These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#3321 - 2015-09-24 15:52:56 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
...
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
Yet again, you agree to nerf local and I will agree to nerf cloaking. Ok?
LOL no. Stop being a carebear. You're demanding you get a MASSIVE BUFF to your playstyle as a tradeoff for a minor change that wouldn't even affect you. Seriously, stop being terrible.

Actually, that's not true.

Both sides have, by popular sentiment, perfect defenses.
The often reported stalemate where both sides remain untouched supports this as well.

With this trade, both sides could be exposed to greater risk.
Nothing absolute on either side, truthfully, but requiring more effort from both.

It also would clearly demonstrate grounds for greater rewards in null, which are all too comparable to high sec for time invested right now.
Of course it's true. Right now cloakers have perfect defense while PvE players simply have a strong defense if they play it right. A cloaker can sod off and make a cup of teas safe in the knowledge that he'll still be cloaked when he gets back. A PvE players has to actively monitor his situation constantly to achieve safety and while relatively assured, it's not a complete certainty that they'll get away.

With the "trade", cloakers would lose their ability to be AFK, but while active would suffer no changes as their ships are generally fast enough to be near impossible to probe down anyway. Meanwhile, PvE players would have even more to do to achieve less safety than they previously had.

Rewards are very delicate, since whatever mechanics changed, the people able to adapt best to them would be large groups like mine. Improving the rewards would just mean we farm the ever living **** out of them while smaller groups get roflstomped, further stretching the economic gap between us and them. The rich get richer the poor get poorer. I'd rather see rewards balanced against the activity itself rather than against other players potential existence.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#3322 - 2015-09-24 15:59:28 UTC
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
Hell bent on not thinking of any playstyle other than your own I see.

Why is someone cloaked (other than to annoy risk averse bears like you)? As I said a few pages back (and you ignored) Because being uncloaked for 30 seconds to log off is asking to be killed. To be alt-tabbed listening to a WH/gate. To wait for a gate camp to die down. To go grab something to eat and not want to have to log off of multiple accounts and log back in, given no place to dock/POS up.
You're cloaked because you're risk averse, and yes, because you want to remain safe without having to pay attention.

The thing is what I suggest wouldn't change that. I want you to be logged off, safely after a set amount of time. So if you have to pop away for a moment, you stay logged in. If you are alt tabbed and checking now and there, you stay logged in. If you **** off to work you get logged out and keep your ship. Note that the reason I say you get safe logged out is because I HAVE listened to people with other playstyles and have come to the conclusion that it's the fairest option all round. Originally I was happy for you to just drop cloak after a time.

Cidanel Afuran wrote:
um, what? Reading iz tough. I said if you agree to nerf local, I would agree to nerf cloaking. As in give you a way to hunt cloaked ships. I'm saying without local, the brave ratter sees someone jump into system (because, being in CFC you should have at least a few intel channels). Brave Mr. Ratter and Mrs. Miner refit to a hunting ship and go after Mr. Cloak. If they are too lazy/not organized enough to have intel on gates/watch d-scan, they deserve to be killed. Especially in null.
Except a nerf to local is a massive buff to your playstyle, while making a cloaker scannable is only a problem if they are asleep. What you're doing is offering a token gesture as a trade for a huge benefit. You're a carebear.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3323 - 2015-09-24 16:42:14 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
You're cloaked because you're risk averse, and yes, because you want to remain safe without having to pay attention.


I really wish people would stop using the term "risk averse" like this. Like some sort of insult. It really highlights a fairly high level of ignorance as to what the term really means. People use it to imply whomever they are discussing something with is some how...less than everyone else.

"Oh, you are risk averse (bad)..." as if the person using the term is not also risk averse.

If you are not jumping your JF around in NS blind to cyno gens or playing the game with local always minimized, or jumping through a gate in a very expensive ship into a LS or NS system blind...guess what your are risk averse. MOST PEOPLE ARE.

People who are not risk averse are either risk neutral (i.e. they are indifferent between a sure thing and a gamble with the same [expected] payoffs) or they are risk loving (they prefer the gamble to a sure thing with the same payoffs). In the latter case, these are the bozos that end up living in the sewers in Las Vegas because they gambled away everything. Being risk loving is not really a good thing and if you are risk loving...you are the one who is "bad"....like an alcoholic. You should probably seek help. Literally.

Am I risk averse? Yes. I want to minimize risky situations generally speaking. And what is even more hilarious...if you do act in a risk seeking/loving manner and it goes pear shaped...everyone who hurls the term risk averse around like an insult will show up to say, "Oh you are bad." Complete hypocrisy with an impressive side helping of ignorance.

"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
#3324 - 2015-09-24 16:51:48 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
I really wish people would stop using the term "risk averse" like this. Like some sort of insult. It really highlights a fairly high level of ignorance as to what the term really means. People use it to imply whomever they are discussing something with is some how...less than everyone else.
I completely agree. So when he stop screaming "carebear" because people actively take steps to reduce their chance of getting killed, I'll stop using "risk averse" to describe him using a module to guarantee his invulnerability. Until that time though the term sticks.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#3325 - 2015-09-24 21:29:53 UTC
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
/sigh. If a hostile is in space he needs to be accounted for, assuming your intention is to fly a ship meant for evasion and you don't want to die. Even if he was clearly labled AFK only an idiot would trust that. But go on trolling. Your double standard is safe for now.

How am I supposed to cloak when I am in mining range of an asteroid? Or while targetted by dozens of rats? Right... Even if I could cloak how would he find me to investigate?

No, it's almost purely an offensive tool, and broken unbalanced as it is.


let's see...mining range is beyond 2k, you need to be at least 2k off to cloak. Let's think about this for a minute.

If you are ratting and aren't pre-aligned to a safe spot, you're doing it wrong. And I think it's cute how you flat out ignored what I said about ratting in a PvP fit.

If someone is AFK, they don't need to be accounted for. They aren't in the game. Please go back to WoW already.

For the 70th time, agree to nerf local and I will agree to nerf cloaking. Thinking logically is hard, isn't it?


Fine. If someone afk is out of the game you should not have a problem with logging them off automatically after 15 min then. That's plenty of time to bio break, make a sandwich, or de-aggro the wife. Longer than that you need to take on some personal responsibility and get your ship clear of danger or accept some risk of your own. Out of the game is out of the game, afk isn't out of the game. Logic really is hard for some, I suppose.

Linking a nerf to local with a nerf to cloaks isn't logical, it's just begging for a buff to an already overpowered and privledged playstyle.

Ratting in a PvP fit was also covered in the thread you could not be bothered to read. Doing so takes some PvE content completely out of reach for some players, and cuts profits below high sec levels for most. Why do you get to decide how much a PvE pilot can make just because you can fit a cloak? Why should you then be immune to retribution for having done so? Oh right, because you are an elite PvP pilot and only you should decide the proper way to play. PvE is supposed to drive conflict, but you just want to hide from that conflict behind your cloak until you can make your cheap kill.

And people do rat while aligned. That's what all the PvP butt hurt is about. People fly evasive, with success. Your scenario was using a cloak to counter ambush a hunter while ratting. It was a stupid thing to suggest, as the use of a cloak for that purpose is impossible under rat aggro, and if you are going to be aligned to run anyway why bother? As soon as the hunter finds nothing at his warp in he will be headed to the safe he dropped on his way in, and then under his own cloak....Assuming he wasn't in a cov ops and cloaked already.

Keep preaching that double standard.
Omega Flames
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3326 - 2015-09-28 18:39:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Omega Flames
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
EVE isn't a PvE game.

that is actually a complete lie. Mining, incursions, missions, ratting, relic sites, data sites, researching, manufacturing, hauling, etc are all forms of pve.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3327 - 2015-09-28 18:54:20 UTC
Omega Flames wrote:
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
EVE isn't a PvE game.

that is actually a complete lie. Mining, incursions, missions, ratting, relic sites, data sites, researching, manufacturing, hauling, etc are all forms of pve.


At it's core though it is a PvP game. If I come into a belt in HS and start mining and you were already there, I am trying to get resources before you do. That is competition...a type of PvP. Missions are about the only thing where player on player competition is very minimal.

"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

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#3328 - 2015-09-28 18:57:31 UTC
Omega Flames wrote:
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
EVE isn't a PvE game.

that is actually a complete lie. Mining, incursions, missions, ratting, relic sites, data sites, researching, manufacturing, hauling, etc are all forms of pve.

Perspective is needed on this, a nearly philosophical question.

It is not that EVE is, or is not, a PvE game.

Rather, it is that, (in theory at least), PvP can be brought to bear against anyone.
The only thing which qualifies that being the degree of difficulty or cost involved.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#3329 - 2015-09-28 19:19:51 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Omega Flames wrote:
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
EVE isn't a PvE game.

that is actually a complete lie. Mining, incursions, missions, ratting, relic sites, data sites, researching, manufacturing, hauling, etc are all forms of pve.

Perspective is needed on this, a nearly philosophical question.

It is not that EVE is, or is not, a PvE game.

Rather, it is that, (in theory at least), PvP can be brought to bear against anyone.
The only thing which qualifies that being the degree of difficulty or cost involved.



True. Unless you want to camp out under a cloak while disrupting PVE activity. Then you can be immune to PVP for as long as you like. This is why there needs to be a way to hunt cloaked ships.
Woozlez
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#3330 - 2015-09-29 17:33:32 UTC
Make cloaking devices consume fuel relative to the size of the ship.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#3331 - 2015-09-29 18:19:38 UTC
Woozlez wrote:
Make cloaking devices consume fuel relative to the size of the ship.

Ok, just to recap:

The devs have shown support for cloaking, at least to the degree they indicate the current dynamic is balanced.

If you only affect one side of an equation, you destroy balance.

Or, to put it simply, if you exclusively diminish cloaking you also buff the gameplay that it had been affecting.

If PvE in null needs a boost to anything, it is the dev's valuation for rewards. And for that to improve, the devs must see it as being MORE risky... not less as this idea would result in.
Woozlez
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#3332 - 2015-09-29 18:26:37 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Woozlez wrote:
Make cloaking devices consume fuel relative to the size of the ship.

Ok, just to recap:

The devs have shown support for cloaking, at least to the degree they indicate the current dynamic is balanced.

If you only affect one side of an equation, you destroy balance.

Or, to put it simply, if you exclusively diminish cloaking you also buff the gameplay that it had been affecting.

If PvE in null needs a boost to anything, it is the dev's valuation for rewards. And for that to improve, the devs must see it as being MORE risky... not less as this idea would result in.


The only balance that this would affect is the cloaky camper's ability to stay in a system indefinitely, with 100% safety. I don't think that part is quite balanced.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#3333 - 2015-09-29 18:55:22 UTC
Woozlez wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Woozlez wrote:
Make cloaking devices consume fuel relative to the size of the ship.

Ok, just to recap:

The devs have shown support for cloaking, at least to the degree they indicate the current dynamic is balanced.

If you only affect one side of an equation, you destroy balance.

Or, to put it simply, if you exclusively diminish cloaking you also buff the gameplay that it had been affecting.

If PvE in null needs a boost to anything, it is the dev's valuation for rewards. And for that to improve, the devs must see it as being MORE risky... not less as this idea would result in.


The only balance that this would affect is the cloaky camper's ability to stay in a system indefinitely, with 100% safety. I don't think that part is quite balanced.

The devs are not as worried about what the perception is about cloaky campers, as they are the actual capabilities of the cloaked ships.

And while they have not used these exact words, they have little concern for what they seem to view as an over-reaction to a hostile presence.
Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#3334 - 2015-09-30 15:30:41 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
stuff and stuff and stuff


Undock from Jita and leave your alliance where you are set to blue to 50k accounts before you call someone else a carebear. mmkay?

Did you even bother to read anything I wrote? Nerfing local does absolutely nothing to the ratter/miner who is paying attention. Nerfing cloaking just adds unneeded tedium to anyone taking a **** in a system without a POS or station.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
Fine. If someone afk is out of the game you should not have a problem with logging them off automatically after 15 min then. That's plenty of time to bio break, make a sandwich, or de-aggro the wife. Longer than that you need to take on some personal responsibility and get your ship clear of danger or accept some risk of your own. Out of the game is out of the game, afk isn't out of the game. Logic really is hard for some, I suppose.


You do realize the 10 seconds you are visible when you log in is enough time to be spotted/scanned, right? Believe it or not, not everyone operates in systems with POS's and/or stations. shocking.

Quote:

Linking a nerf to local with a nerf to cloaks isn't logical, it's just begging for a buff to an already overpowered and privledged playstyle.


How is it buffing the overpowered playstyle of being able to run away from literally any attacker 100% of the time when missioning/mining/ratting?

Quote:

Ratting in a PvP fit was also covered in the thread you could not be bothered to read. Doing so takes some PvE content completely out of reach for some players, and cuts profits below high sec levels for most. Why do you get to decide how much a PvE pilot can make just because you can fit a cloak? Why should you then be immune to retribution for having done so? Oh right, because you are an elite PvP pilot and only you should decide the proper way to play. PvE is supposed to drive conflict, but you just want to hide from that conflict behind your cloak until you can make your cheap kill.


I did read it. Your response was nothing short of "If I can't min/max for whatever mission/rat I am fighting, I refuse to undock"

Why do you think you have a god given right to max profits in PvE no matter what?

Quote:

And people do rat while aligned. That's what all the PvP butt hurt is about. People fly evasive, with success. Your scenario was using a cloak to counter ambush a hunter while ratting. It was a stupid thing to suggest, as the use of a cloak for that purpose is impossible under rat aggro, and if you are going to be aligned to run anyway why bother? As soon as the hunter finds nothing at his warp in he will be headed to the safe he dropped on his way in, and then under his own cloak....Assuming he wasn't in a cov ops and cloaked already.

Keep preaching that double standard.


I suggest a compromise that nerfs both our playstyles and I am the one with a double standard? Wat?

your trolling is bad.

Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#3335 - 2015-09-30 15:31:34 UTC
Omega Flames wrote:
that is actually a complete lie. Mining, incursions, missions, ratting, relic sites, data sites, researching, manufacturing, hauling, etc are all forms of pve.


Those are literally all PvP. You can be hunted and killed in any of those. In a game of cat and mouse, if you aren't the cat, accept the fact you are the mouse. Play accordingly.

Lucas and Mikey-boy both chose the play style of being the mouse, and are simply whining because they don't understand what game they are playing.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#3336 - 2015-09-30 20:29:25 UTC
Cidanel Afuran wrote:

You do realize the 10 seconds you are visible when you log in is enough time to be spotted/scanned, right? Believe it or not, not everyone operates in systems with POS's and/or stations. shocking.

Quote:

Linking a nerf to local with a nerf to cloaks isn't logical, it's just begging for a buff to an already overpowered and privledged playstyle.


How is it buffing the overpowered playstyle of being able to run away from literally any attacker 100% of the time when missioning/mining/ratting?

Quote:

Ratting in a PvP fit was also covered in the thread you could not be bothered to read. Doing so takes some PvE content completely out of reach for some players, and cuts profits below high sec levels for most. Why do you get to decide how much a PvE pilot can make just because you can fit a cloak? Why should you then be immune to retribution for having done so? Oh right, because you are an elite PvP pilot and only you should decide the proper way to play. PvE is supposed to drive conflict, but you just want to hide from that conflict behind your cloak until you can make your cheap kill.


I did read it. Your response was nothing short of "If I can't min/max for whatever mission/rat I am fighting, I refuse to undock"

Why do you think you have a god given right to max profits in PvE no matter what?

Quote:

And people do rat while aligned. That's what all the PvP butt hurt is about. People fly evasive, with success. Your scenario was using a cloak to counter ambush a hunter while ratting. It was a stupid thing to suggest, as the use of a cloak for that purpose is impossible under rat aggro, and if you are going to be aligned to run anyway why bother? As soon as the hunter finds nothing at his warp in he will be headed to the safe he dropped on his way in, and then under his own cloak....Assuming he wasn't in a cov ops and cloaked already.

Keep preaching that double standard.


I suggest a compromise that nerfs both our playstyles and I am the one with a double standard? Wat?

your trolling is bad.




You are a wonderful troll, I'll admit. Stupid, but wonderful.

You realize there is a reason wormholes have the smallest population, right? It's not because scanning the holes is hard. You can be spotted *and* scanned *and* landed on in 10 seconds when no one is looking for you, every time you log in? OMG!!! The risks you would have to take!!! RollRoll You think ratting or mining in a system with a cloaked camper is a reasonable risk to take day in and day out, but can't risk the window between logging in and hitting the cloak button? Yeah... that's not just a double standard, that is straight up pathological bias of epic proportions.

Running away isn't an overpowered playstyle. That's just losing less than you would otherwise in a one sided fight against an opponent who only accepts total victory by both interfering with someone else's fun and destroying their ship or pyrrhic victory by wasting everyone's time indefinitely. EVE has always had an enormous advantage on the side of pirates, gankers and various toxic playstyles, and it hasn't yet learned that balance means an equal opportunity to attain a path to victory. Setting up fights so that it's basically heads you win tails I lose isn't balanced. It's what has insured that the playerbase stays small and now that changes have devalued alts it's why the subscription numbers are falling.

It's not a need to min/max or else not playing. Nor a need for max profits no matter what--- what has been requested is a way to attempt to fight for it. For starters, if you can't accept that more risk should equal more reward then you should probably step away from all games in general, not just EVE. That's the basis of just about every game more complicated than pong. Compromising a fit or dividing the rewards among several players drops profits well below High-Sec standards. More importantly... S A N D B O X. If someone wants to Min/Max a non-combat ship for it's intended purpose and then put out effort to keep the space it operates in safe from hostiles... that should be acceptable, allowable, and possible. You should not get to decide that sort of playstyle is out of bounds due to your elite pvp entitlements. Again, double standard "I can do what I want because I'm willing to kill for it, you should not get to do what you want even if you want to kill for it too". Even better, you continue to advocate a system where even attempting to hunt your aggressor is impossible, because you should not be at risk while putting others at risk.

You aren't suggesting a compromise. You are suggesting that introducing the smallest element of any risk whatsoever is a fair trade for turning the entire game into wormholes, except with cyno's, stable gates, and shortly thereafter no players.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#3337 - 2015-09-30 20:40:31 UTC
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
Omega Flames wrote:
that is actually a complete lie. Mining, incursions, missions, ratting, relic sites, data sites, researching, manufacturing, hauling, etc are all forms of pve.


Those are literally all PvP. You can be hunted and killed in any of those. In a game of cat and mouse, if you aren't the cat, accept the fact you are the mouse. Play accordingly.

Lucas and Mikey-boy both chose the play style of being the mouse, and are simply whining because they don't understand what game they are playing.



See... we actually do understand the game we are playing. You are whining because the mouse has a chance to get to a mouse hole. Apparently in your world mice whet extinct ages ago because they had to lose 100% of the time to make the cat feel better about himself.

The idiocy in your position is simple--- you are trying to play with the wrong people. You either want to play with other PvP pilots, or else you need to concede that PvE pilots also deserve to play the game. Games are supposed to be fun for all involved. A game that has no chance of winning for both sides isn't a game you play against other people you want to share a past time with. Competition means both sides get a chance to win. The game you seem to want to play is only fun for you, and the level of difficulty you want to play it at is less challenging than the AI.
Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#3338 - 2015-09-30 23:53:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Cidanel Afuran
Mike Voidstar wrote:

stuff


I agree there is a reason WHs are sparsely populated. That's because the majority of people are unbelievably risk averse. Which is kinda/sorta/maybe/probably 100% against the spirit of this game.

For the 1023rd time, there is no such thing as a PvE pilot in EVE. Come on Mike.

Please convo me with a link to literally the first person you kill and I will start to treat you as more than a joke. "How do I only PvE in a game that is an open PvP world? I better try to make that game WoW in space!!"

*gives mike a cookie hoping he feels better.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#3339 - 2015-10-01 00:09:59 UTC
Please. The only person afraid of PvP is you and those like you under that cloak.

I don't play the way you play. Get over it. You are not the ultimate arbiter of the one twue way.

I have never asked for a way to exclusively PvE. What I asked was for a way to fight to secure space for my own purpose. There is literally nothing more EVE-like. It does not matter if I want to use that space to shoot rats or practice synchronized space swimming. You are terrified that you might have to face a prepared defender, and that's all you.

So long as you hide under a cloak you are the most risk averse type of player in the game.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3340 - 2015-10-01 03:12:20 UTC
Woozlez wrote:
Make cloaking devices consume fuel relative to the size of the ship.


Ok, my initial response was to point out the suggestion is horrible and that you are horrible...but no...

Fuel is a horrible idea because cloaking ships in general have fairly small cargo bays and need to carry around stuff like ammo and nanite paste. Further it does nothing with regards to how people use local and secure an advantage over anyone entering system.

In short your suggestion is unbalanced and therefore horrible. No.

"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