These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Increase PVP and combat afk cloaky camping
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Behr Oroo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#101 - 2013-06-24 17:45:59 UTC
"Why are the mining barges offered absolute safety, on this level?"

The idea that I have started to lean to is taking black ops ship from local, in exchange for the scout class. This would still give you the chance to blow a mining barge if you want. Local couldn't warn them unless you engaged a target, then the intel would be passed along in alliance.

This makes sense if you think about it. You get an upgrade to your cloak, gives you the chance to get deeper into areas, get your intel and whatever.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#102 - 2013-06-24 17:52:15 UTC
just go diaf finally.

or read other threads same topic was beaten to death already.

afk cloaking is fine.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#103 - 2013-06-24 17:52:53 UTC
Behr Oroo wrote:
"Why are the mining barges offered absolute safety, on this level?"

The idea that I have started to lean to is taking black ops ship from local, in exchange for the scout class. This would still give you the chance to blow a mining barge if you want. Local couldn't warn them unless you engaged a target, then the intel would be passed along in alliance.

This makes sense if you think about it. You get an upgrade to your cloak, gives you the chance to get deeper into areas, get your intel and whatever.

A few brief minutes of pro-active scans using your scout ship would quickly become the norm.

The black ops would need to arrive after the scans were done, but before the target left or more scans were performed.

That gives control to the PvE interests quite neatly.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Behr Oroo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#104 - 2013-06-24 17:56:17 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
just go diaf finally.

or read other threads same topic was beaten to death already.

afk cloaking is fine.


I don't go away that easily. If you wish to stop responding to the thread, you are more than welcome.
I disagree that it's fine and I am voicing my opinion. Sorry if you are unhappy with it. People are pointing out possible flaws with my ideas. I am offering counter points and I will continue to.
Behr Oroo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#105 - 2013-06-24 18:02:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Behr Oroo
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Behr Oroo wrote:
"Why are the mining barges offered absolute safety, on this level?"

The idea that I have started to lean to is taking black ops ship from local, in exchange for the scout class. This would still give you the chance to blow a mining barge if you want. Local couldn't warn them unless you engaged a target, then the intel would be passed along in alliance.

This makes sense if you think about it. You get an upgrade to your cloak, gives you the chance to get deeper into areas, get your intel and whatever.

A few brief minutes of pro-active scans using your scout ship would quickly become the norm.

The black ops would need to arrive after the scans were done, but before the target left or more scans were performed.

That gives control to the PvE interests quite neatly.



OK. Then let's scale the idea back. Your average scan probe can scan out to 32au. What if the scout ship was limited to a 8au probe range. On average that would mean that most systems could only have 25% of the system scanned at a time.

So instead of click and scan, you have to put a bit more effort into it and I still like the idea of taking black ops out of local, cloaked or uncloaked. Like WH space, they would only show up if they spoke.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#106 - 2013-06-24 18:14:40 UTC
Behr Oroo wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Behr Oroo wrote:
"Why are the mining barges offered absolute safety, on this level?"

The idea that I have started to lean to is taking black ops ship from local, in exchange for the scout class. This would still give you the chance to blow a mining barge if you want. Local couldn't warn them unless you engaged a target, then the intel would be passed along in alliance.

This makes sense if you think about it. You get an upgrade to your cloak, gives you the chance to get deeper into areas, get your intel and whatever.

A few brief minutes of pro-active scans using your scout ship would quickly become the norm.

The black ops would need to arrive after the scans were done, but before the target left or more scans were performed.

That gives control to the PvE interests quite neatly.



OK. Then let's scale the idea back. Your average scan probe can scan out to 32km. What if the scout ship was limited to a 8KM probe range. On average that would mean that most systems could only have 25% of the system scanned at a time.

So instead of click and scan, you have to put a bit more effort into it and I still like the idea of taking black ops out of local, cloaked or uncloaked. Like WH space, they would only show up if they spoke.

I genuinely appreciate the thought you put into this. It is frustrating to hear repetitive ideas that assume balance is already missing, and cloaking needs to be nerfed to fix it.

You are, at least, willing to concede that balance must be maintained.

I would suggest you read these two threads. You may not agree with them completely, but they do provide an objective and balanced solution if used together. (In my opinion, and from my perspective as a miner specifically)

My goal in making them was then, as it is now, to raise the bar on effort for mining, and following that the rewards as well.
(They are most meaningful in null sec, where I normally play)

How to adjust local:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2369739#post2369739

How to hunt cloaked vessels: (Yes, the title reinforces my point about local being reduced in exchange)
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2668453#post2668453

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Behr Oroo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#107 - 2013-06-24 18:22:47 UTC
I will read these threads.
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#108 - 2013-06-24 18:54:53 UTC
Behr Oroo wrote:
I will read these threads.

Read the AFK Cloaking Collection Thread While you're at it. By now every variation of every idea you can come up with on the subject has been done.
Friggz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#109 - 2013-06-24 20:42:49 UTC
Behr Oroo wrote:

This would allow for PVP which is what CCP wants


You know why people put afk cloakys in systems. You know if those afk cloakys could be detected, people would stop doing it. You know there would be absolutely no additional pvp as a result on this, but rather less as now you can farm in 100% safety and dock up every time a hostile enters system.

You know this and it exactly why you are proposing this, only you can't propose it under the idea of avoid pvp, so you jump to the more politically correct conclusion that it will increase pvp, then try to work backward to create a premise to support the conclusion. The truth is you and those who claim to support this don't really care about creating more pvp. Apparently you think the rest of us were born yesterday. I assure you, we were not.

Stop wasting our time and insulting our intelligence and be honest in your arguments. If you think you should be able to farm in complete safety in 0.0 then you should be able to provide an argument to be as to why you feel that way. When you try to lie about your intentions you only show that your basic premise is flawed and you are incapable for arguing for it honestly.
Doddy
Excidium.
#110 - 2013-06-24 20:51:02 UTC
Its far too powerful, especially in active fleet scenarios. Good luck getting that recon in position for that hot drop .... Or getting your bomber on a gate sniper. Or any of the other uses cloaked ships actually have rather than putting fear in the hearts of carebears.
Onomerous
Caldari Black Hand
Caldari Tactical Operations Command
#111 - 2013-06-24 20:56:57 UTC
Friggz wrote:
Behr Oroo wrote:

This would allow for PVP which is what CCP wants


You know why people put afk cloakys in systems. You know if those afk cloakys could be detected, people would stop doing it. You know there would be absolutely no additional pvp as a result on this, but rather less as now you can farm in 100% safety and dock up every time a hostile enters system.

You know this and it exactly why you are proposing this, only you can't propose it under the idea of avoid pvp, so you jump to the more politically correct conclusion that it will increase pvp, then try to work backward to create a premise to support the conclusion. The truth is you and those who claim to support this don't really care about creating more pvp. Apparently you think the rest of us were born yesterday. I assure you, we were not.

Stop wasting our time and insulting our intelligence and be honest in your arguments. If you think you should be able to farm in complete safety in 0.0 then you should be able to provide an argument to be as to why you feel that way. When you try to lie about your intentions you only show that your basic premise is flawed and you are incapable for arguing for it honestly.


Wow... pretty blunt.









+1 all the way. It's not about PVP, it is about PVE.
PeanutButter JellyTime22
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#112 - 2013-06-24 21:16:03 UTC
Friggz wrote:
Behr Oroo wrote:

This would allow for PVP which is what CCP wants


You know why people put afk cloakys in systems. You know if those afk cloakys could be detected, people would stop doing it. You know there would be absolutely no additional pvp as a result on this, but rather less as now you can farm in 100% safety and dock up every time a hostile enters system.

You know this and it exactly why you are proposing this, only you can't propose it under the idea of avoid pvp, so you jump to the more politically correct conclusion that it will increase pvp, then try to work backward to create a premise to support the conclusion. The truth is you and those who claim to support this don't really care about creating more pvp. Apparently you think the rest of us were born yesterday. I assure you, we were not.

Stop wasting our time and insulting our intelligence and be honest in your arguments. If you think you should be able to farm in complete safety in 0.0 then you should be able to provide an argument to be as to why you feel that way. When you try to lie about your intentions you only show that your basic premise is flawed and you are incapable for arguing for it honestly.



100% Agreed.
I've spent the last few weeks roaming null in a cloaky proteus and, unless the locals are completely ********, it's near impossible to catch anything, everyone just docks or runs to a POS. I'm becoming a firm believer in a local nerf, balanced by some sort of cloak nerf because basically, if someone doesn't want to get caught, they have to expend VERY little effort to become absolutely safe, while the hunter expends far more effort and gets sweet FA.
Any change to cloaks should be seriously considered and balanced against the ability of the "hunted" (aka carebears) to get safe, either by dramatically increasing the number of npc's that warp scramble or by reducing the effectiveness of the game's greatest and cheapest intel tool.
In my opinion, 0.0 is 95% safe for carebears, where the only way to catch something involves either retardation or incredible luck, this needs to change so that *effort* is required for players to be safe rather than just staying aligned and warping to the nearest safe structure. I'm not saying that carebears need to put in as much effort as hunters do in the game of cat-and-mouse, but they should be forced to do *something*.
On a side note, no local = massive nerf to our beloved community of bots Twisted
Airto TLA
Acorn's Wonder Bars
#113 - 2013-06-24 21:27:51 UTC
PeanutButter JellyTime22 wrote:
Friggz wrote:
Behr Oroo wrote:

This would allow for PVP which is what CCP wants


You know why people put afk cloakys in systems. You know if those afk cloakys could be detected, people would stop doing it. You know there would be absolutely no additional pvp as a result on this, but rather less as now you can farm in 100% safety and dock up every time a hostile enters system.

You know this and it exactly why you are proposing this, only you can't propose it under the idea of avoid pvp, so you jump to the more politically correct conclusion that it will increase pvp, then try to work backward to create a premise to support the conclusion. The truth is you and those who claim to support this don't really care about creating more pvp. Apparently you think the rest of us were born yesterday. I assure you, we were not.

Stop wasting our time and insulting our intelligence and be honest in your arguments. If you think you should be able to farm in complete safety in 0.0 then you should be able to provide an argument to be as to why you feel that way. When you try to lie about your intentions you only show that your basic premise is flawed and you are incapable for arguing for it honestly.



100% Agreed.
I've spent the last few weeks roaming null in a cloaky proteus and, unless the locals are completely ********, it's near impossible to catch anything, everyone just docks or runs to a POS. I'm becoming a firm believer in a local nerf, balanced by some sort of cloak nerf because basically, if someone doesn't want to get caught, they have to expend VERY little effort to become absolutely safe, while the hunter expends far more effort and gets sweet FA.
Any change to cloaks should be seriously considered and balanced against the ability of the "hunted" (aka carebears) to get safe, either by dramatically increasing the number of npc's that warp scramble or by reducing the effectiveness of the game's greatest and cheapest intel tool.
In my opinion, 0.0 is 95% safe for carebears, where the only way to catch something involves either retardation or incredible luck, this needs to change so that *effort* is required for players to be safe rather than just staying aligned and warping to the nearest safe structure. I'm not saying that carebears need to put in as much effort as hunters do in the game of cat-and-mouse, but they should be forced to do *something*.
On a side note, no local = massive nerf to our beloved community of bots Twisted


Actually if they also nerfed cynos you would also get more pvp since a hand ful of bears might come out to see if they can take you, but after getting dropped on a few times all the bear leaders state those who engage and mess up our kill board will be dropped.

So ban killboards, AFK cloaking and cynos and PVP will srpout from the rocks (Nooo, not realllly)!)
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#114 - 2013-06-24 21:34:07 UTC
Remember that one time in this thread I asked a handful of basic questions and OP ignored them because he knows he's being dishonest when he states the motivation and desired outcomes for these little changes of his
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#115 - 2013-06-24 21:38:51 UTC
Airto TLA, you sort of make a point about kill boards, but you are off a bit from the target.

Skipping analogies about feeding animals, it is simply a matter of positive feedback making people pick where they hunt.

Or, put another way, if a hunter gets more kills in certain systems, he is more likely to hunt there again.

Unless you have solid PvP support, you can't function in systems with high levels of hostile activity.
And PvP pilots want easy predictable action, so they want to go to the systems where they got the easiest kills, not twiddling thumbs acting like a deterrent.

Phooey.... who actually thought PvP players would be happy to stand guard... did not consider human nature.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Behr Oroo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#116 - 2013-06-24 22:21:35 UTC
Friggz wrote:
Behr Oroo wrote:

This would allow for PVP which is what CCP wants


You know why people put afk cloakys in systems. You know if those afk cloakys could be detected, people would stop doing it. You know there would be absolutely no additional pvp as a result on this, but rather less as now you can farm in 100% safety and dock up every time a hostile enters system.

You know this and it exactly why you are proposing this, only you can't propose it under the idea of avoid pvp, so you jump to the more politically correct conclusion that it will increase pvp, then try to work backward to create a premise to support the conclusion. The truth is you and those who claim to support this don't really care about creating more pvp. Apparently you think the rest of us were born yesterday. I assure you, we were not.

Stop wasting our time and insulting our intelligence and be honest in your arguments. If you think you should be able to farm in complete safety in 0.0 then you should be able to provide an argument to be as to why you feel that way. When you try to lie about your intentions you only show that your basic premise is flawed and you are incapable for arguing for it honestly.



I havent lied about anything. My intentions are truly to create more PVP. You are the one making assumptions about my intentions based on your own bias against industrial toons.

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#117 - 2013-06-24 22:34:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
Behr Oroo wrote:
[quote=Friggz]I havent lied about anything. My intentions are truly to create more PVP. You are the one making assumptions about my intentions based on your own bias against industrial toons.


only a dumb i*diot would believe your idea would bring more pvp.
Behr Oroo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#118 - 2013-06-24 22:35:55 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Remember that one time in this thread I asked a handful of basic questions and OP ignored them because he knows he's being dishonest when he states the motivation and desired outcomes for these little changes of his



To answer your question to you directly. Why do you I want this? I want to be able to confront a threat in my system. I dont like the idea of running away. I would like to be able to fight. However with the current system, it doesn't allow it.

You all are all crying that it is impossible to kill a PVE ship cause as soon as someone enters local that is unfriendly or unknown, players dock up or safe up. I would do the same in a PVE ship. Why would I bring a knife to a gun fight. Why would I let a PVP player dictate the terms of a battle to me. That person has invaded the system I call home. My intention is to fight off that aggression and there is no way that I would ever do that in a poorly equiped ship. PVPers bring ships into battle designed to kill, yet when I offer up a solution that puts them against OTHER PVP style ships, they cry foul and try to spin this by saying I want to farm in complete safety.

Well simply put you are wrong. Everyone reading this thread knows exactly about the style of game play I am refering to. I am talking about the AFK camper that sits in a system for several days on end, or even if he is active, he sits in the system for days. I am not talking about the random roam or anything like that.

If I sat in your deployment system for a week and watched every action you made, would you not want some way to run me out of the system? That answer is yes. You can not deny this. Intel is the key to any way and null sec is currently fighting a war.

Dont make assumptions about my intentions when your arguments are just as twisted. None of the PVPers are talking about wanting PVP. They want to blow up a mining ship or a ratting ship.

I have offered limits to the ship, offered balances to local, and offered for people to add input to the issue. Very few people have taken the time to even suggest a compremise.
Behr Oroo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#119 - 2013-06-24 22:37:58 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
Behr Oroo wrote:
[quote=Friggz]I havent lied about anything. My intentions are truly to create more PVP. You are the one making assumptions about my intentions based on your own bias against industrial toons.


only a dumb i*diot would believe it would bring more pvp.


That's your opinion. I disagree with you. You may call me what you want. I dont take forums personally. I came to this forum to discuss a feature that I think would be helpful to the game and I will continue to do so. Your own responses make you less and less credible in the discussion at hand.
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#120 - 2013-06-24 22:40:30 UTC
Behr Oroo wrote:
That's your opinion. I disagree with you. You may call me what you want. I dont take forums personally. I came to this forum to discuss a feature that I think would be helpful to the game and I will continue to do so. Your own responses make you less and less credible in the discussion at hand.

To be fair you did post an idea that is designed to work exclusively on people who are AFK (and therefore cannot fight back)

Not that I mean to imply that both parties need to be able to fight back for PVP to occur, it's just that it's somewhat obvious that you are not looking for fights. You just want the other guy to go away.