These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#201 - 2013-06-27 19:59:28 UTC
Onomerous wrote:
Behr Oroo wrote:
Onomerous

You know you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Just stop it. The statement was generalized around the concept of the ship. I never considered WH space when I thought about the idea and I don't care if the ship has any interaction with Wh space. If people think it breaks a mechanic in WH space, then I will consider it. Guess what. I thought about it and I agree. It effects Wh space mechanics and thus, I am more than willing to modify my suggestion by saying that the ship wouldn't work in WH for cloak detection.

So like a few others here you are attempting to derail the thread by cherry picking terminology and or statements. Stop it. I get it. You don't like the idea. That is fine. I am going to continue with the idea cause several times in this thread decent progress towards a solution has been made. If you don't wish to help, then stop reading. It is rather simple.


You know you are just arguing for the sake of arguing

Not at all. I am supporting a no-changes idea. You are supporting a change idea. We can both post our thoughts just fine. It is rather simple.

.. and I don't wish to help your idea because it is bad. It is fixing something which doesn't need to be fixed. And I will continue to do so. It is rather simple.



Very well. Your dislike has been noted.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#202 - 2013-06-27 21:02:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Behr Oroo wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Whilst they are untouchable, you are from them. When they can harm you, when they become a real threat, you can shoot them.


This statement is false and you know it. To allow a ship to sit in a system and gather intel, especially if a corp or alliance is involved in a war, is a major threat to security.

They can see ship movements, types, and player names associated with the ships they are in. If a large group of caps move thru that system, they get all the intel they need.

There is absolutely no reason why anyone would allow this type of intel to be freely given out and I see nothing wrong in asking for a possibility to combat such actions.
Gather intel? I'm sorry but I thought it was the AFK part you were targeting here. Isn't intel gathering an active pursuit?

But why shouldn't they be able to work for this intel? For if they are gathering intel, they are working for it. Others seem to cope rather well, with pilot using covert ops in the systems they are in.
Do you feel that with the intel they supposedly are gaining, you would be unable to cope with an invasion?
Are you therefore even entitled to hold sov, in which ever system to now reside in?

I lived in null for years and have seen my fair share of AFK pilots. I can honestly say it never once bothered me or any of the corp members I flew with.

Also, it's not a false statement. You may assume they are gathering intel, you may assume many things, but assumption is all you have. Many assumed at the start of this thread you were being honest with your intentions, but guess what happened with that.

The reason I don't want change is simple. I believe it's balance, with locals having the slight edge in that dept. I also think it adds great flavour to the game, making Eve a far richer game for the inclusion of this psychological warfare. It separates the men from the boys, so to speak.

Oh and if you don't actually need a cloak to use local for psychological warfare, what happens when pilots start using the other methods more often? Do you then return and scream for more change? pff

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Behr Oroo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#203 - 2013-06-27 22:00:31 UTC
Mag's I have to admit I really like you.

You have this great talent for the forums. You are able to cherry pick bits and pieces of something and twist them to make them sound like what you are saying is the ulitmate truth and try to destroy the person you are working against. It's quite a good talent and I applaud you for it.

However to point out a few things. I have pointed out in several posts that my idea has changed and grown over time. This is a natural thing for ideas. They do change and they get modified as more and more information is added to them. Also again you ignore the statement that I have said several times that I personally do not let these people bother me. I will move to a new location and I do move when a situation like this happens.

You seem to confuse my statements as crying for change. Again this is untrue. I am supporting an idea that I happen to like. One that I think would make the game more interesting, as well as combat certain situations in the game. I have said in a few posts that if nothing is done, I am not going to worry about it. It is what is it. But again I point out the COLLECTION thread on this exact issue. This is more than just a few people saying something. There have been mulitple people, making the same statements. This is a good indication that the situation should be considered.

I completely accept that you arent a fan of this idea. That is perfectly fine. I am not against anything you are saying. I started this thread from an annoyance with AFK campers that would spend days in my home system. Again I feel that if they are allowed to engage me, even if its in some mental battle, then I should be able to engage him back. Namely, finding and attempting to destroy his ship.

Just because my original post has grown does not mean that I have lied about my intentions. Some things I had not considered or didnt know about. To change my view to try to fit others suggestions is not a weakness as you are trying to point out.

Again you bring up someone sitting in system without a cloak. You are more than welcome to try but it tends to not to work well.

No, you seem far more interested in trying to poke holes in my character than the actual topic at hand.

As for your questions on intel. Again you attempt to deflect the topic by eventually boiling the questions down to some form of personal attack implying I cant handle a possible invasion or I am not suppose to be in null.

But to answer your questions. Absolutely they should gain the intel they work for. I dont think its unfair to be able to fight back against this.

I could be wrong but I do feel you have ignored several parts of my suggestion, as the original post was just the start of an idea that has grown, an in several areas to the benifit of the cloakies.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#204 - 2013-06-27 22:39:55 UTC
Behr Oroo wrote:
Sura Sadiva wrote:
Behr Oroo wrote:

They can see ship movements, types, and player names associated with the ships they are in. If a large group of caps move thru that system, they get all the intel they need.


1. Thi is not related to cloacking, is related to EVE mechanics (local and others). Exactly the same mechanics that allow you to know if some hostile is entering your farming systems (but that's ok for you). Anyone can provide that kind of intel untouched, for sure the one traveling there in covert ops to do this put more effort than anyone docked or hidden behind a shield POS or ratting 24/7.

2. One of the role for covert ops is just to scout and spy deep inside hostile systems, is part of the game. And they need to be able to move undetected to do this. You can use them too against your enemies.

3. For some evaluable inteleligence (as your example ov capitals movements) you don't even need to be in the region: you will have added as contacts all your enemies capital pilots, and you see then they're logging.

4. If somoene is providing intel for sure is not AFK. And your thread is about "combat AFK campers". If the idea was "remove intel gathering from the game" than is a different topic.

5. Everyone in EVE is used to deal with this stuff. But seems to become an issue only for a very specific small subset of players. The rest deal with scouts, cloacker, intel gathering and is fine with it. So I'm more incline to think the issue to fix is the mindset of that minority instead of having the whole game ruined to make them happy.




I disagree that a small section of Eve think this is an issue. There is a thread that is nothing but a COLLECTION of threads on the specific topic. That in itself shows that there is more than a slight interest in the issue.

Yes a covert ops ship is designed to scout and move into enemy territory. It does its job well. I have offered to let it do its job even better by removing it from local as well.

As for tagging all the cap pilots on your friends list and seeing when they log in. You have to have someone tell you who they are first and really that ability in itself is far more abusive than local. That's global intel. You seem ok with this.

Yes my original reason for posting was a frustration with AFK or seemingly afk cloak ships. I have admitted that in the course of discussing this, the idea has grown and I have accepted that it includes more than that. This is why I have been willing to consider and even modify the idea to fit both sides.

Wouldn't you like to have the ability to run someone out of your system if they were collecting info on you, or are you just ok with them watching your every move?

Maybe its just me but I like the idea of making the game of cat and mouse more fun with the variety of cloak ships out there. The ability to hunt each other would make things more interesting.

And this is a discussion forum on ideas. To think that an idea cant be adjusted on while its being discussed is ignorant. That's how progress on things is made. I understand you don't feel there is an issue here, but like I originally stated. There are several that do and I am going to continue to talk about the idea, unless a dev decides to close the topic.


Only a tiny, tiny fraction of EVE think this is an issue, and that tiny tiny fraction are entitled nullbears.

No one in highsec cares. No one in wormholes care. No one in lowsec cares. The majority of nullsec players don't care (they did choose an uncertain, dangerous area to live in after all).

Just because that tiny tiny minority are the loudest cry babies in the game does not mean they are a majority, and it certainly does not mean the crap they say is actually an issue.
Behr Oroo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#205 - 2013-06-27 22:43:48 UTC
Gun, I believe there are more people concerned about it than you are willing to admit. I would guess many of them choose to ignore the forums though, cause they know that most of the time it just ends up in a flame war.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#206 - 2013-06-28 00:16:20 UTC
Stealth nerf cloak thread.

Tssk tssk tssk.

You baddies...

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Behr Oroo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#207 - 2013-06-28 04:34:35 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Stealth nerf cloak thread.

Tssk tssk tssk.

You baddies...



Yes it would seem I have angered a few here with an idea.

I really should make a post that is a recap. The original post really isnt the best example of the changes that have been made to the idea.
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#208 - 2013-06-28 04:59:29 UTC
Behr Oroo wrote:
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Stealth nerf cloak thread.

Tssk tssk tssk.

You baddies...



Yes it would seem I have angered a few here with an idea.

I really should make a post that is a recap. The original post really isnt the best example of the changes that have been made to the idea.

Just edit the OP
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#209 - 2013-06-28 06:23:48 UTC
Behr Oroo wrote:
Gun, I believe there are more people concerned about it than you are willing to admit. I would guess many of them choose to ignore the forums though, cause they know that most of the time it just ends up in a flame war.


No, I really don't think there are. And regardless, it still isn't an issue.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#210 - 2013-06-28 08:26:57 UTC
Behr Oroo wrote:
Again you bring up someone sitting in system without a cloak. You are more than welcome to try but it tends to not to work well.
Who said anything about sitting in a system? Oh and this other method works well even now.
But let's not forget those sitting in a pos and the station, have a psychological effect on others.

Behr Oroo wrote:
No, you seem far more interested in trying to poke holes in my character than the actual topic at hand.

As for your questions on intel. Again you attempt to deflect the topic by eventually boiling the questions down to some form of personal attack implying I cant handle a possible invasion or I am not suppose to be in null.
I ask because it's relevant. To live and thrive in null, requires a certain mindset. It also means understanding game mechanics and how to use them against your enemy. The better the mind set and understanding, the more you will thrive. I ask those questions because I really don't see anyone with this as an issue, having those things in abundance. Also the you is a universal you, encompassing all those with this supposed issue. I'm not really interested in you (singular) per se, as it's all about the game.

Although I will point out when I think someone is being disingenuous.

Behr Oroo wrote:
But to answer your questions. Absolutely they should gain the intel they work for. I dont think its unfair to be able to fight back against this.

I could be wrong but I do feel you have ignored several parts of my suggestion, as the original post was just the start of an idea that has grown, an in several areas to the benifit of the cloakies.
There is nothing stopping you fighting back with intel. Do you honestly think the only way to combat intel gathering, is through being able to de-cloak and kill them? Misinformation is a very viable tool, for it hits at the heart of that gathering operation.

As far as your new suggestions are concerned, I really don't feel the need to go over old ground. You admitted yourself you don't really understand the mechanics at play. Changing more with the same poor understanding isn't helpful. The thing is, eve players are very very good at thinking outside the box. Hence why you would still have issues with AFK people in your current system, if this was implemented.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#211 - 2013-06-28 10:59:39 UTC
Behr Oroo wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
no, afk cloaking is fine and just a result of local as OP intel tool.

afk cloaking just reflects the power of local back on its abusers, this is all right.



So let's say that Local is taken from the game so that no one knows who is in system. The idea of my ship would be EVEN MORE needed cause then the cloakers would have true rule of every system. You wouldnt be able to undock from any station without fear of a cloaked group of players waiting on you. CCP would never allow this. WHY? cause people would start logging off and then simply stop playing.



Lol, if that were true none of You would have T3 ships since no WH corp would ever leave the convines of it's POS bubble.

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#212 - 2013-06-28 11:01:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Debora Tsung
Behr Oroo wrote:

I cant think of any game that has allowed a cloak class to go completely undetected or doesn't have a counter.


Age of Conan, no need to thank me.Lol


Or Dark Space, If You want something more EVE like.

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.
Behr Oroo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#213 - 2013-06-28 17:05:19 UTC
Mag's

I have already stated that I don't think that people should be penalized for sitting in station or POS's, cause they are defensive items and are used in such a fashion. Your issue with them is you cant attack them. That is kind of what they were designed for. It is not like someone can just take a POS into your home system and set it up, so they can safe up and sit there all the time.

As for the mindset to live in Null. Yes I agree that it takes a certain one to live there but there is far more than just one mindset. This is a guess on my part but I am taking it that you prefer the PVP aspect of this game. Where as I prefer other aspects, like construction, invention, exploration and whatever. Now combat is always a part of the game but the mentality behind how one is prepared for combat is different. I would guess that you feel this isn't an issue is simply cause the majority of the players around you are also PVP focused players, so it would stand to reason they wouldn't be in favor of this idea cause it they feel it would hinder their game play. Where as I am around a lot of industrials. Several of us feel that the playing field needs to be leveled.

I think that a lot of the back and forth here is the unwillingness of people to consider the other side of the coin.

As for my lack of understanding. What mistakes I have made, I had quickly admitted to and have learned from them. My only real mistake was the lack of understanding of what happens to a cyno field once it is destroyed and even then I was only off on the time duration.

See what I think is that you are assuming that I want an all powerful fix to things like AFk so that it can be eliminated completely. This is not what I seek. What I want is a way to fight against the potentially AFK person that is sitting in my home system for days on end. I don't think that being able to de-cloak and destroy an invading cloaky is the only option but I do feel its the most effective.

It really seems that you are just saying "no, this wont work" out of your own personal bias for the topic and your assumption that I want something that I don't.

How bout I pose it to you this way. This is a discussion forum about potential ideas and suggestions. Let's assume for a minute that a scout ship was going to be created. If that ship was to come into existence, what balances would need to be made to make it work?

This is the purpose of my post. If you don't wish to have input on the topic, then you are more than welcome to move along but I am going to continue the thread, as I see fit cause it is simply an idea. With one exception, I have been very good to not bring this down to a flame war and I have tried very hard to look at all sides and correct mistakes that I make and I will continue to do so.
Behr Oroo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#214 - 2013-06-28 17:13:34 UTC
Debora Tsung wrote:
Behr Oroo wrote:

I cant think of any game that has allowed a cloak class to go completely undetected or doesn't have a counter.


Age of Conan, no need to thank me.Lol


Or Dark Space, If You want something more EVE like.


Google.com....... search term "age of conan stealth" Second result is a link to the game forums discussing stealth. Age of Conan has built in mechanics to allow a stealth character to be seen.

Dark Space: Directly from the Wiki itself.

"The Covert Ops Scout is capable of light skirmishing and beacon deployment while remaining under the shroud of it's quad ECM emitters. This stealth can be easily broken by planet sensors and minimal ship ECCM, however. "

Nice try.

The power of Google.
Akemi Kiyoura
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#215 - 2013-06-28 17:39:42 UTC
You do realize that this whole idea can be broken by having the cloaked ship in question move in a celestial-free direction on a safe at the edge of the system, right?
Being within 5km of the cloaked ship to find it is silly, not because of the range to spot the ship, but because of the area it could be at. As in, the cloaked ship has a 458.15km^3 area to move about without being decloaked. Now, there comes the part that if the ship is moving, in the time you warp from wherever you probe at to where the ship could be at, I'm more than sure he has covered at least an additional 5km.
So extend the range? No. This is a bad idea in the sense that bombers preparing to drop could be spotted by the lucky guy who is orbiting the main fleet, cloaked at 30km, and stumbles upon a blob of cloaked ships.
Make it so cloaked ships slow down to a crawl? No, see, the whole point of training T2 cloaks is to avoid the penalties on a covert ops ship. A CovOps that is slow while being covert is useless.

Cloaked ships are intended to be invisible *ba dum tss*.
Behr Oroo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#216 - 2013-06-28 17:59:17 UTC
Akemi Kiyoura wrote:
You do realize that this whole idea can be broken by having the cloaked ship in question move in a celestial-free direction on a safe at the edge of the system, right?
Being within 5km of the cloaked ship to find it is silly, not because of the range to spot the ship, but because of the area it could be at. As in, the cloaked ship has a 458.15km^3 area to move about without being decloaked. Now, there comes the part that if the ship is moving, in the time you warp from wherever you probe at to where the ship could be at, I'm more than sure he has covered at least an additional 5km.
So extend the range? No. This is a bad idea in the sense that bombers preparing to drop could be spotted by the lucky guy who is orbiting the main fleet, cloaked at 30km, and stumbles upon a blob of cloaked ships.
Make it so cloaked ships slow down to a crawl? No, see, the whole point of training T2 cloaks is to avoid the penalties on a covert ops ship. A CovOps that is slow while being covert is useless.

Cloaked ships are intended to be invisible *ba dum tss*.



Actually the idea wouldn't be broken. If a ship moves in a straight line, after just a few scans a direction could be determined. Then you just warp to the last position and MWD in that direction. You should run across him and decloak him. I don't want it to be insanely easy for the ship to find a cloak, just that its possible.

As for stumbling across a blob of bombers on a bombing run, that could happen with any ship that's orbiting. Not a bad idea either, to just put a few fast frigs at a 30 orbit around a fleet to ward off bomb runs.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#217 - 2013-06-28 18:17:31 UTC
Your idea is just broken period. We've all elaborated on why enough times already. Back to the shadows with you
Akemi Kiyoura
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#218 - 2013-06-28 18:18:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Akemi Kiyoura
Behr Oroo wrote:
Akemi Kiyoura wrote:
You do realize that this whole idea can be broken by having the cloaked ship in question move in a celestial-free direction on a safe at the edge of the system, right?
Being within 5km of the cloaked ship to find it is silly, not because of the range to spot the ship, but because of the area it could be at. As in, the cloaked ship has a 458.15km^3 area to move about without being decloaked. Now, there comes the part that if the ship is moving, in the time you warp from wherever you probe at to where the ship could be at, I'm more than sure he has covered at least an additional 5km.
So extend the range? No. This is a bad idea in the sense that bombers preparing to drop could be spotted by the lucky guy who is orbiting the main fleet, cloaked at 30km, and stumbles upon a blob of cloaked ships.
Make it so cloaked ships slow down to a crawl? No, see, the whole point of training T2 cloaks is to avoid the penalties on a covert ops ship. A CovOps that is slow while being covert is useless.

Cloaked ships are intended to be invisible *ba dum tss*.



Actually the idea wouldn't be broken. If a ship moves in a straight line, after just a few scans a direction could be determined. Then you just warp to the last position and MWD in that direction. You should run across him and decloak him. I don't want it to be insanely easy for the ship to find a cloak, just that its possible.

As for stumbling across a blob of bombers on a bombing run, that could happen with any ship that's orbiting. Not a bad idea either, to just put a few fast frigs at a 30 orbit around a fleet to ward off bomb runs.

Heh, i don't think you've tried to prove moving ships before. It's not a walk in the park even if the ship is not cloaked (landing right on him i mean). If your idea is to give you a general idea where he could be at, it would accomplish it with flying colors. Being able to bump him though, that is a whole different story. I would explain how the difference in vectors can steer you away by kilometers from each other, but i don't have the time for it now. In short, if you both started at point x, and target A is moving at a 90°, and you attempt to intercept him by catching up to it, but your entry angle is 85°, you will miss him right away.
There is also the fact that when you warp to a scanned object, it lands you within 2km of it, so there is no real way of pulling this off.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#219 - 2013-06-28 18:22:23 UTC
Akemi Kiyoura wrote:
Heh, i don't think you've tried to prove moving ships before. It's not a walk in the park even if the ship is not cloaked (landing right on him i mean). If your idea is to give you a general idea where he could be at, it would accomplish it with flying colors. Being able to bump him though, that is a whole different story. I would explain how the difference in vectors can steer you away by kilometers from each other, but i don't have the time for it now. In short, if you both started at point x, and target A is moving at a 90°, and you attempt to intercept him by catching up to it, but your entry angle is 85°, you will miss him right away.
There is also the fact that when you warp to a scanned object, it lands you within 2km of it, so there is no real way of pulling this off.


I was waiting for someone to say this better than I could.
Onomerous
Caldari Black Hand
Caldari Tactical Operations Command
#220 - 2013-06-28 19:50:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Onomerous
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Your idea is just broken period. We've all elaborated on why enough times already. Back to the shadows with you


To paraphrase the OP, you are just "arguing to argue"!! If you don't agree with him, you have to be wrong. ;)