These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
 

AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals

First post First post
Author
Goonswarm Federation
#9281 - 2017-04-21 00:14:03 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


While CCP lets this one sit they will stay a niche game with a small player base....


What an idiotic thing to write. Yeah, EVE is a niche game simply because of AFK cloaking.

Typical stupid Dracvaldiepooh.


Being referred to as an idiot by you is a compliment, as per normal you leave out the meat on that point for a jaunty little dig, how progressive of you loser...

And by the way your suggestion about a group of VNI does not really work against people like PL, they just bring enough to kill them all, all well and good to say that without actually trying it, but that is typical of you.


So basically this reply is proof that your "blocked" list in your sig is BS?

Thanks fam.


Proof that Dracvald is really just a troll, IMO. He'll come out from his echo chamber to take the occassional potshot. I like replying to him to see when he'll do so.

"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

#9282 - 2017-04-21 00:42:48 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Proof that Dracvald is really just a troll, IMO. He'll come out from his echo chamber to take the occassional potshot. I like replying to him to see when he'll do so.


I remember a time when trolling was subtle enough it wasn't obvious it was trolling. Dracvald doesn't remember....
Interhole Revenue Service
#9283 - 2017-04-21 00:58:02 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
Xcom wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
Xcom wrote:
Well yet again, it would need balance. But yet, mostly would be used to catch cloakers that leave there PCs for extended periods of time and scare tactics. Used with smart bombs and teamwork that small number would actually grow fast as well.


You still haven't shown why this is required. Cloaks are not an issue in wormholes.

In most part its a non issue for larger corporations or mid sized ones. Small and low activity mid sized corps in w-space have issues with cloaked ships that harass activity's. Its to kill some time, to not just wait till the attacker leaves or to drive them out.

Larger corporations won't have the issues when it comes to scouting, or even care to because of the instant support number. But when your numbers are few then every man counts. Sacrificing a pilot for scouting is a choice and not a luxury. Some early-warning isn't bad for those who put effort into it. In most cases you won't be able to just enter a new system and not go noticed trying to probe down people. D-scan will give you away. Mostly it will prevent camping tactics where some individuals will force themself into a system and just endlessly camp.

Its mostly a win win for most, all but pilots who cloak of course. But as shown, the % are very small and mostly an issue with extreme luck or bad piloting (mostly AFK pilots). There might even be instances where you can pop the cov-ops and warp before support lands on grid even so it's not a total drawback. It won't be used ritualistically to destroy cloaking in general. Just tweak it to prevent the very edge case of removing camping.


It will be used and abused to make cloaks pretty much useless by being detected before you are in range to attack anything.

Any change you do to make things easier for small corps will be able to be abused by larger ones. Your idea is a nightmare to balance and would add another exception to how different mechanics work (which CCP hates)

You will have to explain this a bit better. I don't follow how it would ruin the approaching cloaker. You would still need to probe the ships before the cloaker could engage the target, that is a dead giveaway on D-scan. Unless the cloaky had BMs on the spots in that system, witch is a very nitch case, it wouldn't ruin the surprise.

As for absolute surprise attacks where you get a complete jump on a target. Even a small group of vigilant pilots that did take all precautions possible using ingame tools. That in by my viewpoint isn't balanced.



1) Go do PVE
2) Put cloak-probes out
3) See a detection
4) Tell the PVE-fleet to get safe

Wormholer for life.

#9284 - 2017-04-21 01:09:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Xcom
Only cov-ops ships should be able to scan cloaked ships. Not any random ship.
Interhole Revenue Service
#9285 - 2017-04-21 01:12:48 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Only cov-ops ships should be able to scan cloaked ships. Not any random ship.


Does not matter how you limit it. It would become a mandatory ship to have in your fleet when you are doing PVE. The probes would be put around your fleet to give advanced warning for a cloaky being near.

Wormholer for life.

Goonswarm Federation
#9286 - 2017-04-21 03:44:08 UTC
Wander Prian wrote:
Xcom wrote:
Only cov-ops ships should be able to scan cloaked ships. Not any random ship.


Does not matter how you limit it. It would become a mandatory ship to have in your fleet when you are doing PVE. The probes would be put around your fleet to give advanced warning for a cloaky being near.


Exactly. If you have enough people in system you get an advantage. Somebody parks one of his alts in such a ship. Everyone looking at local, everyone on comms...significant advantage and lots of safety and no more AFK cloaking.

If you are in a corp/alliance without enough people this advantage is not as readily available.

So the guy complaining about small groups having troubles wants a solution that favors large groups.

Who'd a thunk 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

Goonswarm Federation
#9287 - 2017-04-21 03:55:02 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Well yet again, it would need balance. But yet, mostly would be used to catch cloakers that leave there PCs for extended periods of time and scare tactics. Used with smart bombs and teamwork that small number would actually grow fast as well.



How? A sphere of 100km radius is a huge amount of space, more than 125,663 km3. I suppose you could spend a few hours trying to find the guy in that situation is going to take considerable work.

So it becomes an early warning system. Who will be better able to leverage such a system? A 50-100 man corp or a 1,000 man corp? My guess is the latter. With the latter you'll be far more likely to have a guy who can park an alt in a cov ops and be the early warning system. The small group, the groups you prefer, will not have as many such options.

And what about fleet combat. Now everyone will want one of these guys on grid with his probes out. Hey everyone bombers in the area, spread out and take the appropriate counter measures.

This is not a good idea.

Don't worry, I'm sure Dracvlad will like it.

"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

#9288 - 2017-04-21 08:46:13 UTC
Wander Prian wrote:
Xcom wrote:
Only cov-ops ships should be able to scan cloaked ships. Not any random ship.


Does not matter how you limit it. It would become a mandatory ship to have in your fleet when you are doing PVE. The probes would be put around your fleet to give advanced warning for a cloaky being near.

And that would be bad, because?
#9289 - 2017-04-21 08:57:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Xcom
Teckos Pech wrote:
Xcom wrote:
Well yet again, it would need balance. But yet, mostly would be used to catch cloakers that leave there PCs for extended periods of time and scare tactics. Used with smart bombs and teamwork that small number would actually grow fast as well.



How? A sphere of 100km radius is a huge amount of space, more than 125,663 km3. I suppose you could spend a few hours trying to find the guy in that situation is going to take considerable work.

So it becomes an early warning system. Who will be better able to leverage such a system? A 50-100 man corp or a 1,000 man corp? My guess is the latter. With the latter you'll be far more likely to have a guy who can park an alt in a cov ops and be the early warning system. The small group, the groups you prefer, will not have as many such options.

And what about fleet combat. Now everyone will want one of these guys on grid with his probes out. Hey everyone bombers in the area, spread out and take the appropriate counter measures.

This is not a good idea.

Don't worry, I'm sure Dracvlad will like it.


1000 man corps don't see cloaked ships as a problem. There are no cynos in w-space so a cloaker would do at best a few appearances before dying miserably to a massive counter attack. Bombers would do there thing as well, just as before. As you said "I suppose you could spend a few hours trying to find the guy in that situation is going to take considerable work.".
Interhole Revenue Service
#9290 - 2017-04-21 09:20:33 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Xcom wrote:
Well yet again, it would need balance. But yet, mostly would be used to catch cloakers that leave there PCs for extended periods of time and scare tactics. Used with smart bombs and teamwork that small number would actually grow fast as well.



How? A sphere of 100km radius is a huge amount of space, more than 125,663 km3. I suppose you could spend a few hours trying to find the guy in that situation is going to take considerable work.

So it becomes an early warning system. Who will be better able to leverage such a system? A 50-100 man corp or a 1,000 man corp? My guess is the latter. With the latter you'll be far more likely to have a guy who can park an alt in a cov ops and be the early warning system. The small group, the groups you prefer, will not have as many such options.

And what about fleet combat. Now everyone will want one of these guys on grid with his probes out. Hey everyone bombers in the area, spread out and take the appropriate counter measures.

This is not a good idea.

Don't worry, I'm sure Dracvlad will like it.


1000 man corps don't see cloaked ships as a problem. There are no cynos in w-space so a cloaker would do at best a few appearances before dying miserably to a massive counter attack. Bombers would do there thing as well, just as before. As you said "I suppose you could spend a few hours trying to find the guy in that situation is going to take considerable work.".


You keep missing the point here.

The only advantage that a cloaky ship has over others is the ability to choose the moment of engagement. When you introduce a ability to have a early-warning that a cloaked ship is nearby, you neuter the whole point of having a cloak on the ship.

You also keep saying this change is due to small corps. Well, any change you do to benefit smaller organizations, will be abused by larger ones as they have the manpower to take it to the extreme.

Wormholer for life.

#9291 - 2017-04-21 14:23:52 UTC
I get it. According to you the moment of engagement aspect of cloaking is balancing itself out with the lower dps and tank of cloakers. I disagree as there lowered stats isn't a valid enough argument to justify total stealth capability. Total and absolute stealth is in my opinion imbalanced, witch is what we are seeing when people complain. I get that there always will be a group like you who won't agree and that is fine. You don't have too, like all subjects there will always be people of differed opinions.

I just hope CCP gives both sides of the argument a look and balances to a more neutral compromise. Enough have complained about this subject to just sweep it under the carpet. This particular idea have probably been the most neutral of the ones I have seen and the most simple to implement.
Minmatar Republic
#9292 - 2017-04-21 16:07:36 UTC
Xcom wrote:
I get it. According to you the moment of engagement aspect of cloaking is balancing itself out with the lower dps and tank of cloakers. I disagree as there lowered stats isn't a valid enough argument to justify total stealth capability. Total and absolute stealth is in my opinion imbalanced, witch is what we are seeing when people complain. I get that there always will be a group like you who won't agree and that is fine. You don't have too, like all subjects there will always be people of differed opinions.

I just hope CCP gives both sides of the argument a look and balances to a more neutral compromise. Enough have complained about this subject to just sweep it under the carpet. This particular idea have probably been the most neutral of the ones I have seen and the most simple to implement.



You don't like total absolute stealth but fine with total absolute intel...... Okay

Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated. Confucius

"A man who talks to people who aren't real is crazy. A man who talks to people who aren't real and writes down what they say is an author."

#9293 - 2017-04-21 16:27:42 UTC
Maria Dragoon wrote:
Xcom wrote:
I get it. According to you the moment of engagement aspect of cloaking is balancing itself out with the lower dps and tank of cloakers. I disagree as there lowered stats isn't a valid enough argument to justify total stealth capability. Total and absolute stealth is in my opinion imbalanced, witch is what we are seeing when people complain. I get that there always will be a group like you who won't agree and that is fine. You don't have too, like all subjects there will always be people of differed opinions.

I just hope CCP gives both sides of the argument a look and balances to a more neutral compromise. Enough have complained about this subject to just sweep it under the carpet. This particular idea have probably been the most neutral of the ones I have seen and the most simple to implement.



You don't like total absolute stealth but fine with total absolute intel...... Okay

Local is total absolute intel. A ship probing isn't.
Minmatar Republic
#9294 - 2017-04-21 16:41:58 UTC
Xcom wrote:

Local is total absolute intel. A ship probing isn't.


Cept most of the time ship probing is used in combination with local.

Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated. Confucius

"A man who talks to people who aren't real is crazy. A man who talks to people who aren't real and writes down what they say is an author."

#9295 - 2017-04-21 17:07:45 UTC
Maria Dragoon wrote:
Xcom wrote:

Local is total absolute intel. A ship probing isn't.


Cept most of the time ship probing is used in combination with local.

Go back and read the original suggestion. This particular change would only be applied to w-space where no local exists.
Goonswarm Federation
#9296 - 2017-04-21 17:29:47 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Maria Dragoon wrote:
Xcom wrote:

Local is total absolute intel. A ship probing isn't.


Cept most of the time ship probing is used in combination with local.

Go back and read the original suggestion. This particular change would only be applied to w-space where no local exists.


Congratulations, you are the first person to complain about AFK cloaking in w-space. Well done. 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

Pandemic Legion
#9297 - 2017-04-21 17:32:45 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Maria Dragoon wrote:
Xcom wrote:

Local is total absolute intel. A ship probing isn't.


Cept most of the time ship probing is used in combination with local.

Go back and read the original suggestion. This particular change would only be applied to w-space where no local exists.


Still means 100% safety in null for the big boys.
Goonswarm Federation
#9298 - 2017-04-21 17:45:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Xcom wrote:
Maria Dragoon wrote:
Xcom wrote:

Local is total absolute intel. A ship probing isn't.


Cept most of the time ship probing is used in combination with local.

Go back and read the original suggestion. This particular change would only be applied to w-space where no local exists.


What is to stop NS people from using this?

Edit:

To be clear, is this just going to work in w-space? If so, why even do it? As I noted wormholers do not care about AFK cloaking. Further, in going back to your original post it is hilarious to see that you are finally starting to see the connection between local and AFK cloaking...but that you still insist on nerfing cloaks where AFK cloaking is not a problem. And even more amusing...you complain about useless posts.

"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

Goonswarm Federation
#9299 - 2017-04-21 18:52:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Xcom wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
The only reason someone would be cloaked and AFK in wormhole-space is to avoid being detected in directional scanner if you want to keep the element of surprise. AFK-cloaking itself has no use since there is no local.

This is also the exalt same reason people use cloacks in w-space. D-sanner is the tool used in w-space.

If local is the counter to cloaking the its simply easy to see that without it cloaking should be probable. Cant have the cake and eat it too.

It is worth noting that your most likely going to surprise most people. Its only unlike situations that some corp continually scans for new signatures. Its only when you have made your presence known that people most likely will respond. By then the cloak have served its use.


And another false premise.

You are assuming there is only one counter to cloaking: local.

The other counter is to work in groups....which is what most wormholers seem to do based on the discussion in this thread. If you are on comms in the standing fleet, and even working as a group, the threat of a cloaked ship is diminished.

Yes, that cloaked ship might be the advanced scout of a larger group. But even wormholers do not have a problem with that. Why? For them it is content. Wormholers are, to me, an interesting bunch. They are heavy into both PvE and PvP. They have to import a large chunk of the stuff they use, at least initially, and they build up considerable infrastructure when they find a hole to call home (good lord that sounds wrong). So for these guys it would seem that having skill points in both combat and industry would be very beneficial to them.

Notice that in the discussion of cloaks and AFK cloaking there is often the phrase: "some players just want to rat (or mine, or whatever) in peace".

That does not apply to wormholers. They know that they cannot have that where they live. Same goes for most NS sov holders (excluding renters). This is a game about competition and conflict as well as cooperation. Wormholers, above all, else seem to get this. It is a game where adaptability is extremely important, and the issue with the anti-AFK crowd is that they would rather have CCP do something vs. adapt.

Now, if nobody can adapt that is bad and CCP needs to intervene. But wormholers demonstrate that players can adapt to a no local environment and deal with cloaked ships. However, I do not advocate simply removing local because many players would likely stop playing than adapt, so my preferred solution has been remove local from NS (maybe LS) and put in structures so that players can build up an intel network.

"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

#9300 - 2017-04-22 05:55:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
Maria Dragoon wrote:
Xcom wrote:
I get it. According to you the moment of engagement aspect of cloaking is balancing itself out with the lower dps and tank of cloakers. I disagree as there lowered stats isn't a valid enough argument to justify total stealth capability. Total and absolute stealth is in my opinion imbalanced, witch is what we are seeing when people complain. I get that there always will be a group like you who won't agree and that is fine. You don't have too, like all subjects there will always be people of differed opinions.

I just hope CCP gives both sides of the argument a look and balances to a more neutral compromise. Enough have complained about this subject to just sweep it under the carpet. This particular idea have probably been the most neutral of the ones I have seen and the most simple to implement.



You don't like total absolute stealth but fine with total absolute intel...... Okay


Total absolute intel would be if local gave you not only all the info you have to go to third party sites to gather (not a balance issue), the intel it actually gets you, but also warpable links to your location.

By comparision local gives very little.


No, the moderate reduction of combat ability on a cov-ops hull does not justify the power of the cloak it can use. There are many weaker ships in the game that do not enjoy any sort of return for that weakness, never mind the sort of unbreakable safety a cloak can provide. Sure it's in a limited (sort of) circumstance, but correctly used there is nothing to be done about a cloaked ship but just tolerate it or leave.

Side Note: He isn't the first to complain about cloaks in wormholes. I've seen plenty of discussion about it, ranging from people complaining that they are nearly required to those complaining of the absolute safety enjoyed by those hiding capitals under them, though I may have missed why this was a bigger deal in a wormhole than anywhere else.

Cloaking mechanics in general are tilted way to far to safety in their use. Doesn't matter where or why you are using it, the fact that it can only be broken by the user making an error or conscious decision is just too much.
Forum Jump