These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Alundil
Rolled Out
#4221 - 2015-12-10 07:32:36 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Alundi et al.

Here's the thing. Being taken seriously by you et al. is not relevant.

Its relevant that the Devs know enduring implicit threats are a thing that increases player attrition.

And they know that.

Goodness you people waste time and perfectly good letters on things that do not matter.


Lol - this ^^^^ in a 200+ page thread with not one, not two, not three, but count them zero dev responses. On a topic that more than one dev has gone on record as saying "....it's (AFK cloaking) fine...". Conveniently stickied by mods so that all of the craptastic faffing about is neat and tidy tucked into one easily overlooked spot.
Every sticky on this forum has at least one blue response (other than the skillpoint/char bazaar thing and that's relatively new).

I'm right behind you
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4222 - 2015-12-10 07:48:21 UTC
Yes, I know. This thread is indeed a black hole (which is kind of ironic given where the solution from afk-camping is coming from :-)).

Like I said a few posts back. I came here looking for assurances that devs understood the problems enduring implicit camping cause, and are going to fix it.

I rest assured. They do not really need some fancy suggestion from me or anyone else.

Wormhole mechanisms that lower implicit threats to acceptable levels are going to be moved to null-sec. Which in turns allows cloakys do what ever they want for as long as they want, and allows local to be changed for that matter.

So "cold hard speculation, not idle hard facts" is really the only meaningful thing to do here. Accept as premise that this or that element is coming in from the cold paradise we know as wormholes, then see what problems and advantages it might cause.

Who knows, we might stumble over something devs have missed in their musings.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4223 - 2015-12-10 07:49:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Yes, I know. This thread is indeed a black hole (which is kind of ironic given where the final solution to the enduring afk cloaky camping question is coming from Smile).

Like I said a few posts back. I came here looking for assurances that devs understood the problems enduring implicit camping cause, and are going to fix it.

I rest assured. They do not really need some fancy suggestion from me or anyone else.

Wormhole mechanisms that lower implicit threats to acceptable levels are going to be moved to null-sec. Which in turns allows cloakys do what ever they want for as long as they want, and allows local to be changed for that matter.

So "cold hard speculation, not idle hard facts" is really the only meaningful thing to do here. Accept as premise that this or that element is coming in from the cold paradise we know as wormholes, then see what problems and advantages it might cause.

Who knows, we might stumble over something devs have missed in their musings.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4224 - 2015-12-10 07:58:41 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Alundi et al.

Here's the thing. Being taken seriously by you et al. is not relevant.

Its relevant that the Devs know enduring implicit threats are a thing that increases player attrition.

And they know that.

Goodness you people waste time and perfectly good letters on things that do not matter.


What a load of nonsense. No Dev has ever said anything about "enduring implicit threats". They have said there are no problems with cloaks and that they might change the local/cloak dynamic...or at least hinted at it.

Jerghul is just trolling IMO. And I rarely use the term troll/trolling.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4225 - 2015-12-10 08:00:35 UTC
Jerghul wrote:

Like I said a few posts back. I came here looking for assurances that devs understood the problems enduring implicit camping cause, and are going to fix it.


And there are absolutely no assurances regarding this, but Jerghul posts as if Hilmar himself has posted.

"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
Alundil
Rolled Out
#4226 - 2015-12-10 08:07:09 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Wormhole mechanisms that lower implicit threats to acceptable levels are going to be moved to null-sec. Which in turns allows cloakys do what ever they want for as long as they want, and allows local to be changed for that matter.

So "cold hard speculation, not idle hard facts" is really the only meaningful thing to do here. Accept as premise that this or that element is coming in from the cold paradise we know as wormholes, then see what problems and advantages it might cause.


I have no idea why you quoted yourself and then turned it into a double-post. But no matter.

I live in wspace and have since Apochrypha. Anyone who thinks that threats are "implied" in wspace is a fool. Cloaky proteus is love, cloaky proteus is life, cloaky proteus is everywhere.

At any rate, I'm convinced that you've got nothing going on up there and suffer from delusions of omniscience regarding what devs think and what they are planning and thankfuly they are as smart as you and have arrived at the same conclusion and solution that you have, though you got there first (need to point that out) and it's only a matter time and your fellow capsuleers need only endure a little longer under the implied threat. Won't be long now. We can wait.

We're AFK after all, amirite?

My sides.....

I'm right behind you
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4227 - 2015-12-10 08:08:02 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Jerghul wrote:

Like I said a few posts back. I came here looking for assurances that devs understood the problems enduring implicit camping cause, and are going to fix it.


And there are absolutely no assurances regarding this, but Jerghul posts as if Hilmar himself has posted.


Most invested players know that to enjoy EvE properly, you need to embrace uncertainty without paralysis.

So, yah, my primary interest now is to look at what mechanisms are coming in from null-sec to fix the enduring implicit threat inherent to afk cloaky camping.


Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4228 - 2015-12-10 08:09:57 UTC
Alundil wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Wormhole mechanisms that lower implicit threats to acceptable levels are going to be moved to null-sec. Which in turns allows cloakys do what ever they want for as long as they want, and allows local to be changed for that matter.

So "cold hard speculation, not idle hard facts" is really the only meaningful thing to do here. Accept as premise that this or that element is coming in from the cold paradise we know as wormholes, then see what problems and advantages it might cause.


I have no idea why you quoted yourself and then turned it into a double-post. But no matter.

I live in wspace and have since Apochrypha. Anyone who thinks that threats are "implied" in wspace is a fool. Cloaky proteus is love, cloaky proteus is life, cloaky proteus is everywhere.

At any rate, I'm convinced that you've got nothing going on up there and suffer from delusions of omniscience regarding what devs think and what they are planning and thankfuly they are as smart as you and have arrived at the same conclusion and solution that you have, though you got there first (need to point that out) and it's only a matter time and your fellow capsuleers need only endure a little longer under the implied threat. Won't be long now. We can wait.

We're AFK after all, amirite?

My sides.....


Exactly. Why are implied threats so weak in wormhole space?

That is the question you want to be exploring.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Alundil
Rolled Out
#4229 - 2015-12-10 08:11:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Alundil
lel - I'll be back at page 273. I've got to raise my AFK stats before Citadels arrive.

Fair warning to new players that might read this thread...

Abandon all hope, ye who enter here



*edit in before I go*
Quote:
Why are implied threats so weak in wormhole space?

Because we deal with ship losses daily and are't afraid of losing more/expensive ships and fully expect/anticipate that we'll be dropped on at any point in time. Almost as if the space we choose to live in is actually supposed to be dangerous (kind of like 00 is supposed to be but vOv)
Novel concept, that one.

I'm right behind you
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4230 - 2015-12-10 08:15:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Alundil wrote:
lel - I'll be back at page 273. I've got to raise my AFK stats before Citadels arrive.

Fair warning to new players that might read this thread...

Abandon all hope, ye who enter here


hehe, you can both post here and raise your afk stats you know. You can say what you want about afk activity, but it promotes multi tasking Big smile

Edit
Multitasking is a + features of enduring cloaky camping. It helps answer the question "Do people still play Eve" in an upbeat manner.

We know that looking at "pilots online" is a poor metric for gauging how many physical people play EvE, but we still extrapolate changes there to decide where EvE is going in terms of popularity.

CCP does something about multiboxing. 2 months later we are all "ZOMG, EvE is dying, look at how activity has fallen these last months".

Which is valid enough and a good reason to keep afk cloaky camping as a thing for as long as the implicit threat is lowered sufficiently though other mechanisms.

Edit II
Yah, I pre-empted that "we are built of sterner stuff" argument a page or so back. Too many of you for the special snowflake argument to work. Numbers always smooth down outliers.

I think it rotates around mechanisms that let you specialize ships and skills to the ecosystem you live in. It lowers implicit threats to acceptable levels. What after all are the chances that a random afk ship is backed by the fittings and specialized skills needed to operate in your space? If its low enough, then all threats have to be real and explicit for you to pay attention to them.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4231 - 2015-12-10 08:49:50 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:


You're one to talk about entitlement, when you're ranting and raving that it's "unreasonable" to bear in anything but the most optimal, paper tanked piece of trash ever to undock. Oh the horror of fitting a ship in nullsec that can bite back.

Highsec is over there, and guess what, cloaking isn't the boogieman either, off you pop now.


I hear that a lot... But I have never said any such thing.

What I have said is that the counters are unreasonable when they drop profit below the levels of mid to high end high sec rates. That's not a min/max argument. There is definitely room between high sec rates and null sec rates that you could compromise a fit to handle, and if I were so inclined I am one who would not change my fit much, if at all... But not everyone has the ability to do that, nor does all content allow for it.

However, with each additional dedicated guard pilot that could have been easily making profit in high sec at a much greater margin of safety, you divide the profits being made in null and quickly drop below reasonable levels.

Which would be fine- that is PvE driving conflict as intended. The problem is that you cannot contest the enemy doing that to you. If it were balanced you would have the option of gambling on his catching you while you do your thing, or confronting him and gambling that you can take him. At no point should he be able to force you to a disadvantaged position without being himself at risk.

The same holds true of the rest of your bleating about stuff being broken just because it now has risk. Somehow you honestly believe that scouts should have carte blanche to run around with no danger of being caught. You believe that a hunted and cornered super cap should just be able to cloak up and wait out his pursuit. You think that just because it puts all these needed functions for the operation of your fleet at risk of disruption that it simply should not be allowed...

And I cal BS.

Those functions should be at risk of enemy action, just as his would now be at risk of your own. Your super cap should die if you can't bring it support or get it to safety. Scouting should be a risky endeavor, and never so safe that you can do it with one hand up your wife's tender bits.

Cloaks are too safe by a large margin. I would think making them safer at choke points in exchange for not being 100% risk free thereafter is a vital and needed adjustment to them.

The so called safety of locals operating PvE when no one is around has nothing to do with it. They aren't safe, they are simply not currently under attack. Picking your time is part of the equation.



You're still not getting this. Anything which makes the detection of a cloaky possible results in two binary outcomes:


It is worthless to detect and AFK cloaker but doesnt break anything else.

Or

It can find an afk cloaker, but therefore breaks everything else.


Anything, ANYTHING that allows a cloaky to be caught (invisible ship doing 200 or so m/s) absolutely will be ruthlessly exploited to completely neuter any and all combat/fleet/scout work elsewhere.

I know you'll disagree but that is, again, because you've absolutely no experience of how we work in that area.

I mean, consider your previous idea and how when pointed out that it just fundamentally trashed cloaking in wormholes (and other areas of space, actually, but folks there are often less OCD about it) and your eventual solution after having to explain why it was broken was "then just ignore wormholes". Special snowflake exceptions are the hallmark of a bad idea. What was worse though, is the fact you didn't know this beforehand and had spent who knows how long denying the issue would even exist. Only when it was laid out in black and white did you realise. This is because you lack experience in the areas which you're trying to change.

Scouts die all the time, again your ignorance on this topic is showing. Still I'm sure you'll be quick to tell me that scouts dying is all their own fault and the fact the sabres work hard at decloaking to nail these guys is all their own fault and they should psychically just know that is on the other side of the gate. Scouting is far from risk free. Likewise these guys never accidentally decloak to random space debris, or even a passing missile from a fleetmate - something not present on any overview.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4232 - 2015-12-10 08:54:05 UTC
Alundil wrote:
lel - I'll be back at page 273. I've got to raise my AFK stats before Citadels arrive.

Fair warning to new players that might read this thread...

Abandon all hope, ye who enter here



*edit in before I go*
Quote:
Why are implied threats so weak in wormhole space?

Because we deal with ship losses daily and are't afraid of losing more/expensive ships and fully expect/anticipate that we'll be dropped on at any point in time. Almost as if the space we choose to live in is actually supposed to be dangerous (kind of like 00 is supposed to be but vOv)
Novel concept, that one.



Yeah, these guys have only read about wormholes at best, I think.

Which is a shame, I think everyone should be encouraged to live there for a decent period, they're wonderful places and really change how you see the game.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4233 - 2015-12-10 09:12:08 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Alundil wrote:
lel - I'll be back at page 273. I've got to raise my AFK stats before Citadels arrive.

Fair warning to new players that might read this thread...

Abandon all hope, ye who enter here



*edit in before I go*
Quote:
Why are implied threats so weak in wormhole space?

Because we deal with ship losses daily and are't afraid of losing more/expensive ships and fully expect/anticipate that we'll be dropped on at any point in time. Almost as if the space we choose to live in is actually supposed to be dangerous (kind of like 00 is supposed to be but vOv)
Novel concept, that one.



Yeah, these guys have only read about wormholes at best, I think.

Which is a shame, I think everyone should be encouraged to live there for a decent period, they're wonderful places and really change how you see the game.


Yepp, I think we would all like to have mechanisms that allow us to tailor our ships and skills to our very own special ecosystem in null sec too.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#4234 - 2015-12-10 10:47:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Wander Prian
Jerghul wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Alundil wrote:
lel - I'll be back at page 273. I've got to raise my AFK stats before Citadels arrive.

Fair warning to new players that might read this thread...

Abandon all hope, ye who enter here



*edit in before I go*
Quote:
Why are implied threats so weak in wormhole space?

Because we deal with ship losses daily and are't afraid of losing more/expensive ships and fully expect/anticipate that we'll be dropped on at any point in time. Almost as if the space we choose to live in is actually supposed to be dangerous (kind of like 00 is supposed to be but vOv)
Novel concept, that one.



Yeah, these guys have only read about wormholes at best, I think.

Which is a shame, I think everyone should be encouraged to live there for a decent period, they're wonderful places and really change how you see the game.


Yepp, I think we would all like to have mechanisms that allow us to tailor our ships and skills to our very own special ecosystem in null sec too.



Wait what special ways do we have to tailor the ships and skills to wormholes? Last I checked, it's the same options you have.

Sure we might have wormholes (which move around) instead of gates (which are static),

"But but you don't have cyno's" Oh yes we got our own version of that, called K162 which can mean an angry tech 3 -fleet coming to kill anything you have on the field, no matter what you are doing.

Things aren't as different as you might think at first glance

Difference is, we accept the risk, we enjoy the unknowness and wait for the chance of a good fight

Wormholer for life.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4235 - 2015-12-10 11:09:07 UTC
Yah, no, I don't buy the special snowflake argument. The mechanics particular to wormholes have simply lowered enduring implicit threats (implicit threats are by their very nature a matter of perception) to levels that do not cause unneeded player attrition.

So of course some of those mechanics can and should be mirrored in 0-sec.

Giving sov holders the ability to tailor environmental effects in a system they control would be a huge step in the right direction.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4236 - 2015-12-10 11:20:58 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Yah, no, I don't buy the special snowflake argument. The mechanics particular to wormholes have simply lowered enduring implicit threats (implicit threats are by their very nature a matter of perception) to levels that do not cause unneeded player attrition.


Except that's just not true. WH have merely trained HTFU beyond 0.

But of course you don't buy it, hell wasn't so long ago in this very thread you didn't even know there were no gates in them so you'll forgive me if I don't take you seriously when it comes to mechanics discussion.
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#4237 - 2015-12-10 11:23:20 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Yah, no, I don't buy the special snowflake argument. The mechanics particular to wormholes have simply lowered enduring implicit threats (implicit threats are by their very nature a matter of perception) to levels that do not cause unneeded player attrition.

So of course some of those mechanics can and should be mirrored in 0-sec.

Giving sov holders the ability to tailor environmental effects in a system they control would be a huge step in the right direction.



At what point did I make a special snowflake -argument? We are ALWAYS in danger. We don't dock. Sure a POS will give you safety, but it can be shot down from under you. We don't have 100% safety unless we log off. Somehow we still manage to do things, go figure.

You are saying that the ONLY REASONABLE ACTION to ONE guy in local, is logging off? Even when you are part of a sov-holding alliance, that can have anything between 1-30 systems under your control. But somehow you just have to be in that one system that has a guy that may or may not be dangerous to you. You are trying to change gameplay to alleviate your own mental fears. Accept the risk and you'll enjoy the game much more

Wormholer for life.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4238 - 2015-12-10 11:31:48 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Yah, no, I don't buy the special snowflake argument. The mechanics particular to wormholes have simply lowered enduring implicit threats (implicit threats are by their very nature a matter of perception) to levels that do not cause unneeded player attrition.


Except that's just not true. WH have merely trained HTFU beyond 0.

But of course you don't buy it, hell wasn't so long ago in this very thread you didn't even know there were no gates in them so you'll forgive me if I don't take you seriously when it comes to mechanics discussion.


Still on about what you think I should think about what you think of me? Like I said, its not a very efficient debating technique.

The Devs are pretty clear that they think there are good reasons enduring implicit threats are less of a problem in wormhole space, and of course you may feel free to think CCP was talking about wormhole denizens' superior moral fibre. However, I doubt they are weigh the special snowflake argument very heavily if they think of it at all.

Incidentally, I am stupefied that most everyone leap to the conclusion that local is a fix. Wormhole local is possible because other mechanisms degraded enduring implicit threats to acceptable levels. Sheep say: baa. That is obvious.


Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#4239 - 2015-12-10 11:44:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Wander Prian
Jerghul wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Yah, no, I don't buy the special snowflake argument. The mechanics particular to wormholes have simply lowered enduring implicit threats (implicit threats are by their very nature a matter of perception) to levels that do not cause unneeded player attrition.


Except that's just not true. WH have merely trained HTFU beyond 0.

But of course you don't buy it, hell wasn't so long ago in this very thread you didn't even know there were no gates in them so you'll forgive me if I don't take you seriously when it comes to mechanics discussion.


Still on about what you think I should think about what you think of me? Like I said, its not a very efficient debating technique.

The Devs are pretty clear that they think there are good reasons enduring implicit threats are less of a problem in wormhole space, and of course you may feel free to think CCP was talking about wormhole denizens' superior moral fibre. However, I doubt they are weigh the special snowflake argument very heavily if they think of it at all.

Incidentally, I am stupefied that most everyone leap to the conclusion that local is a fix. Wormhole local is possible because other mechanisms degraded enduring implicit threats to acceptable levels. Sheep say: baa. That is obvious.





The devs are ON RECORD in saying that cloaks and afk-cloaking are fine. At no point have they mentioned at "fixing" an issue that seems to only occur in deep sov-null. And if you now bring out the "but jump fatique" that was an issue to ALL of new eden, not just a small number of pilots who haven't gotten the message of HTFU

And the reason people go to local for fixing afk-cloaking, is because local created that "threat" People going AFK in your system is a direct counter to the 100% info you get from local

Wormholer for life.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4240 - 2015-12-10 12:02:50 UTC
Wander Prian wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Yah, no, I don't buy the special snowflake argument. The mechanics particular to wormholes have simply lowered enduring implicit threats (implicit threats are by their very nature a matter of perception) to levels that do not cause unneeded player attrition.


Except that's just not true. WH have merely trained HTFU beyond 0.

But of course you don't buy it, hell wasn't so long ago in this very thread you didn't even know there were no gates in them so you'll forgive me if I don't take you seriously when it comes to mechanics discussion.


Still on about what you think I should think about what you think of me? Like I said, its not a very efficient debating technique.

The Devs are pretty clear that they think there are good reasons enduring implicit threats are less of a problem in wormhole space, and of course you may feel free to think CCP was talking about wormhole denizens' superior moral fibre. However, I doubt they are weigh the special snowflake argument very heavily if they think of it at all.

Incidentally, I am stupefied that most everyone leap to the conclusion that local is a fix. Wormhole local is possible because other mechanisms degraded enduring implicit threats to acceptable levels. Sheep say: baa. That is obvious.





The devs are ON RECORD in saying that cloaks and afk-cloaking are fine. At no point have they mentioned at "fixing" an issue that seems to only occur in deep sov-null. And if you now bring out the "but jump fatique" that was an issue to ALL of new eden, not just a small number of pilots who haven't gotten the message of HTFU

And the reason people go to local for fixing afk-cloaking, is because local created that "threat" People going AFK in your system is a direct counter to the 100% info you get from local


Cloaks and afk-cloaking are fine when seen in isolation. What is not fine is enduring implicit threats (which the devs are also *ON RECORD* in saying they want to change).

Removing local creates an enduring implicit threat more powerful than the one afk-cloaky camping generates because it is enduring even without the afk player initiated cloaky camper.

So cannot be part of the reason for why implicit threats levels are acceptably low in wormhole space.

The "good reasons for that" are other mechanics particular to wormhole space. Mechanics that can, should and will be mirrored in null sec.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1