These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
DataRunner Attor
Doomheim
#221 - 2013-04-30 03:32:18 UTC
Axhind wrote:
DataRunner Attor wrote:
Axhind wrote:




Next time try to read my post before going on elite pvp nerd rage against it.



Explaining to someone how to effectively counter a cloak, due to my own experience of being an active cloaker, be it afk cloaking, or actually doing something more productive with my cloak then simply amusing myself from all the hate mail I get for being /afk/ in their system is now considered "Nerd rage". Then my friend I have no hope of arguing my point with you as you are clearly much more productive individual, who also clearly done all the research in the world, and clearly deemed that nerfing JUST cloak without nerfing it counter part (local) is a good idea.

I'm clearly just an Elite pvp nerd rager.... What do I know?


Your solution is not a viable one and you know it just as we know it. That's why we all use afk cloaking to shut down systems. It would not work so well if the solution you presented was actually feasible.
Having a lot of people sit around bored waiting to see if the AFK cloaker will do something is even worse reaction than moving to high sec mission running. It just ruins the game for many more people for no good reason.

Feasible solution is one that is not completely one sided. One that actually involves non consensual PvP for the afk cloaker as well.

And CCP understands this. Elite PvP peeps will cry and there will be a lot of tears but in the end there will be a balance for both sides. Same case was with ganking mining barges in high sec. CCP fixed it and the elite cried like babies.
It's a basic principle of game design, balance. Drawbacks for both sides and, in eve, non consensual pvp for both sides.



elite...Pvper? Why do you keep using this combination of words? Is it cause we know what we are doing over the rest of the world? Or? What really?

Second, I'll tell you a secret. Really good one.... 90% of the time, when I'm /AFK/ in a system. "Locking it down." I'm really just in a blockade runner, minding my own bees wax setting up my next jump route.

Here the next little secret that people seem not to know.... More hot drops fail then not, but no one wants to talk about those, they just want to talk about the ones that happen to actually catch something due to a combination of factors which is. "THE /elite/ pvper outsmart your ratter/miner due to being forced to AFK and lulling the nullbear into a false sense of security, and able to call in a force in fast enough/lock down the target till force gets there which then caused the person that didn't A take precautions to prevent his destruction and B: Failed basic sensational awareness. "

/end sarcasm.

Anyways, you talk like if local is removed, then null sec will become vastly empty, I'm here to tell you that is wrong, if it becomes empty, then thats new room someone can move into for freedom.
B: if cloaking was removed, sure people will rejoice for a short time, but here what will happen, someone will come up with a different tactic that will abuse a system of some sort, and the cycle will start all over again, first it the removal of cloak, then what? No longer beable to gate camp? Once people gain footing on getting what they want, do you think it just stops there?
C: By greatly reducing the risk even further in null-sec that means it will get a another nerf of some sort, is that what you are encouraging as well?


Here comes the conclusion of what is said, and I've have said this many times. The system currently is the most balanced system that I've ever seen, as Nick once stated "With absolute intelligence comes a counter which is absolute concealment." Not only can you NOT get simpler then that, but you also CAN'T get any more balanced then that.

AFK cloaking is just a byproduct of this perfectly balanced system, as is nullbears ability to dock up as someone loads into a system or relocate to a safe haven. Both of these are byproducts of a perfectly balance system, they are symptoms, but not the cause.

“Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.”
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#222 - 2013-04-30 03:46:03 UTC
You know, I bet some freighter pilots might make posts about freighter ganking alot like we've seen form the Axhind, et. al. in this thread. The irony....

Quote:
I love the idea of being able to hunt cloaked ships. "one on one stalking" said the dev who is looking at it. Probes out gradually narrowing down the grid, then getting closer and closer, but with both the predators stalking each other, till eventually they decloak each other and its about twitch response to get the lock and tackle and jam before the cynos go up and both side's waiting blops gangs appear on grid simultaneously. Awesome.


That would be fun, but it is unlikely to happen until CCP can find a viable replacement for local.

Quote:
And CCP understands this. Elite PvP peeps will cry and there will be a lot of tears but in the end there will be a balance for both sides. Same case was with ganking mining barges in high sec. CCP fixed it and the elite cried like babies.
It's a basic principle of game design, balance. Drawbacks for both sides and, in eve, non consensual pvp for both sides.


So, nothing will change for the time being. Local is staying and almost surely so is afk cloaking, or at least the mechanic for people to do it.

Don't get me wrong, I think afk cloaking sucks. I've rarely done it since it sucks so much (I'd rather be doing something in the game than having the client open and netflix going...well unless there is something good on netflix).

"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
#223 - 2013-04-30 13:46:05 UTC
Zooom...to the top....or the bottom of the frst page...

"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
Axhind
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
#224 - 2013-04-30 14:08:29 UTC
DataRunner Attor wrote:

elite...Pvper? Why do you keep using this combination of words? Is it cause we know what we are doing over the rest of the world? Or? What really?

Second, I'll tell you a secret. Really good one.... 90% of the time, when I'm /AFK/ in a system. "Locking it down." I'm really just in a blockade runner, minding my own bees wax setting up my next jump route.

Here the next little secret that people seem not to know.... More hot drops fail then not, but no one wants to talk about those, they just want to talk about the ones that happen to actually catch something due to a combination of factors which is. "THE /elite/ pvper outsmart your ratter/miner due to being forced to AFK and lulling the nullbear into a false sense of security, and able to call in a force in fast enough/lock down the target till force gets there which then caused the person that didn't A take precautions to prevent his destruction and B: Failed basic sensational awareness. "

/end sarcasm.

Anyways, you talk like if local is removed, then null sec will become vastly empty, I'm here to tell you that is wrong, if it becomes empty, then thats new room someone can move into for freedom.
B: if cloaking was removed, sure people will rejoice for a short time, but here what will happen, someone will come up with a different tactic that will abuse a system of some sort, and the cycle will start all over again, first it the removal of cloak, then what? No longer beable to gate camp? Once people gain footing on getting what they want, do you think it just stops there?
C: By greatly reducing the risk even further in null-sec that means it will get a another nerf of some sort, is that what you are encouraging as well?


Here comes the conclusion of what is said, and I've have said this many times. The system currently is the most balanced system that I've ever seen, as Nick once stated "With absolute intelligence comes a counter which is absolute concealment." Not only can you NOT get simpler then that, but you also CAN'T get any more balanced then that.

AFK cloaking is just a byproduct of this perfectly balanced system, as is nullbears ability to dock up as someone loads into a system or relocate to a safe haven. Both of these are byproducts of a perfectly balance system, they are symptoms, but not the cause.



I use it as you want to maintain a very one sided system in order to promote your play style that has little to no risk involved for you and all the risk for the other party. Thus the comparison with high sec war dec crowd that targets industrialists.

I'm perfectly aware of how AFK cloaking works as well as how blackops drops work. If you want to find out about how effective it is go ask test and their renters how they enjoyed when goons did it to them. Incidentally you will find out that much more than just a few drops worked out by same strange chance. Maybe goons are just better at it than you are.

Nobody said anything about removing the cloak. Read Saladins proposal. The idea is that you either fit a covert ops cloak or you can fit a cyno/covert cyno. Not both. That way you can't be afk cloaked and an in effect hidden star gate in someone's system. If inhabitants know that you can't pop a cyno and drop a gang on their head they will be able to estimate the risk much better and that means that they can continue with their activities. You are still influencing them but not to the point where you shut down the system (today they can't know if you are AFK and if you have a gang ready to hot drop and must assume the worst).

If you want to hotdrop then no use of cloaked warping.


PS: system is not balanced at all. Local is as it provides instant intel to both sides. AFK cloaking is not balanced in any way or form as it is completely one sided. There is no risk for the afk cloaker as he picks when he wants to engage.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#225 - 2013-04-30 15:05:39 UTC
Local is a broken mechanic for the simple reason it is dumbing down gameplay all around.

It assumes pilots cannot use tools of any complexity to locate targets, or be warned of potential threats. It suggests we are too dumb, and need this intel handed to us in simplest form.

Does it help PvP pilots?
Of course it does, and in ways taken for granted by many comments seen here.
There is NO uncertainty about who is logged on in a system you are in. You see them, and you know with no doubts they can be found.
That is a HUGE advantage to those seeking targets.

So what factor is being overlooked, when people claim local is needed for defense?
Put simply, your opponents lack of information about your presence is a major defensive advantage.
They need to look for you, and they can never be certain if you are even in any given system to be found.
What this means: They are going to either quit searching for you after a given amount of effort, or be stuck searching the first system they encounter over and over.
How does this help you? After they get used to searching, and how long it USUALLY takes to find someone, they will be very likely to quit looking and move on after this period. IF you went to the trouble of hiding somewhere, and they don't find you, they are no longer looking for you.
Add to that, if they are coordinating with others, they tell them that they found no targets in 'System XXXX', which makes it less likely to be searched the next time.

I like mining.
I can place a scout in a cloaked ship, and get warnings when someone else is coming.
And I am betting I can be harder to find than most, meaning I can be more successful at mining. They will quit looking because they either think I am not there to be found, or I am not worth the effort needed to find me.

In other words: I can compete, if given the chance.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Friggz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#226 - 2013-04-30 15:27:41 UTC
Axhind wrote:

There is no risk for the afk cloaker as he picks when he wants to engage.


I think you underestimate how much pvp in EvE in is between two groups who have chosen to engage each other. If you are solo you'll typically be in a ship that uses stealth or speed to choose when to engage. If you are in a fleet you will use scouts to make sure your route is safe so you don't jump into a bubble or a bigger fleet. Most actual fights are between two fleets who both think they can win. If you end up in a fight you don't want to be in, it probably means you messed up.

Therefore, when you tell PvPers that the ability to choose when to engage means you assume zero risk, you aren't likely to convince any because we've all chosen to engage in fights and then lost.

Both sides can go back and forth on this issue but the fact of the matter is without afk cloaking it would be trivial to simply dock up every time anyone hostile or neutral enters system and thus avoid pvp 100% of the time with minimal effort. I don't do the afk cloaking thing myself because thus far I haven't considered it a worthwhile use of my time. I do however feel that there has to be some sort of way to force people to actual actively defend space, and to create risk to off-set the increased rewards of null-sec.

AFK Cloaking is a compromise, and like any good compromise it leaves both sides upset.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#227 - 2013-04-30 19:03:19 UTC
Friggz wrote:

I do however feel that there has to be some sort of way to force people to actual actively defend space, and to create risk to off-set the increased rewards of null-sec.


I think this is the crux of the problem. With a caveat, you can't force people to do anything in this game for the most part. What you can do is incentivize them to do stuff you think would make the game better.

Right now, if you go roaming what do you find. Usually nothing. With intel channels, cloaky scouts, and local, by the time you get to a prime ratting system the locals are docked or pos'd up.

With the way null currently is there is little incentive for the sov holders to do much to evict hostiles. Standing orders are, get safe and soon they'll leave.

Occasionally as a roaming gang you'll get lucky and find a ratter who was not paying attention or was unlucky to get tackled by a rat and couldn't get rid of that tackle before the gang arrives. Sometimes you'll run into another roaming gang and sometimes that will lead to a fight.

Once in a great while, if the sov holders can get a decent enough fleet up they will come after the hostile gang, but that happens only very occasionally.

And the solution is not to merely remove local. That is not going to work. There might be some improvement in find targets for roaming gangs, but eventually the ratters and miner will just relocate to high sec as they'll have greater security and can make isk at levels that aren't that much worse.

But local is too good an intel tool. It actually gives the person in system advance warning of an intruder a second or two before that intruder actually loads system. Something in between is needed. The edge should be with the sov holders, IMO. There should be some benefit to holding sov, but it shouldn't be an edge like what current local gives.

I agree mostly with this article.

http://themittani.com/features/local-problem-tale-two-solutions

Quote:
To wrap up, I'm going to take a closer look at that cloaking thing, the anti-blackops pulse attached to a cynojammer. I mentioned that I'm not entirely sold on that idea, and there are two reasons for that. The first is that I think AFK cloaking is actually a symptom of the perfect intel offered by local. I admit that I'm part of the problem. I fly, when I can be bothered to log in and play, with the Goonwaffe "Blackops" SIG. Among other functions, we goes into hostile systems and disrupt their moneymaking; kill the ratters, run off the miners, and destroy or evade their (usually) futile and pathetic attempts to fight back. But more often than not, that involves a depressingly large amount of AFK cloaking. Even though my ship is cloaked, I remain visible in local, and so locals are perfectly aware of my presence. While I and many like me can use this to our advantage for area denial, it makes for decidedly boring gameplay. I'm on another character or in another game if I'm at the computer at all, while the ratter is doing the same or leaves the system in hopes of finding an empty place to rat. So, any decoupling of local from intel eliminates AFK cloaking as a strategy, because it won't be necessary anymore. If I'm caught on scan, but then vanish, there's no way to tell if I've left system, or if I'm simply temporarily cloaked.

"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
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#228 - 2013-04-30 19:54:13 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
But local is too good an intel tool. It actually gives the person in system advance warning of an intruder a second or two before that intruder actually loads system. Something in between is needed. The edge should be with the sov holders, IMO. There should be some benefit to holding sov, but it shouldn't be an edge like what current local gives.

Without local, the SOV holders will have an amazing edge.

No intruder will know how many, (if any), defenders are present.
No intruder will know how many targets are present.

Having eyes on the gate in a cloaked vessel, defenders WILL know if the gate is used. By this near trivial effort, they will be made aware of a new entry into their system.

Logic dictates such a change to local would not be alone.

Probable secondary changes:
IFF system. Pilots in the same alliance would know of each others presence in the same system.
Possibly even having periodic updates on blue ships in neighboring systems too.

Cloaked Vessel hunting. I have detailed a system which mirrors the skills and requirements for cloaked vessels, so that those with an interest could hunt them in a balanced manner.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2668453#post2668453

Advanced scanning. Losing one intel source doesn't make you blind, you just learn to use others more efficiently.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=112964&find=unread

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Axhind
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
#229 - 2013-05-01 01:14:30 UTC
Friggz wrote:
Axhind wrote:

There is no risk for the afk cloaker as he picks when he wants to engage.


I think you underestimate how much pvp in EvE in is between two groups who have chosen to engage each other. If you are solo you'll typically be in a ship that uses stealth or speed to choose when to engage. If you are in a fleet you will use scouts to make sure your route is safe so you don't jump into a bubble or a bigger fleet. Most actual fights are between two fleets who both think they can win. If you end up in a fight you don't want to be in, it probably means you messed up.

Therefore, when you tell PvPers that the ability to choose when to engage means you assume zero risk, you aren't likely to convince any because we've all chosen to engage in fights and then lost.

Both sides can go back and forth on this issue but the fact of the matter is without afk cloaking it would be trivial to simply dock up every time anyone hostile or neutral enters system and thus avoid pvp 100% of the time with minimal effort. I don't do the afk cloaking thing myself because thus far I haven't considered it a worthwhile use of my time. I do however feel that there has to be some sort of way to force people to actual actively defend space, and to create risk to off-set the increased rewards of null-sec.

AFK Cloaking is a compromise, and like any good compromise it leaves both sides upset.



None of that matters. We do agreed fleet fights. It's not those that made HBC renters go away. It was AFK cloaking and blackops gangs dropping them as soon as they dared ignore the, what is in effect, hidden stargate in their system.

AFK cloaker that is after disrupting an alliance will not attack where he thinks he will lose (nor will most other people). Very few people in eve attack in order to lose (except in gimmick fleets and they don't count).

Despite all that trivial docking up a lot of people get caught without using afk cloaking techniques. Besides nobody said to remove the cloaking. Just that you can't have covert ops cloak and cyno/covert cyno at the same time. You get the pick, either warp cloaked or be able to light cyno. Not both.

That way the locals can risk it as they don't need to expect the worst case (248 new ships being bridged in by a titan).

PS: In this kind of thing it pays off to look at it from the both sides not just the side that wants free kills to line up.
Friggz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#230 - 2013-05-01 01:29:13 UTC
Axhind wrote:
Friggz wrote:
Axhind wrote:

There is no risk for the afk cloaker as he picks when he wants to engage.


I think you underestimate how much pvp in EvE in is between two groups who have chosen to engage each other. If you are solo you'll typically be in a ship that uses stealth or speed to choose when to engage. If you are in a fleet you will use scouts to make sure your route is safe so you don't jump into a bubble or a bigger fleet. Most actual fights are between two fleets who both think they can win. If you end up in a fight you don't want to be in, it probably means you messed up.

Therefore, when you tell PvPers that the ability to choose when to engage means you assume zero risk, you aren't likely to convince any because we've all chosen to engage in fights and then lost.

Both sides can go back and forth on this issue but the fact of the matter is without afk cloaking it would be trivial to simply dock up every time anyone hostile or neutral enters system and thus avoid pvp 100% of the time with minimal effort. I don't do the afk cloaking thing myself because thus far I haven't considered it a worthwhile use of my time. I do however feel that there has to be some sort of way to force people to actual actively defend space, and to create risk to off-set the increased rewards of null-sec.

AFK Cloaking is a compromise, and like any good compromise it leaves both sides upset.



None of that matters. We do agreed fleet fights. It's not those that made HBC renters go away. It was AFK cloaking and blackops gangs dropping them as soon as they dared ignore the, what is in effect, hidden stargate in their system.

AFK cloaker that is after disrupting an alliance will not attack where he thinks he will lose (nor will most other people). Very few people in eve attack in order to lose (except in gimmick fleets and they don't count).

Despite all that trivial docking up a lot of people get caught without using afk cloaking techniques. Besides nobody said to remove the cloaking. Just that you can't have covert ops cloak and cyno/covert cyno at the same time. You get the pick, either warp cloaked or be able to light cyno. Not both.

That way the locals can risk it as they don't need to expect the worst case (248 new ships being bridged in by a titan).

PS: In this kind of thing it pays off to look at it from the both sides not just the side that wants free kills to line up.


I understand both sides. I don't like AFK cloaking, but I feel it's a necessary evil. Local is too strong, but it's also the only thing there is. It's binary. With local we have one overpowered mechanic which is too much, without it we have nothing which is too little.

Again, the idea solution is tools to detect ships and the removal of local, but until that happens, we need something to balance out local. So what we have right now is an overpowered tool that the other side can go to great lengths to get around.

Is it ideal? No. But removing AFK cloaking is no more fair than saying we should simple remove local and give nothing back.
Axhind
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
#231 - 2013-05-01 02:03:00 UTC
Friggz wrote:
Axhind wrote:
Friggz wrote:
Axhind wrote:

There is no risk for the afk cloaker as he picks when he wants to engage.


I think you underestimate how much pvp in EvE in is between two groups who have chosen to engage each other. If you are solo you'll typically be in a ship that uses stealth or speed to choose when to engage. If you are in a fleet you will use scouts to make sure your route is safe so you don't jump into a bubble or a bigger fleet. Most actual fights are between two fleets who both think they can win. If you end up in a fight you don't want to be in, it probably means you messed up.

Therefore, when you tell PvPers that the ability to choose when to engage means you assume zero risk, you aren't likely to convince any because we've all chosen to engage in fights and then lost.

Both sides can go back and forth on this issue but the fact of the matter is without afk cloaking it would be trivial to simply dock up every time anyone hostile or neutral enters system and thus avoid pvp 100% of the time with minimal effort. I don't do the afk cloaking thing myself because thus far I haven't considered it a worthwhile use of my time. I do however feel that there has to be some sort of way to force people to actual actively defend space, and to create risk to off-set the increased rewards of null-sec.

AFK Cloaking is a compromise, and like any good compromise it leaves both sides upset.



None of that matters. We do agreed fleet fights. It's not those that made HBC renters go away. It was AFK cloaking and blackops gangs dropping them as soon as they dared ignore the, what is in effect, hidden stargate in their system.

AFK cloaker that is after disrupting an alliance will not attack where he thinks he will lose (nor will most other people). Very few people in eve attack in order to lose (except in gimmick fleets and they don't count).

Despite all that trivial docking up a lot of people get caught without using afk cloaking techniques. Besides nobody said to remove the cloaking. Just that you can't have covert ops cloak and cyno/covert cyno at the same time. You get the pick, either warp cloaked or be able to light cyno. Not both.

That way the locals can risk it as they don't need to expect the worst case (248 new ships being bridged in by a titan).

PS: In this kind of thing it pays off to look at it from the both sides not just the side that wants free kills to line up.


I understand both sides. I don't like AFK cloaking, but I feel it's a necessary evil. Local is too strong, but it's also the only thing there is. It's binary. With local we have one overpowered mechanic which is too much, without it we have nothing which is too little.

Again, the idea solution is tools to detect ships and the removal of local, but until that happens, we need something to balance out local. So what we have right now is an overpowered tool that the other side can go to great lengths to get around.

Is it ideal? No. But removing AFK cloaking is no more fair than saying we should simple remove local and give nothing back.



Local provides just as much benefit to the hunter as to the one being hunted. Without local you have no idea if there is someone in the system. That means that you will have to scan every single system. And that means plenty of time for locals to react to you.
If you think that lack of local will not get you reported in intel channels you are very much mistaken. Most likely people will start putting cloaking alts on gates to monitor them and then the intel will be actually much better than what we have now when it's mostly your presence that is reported not your fleet composition.

So, no, AFK cloaking is not a counter to anything. It's just a broken mechanic that removes all risk from one side. However cloaking is used for scouting and is thus very important mechanic. So removing cloaking would be just crazy. That's why the idea is to remove the ability to light cyno from the covert ops cloakers. That negates the crazy high risk for the people being camped by afk cloakers and allows them to fight back without nerfing cloaking to the point where scouting becomes impossible.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#232 - 2013-05-01 04:52:18 UTC
Axhind wrote:

So, no, AFK cloaking is not a counter to anything. It's just a broken mechanic that removes all risk from one side. However cloaking is used for scouting and is thus very important mechanic. So removing cloaking would be just crazy. That's why the idea is to remove the ability to light cyno from the covert ops cloakers. That negates the crazy high risk for the people being camped by afk cloakers and allows them to fight back without nerfing cloaking to the point where scouting becomes impossible.


Sure it is. It is a counter to the intel abilities of local which always beats the crap out of a cloaked alt on grid near a gate. You have to go take a leak, get a beer, or just happen not to see that guy jump through the gate...

But local...local never lies, and is always going to report who is in system without fail. And it will give you a very slight advanced warning.

So AFK cloakers use this amazing intel to their advantage. They know that by cloaking up in system most players wont undock, or will head to another system.

And yes, AFK cloaking is broken. As is local. Kind of like how (-1)*(-1) = 1: that is two negatives making a positive. Is it the best? **** no. Could things be better, Hell yes. But until CCP figures how it wants to replace local and implements it AFK cloaking is likely here to stay.

"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
Friggz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#233 - 2013-05-01 15:12:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Friggz
Axhind wrote:


Local provides just as much benefit to the hunter as to the one being hunted. Without local you have no idea if there is someone in the system. That means that you will have to scan every single system. And that means plenty of time for locals to react to you.
If you think that lack of local will not get you reported in intel channels you are very much mistaken. Most likely people will start putting cloaking alts on gates to monitor them and then the intel will be actually much better than what we have now when it's mostly your presence that is reported not your fleet composition.

So, no, AFK cloaking is not a counter to anything. It's just a broken mechanic that removes all risk from one side. However cloaking is used for scouting and is thus very important mechanic. So removing cloaking would be just crazy. That's why the idea is to remove the ability to light cyno from the covert ops cloakers. That negates the crazy high risk for the people being camped by afk cloakers and allows them to fight back without nerfing cloaking to the point where scouting becomes impossible.


I understand and agree the that hunted to have some type of way to see incoming ships and react and escape, which is why I don't support simply removing local. However local does benefit the hunted far more than the hunter, regardless of the fact that both have access to it.

Applying the same effect to both sides does not necessarily mean that effect is inherently balanced when the two sides have different goals. For example if my goal is to gather 100 oranges and your goal is to gather 100 apples, and we both have apple detection devices, you can't say it's balanced because we can both detect apples. You have a clear advantage because a system is in place that helps you with your goal without helping me with mine, or in the case of local, it helps the hunted with their goal to a far greater degree than it helps the hunter with his.

A better analogy closer to home would be what happens when you give antelopes and lions night vision goggles. The results aren't good for the lions.

As for Intel channels, Cloaky alts on gates actually requires a human being choosing to act as a scout. It creates a role and a type of game play, it rewards organizations that go out of their way to ensure they have good intel. It creates player interaction. I have no problem with intel channels, and it's a great example of how people can defend themselves without local.

As for your idea of disallowing cynos on CovOps ships... there is an entire class of Warfare called Black Ops which uses the Black Ops Battleship which is designed specifically for lightning special cynos that can only be fit on CovOps capable ships. Do you think it's fair for an entire play style to die so you don't have to deal with afk cloakers? I don't think that's particularly fair. Do you?
Trii Seo
Goonswarm Federation
#234 - 2013-05-01 15:56:54 UTC
Well, a complete removal of local would be a total kick in the teeth for capital pilots.

That being said - currently you appear in local as soon as you're inbound to the gate. That is, give or take, ten seconds before your grid is loaded and you can start looking for prey. By that time, a T3 has docked and a Battleship that pays attention to local is finishing up aligning.

I was rather pleasantly surprised by the new discovery scanner demonstrated during Fanfest - maybe it could be used to replace local as intel-gathering tool?

- It makes sweeps at regular intervals, acting like a RADAR system. Uncloaked vessels will be detected immediately and will likely transmit their IFF response - identifying standings. Likely it would be possible to determine what corporation does the ship belong to - but not individual pilot!
- Range is limited and it does not indicate direction. Still need to work dscan!
- Building scan towers in the system will increase coverage (benefits from sov. "Imbalanced in favor of sovholders bawww" - yes. They had to grind the region down, invest ISK into upgrading it - let them benefit from it!)
- Returns a number of false positives - drifting rocks, rubble, debris from previous battles (space is quite violent). A cloaked ship would sometimes (maybe skill-dependant - to make anti-cloaky hunting an actual viable 'profession' to train into!) be reported among them. Depending on the skill and how long it sits still in one place, the return would be rather consistent.
- Blue ships report themselves automatically. Within the same alliance, even cloakies.
- Possibly introduce an AWACS module for force recons that could be used to make more accurate sweeps. Firing it up and scanning for a while could reveal where a cloaked ship is in the system. Due to raw strength of scanner sweeps made by the AWACS module, it would act like a cynosural field - broadcasting the position of the ship across the system. Non-AFKy hostile may notice this and run away - objective accomplished, you drove him out of the system. AFKy may pay the price.

Keep in mind - those systems would work over time, maybe slowly narrowing down the position and allowing the recon pilot to determine where the enemy is using directional scan. It would not immediately reveal the position of a cloaked ship - or even presence of thereof.

As a result:

- Intel could require work and skill, opening windows for a cloaky ship to catch people.
- AFK on both sides would be discouraged.
- Scout profession expanded to hunting hostile cloaked ships.

Possible drawbacks:

- Carebear AWACS alts. Everyone and their dog has an AWACS alt now and sticks it on permascan somewhere.
- Another "must-train" skill. This could get as dumb as current sensor compensation skills got. ECM nerf by pretty much forcing people to train a skill.
- Something I missed but people in the thread will gladly point out.

Bring out the torches and pitchfork.

Proud pilot of the Imperium

Arek'Jaalan: Heliograph
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#235 - 2013-05-02 13:23:19 UTC
Axhind wrote:
That's why the idea is to remove the ability to light cyno from the covert ops cloakers. That negates the crazy high risk for the people being camped by afk cloakers and allows them to fight back without nerfing cloaking to the point where scouting becomes impossible.

This would be unnecessary.

The moment that hot dropping no longer is needed to bypass the population spike a hostile fleet makes in local, it will immediately stop being practical.

Think about it.

You can bring in your fleet outside of scan range, and direct warp to the target far more effectively.
And with less warning to the target than a hot drop would allow.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Trii Seo
Goonswarm Federation
#236 - 2013-05-02 14:48:47 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Axhind wrote:
That's why the idea is to remove the ability to light cyno from the covert ops cloakers. That negates the crazy high risk for the people being camped by afk cloakers and allows them to fight back without nerfing cloaking to the point where scouting becomes impossible.

This would be unnecessary.

The moment that hot dropping no longer is needed to bypass the population spike a hostile fleet makes in local, it will immediately stop being practical.

Think about it.

You can bring in your fleet outside of scan range, and direct warp to the target far more effectively.
And with less warning to the target than a hot drop would allow.


Not entirely - for one, hotdropping is fun. It's a lot of fun!

Also, a drop in one place + 2-3 skilled hunters/baits lurking within bridge range is like having 3 fleets. More chance to shoot something!

Proud pilot of the Imperium

Arek'Jaalan: Heliograph
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#237 - 2013-05-02 15:43:09 UTC
Trii Seo wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Axhind wrote:
That's why the idea is to remove the ability to light cyno from the covert ops cloakers. That negates the crazy high risk for the people being camped by afk cloakers and allows them to fight back without nerfing cloaking to the point where scouting becomes impossible.

This would be unnecessary.

The moment that hot dropping no longer is needed to bypass the population spike a hostile fleet makes in local, it will immediately stop being practical.

Think about it.

You can bring in your fleet outside of scan range, and direct warp to the target far more effectively.
And with less warning to the target than a hot drop would allow.


Not entirely - for one, hotdropping is fun. It's a lot of fun!

Also, a drop in one place + 2-3 skilled hunters/baits lurking within bridge range is like having 3 fleets. More chance to shoot something!

It can stay fun as a regular cyno off grid from the target too.

Your points seem to ignore that you can still cyno into a system, or just one system over if you are worried about that cyno beacon warning targets.
Your fleet can still be in the many places you described, but they have no need to be dropped onto grid with the target itself.

Hot dropping practicality dies the moment that local stops advertising the population spikes caused by fleets arriving.
And while you might see some still trying it out of habit, it will never be a best practice doctrine after that change.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Trii Seo
Goonswarm Federation
#238 - 2013-05-02 19:07:12 UTC
The entire point of hotdrops is that they're on-grid with a target. You're dropping "hot" - means right into combat.

And no, they wouldn't die because there already are ways to bypass the local spike. It's called "sending a scout +1" and "ordering your scout to tackle a target and provide a warp-in." - gang roams are different from hotdrops.

Proud pilot of the Imperium

Arek'Jaalan: Heliograph
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#239 - 2013-05-02 19:40:09 UTC
Trii Seo wrote:
The entire point of hotdrops is that they're on-grid with a target. You're dropping "hot" - means right into combat.

And no, they wouldn't die because there already are ways to bypass the local spike. It's called "sending a scout +1" and "ordering your scout to tackle a target and provide a warp-in." - gang roams are different from hotdrops.

You must know the local spike is an absolute no fly for many targets, especially PvE ones.
Even that tackle is far less certain under current game play, simply because your target already knows you're in the system.

To catch them, they had to both decide to take a risk, and be wrong about being able to get away from you in time.
They are already on a losing streak by the time the point lands, assuming they were properly paying attention and making some kind of effort.

Now, add to that awareness on their part the population spike and the time involved in the remaining roam arriving.
The guy you caught has either resigned themselves to a killmail, or has a backup plan.

Local makes hot drops practical now, simply because you are more unlikely to get a target any other way. Having a roam or fleet standing by outside a gate is usually considered too boring, if not a waste of time, by comparison.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Trii Seo
Goonswarm Federation
#240 - 2013-05-04 14:59:20 UTC
Your post is bad and you should feel bad.

I'd say hotdrops are practical because they're fun and practical. Bridge into the system. Caress the target gently with some bomber love. Bridge out. Laughs all around.

Proud pilot of the Imperium

Arek'Jaalan: Heliograph