports. The power of local relies on active participation in securing space, and should not be significantly disrupted by afk activities.


I agree, but the problem is there are no viable ways to disrupt the power of local in an active sense.

1. Suppose I try to clog it up with many pilots as you've argued in the past. All this does is make it much more noticeable that hostiles are around unless I can somehow manage to clog it with blues.

2. There is nothing that can be done about the home advantage that local gives to the system's residents.

If you want to change cloaks, then you have to change these characteristics of local. Local MUST become vulnerable to attack/subversion.



1. No problem detected. So long as you keep unfriendly names in local you have disrupted PvE activities. Keep them there long enough and you will get people who become complacent and fly out solo in in PvE fits. This is exactly the same as being under a cloak except you can be hunted down and challenged for the right to disrupt that space.

2. No problem detected. If there is no home advantage there is no point to having a home. As it is there is no combat advantage other than potential available allies. All the simpering about Intel channels and blobbing is really about having active friends online. Social combat game working as intended.

Until you can understand that driving a PvE player into hiding is a victory in itself, considering he could not fight anyway, you will not be able to come to a reasonable compromise with players that prefer PvE playstyles. No one wants to fly a loot pinata at their own expense, and a considerable expense at that. It is unreasonable to expect explosions and pods of PvE pilots when there is no benefit of any kind for them to hang around.

It's not local that needs to change, it's the reward of PvE in conditions of near 100% destruction. Change the near absolute death sentence of tackle, the lack of meaningful reward in the short term, or the one sided fight of PvE vs. PvP fits and you will see more fights.

Cloaks remain unbalanced all by themselves with or without local because they are immune to player disruption. Not only is local not that immune, it's not a player created condition, and it's usefulness is the product of active player participation from many individuals. It deserves it's power. Cloaks cost no effort, opportunity or anything meaningful to the using pilot and completely negates those efforts. That's not balanced.
Lugburz
Warcrows
Shattered Foundations
#2587 - 2015-08-02 11:11:53 UTC
'Depth Charges' fired from interdictor class ships (similar to bubbles but merely decloak or not allow to cloak) you can either use the disrupt probe or depth charge but not both at the same time; would give interdictors a little more versatility but maybe could usher in another t2 destroyer variant for all the races?
Mobile structures; self explanatory.

Whilst these wont actually stop people from afk cloaking systems it would make it a little harder for them to move around and its not a nerf but rather an acheivable scientific goal many factions (certainly in rl) would more than likely be working towards anyway?
Rende Crow
Perkone
Caldari State
#2588 - 2015-08-02 21:32:24 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:


He is also leaving out that when that pvp frig lands and points the ratter, every rat still on grid will target the PvP frig, and if there are enough of them, alpha it off grid.

Funny how they leave out these kinds of things.


You are also leaving out that if a tackle occurs (even if the tackle dies to rats) the added time it takes for a battleship to align for a warp is going to be more than enough time for the tackle's friends (say a small gang of 10 to 15) to arrive and kill the battleship. Seriously, if you get tackled in a ratting ship it is a death sentence 95% of the time.

"Funny how they leave out these kinds of things"
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#2589 - 2015-08-03 02:27:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Rende Crow wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:


He is also leaving out that when that pvp frig lands and points the ratter, every rat still on grid will target the PvP frig, and if there are enough of them, alpha it off grid.

Funny how they leave out these kinds of things.


You are also leaving out that if a tackle occurs (even if the tackle dies to rats) the added time it takes for a battleship to align for a warp is going to be more than enough time for the tackle's friends (say a small gang of 10 to 15) to arrive and kill the battleship. Seriously, if you get tackled in a ratting ship it is a death sentence 95% of the time.

"Funny how they leave out these kinds of things"


Tackling does not stop aligning. Roll

Edit:

If you are tackled, the pilot is not AFK and hence not an AFK cloaking issue. Just saying.

And don't worry, we get it, you want safer ratting. You could be, you know, honest and just admit it. 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

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#2590 - 2015-08-03 02:42:03 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
1. Even your much touted intel channel relies on many people actively doing the work of keeping that space secure. They have to be awake and and aware to make reliable and timely reports. The power of local relies on active participation in securing space, and should not be significantly disrupted by afk activities.


I agree, but the problem is there are no viable ways to disrupt the power of local in an active sense.

1. Suppose I try to clog it up with many pilots as you've argued in the past. All this does is make it much more noticeable that hostiles are around unless I can somehow manage to clog it with blues.

2. There is nothing that can be done about the home advantage that local gives to the system's residents.

If you want to change cloaks, then you have to change these characteristics of local. Local MUST become vulnerable to attack/subversion.



1. No problem detected. So long as you keep unfriendly names in local you have disrupted PvE activities. Keep them there long enough and you will get people who become complacent and fly out solo in in PvE fits. This is exactly the same as being under a cloak except you can be hunted down and challenged for the right to disrupt that space.

2. No problem detected. If there is no home advantage there is no point to having a home. As it is there is no combat advantage other than potential available allies. All the simpering about Intel channels and blobbing is really about having active friends online. Social combat game working as intended.

Until you can understand that driving a PvE player into hiding is a victory in itself, considering he could not fight anyway, you will not be able to come to a reasonable compromise with players that prefer PvE playstyles. No one wants to fly a loot pinata at their own expense, and a considerable expense at that. It is unreasonable to expect explosions and pods of PvE pilots when there is no benefit of any kind for them to hang around.

It's not local that needs to change, it's the reward of PvE in conditions of near 100% destruction. Change the near absolute death sentence of tackle, the lack of meaningful reward in the short term, or the one sided fight of PvE vs. PvP fits and you will see more fights.

Cloaks remain unbalanced all by themselves with or without local because they are immune to player disruption. Not only is local not that immune, it's not a player created condition, and it's usefulness is the product of active player participation from many individuals. It deserves it's power. Cloaks cost no effort, opportunity or anything meaningful to the using pilot and completely negates those efforts. That's not balanced.


Load of bullcrap.

First off, the idea is to sneak and disrupt PvE...filling it with neutrals or hostiles is not sneaking it, it is getting close to just outright invading.

Second, the home advantage is just the way the servers work, it is very hard to argue this is a design feature since it works every-freaking-where in the freaking game. High sec, low sec, null sec, NPC null sec, and if local in wormholes worked like in K-space it would be the same way there. To say this is an advantage to having a "home" is just errant nonsense. Perhaps if it were a feature built into the OA and it could be vulnerable you might have a point, it isn't so you don't.

"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
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#2591 - 2015-08-03 02:50:18 UTC
Lugburz wrote:
'Depth Charges' fired from interdictor class ships (similar to bubbles but merely decloak or not allow to cloak) you can either use the disrupt probe or depth charge but not both at the same time; would give interdictors a little more versatility but maybe could usher in another t2 destroyer variant for all the races?
Mobile structures; self explanatory.

Whilst these wont actually stop people from afk cloaking systems it would make it a little harder for them to move around and its not a nerf but rather an acheivable scientific goal many factions (certainly in rl) would more than likely be working towards anyway?


FFS.

I love these dumb posts.

How does an AFK cloaked pilot move around? Please, enlighten us all. Roll

And stop, stop, stop, stop using RL as a basis for suggestions. This. Is. A. Game. It is not based on real life. That is why the physics in game for ships is based on fluid dynamics and not that of a vacuum.

"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

Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#2592 - 2015-08-03 09:39:14 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
1. Even your much touted intel channel relies on many people actively doing the work of keeping that space secure. They have to be awake and and aware to make reliable and timely reports. The power of local relies on active participation in securing space, and should not be significantly disrupted by afk activities.


I agree, but the problem is there are no viable ways to disrupt the power of local in an active sense.

1. Suppose I try to clog it up with many pilots as you've argued in the past. All this does is make it much more noticeable that hostiles are around unless I can somehow manage to clog it with blues.

2. There is nothing that can be done about the home advantage that local gives to the system's residents.

If you want to change cloaks, then you have to change these characteristics of local. Local MUST become vulnerable to attack/subversion.



1. No problem detected. So long as you keep unfriendly names in local you have disrupted PvE activities. Keep them there long enough and you will get people who become complacent and fly out solo in in PvE fits. This is exactly the same as being under a cloak except you can be hunted down and challenged for the right to disrupt that space.

2. No problem detected. If there is no home advantage there is no point to having a home. As it is there is no combat advantage other than potential available allies. All the simpering about Intel channels and blobbing is really about having active friends online. Social combat game working as intended.

Until you can understand that driving a PvE player into hiding is a victory in itself, considering he could not fight anyway, you will not be able to come to a reasonable compromise with players that prefer PvE playstyles. No one wants to fly a loot pinata at their own expense, and a considerable expense at that. It is unreasonable to expect explosions and pods of PvE pilots when there is no benefit of any kind for them to hang around.

It's not local that needs to change, it's the reward of PvE in conditions of near 100% destruction. Change the near absolute death sentence of tackle, the lack of meaningful reward in the short term, or the one sided fight of PvE vs. PvP fits and you will see more fights.

Cloaks remain unbalanced all by themselves with or without local because they are immune to player disruption. Not only is local not that immune, it's not a player created condition, and it's usefulness is the product of active player participation from many individuals. It deserves it's power. Cloaks cost no effort, opportunity or anything meaningful to the using pilot and completely negates those efforts. That's not balanced.


Load of bullcrap.

First off, the idea is to sneak and disrupt PvE...filling it with neutrals or hostiles is not sneaking it, it is getting close to just outright invading.

Second, the home advantage is just the way the servers work, it is very hard to argue this is a design feature since it works every-freaking-where in the freaking game. High sec, low sec, null sec, NPC null sec, and if local in wormholes worked like in K-space it would be the same way there. To say this is an advantage to having a "home" is just errant nonsense. Perhaps if it were a feature built into the OA and it could be vulnerable you might have a point, it isn't so you don't.


Filling with neutrals and hostiles is all you are doing now, with a cloak. You aren't sneaking anything, you are in fact relying on the fact you cannot sneak to cause the disruption. Without local you could sneak with a titan and a big brass band.

Your second point makes no sense, unless you mean that local is a home advantage. It's not. As you said and has been my point on multiple occasions, Local works the exact same everywhere. The "Home Advantage" is actually just available allies working together to keep eachother safe. Defense fleets, escorts, and intel channels are all examples of people working together to keep eachother safe.

Cloaks that allow for afk camping break all of that, with no effort. a single cheap module should not passively offset the active efforts of multiple players.
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#2593 - 2015-08-03 15:24:46 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:


Filling with neutrals and hostiles is all you are doing now, with a cloak. You aren't sneaking anything, you are in fact relying on the fact you cannot sneak to cause the disruption. Without local you could sneak with a titan and a big brass band.

Your second point makes no sense, unless you mean that local is a home advantage. It's not. As you said and has been my point on multiple occasions, Local works the exact same everywhere. The "Home Advantage" is actually just available allies working together to keep eachother safe. Defense fleets, escorts, and intel channels are all examples of people working together to keep eachother safe.

Cloaks that allow for afk camping break all of that, with no effort. a single cheap module should not passively offset the active efforts of multiple players.


Yes, you cannot sneak in because of local. Cloaks are broken in a sense in that they provide no stealth from local at all. This is why local is a counter to cloaks...it lets those in the system know a hostile is there irrespective of having a cloak or not. All the cloak lets you do is hide really, really well and helps you get past gate camps.

As for the second point, claiming the 1 second or so benefit the resident gets a "home field advantage" is errant nonsense. The idea of a home field advantage is you are on "your turf" not the "enemies turf". You know the terrain better (i.e. the connections between systems, jump bridges, POS locations, etc.). The advantage the server provides in seeing a person jumping in before they load grid is not and was not a design feature. You may see it as a design feature, but that is irrelevant really since we all know your goal is simply safer ratting. Now if it were a module that could be added on to the OA and thus becomes vulnerable, it would be something CCP deliberately intended vs. just how the servers work. Basically the game is handing you an advantage over every player coming into your system for nothing. Literally nothing. You spend no ISK, took no time training skills, no fitting choices nothing. You get it while docked, undocked, at POS, or in an anomaly. Yet you complain bitterly about the player who is cloaked at a safe being safe and not earning it...never mind that he trained a skill (and it prerequisites), trained for the ship to fit it on (most likely), spent the ISK for said skills and ship. Made fitting choices. Burned to the system you are in (i.e., invested time) and made the safe spot as well. It becomes rather apparently who the entitled player(s) is (are). It's you Mike and those like you. Those who want enhanced safety over the already pretty safe null sec ratting we already have.

I and Nikk and others have already stated AFK cloak is bad and should go. We favor a balanced approach along the lines Ulthanon has discussed in the OA thread. Do away with AFK cloaking, make local vulnerable. Problem solved.

"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

Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#2594 - 2015-08-03 17:04:54 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:


Yes, you cannot sneak in because of local. Cloaks are broken in a sense in that they provide no stealth from local at all. This is why local is a counter to cloaks...it lets those in the system know a hostile is there irrespective of having a cloak or not. All the cloak lets you do is hide really, really well and helps you get past gate camps.

As for the second point, claiming the 1 second or so benefit the resident gets a "home field advantage" is errant nonsense. The idea of a home field advantage is you are on "your turf" not the "enemies turf". You know the terrain better (i.e. the connections between systems, jump bridges, POS locations, etc.). The advantage the server provides in seeing a person jumping in before they load grid is not and was not a design feature. You may see it as a design feature, but that is irrelevant really since we all know your goal is simply safer ratting. Now if it were a module that could be added on to the OA and thus becomes vulnerable, it would be something CCP deliberately intended vs. just how the servers work. Basically the game is handing you an advantage over every player coming into your system for nothing. Literally nothing. You spend no ISK, took no time training skills, no fitting choices nothing. You get it while docked, undocked, at POS, or in an anomaly. Yet you complain bitterly about the player who is cloaked at a safe being safe and not earning it...never mind that he trained a skill (and it prerequisites), trained for the ship to fit it on (most likely), spent the ISK for said skills and ship. Made fitting choices. Burned to the system you are in (i.e., invested time) and made the safe spot as well. It becomes rather apparently who the entitled player(s) is (are). It's you Mike and those like you. Those who want enhanced safety over the already pretty safe null sec ratting we already have.

I and Nikk and others have already stated AFK cloak is bad and should go. We favor a balanced approach along the lines Ulthanon has discussed in the OA thread. Do away with AFK cloaking, make local vulnerable. Problem solved.


You seem to be attacking a point I didn't make.

The home advantage is that there are people to help you. It's not the load delay or anything like that, and no one said so, except you.

Local is a design feature. It is doing exactly what it was intended to do, helping to drive conflict by letting people know that you are in the same system with one another. It's the surrounding game mechanics that create the stalemate and prevent PvP from occurring. Things like ludicrously one sided engagements reinforced by the needs of PvE, the complete lack of any reward for attempting PvP, the absolute tackle mechanics, and the meta-game culture that reveres predator-victim style combat.

I don't want safer ratting handed to anyone, just the opportunity to earn it through proactive action, just like anything else in EVE.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2595 - 2015-08-03 17:49:28 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:


Yes, you cannot sneak in because of local. Cloaks are broken in a sense in that they provide no stealth from local at all. This is why local is a counter to cloaks...it lets those in the system know a hostile is there irrespective of having a cloak or not. All the cloak lets you do is hide really, really well and helps you get past gate camps.

As for the second point, claiming the 1 second or so benefit the resident gets a "home field advantage" is errant nonsense. The idea of a home field advantage is you are on "your turf" not the "enemies turf". You know the terrain better (i.e. the connections between systems, jump bridges, POS locations, etc.). The advantage the server provides in seeing a person jumping in before they load grid is not and was not a design feature. You may see it as a design feature, but that is irrelevant really since we all know your goal is simply safer ratting. Now if it were a module that could be added on to the OA and thus becomes vulnerable, it would be something CCP deliberately intended vs. just how the servers work. Basically the game is handing you an advantage over every player coming into your system for nothing. Literally nothing. You spend no ISK, took no time training skills, no fitting choices nothing. You get it while docked, undocked, at POS, or in an anomaly. Yet you complain bitterly about the player who is cloaked at a safe being safe and not earning it...never mind that he trained a skill (and it prerequisites), trained for the ship to fit it on (most likely), spent the ISK for said skills and ship. Made fitting choices. Burned to the system you are in (i.e., invested time) and made the safe spot as well. It becomes rather apparently who the entitled player(s) is (are). It's you Mike and those like you. Those who want enhanced safety over the already pretty safe null sec ratting we already have.

I and Nikk and others have already stated AFK cloak is bad and should go. We favor a balanced approach along the lines Ulthanon has discussed in the OA thread. Do away with AFK cloaking, make local vulnerable. Problem solved.


You seem to be attacking a point I didn't make.

The home advantage is that there are people to help you. It's not the load delay or anything like that, and no one said so, except you.

Local is a design feature. It is doing exactly what it was intended to do, helping to drive conflict by letting people know that you are in the same system with one another. It's the surrounding game mechanics that create the stalemate and prevent PvP from occurring. Things like ludicrously one sided engagements reinforced by the needs of PvE, the complete lack of any reward for attempting PvP, the absolute tackle mechanics, and the meta-game culture that reveres predator-victim style combat.

I don't want safer ratting handed to anyone, just the opportunity to earn it through proactive action, just like anything else in EVE.

In fairness, what Teckos said is a point commonly associated with anti-cloaking rhetoric.

You may not be promoting it directly, but it is still an aspect of gameplay that supposedly covert ships are publicly known as being present in any system they enter, due to how an otherwise often unused chat channel operates.

Being able to hunt them, after such an obvious cue to their presence, seems far from balanced.
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#2596 - 2015-08-03 19:27:00 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:


You seem to be attacking a point I didn't make.

The home advantage is that there are people to help you. It's not the load delay or anything like that, and no one said so, except you.

Local is a design feature. It is doing exactly what it was intended to do, helping to drive conflict by letting people know that you are in the same system with one another. It's the surrounding game mechanics that create the stalemate and prevent PvP from occurring. Things like ludicrously one sided engagements reinforced by the needs of PvE, the complete lack of any reward for attempting PvP, the absolute tackle mechanics, and the meta-game culture that reveres predator-victim style combat.

I don't want safer ratting handed to anyone, just the opportunity to earn it through proactive action, just like anything else in EVE.


The intel aspect of local is not at all clear that was its intended use. Not at all. In fact, that we have had Devs saying that they’d prefer local to simply be a chat channel….strongly suggest that using local for intel was in fact an unintended consequence.

As for the ludicrously one side fights, that is part and parcel of a sandbox game. And I’ll also note that many PvE pilots do not want to change their behavior when this problem shows up in their neighborhood. Instead of say, ratting in a group/fleet, they more than likely show up on the forums complaining about it.

And you say you want to earn it, but yet here you are…again defending local as it currently exists when in fact it is quite clearly very much part of the problem…and something you benefit from that you in absolutely no way earn.

And here is me saying, AFK cloaking is bad. It is boring and in fact discourages player interaction. But local is bad too in its role as an intel tool and also discourages player interaction. So, change both so that we have no more AFK cloaking, no more impervious and flawless intel source, and instead make it so that one has to work for their intel infrastructure and denying resources now becomes and active activity. I’m willing to at least go half-way and try and reach a balanced solution…you are not.

Or you can agree and say, yes, intel should not be free/effortless. I should have to work for it too. Then we can go to the OA thread and argue there the fine points there and when somebody shows up here and says, “POS mode that de-cloaks all cloaked ships,” we can both say, “No, that is not good. Go read the OA sticky thread where the discussion for changes to local and cloaks is taking place.”

"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

Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#2597 - 2015-08-03 19:50:01 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Local is a design feature. It is doing exactly what it was intended to do, helping to drive conflict by letting people know that you are in the same system with one another.
I have to disagree with you on this point. Local first and foremost is a chat tool. How it is being used is going against its main function.

The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't.

Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#2598 - 2015-08-03 23:19:24 UTC
Lucien Visteen wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Local is a design feature. It is doing exactly what it was intended to do, helping to drive conflict by letting people know that you are in the same system with one another.
I have to disagree with you on this point. Local first and foremost is a chat tool. How it is being used is going against its main function.



Here is the thing...

Even 12 years ago text based chat systems existed. MMOs existed. MMOs with integrated chat existed. Eve was hardly breaking new ground with this aspect of its engine. I do not know of one single other MMO that kept an on screen roster of who was in a channel. They all had a command to get such a roster, usually /who with some switches to allow filtering. Ultima, Everquest, WOW, CoH/V, and many others all managed on-screen chat clients without an on-screen roster.

Chat operating as it does is clearly intended behavior. They even went back and specifically enhanced it with standings, and then made wormholes. If they wanted it changed, they would have done it because they have had dev time spent on it in particular a few times. They had to go out of their way to make it do what it does, if chat had been their only goal that separate little window that lists the roster could be done away with. Hell, you can't even close it to save screen space.

It's not like they are afraid of making us push a button for basic Intel, look at dscan. What's in space is pretty basic info and you have to hit it every 5 seconds.

The current crop of Devs may eventually change it. Most of them are from the less savory portions of the player base and have no interest in making EvE into a world anymore, and enjoy tears as much as any other ganker.

Cloaks, on the other hand, were not part of the original game design. They have not been given much development since their release either. The hulls they go on have, but the cloaks themselves are largely in the condition they were released in. If either item is suffering from unintended consequence, it's far more likely to be them.

Often new modules are released that cause issues in a number of ways, and often they take forever to get addressed, and then get addressed in ways that don't make sense or are inconsistent with their stated goals for the module and over all goals in development. For instance there is the bizzare logic of the ASB vs. AAR, where the AAR is inferior in every way but still costs cap and is limited one per ship because of the problems with the ASB being cap free and getting around the reload by using more than one. They specifically make the statement that the AAR is how it is because of the problems with the ASB, but have yet to address the issues with the ASB itself. So it's not like it would be surprising if the problem was with cloaks and never addressed because they simply have not been specifically targeted for iteration.
Rykuss
Inactive.
The Ancients.
#2599 - 2015-08-04 03:57:44 UTC
23/7 cloaky camping, content so emergent, people use alts to do it. One account/one character would have prevented a lot of the issues in this game, like cloaky campers and super blobs. Instead, we're still discussing stupid nerfs that affect everyone in unintended ways and CCP actually listens to some of this crap. The rest of the terrible changes, they implement on their own.

You, too, can be a Solid Gold dancer.

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#2600 - 2015-08-04 04:14:07 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:


Cloaks, on the other hand, were not part of the original game design. They have not been given much development since their release either.


And how do you know that cloaks were not introduced and then left untouched as a response to using local as an intel tool?

"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