These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Anti stealth scanning probes

First post
Author
Mag's
Azn Empire
#61 - 2013-02-27 15:11:04 UTC
Corey Fumimasa wrote:


I think its handy to let someone know that you agree w them, or to support a position that you don't have time or need to comment on. But like any kind of public acknowledgement it can lead to...silly abuse and well you know.
Agreed. I guess now I think about it, I have come round a little and tend to use it more.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Liriel Semah
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#62 - 2013-02-27 17:18:06 UTC
Corey Fumimasa wrote:

He wont "die." The potential hotdrop cyno wielding menace will wake up in a clone vat after you just spent 5 or 10 minutes reshiping, fleeting, scanning, and finally warping to him all the time terrified that he will light a cyno when you get there. Once the menace is dispatched and you can safely dock, reship, and get back to your own semi AFK activities the horrible bastard will hop in another cheap ship, fly back to your system and start the whole wretched process over again.

Yes but this means he actually has to put some effort into what he is doing and if he arives at the system again the people there can hunt him down again.

Mag's wrote:
Actually no, you won't. It's been done many times. It simply requires imagination and an understanding of game mechanics.

Yeah "your argument is wrong because you have no clue and I know it all but wont tell you" is a very good ground for discussion.



Mag's wrote:
You say announcing his presence, but that requires him to not be AFK. The point you and others so often site, is the issue with them not even being in the house. You can't have it both ways here, either it's the AFK nature of this, or you simply want to nerf cloaks. So which is it?

At this point I think you are just trolling in this tread
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#63 - 2013-02-27 17:22:25 UTC
Liriel Semah wrote:

At this point I think you are just trolling in this tread

Any thread that aims to "solve" the AFK Cloaking menace is either a troll or made by someone who can't read well enough to see that their suggestion has already been proposed.

And it has been proposed before, every possible response has been proposed before, at a rate of 2-3 threads per week for several years now.

Your idea is not special.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs

Mag's
Azn Empire
#64 - 2013-02-27 23:55:47 UTC
Liriel Semah wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Actually no, you won't. It's been done many times. It simply requires imagination and an understanding of game mechanics.

Yeah "your argument is wrong because you have no clue and I know it all but wont tell you" is a very good ground for discussion.
Putting words in my mouth isn't either.

Look you either believe it or not. But some searching on here, would tell you all you need to know.

Liriel Semah wrote:
Mag's wrote:
You say announcing his presence, but that requires him to not be AFK. The point you and others so often site, is the issue with them not even being in the house. You can't have it both ways here, either it's the AFK nature of this, or you simply want to nerf cloaks. So which is it?

At this point I think you are just trolling in this tread
Why is it whenever people cannot argue a point, they call troll?

It was a perfectly legitimate comment, on your stance. I've been cordial throughout this discussion, maybe you should continue in the same vein?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Victor Bastion
Danger Management
#65 - 2013-02-28 07:58:04 UTC
Similar to Cyno Jammers, just make it possible to drop a device in system that forces cloaked ships to become visible after they have been in system cloaked for more then say 30 minutes.

Make this device dependent on having the military index maxed out.

The Null sec Sov owner has the choice to drop one or not at that point to protect that specific ratting system but they would also first have to max out the index for that system and if it ever dropped that device becomes inert until the index is returned to it's max.

At least then there IS a way to counter cloaked ships but it's not going to be easy and it forces ratting in that system first to even get that advantage.

Also, cloaked ships can still be in system for 30 minutes (or whatever seems fair) before they would have to move on which enables covert ops fleets to pass through or even perform ops if they are fast enough.
Sura Sadiva
Entropic Tactical Crew
#66 - 2013-02-28 08:19:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Sura Sadiva
Victor Bastion wrote:
Similar to Cyno Jammers, just make it possible to drop a device in system that forces cloaked ships to become visible after they have been in system cloaked for more then say 30 minutes.

Make this device dependent on having the military index maxed out.

The Null sec Sov owner has the choice to drop one or not at that point to protect that specific ratting system but they would also first have to max out the index for that system and if it ever dropped that device becomes inert until the index is returned to it's max.

At least then there IS a way to counter cloaked ships but it's not going to be easy and it forces ratting in that system first to even get that advantage.

Also, cloaked ships can still be in system for 30 minutes (or whatever seems fair) before they would have to move on which enables covert ops fleets to pass through or even perform ops if they are fast enough.


Isn't this too open? Why to not just prevent allow other ships even only to transit in your systems? Isn't more effective to simply turn sov systems in instanced areas accessible only to your guild? Or, better, to move them on a dedicated server with specific login and: problem solved?

After all you paid for it, and also anchored some structures so you should be entiteled to decide the specific game mechanics working in there.
Victor Bastion
Danger Management
#67 - 2013-02-28 11:06:13 UTC
Sura Sadiva wrote:
Victor Bastion wrote:
Similar to Cyno Jammers, just make it possible to drop a device in system that forces cloaked ships to become visible after they have been in system cloaked for more then say 30 minutes.

Make this device dependent on having the military index maxed out.

The Null sec Sov owner has the choice to drop one or not at that point to protect that specific ratting system but they would also first have to max out the index for that system and if it ever dropped that device becomes inert until the index is returned to it's max.

At least then there IS a way to counter cloaked ships but it's not going to be easy and it forces ratting in that system first to even get that advantage.

Also, cloaked ships can still be in system for 30 minutes (or whatever seems fair) before they would have to move on which enables covert ops fleets to pass through or even perform ops if they are fast enough.


Isn't this too open? Why to not just prevent allow other ships even only to transit in your systems? Isn't more effective to simply turn sov systems in instanced areas accessible only to your guild? Or, better, to move them on a dedicated server with specific login and: problem solved?

After all you paid for it, and also anchored some structures so you should be entiteled to decide the specific game mechanics working in there.



Too Open? Not really, follow the logic here.

An alliance wants to protect their ratters. Now they have an option to do so. But in order to do it they have to max out the military index which means lots of ratting. Lots of ratting means lots of targets. Lots of targets means gankers will be drawn to the systems where the index is raising, especially to the ones at a high index that's closing in on maxing out.

To protect the ratters from the gankers that are now flooding in the alliance needs to deploy protection fleets. That means even more targets. Gankers will of course want to keep the military index down so they will be more active in order to do so.

Alliances may also see this as a way to protect their borders to a limited extent. So they have to rat in more systems broadening out the number of systems that will have active targets.

Once the military index is maxed out and the alliance deploys the device this still does not mean they are safe. First off they have to keep the index high which means further ratters. Ratters who now feel somewhat safe. But cloaked ships will not be revealed unless they are in system for more then 30 minutes which in most cases is plenty of time to scan down a target and attack if you have everything ready.

The only thing this will really prevent is AFK cloakers which seems to be what everyone is complaining about but it could potentially instigate more fights and provide more targets. I see this as a net positive.
Laura Belle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2013-02-28 11:59:27 UTC
Azrael Dinn wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Azrael Dinn wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Before we discuss nerfing cloaks, maybe you could answer the following question for me please.

Whilst they are cloaked and AFK, what mechanic are they using to interact with you?


Local Twisted

It is funny that all AFK cloaking problems stem back to Local o.O


It seems to be the case. Or thats how I have started to see it. No local no problem but then cloakers would get a huge advantage unless probes would be implied into the game.



cloak uses for many things and eliminating cloak by giving a counter cloak will have a huge effect on the whole game.
also we don't speak on cloak but only on covert ops cloak and most problems are tunneled to local.

though most offers here are bad, i have to agree that there is a problem here since there is something that can is super hard to almost impossible to overcome, little i can do to offer buccp should pay attention to this.

the little i can offer - might be a bad idea though is:
it might be a bit clumsy or bypass-able but what if a covert ops cloaked ship will be restricted from local while cloaked?
Mag's
Azn Empire
#69 - 2013-02-28 12:20:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Laura Belle wrote:
the little i can offer - might be a bad idea though is:
it might be a bit clumsy or bypass-able but what if a covert ops cloaked ship will be restricted from local while cloaked?
This has actually been suggested before a few times.
The basics are this.

Removed from local chat channel.
Unable to see others in the local channel.
Delay of a few minutes when decloaking, for use of the local channel. (Removes the chance of decloak, recloak games)
There has also been suggestions of removing use of descan whilst cloaked and ways to find them, if this change was introduced.

This would indeed cure AFKing. But it seems a lot of those that don't like AFKing, also didn't like this idea. They felt it made cloaks to powerful.
You'll find most that want to nerf AFKing, simply want to nerf cloaks. Balance isn't their strong suit.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Victor Bastion
Danger Management
#70 - 2013-02-28 12:38:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Victor Bastion
Laura Belle wrote:
what if a covert ops cloaked ship will be restricted from local while cloaked?


So lets say you are an Airforce Commander and an officer next to you informs you that something's been spotted on radar but they are unsure what it is. Could be stealth bombers or it could be a flock of birds. In that situation would your solution be?

A, Send up a squadron of fighters to intercept and investigate.
B. Turn off the radar.

I always think its funny when people suggest removing AFK Cloakers from local is somehow a solution because it's basically the same thing as option B which is totally illogical.

The problem is that option A is the logical choice but because of mechanics, as they are currently, it's simply not possible. Everything should have a logical counter. Even if that counter is difficult to achieve there should still be one. At the moment there is no counter to a Cloaked ship and it makes the game seem unfairly balanced in favor of some guy who's likely not even at his keyboard. And that is the part that is apparently irritating so many people.

Edited: Fixed quotation to the correct person.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#71 - 2013-02-28 12:45:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Victor Bastion wrote:
...Snip...
You misquoted me.

We are not talking about RL here, it's a game. As such balance is important. Any changes to cloaks that enables you to find them, would mean more intel power. That's not a balanced approach. Cloaks should not be nerfed, unless locals all seeing eye is also nerfed.
This doesn't mean total removal, but a change that means having to work for your intel, instead of the 'on a plate' version we have now.

I'm not even saying I like the idea, I'm merely saying it would cure AFKing. I actually like the status quo, as I've said numerous times before.

Although some may be irritated by a pilot in local, it is local that they reading and that's where their problem lies.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Victor Bastion
Danger Management
#72 - 2013-02-28 13:03:46 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Victor Bastion wrote:
...Snip...
You misquoted me.

We are not talking about RL here, it's a game. As such balance is important. Any changes to cloaks that enables you to find them, would mean more intel power. That's not a balanced approach. Cloaks should not be nerfed, unless locals all seeing eye is also nerfed.
This doesn't mean total removal, but a change that means having to work for your intel, instead of the 'on a plate' version we have now.

I'm not even saying I like the idea, I'm merely saying it would cure AFKing. I actually like the status quo, as I've said numerous times before.

Although some may be irritated by a pilot in local, it is local that they reading and that's where their problem lies.


Sorry I was not trying to quote you I was trying to quote Laura Belle. I pulled out the incorrect tags.

Still, I fail to see how allowing a cloaked ship to stay in system indefinitely without any possible way to track them down or counter then could be defined as "Balanced".

I don't really have a dog in the fight at the moment since if I am wandering around in dangerous waters it's almost always going to be in wormhole space where there's no local at all anyway. But I do understand the point of those who are irritated by the lack of a counter to a cloaked ship.

Not saying that the way to counter a cloaked ship should be easy. But for true balance there should always be an alternate tactic that allows you to find the ship. The cloaked ship of course can always move. So even if there were probes (as the OP suggests) that could find it so what? Just like an a wormhole or most of the rest of eve for that matter, mobility is the counter to that. Simply move.

The only people that would have a problem with this solution would be those who regularly AFK camp as far as I can see.
HazeInADaze
Safari Hunt Club
#73 - 2013-02-28 13:22:17 UTC
What is ridiculous is that to catch a ratter in nullsec you need cloaky alts, cyno 5, and a covops fleet or a titan. But we all see are posts about how bad afk cloaking is. Want you really want is nullsec isk with hisec noob corp risk.
Victor Bastion
Danger Management
#74 - 2013-02-28 13:39:49 UTC
HazeInADaze wrote:
What is ridiculous is that to catch a ratter in nullsec you need cloaky alts, cyno 5, and a covops fleet or a titan. But we all see are posts about how bad afk cloaking is. Want you really want is nullsec isk with hisec noob corp risk.


Incorrect. At least how I see it.

This is not a matter of greed but of tactics. By your own statements, even if it's difficult you CAN catch the ratters. Sure it takes a lot of work and resources but it IS possible to do.

However, catching the cloaked ship is NOT possible unless they really screw up. And that, at least to me, is the problem.

And besides most people don't have any issues with cloaking ships, it's the AFK cloaked ships that they don't like and want to be able to kill.

Personally I prefer wormhole space over dull sec. But even in wormhole space where being cloaked much of the time is almost a mantra, it would still make it more exciting if you knew that it was possible someone could still catch you if you were not careful.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#75 - 2013-02-28 13:41:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Victor Bastion wrote:


Sorry I was not trying to quote you I was trying to quote Laura Belle. I pulled out the incorrect tags.

Still, I fail to see how allowing a cloaked ship to stay in system indefinitely without any possible way to track them down or counter then could be defined as "Balanced".

I don't really have a dog in the fight at the moment since if I am wandering around in dangerous waters it's almost always going to be in wormhole space where there's no local at all anyway. But I do understand the point of those who are irritated by the lack of a counter to a cloaked ship.

Not saying that the way to counter a cloaked ship should be easy. But for true balance there should always be an alternate tactic that allows you to find the ship. The cloaked ship of course can always move. So even if there were probes (as the OP suggests) that could find it so what? Just like an a wormhole or most of the rest of eve for that matter, mobility is the counter to that. Simply move.

The only people that would have a problem with this solution would be those who regularly AFK camp as far as I can see.
Ahh OK, that explains it.

The thing is cloaks do have counters, just not ones that will break the point of having one fitted.
The reason people AFK, is to counter local. Local gives it's intel without bias, 23.5/7. Any nerf to cloaks, means more intel and the removal of a semi effective counter to local.

But the balance still remains in your favour. For although they may sit there all day, they really cannot do anything to you. The only one stopping you doing anything, is you. For although local's intel is guaranteed, the psychological effects from AFKing, are not.

The covert part of cloaks, is already nerfed by local. But they still have positional stealth.
So you have perfect awareness, they have positional stealth. I do believe it has balance.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#76 - 2013-02-28 13:46:36 UTC
Victor Bastion wrote:
HazeInADaze wrote:
What is ridiculous is that to catch a ratter in nullsec you need cloaky alts, cyno 5, and a covops fleet or a titan. But we all see are posts about how bad afk cloaking is. Want you really want is nullsec isk with hisec noob corp risk.


Incorrect. At least how I see it.

This is not a matter of greed but of tactics. By your own statements, even if it's difficult you CAN catch the ratters. Sure it takes a lot of work and resources but it IS possible to do.

However, catching the cloaked ship is NOT possible unless they really screw up. And that, at least to me, is the problem.

And besides most people don't have any issues with cloaking ships, it's the AFK cloaked ships that they don't like and want to be able to kill.

Personally I prefer wormhole space over dull sec. But even in wormhole space where being cloaked much of the time is almost a mantra, it would still make it more exciting if you knew that it was possible someone could still catch you if you were not careful.

Nullified T3 ships are the only ones that are almost impossible to catch, the rest can be nabbed with properly positioned warp bubbles and jet cans to de cloak them.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#77 - 2013-02-28 14:55:15 UTC
HazeInADaze wrote:
What is ridiculous is that to catch a ratter in nullsec you need cloaky alts, cyno 5, and a covops fleet or a titan. But we all see are posts about how bad afk cloaking is. Want you really want is nullsec isk with hisec noob corp risk.

This is a great point and bears repeating. The resources required to pull off these types of hot drops are very significant. People that don't like the potential of loosing a ship this way never seem to look at that side of the equation.

And back to "AFK" cloakers; move systems and bubble the heck out of the gate, if he's afk he wont follow, and if he follows you have a chance to catch him.
Victor Bastion
Danger Management
#78 - 2013-02-28 15:34:26 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Victor Bastion wrote:
HazeInADaze wrote:
What is ridiculous is that to catch a ratter in nullsec you need cloaky alts, cyno 5, and a covops fleet or a titan. But we all see are posts about how bad afk cloaking is. Want you really want is nullsec isk with hisec noob corp risk.


Incorrect. At least how I see it.

This is not a matter of greed but of tactics. By your own statements, even if it's difficult you CAN catch the ratters. Sure it takes a lot of work and resources but it IS possible to do.

However, catching the cloaked ship is NOT possible unless they really screw up. And that, at least to me, is the problem.

And besides most people don't have any issues with cloaking ships, it's the AFK cloaked ships that they don't like and want to be able to kill.

Personally I prefer wormhole space over dull sec. But even in wormhole space where being cloaked much of the time is almost a mantra, it would still make it more exciting if you knew that it was possible someone could still catch you if you were not careful.

Nullified T3 ships are the only ones that are almost impossible to catch, the rest can be nabbed with properly positioned warp bubbles and jet cans to de cloak them.


Correct, for a NON AFK cloaked ship this is true. But the thing that's irritating everyone seems to be the AFK cloaked ships and they are not moving anywhere so they are not going to get trapped by your bubbles. The odds of you getting lucky enough to drop a jetcan on them are pretty high.
Victor Bastion
Danger Management
#79 - 2013-02-28 15:40:58 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Victor Bastion wrote:


Sorry I was not trying to quote you I was trying to quote Laura Belle. I pulled out the incorrect tags.

Still, I fail to see how allowing a cloaked ship to stay in system indefinitely without any possible way to track them down or counter then could be defined as "Balanced".

I don't really have a dog in the fight at the moment since if I am wandering around in dangerous waters it's almost always going to be in wormhole space where there's no local at all anyway. But I do understand the point of those who are irritated by the lack of a counter to a cloaked ship.

Not saying that the way to counter a cloaked ship should be easy. But for true balance there should always be an alternate tactic that allows you to find the ship. The cloaked ship of course can always move. So even if there were probes (as the OP suggests) that could find it so what? Just like an a wormhole or most of the rest of eve for that matter, mobility is the counter to that. Simply move.

The only people that would have a problem with this solution would be those who regularly AFK camp as far as I can see.
Ahh OK, that explains it.

The thing is cloaks do have counters, just not ones that will break the point of having one fitted.
The reason people AFK, is to counter local. Local gives it's intel without bias, 23.5/7. Any nerf to cloaks, means more intel and the removal of a semi effective counter to local.

But the balance still remains in your favour. For although they may sit there all day, they really cannot do anything to you. The only one stopping you doing anything, is you. For although local's intel is guaranteed, the psychological effects from AFKing, are not.

The covert part of cloaks, is already nerfed by local. But they still have positional stealth.
So you have perfect awareness, they have positional stealth. I do believe it has balance.


I understand your point. In regards to local chat I personally think that you should get rid of the Local chat entirely in Null. But don't do it just for one ship class or just for a ship with a cloak. The local chat "According to lore" is a service that runs off repeaters that are in the gates and your ship is registered on the way through them. But it's supposed to be provided by concord in my understanding. No concord in Null so there should be no local chat at all.

On the flip side I still think there should be some way to capture a ship that is cloaked especially when they are AFK and standing still even in wormholes. I think it should be something that's very difficult to do and require maxed out skills of some sort but I think it should be possible by some means to locate, and if you are lucky, to kill them.
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#80 - 2013-02-28 15:51:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Corey Fumimasa
Victor Bastion wrote:

On the flip side I still think there should be some way to capture a ship that is cloaked especially when they are AFK and standing still even in wormholes. I think it should be something that's very difficult to do and require maxed out skills of some sort but I think it should be possible by some means to locate, and if you are lucky, to kill them.


Strangely enough even though I don't think AFK cloaking is a problem I agree that cloaked ships should be scannable. They could have a very small sig and so require good skills to find. And they could be the only ship with audible alarms and automatic D-scan. So every time a few combat probes got too close the pilot would get an audible alarm. As long as the pilot was at his keyboard he would have plenty of time to warp off.

Making cloaked ships somewhat visable to scanners would also help the campies to set up bubbles, so if the camper kept using the same SS he would have a higher chance to get caught.

I like options that allow more intel, it makes long term strategic thought more important.