These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Warfare & Tactics

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

[QUESTION] DECLOAKING CANS

Author
Strider Hiryu
Insane Shadow Boxers
#1 - 2012-07-23 16:51:24 UTC
I was thinking about putting up some cans on a lowsec gate in an attempt to decloak some covop's cloaky ships.
I have heard this is a legal tactic.
Does CCP have an offical stance on this?
How many cans is deamed acceptable if this is an allowable tactic?

Thanks.
Strider.
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#2 - 2012-07-23 17:41:38 UTC
It's a perfectly valid tactic, but still, I wouldn't put too many TBH. CCP can be a bit... inconsistent with their rulings on things and it's best to err on the side of caution.

It shouldn't be too hard to figure out the number of cans you need - ships spawn on the surface of a sphere 18km from the gate. Each can must be within 2500 meters of a cloaked ship to decloak them - which means the cans must be 4750 meters apart (technically 5000 but you want some overlap to ensure good coverage). From there it's just figuring out the surface area of the sphere and dividing it by 4750.

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist

Ki're Suahien
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2012-07-23 17:53:23 UTC
Speaking from a nullsec POV, whenever ~things~ are going on, light ships, tackle and insta-canes sit on gates while the big stuff does its thing. I have been on gate-camps with like 50 people and we have dropped hundreds of them to the point that it's a giant sphere around the gate, we've never had any problems with it.

Now, depending on what you name the can...that can get you in trouble.

Also, as far as I can tell, the can won't actually decloak anyone; but if they're within 2000m of one it won't let them cloak.
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#4 - 2012-07-23 18:03:37 UTC
Ki're Suahien wrote:
Speaking from a nullsec POV, whenever ~things~ are going on, light ships, tackle and insta-canes sit on gates while the big stuff does its thing. I have been on gate-camps with like 50 people and we have dropped hundreds of them to the point that it's a giant sphere around the gate, we've never had any problems with it.

Now, depending on what you name the can...that can get you in trouble.

Also, as far as I can tell, the can won't actually decloak anyone; but if they're within 2000m of one it won't let them cloak.


I don't understand why renaming cans can get you in trouble? Unless really long names destabilize the node?

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist

Suqq Madiq
#5 - 2012-07-23 19:53:05 UTC
Xuixien wrote:
Ki're Suahien wrote:
Speaking from a nullsec POV, whenever ~things~ are going on, light ships, tackle and insta-canes sit on gates while the big stuff does its thing. I have been on gate-camps with like 50 people and we have dropped hundreds of them to the point that it's a giant sphere around the gate, we've never had any problems with it.

Now, depending on what you name the can...that can get you in trouble.

Also, as far as I can tell, the can won't actually decloak anyone; but if they're within 2000m of one it won't let them cloak.


I don't understand why renaming cans can get you in trouble? Unless really long names destabilize the node?


He's from TEST, so you must assume that he's suggesting that using racist, bigoted or hateful speech can cause problems. No doubt they've been warned about it before.

Beyond that, the main issue with dropping cans all over a gate is the lag it can and does cause. If you drop enough cans to lag out somebody's client (which happens frequently) your camp will be busted and you will likely be awarded a few days vacation if somebody petitions your behavior.
Ki're Suahien
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2012-07-23 20:03:17 UTC
Suqq Madiq wrote:
Xuixien wrote:
Ki're Suahien wrote:
Speaking from a nullsec POV, whenever ~things~ are going on, light ships, tackle and insta-canes sit on gates while the big stuff does its thing. I have been on gate-camps with like 50 people and we have dropped hundreds of them to the point that it's a giant sphere around the gate, we've never had any problems with it.

Now, depending on what you name the can...that can get you in trouble.

Also, as far as I can tell, the can won't actually decloak anyone; but if they're within 2000m of one it won't let them cloak.


I don't understand why renaming cans can get you in trouble? Unless really long names destabilize the node?


He's from TEST, so you must assume that he's suggesting that using racist, bigoted or hateful speech can cause problems. No doubt they've been warned about it before.

Beyond that, the main issue with dropping cans all over a gate is the lag it can and does cause. If you drop enough cans to lag out somebody's client (which happens frequently) your camp will be busted and you will likely be awarded a few days vacation if somebody petitions your behavior.


Yep.

And I didn't know about the lag, haven't experienced it before. If you're intentionally doing it to lag someone out, yeah I'd say it's ban worthy. If it's just to decloak, no. But you can't really differentiate between the two. Honestly I'd just ask a GM and see what they say.
Strider Hiryu
Insane Shadow Boxers
#7 - 2012-07-23 20:03:44 UTC
So it seems that it is a legal tactic.
There is no maximum number of cans?
RavenPaine
RaVeN Alliance
#8 - 2012-07-23 20:53:20 UTC
My experience is this:
Someone loses thier ship and they use your cans as an exuse. (Could be a legit issue) They petition. A GM will contact you and give you a specified time to "remove your assets". If you do not remove them the polite response would be to ask the GM to please remove them for you. *POOF* assets removed.

Our cans were not Decloak cans btw. but anchored cans that formed messages in space. The petitions were about the lag this caused for ppl loading grid.

Substantia Nigra
Polaris Rising
Goonswarm Federation
#9 - 2012-07-23 22:29:18 UTC
I have been on both sides of this issue and the feedback I have received from CCP has been pretty consistent … if sometimes awkward to interpret / implement. I have been caught and decloaked, with fatal consequences, by dozens of drones in a small bubble. I routinely boobytrap my POSes with large bubbles and many strategically placed decloak cans – resulting in the demise of many covops stickybeaks. Virtually all our bubble-camps, fixed or mobile, use cans to increase our chances of catching covops ships as well as the usual suspects.

Decloak cans (or drones or whatever) are a perfectly legitimate in-game tool. However, those objects become a problem, and get the attention of CCP, when they are so numerous as to cause lag (or are placed with that in mind) or are used in other inappropriate ways (e.g. offensive names or patterns).

I guess I am almost a 'vet' by now. Hopefully not too bitter and managing to help more than I hinder. I build and sell many things, including large collections of bookmarks.

Strider Hiryu
Insane Shadow Boxers
#10 - 2012-07-23 22:39:37 UTC
Alright.
I want to maximise my chances of catching cloakys, without causing lag.
Any idea on number of cans?
Ryelek d'Entari
Horizon Glare
#11 - 2012-07-23 23:12:37 UTC
Basic geometry says 256 cans regularly spaced 4.5km around the surface of an 18km radius sphere. You make the call whether 256 objects on grid is "abusive".
Substantia Nigra
Polaris Rising
Goonswarm Federation
#12 - 2012-07-23 23:18:18 UTC
Ryelek d'Entari wrote:
Basic geometry says ...


LOL, excellent answer. I wouldn't know even how to work that out. Love it :-)

I guess I am almost a 'vet' by now. Hopefully not too bitter and managing to help more than I hinder. I build and sell many things, including large collections of bookmarks.

Strider Hiryu
Insane Shadow Boxers
#13 - 2012-07-24 02:49:30 UTC
Ryelek d'Entari wrote:
Basic geometry says 256 cans regularly spaced 4.5km around the surface of an 18km radius sphere. You make the call whether 256 objects on grid is "abusive".


Well its not really my call.
I have heard many diffrent numbers of allowed cans.
Has CCP given a clear guideline anywhere?
Pipa Porto
#14 - 2012-07-24 02:56:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Substantia Nigra wrote:
Ryelek d'Entari wrote:
Basic geometry says ...


LOL, excellent answer. I wouldn't know even how to work that out. Love it :-)


Surface Area of a Sphere is 4πr^2. You pop into a system 15km from the gate, which is a Sphere of varying size (regional gates can be like 20km or something nutty like that).

So, Surface area to seed with cans is 4π(15+Gate Size)^2 km. Each Can covers a Surface area of 2π(2.5)^2 km.

Assuming they tessellate perfectly (they don't), and the gate is 5km (I think the smallest gate is like 7.5km, but I don't remember), you need 128 cans to cover a small gate.

For a 7.5km gate, you need 162 cans.

For a 20km regional gate, you'd need 392 cans.

Again, this is assuming you can nest circles perfectly into each other with no overlap (they don't), and assuming you're trying to catch something with a size of 0 (the ship model sphere is what the game measures when cloaking, so you need fewer cans if you're trying to catch a BS than if you're after a Frigate.

Figuring out how big the gaps would be, and how many cans you'd need to fill those gaps requires you to have fun with more advanced math, or just double it.

Setting them up perfectly would be a royal pain and probably take you the better part of a day, just to see it wiped away after DT.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Strider Hiryu
Insane Shadow Boxers
#15 - 2012-07-24 15:14:26 UTC
Why would they wipe them away if it is a legal tactic?
I have been to 0.0 systems with 100+ bubbles on a single gate that lagged my client to hell and that was deemed allowable.
IE. 100 decloaking can's would be allowable?
Rengerel en Distel
#16 - 2012-07-24 15:46:00 UTC
Strider Hiryu wrote:
Why would they wipe them away if it is a legal tactic?
I have been to 0.0 systems with 100+ bubbles on a single gate that lagged my client to hell and that was deemed allowable.
IE. 100 decloaking can's would be allowable?


I'd assume they'd get wiped at DT because jetcans don't survive DTs.

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.

Pipa Porto
#17 - 2012-07-24 16:21:03 UTC
Rengerel en Distel wrote:
Strider Hiryu wrote:
Why would they wipe them away if it is a legal tactic?
I have been to 0.0 systems with 100+ bubbles on a single gate that lagged my client to hell and that was deemed allowable.
IE. 100 decloaking can's would be allowable?


I'd assume they'd get wiped at DT because jetcans don't survive DTs.


Yep, Jetcans, Corpses (my favorite), and all the other detritus that you'd use for decloaking all get wiped out at DT. And you can't anchor GSCs in a tight enough net to be really effective (I think).

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#18 - 2012-07-24 16:24:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdiel Kavash
No, there is no single maximum "allowed" number. 100 cans might get you in trouble. 500 cans will very likely get you in trouble. The resolution depends on the GM dealing with it, what you're doing with the cans, and how can you justify it. 50 cans should be fine. Do you put them on a drag bubble? Do you put them aligned to celestials? Do you put them at jump in range? Or do you just randomly cover the entire grid with them? And obviously, if there is nobody around to petition the cans, there is no way the GMs will know about it.
Beachura
Doomheim
#19 - 2012-07-24 16:49:03 UTC
If the volume of 'cans' that your are jettisoning could be considered to be causing latency, there have been cases in the past when cans have been removed. Otherwise without an official representative, I believe it is a legal tactic.
Lady Spank
Get Out Nasty Face
#20 - 2012-07-24 17:46:36 UTC
How do you get the cans to cloak in the first place?

(ಠ_ృ) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (ಠ_ృ)

12Next page