These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Current cloaky camper game mechanic pro v. con debate

First post
Author
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2013-04-23 19:42:22 UTC
On the con side, you have me.


Opening statement:
Good game design is based on the rock-paper-scissors paradigm. That is, for every offense, there is an effective defense, and for every defense, an offense.

For sub capital fleets, I think EVE generally does a good job of this. If you are in frigs, the enemy may ship up to cruisers. Then you ship up to BC. Then they ship up to battleships, then you downship to stealth bombers. They switch to frigates to counter your SB, so you go to cruisers..... Around it goes.

EVE breaks this offense to a defense and defense to an offense in a couple places. One is capitals. This seems to be somewhat intentional as capitals are seen as the main attack/defense fleet for sov warfare, and they seem to think that who has the most big ships should hold sov. I do not necessarily disagree, though I would not mind a flying bomb, suicide type ship that could crash into a capital for massive damage.... but I go off track.

The other place in EVE where the effective defense to every offense breaks down, is the cloaky camper. If you want to shut down an enemy's industrial base, all you need is a cloaky black ops fleet and a bunch of cloaky campers with cynos. There is no effective defense to this offense.

They can log in, go AFK, and shut you down 24 hours a day, even when they are AFK.

You can't scan down cyno ship. You can't go after the cloaked up attack fleet. You can't secure your area well enough to keep them from getting in, in the first place. You can't jam the cyno. You can't have a counter strike fleet sitting around active for 24 hours a day just in case the black ops fleet attacks.

The most commonly suggested counter is to find the cloaky people's home, and counter cloaky camp them in. This works against enemies that have established "homes" (contributing to the "blue donut"), but no so great when they make their ISK from unknown out of corp alts. Heck, more than once I've seen a region camped in by a couple dozen NPC corp pilots.

In reality, only effective counter is to do what I've done. Detach yourself from null sec corps and return to high sec.

Is that really what we want? A couple dozen toons in cloaky ships shut down entire regions, resulting in a huge % of the industrial population living in high sec?


Anyone want to take the "pro" current mechanic side of the debate?
fukier
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2013-04-23 19:45:41 UTC
tldr?

also wrong forum...
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
Dave Stark
#3 - 2013-04-23 19:46:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
if they're afk it's not an issue.
couldn't you think of something original to cry about today?

also for using "blue doughnut" i feel you've invoked some type of godwin's law that immediately makes you wrong since there's no such thing. it's a ******** fantasy propagated by idiots.
Steve Spooner
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#4 - 2013-04-23 19:47:04 UTC
Indeed the lack of a way to shut down cloaky camping is a pain in the ass. The only way to catch them is if you set up juicy bait which will die with and even if you kill the cloaky camper he just comes back in another ship, and the cycle continues.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#5 - 2013-04-23 19:48:42 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
They can log in, go AFK, and shut you down 24 hours a day, even when they are AFK.
…or, more accurately, they can log in, go AFK, and you choose to shut down 24 hours a day — something that the cloaker has no control over.

AFK cloakers are 100% harmless, and as long as local works the way it does, they must remain in the game as the only tool to disrupt local's intel potential.
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#6 - 2013-04-23 19:51:20 UTC
This did not need a new thread. It could have simply been added to one of the hundreds of AFK cloaky threads already in existence.

Unfortunately, this one wont be locked..itll just be moved to F&I, where it will remain open.....and unsearched for....forever.

Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?

Olf Barrenbur
Guardians of Asceticism
#7 - 2013-04-23 19:54:44 UTC
Yes, I see what you're saying but you have the tools necessary to deal with these tactics if you're in an organized group.
FourierTransformer
#8 - 2013-04-23 19:56:08 UTC
Amount of pilots killed by AFK cloakers: 0
Grainsalt
Independent'R'Us
#9 - 2013-04-23 19:56:57 UTC
AGAIN?
Akuyaku
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2013-04-23 20:00:12 UTC
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#11 - 2013-04-23 20:01:11 UTC
Look! Another "nerf afk cloakers" thread in GD instead of F&I


There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.

LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#12 - 2013-04-23 20:07:40 UTC
fukier wrote:
tldr?

also wrong forum...


Seriouly, you need a tldr? Okay,
TLDR: current cloaky camper mechanics drive people to high sec, which I think is bad for the game.

How is it wrong forum? I specifically avoided ideas for "fixing" the mechanic and hope to keep it strictly a debat as to whether the current mechanic is good or bad.

Dave Stark wrote:
if they're afk it's not an issue.
couldn't you think of something original to cry about today?

also for using "blue doughnut" i feel you've invoked some type of godwin's law that immediately makes you wrong since there's no such thing. it's a ******** fantasy propagated by idiots.


How is an industrialist to know if the cloaky camper is afk or not? If the industrialist can't know if the camper is afk or not, it is only prudent to assume they are not afk, even it that assumption is incorrect 22 hours a day.

I'll rephrase.... contributing to the, possibly misconception, assertion by some, that there is a blue donut in null.

Define cry? Wanting to have a debate? Wanting to have someone attempt to counter my argument, while presenting a clear and concise counter argument? If that is how you define cry, then you have a messed up dictionary.


Tippia wrote:
LHA Tarawa wrote:
They can log in, go AFK, and shut you down 24 hours a day, even when they are AFK.
…or, more accurately, they can log in, go AFK, and you choose to shut down 24 hours a day — something that the cloaker has no control over.

AFK cloakers are 100% harmless, and as long as local works the way it does, they must remain in the game as the only tool to disrupt local's intel potential.


And there is no way to know if the cloakies are AFK or not. The result is that the only prudent action is to assume they are not afk. This assumption leads industrials to get fed up and return to high sec, causing harm to the game. Therefore, AFK cloaky campers are not 100% harmless when considering the negative effects on the game that result from them.

So, could you formalize your "pro" argument for the current game mechanic? Local prevents you from getting kills of industrialists, so it is better that they all leave null sec because you have them cloaky camped in?




Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:
This did not need a new thread. It could have simply been added to one of the hundreds of AFK cloaky threads already in existence.

Unfortunately, this one wont be locked..itll just be moved to F&I, where it will remain open.....and unsearched for....forever.


Those hundreds of new threads are proposals of changes. This is intended to simply be debate as to the merits and demerits of the current game mechanics, without making proposals for specific changes.


Dave Stark
#13 - 2013-04-23 20:10:28 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:

How is an industrialist to know if the cloaky camper is afk or not? If the industrialist can't know if the camper is afk or not, it is only prudent to assume they are not afk, even it that assumption is incorrect 22 hours a day.

I'll rephrase.... contributing to the, possibly misconception, assertion by some, that there is a blue donut in null.

Define cry? Wanting to have a debate? Wanting to have someone attempt to counter my argument, while presenting a clear and concise counter argument? If that is how you define cry, then you have a messed up dictionary.


dscan, probes. really not difficult to figure out if some one is trying to probe you down in your grav site.

define cry: your posting history. it's a salty waterfall.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2013-04-23 20:11:08 UTC
Akuyaku wrote:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=216699&find=unread


How many of those are "proposals for changes" vs, how many are just a debate over whether or not the current mechanics are good?

Doc Fury wrote:
Look! Another "nerf afk cloakers" thread in GD instead of F&I


Only if you can't present a cogent argument as to why the current mechanics are good, or counter my argument as to why they are bad.
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#15 - 2013-04-23 20:11:35 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:
This did not need a new thread. It could have simply been added to one of the hundreds of AFK cloaky threads already in existence.

Unfortunately, this one wont be locked..itll just be moved to F&I, where it will remain open.....and unsearched for....forever.


Those hundreds of new threads are proposals of changes. This is intended to simply be debate as to the merits and demerits of the current game mechanics, without making proposals for specific changes.


Then like everyone else you didnt read them..or even glance at them. Most are whine threads that were moved to F&I, the others were whine threads disguised as proposals.

Either way, the merits/demerits have been discussed at exhaustable length, and another discussion is simply not warranted.

Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?

Darvaleth Sigma
Imperial Security Hegemony
#16 - 2013-04-23 20:13:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Darvaleth Sigma
Wow. I've only read a single on-topic, helpful reply in this thread so far. Does it bring pleasure to the sleazy trolls to spread their grease-ridden triple-chin across what could otherwise be an intelligent discussion? Do you find joy in straddling the GD forum with your verminous slime?


Personally, I think the OP has a point. The rock-paper-scissors paradigm doesn't really fit with cloaking as you have described it. But, to possibly help out:

1) You say there is no counter to the AFK cloaker. However, at the same time, the AFK cloaker is himself not doing anything. It sounds obvious, but let's apply it to the rock-paper-scissors. You say there is no "paper" for the cloaker's "rock", but I contend the cloaker isn't a "rock". They themselves are not countering, or indeed doing anything, by going AFK and cloaking. The only impact is psychological, which is where I *do* agree that the threat of AFK cloakers is very real. Hence:

2) We should be able to create a "paper" to the looming threat of a cloaky fleet, but not a counter to the simple act of cloaking and doing nothing with it. I would suggest some kind of module, or POS attachment, that shuts off the cloak of every ship in system. This isn't as bad as it sounds; all the player would have to do is turn it back on after the usual module cool-down time. If they're in a safe-spot, then nobody will be able to scan them down in the meantime. What it does is give the "defenders" a "paper" against the possible threat, because they can quickly assert whether it is a present threat or an absent one. If the player is there, they will recloak, confirming that the fleet is either waiting or ready to strike. If not, then the ship can be scanned and destroyed, discouraging players from simply going AFK.

Thoughts? I feel maybe the second point could be balanced by having a timer, whereby all cloakers that were decloaked in system automatically reactivate (if they are indeed AFK) after a certain period of time. Long enough to scan, but not ages, so AFK cloaking is riskier but not broken.

Give a man a match and you warm him for a day.

Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life!

Prince Kobol
#17 - 2013-04-23 20:13:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Prince Kobol
If you can show me a kill mail were somebody who was afk killed another pilot then fair enough otherwise stop crying and go and play a different game
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#18 - 2013-04-23 20:16:22 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
And there is no way to know if the cloakies are AFK or not.
Sure there is. If they move around, they're not AFK.

Quote:
Therefore, AFK cloaky campers are not 100% harmless when considering the negative effects on the game that result from them.
That's not the AFK cloakers doing any harm — it's the poor preparedness and bad choices of the people who imagine that “dock up” is the only way to counter them.

Quote:
So, could you formalize your "pro" argument for the current game mechanic?
I already did: AFK cloaking is the only counter to local. As long as local exists as a perfect intel tool, AFK cloaking must exist as a disruption method.
Tarsas Phage
Sniggerdly
#19 - 2013-04-23 20:16:45 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
You can't have a counter strike fleet sitting around active for 24 hours a day just in case the black ops fleet attacks.


Then you roll out the bait, spring the trap and take them out. Why wait around for them to decide to do something? Give them a reason to show up and your countering fleet won't have to wait. You will, in effect, be taking them on at a time and situation of your choosing.

We're talking fairly basic tactics here. How is this escaping you or your leadership?

If your response to this is "weelll wuh wuh we can't raise a fleet to counter them" then congratulations, you're out in 0.0 with insufficient support.

Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#20 - 2013-04-23 20:17:17 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
If you can show me a kill mail were somebody who was afk and cloaked killed another pilot then fair enough otherwise stop crying and go and play a different game


Fixed.

Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?

12Next page