These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1081 - 2013-09-13 16:24:36 UTC
virgofire wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

Yes, I want to change local...like CCP explorer does as well


DId you seriously just quote him wrong again. He already corrected you on this forum.

He was asking for suggestions IF local was to be changed and then said he likes local being used for chat. He never said anything about if or if it shouldnt be used for intel gathering. He gave completely generic answers.

You twist so much stuff.


I suggest you read those post again. He has stated quite clearly, he'd prefer local to become a chat channel only.

"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
#1082 - 2013-09-13 16:27:36 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Debora Tsung wrote:
Teckos,

Maybe you should call this thread "AFK Cloaking RE-collection thread" as most of the posts in here are reposts of reposts, even if some the posters do not seem to be aware of that fact.

Yeah, cos Teckos hasn't scream LOCAL BAD 4 millions times or so.
Maybe the fact that so many people post about it being a problem should serve as an indicator to you.

Ow, Lucas, I expect better than this failed logic.

Popularity of a concept, and whether it is valid or a fact, has never been a firm association.

Public Relation firms and advertisers shamelessly exploit people's perceptions for profit on a daily basis, and to assume they all have our best interests at heart would provoke hysterical laughter from anyone having done research on them.
And that leaves out religion and politics, don't go there if you value your sanity.

To use a popular example, it was claimed by many that the earth was flat, the center of the universe, and magic was present and usable by wizards.
Sure, we laugh at this now, (well, most of us), but that was once the best level of awareness we had, and was popular to believe.
Sure, it's not a perfect statistic, but if there was no problem with it, then I wouldn't expect to see this level of complaints about it. It's certainly got enough to warrant looking at rather than simply being dismissed as crying.


The problem for you is I acknowledge the problem. I also acknowledge the game balance issue and I want changes to eliminate both the problem of AFK cloaking and the intel local provides.

In other words, you are distorting my arguments as well as relying on a logical fallacy.

"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
virgofire
Vay Mining Corporation
#1083 - 2013-09-13 16:27:50 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
virgofire wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

Yes, I want to change local...like CCP explorer does as well


DId you seriously just quote him wrong again. He already corrected you on this forum.

He was asking for suggestions IF local was to be changed and then said he likes local being used for chat. He never said anything about if or if it shouldnt be used for intel gathering. He gave completely generic answers.

You twist so much stuff.

Actually we do have devs on record discussing local, and they pretty bluntly stated they want a better means of replacing the intel with effort based results, BEFORE changing it.



It's possible I am misinterupting what Explorer said, but to me it seemed like very generic answers that never said yes or no on his position on intel gathering. He simple stated he was in favor of local being used for chat, which is already is and can be used for.

Also, wouldn't it make sense that if several CCP devs were in favor of making changes, that they would have stepped in and said so on this thread more than just a couple times?
virgofire
Vay Mining Corporation
#1084 - 2013-09-13 16:32:02 UTC  |  Edited by: virgofire
Teckos Pech wrote:
virgofire wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

Yes, I want to change local...like CCP explorer does as well


DId you seriously just quote him wrong again. He already corrected you on this forum.

He was asking for suggestions IF local was to be changed and then said he likes local being used for chat. He never said anything about if or if it shouldnt be used for intel gathering. He gave completely generic answers.

You twist so much stuff.


I suggest you read those post again. He has stated quite clearly, he'd prefer local to become a chat channel only.



This is what he said.

"I never said local was broken, that is not what my tweet was about. Read the entire thread to get the context, please."

"That I was responding to Poetic Stanziel blog shouldn't be interpreted as anything beyond exactly what I said, and this was a tweet thread and the earlier tweets provide context."

When he was asked about intel gathering and chat he responds:

"As a tech person I would want local to be a chat channel, yes."

To me this doesnt say "only" it just says he likes the idea of people chatting in local. It says nothing about how he feels on intel in the same channel or even how intel is gathered.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1085 - 2013-09-13 16:38:07 UTC
Luna Arindale wrote:
Why not just add a cycle timer to cloaking devices... one that is, I don't know 30 minutes, and a person must turn it back on after this time. This isn't simply a matter of removing local, and this Isn't simply a matter of removing the ability to afk cloak. Adding a cycle timer to a cloaking device with a cool down would be a perfect solution to this problem, making it both fair to the people who use it reguarly, and those who currently use it to sit in an industry system and prevent any and all activities for over 24 hours.

I will admit that I do hate afk cloak camping with a cyno fit Tengu or Loki. You cannot use that system for much of anything after that point. It is an annoying risk that you cannot do a single thing about.


Yeah that one has never been suggested. Roll

You know what is truly pathetic in these threads? The people complaining about cloaks point a finger while all indignant screeching, "You just want easy kills!!!!"

But then they say, "I want a way to decloak that guy and PvP him!!!!!!"

Yeah...pvp a guy who is in a pretty weak ship (T3s excepted) and who is AFK....talk about blatant hypocrisy. Roll

Anyone who said "easy kills" then suggests a way to shoot an AFK cloaky should GTFO.

"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
#1086 - 2013-09-13 16:39:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
virgofire wrote:


"As a tech person I would want local to be a chat channel, yes."


Just helping you out Virgo...BTW, thought you were done responding to me. Big smile

Oh and this quote from CCP Explorer:

Quote:
Erlendur ‏@erlendur 29 Dec
@PoeticStanziel My strong preference, for various technical reasons, is that local become a chat channel. Intel should be a sep. mechanic.


It seems pretty clear: decouple intel from local...

HTH, HAND

"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
virgofire
Vay Mining Corporation
#1087 - 2013-09-13 16:42:11 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
virgofire wrote:


"As a tech person I would want local to be a chat channel, yes."


Just helping you out Virgo...BTW, thought you were done responding to me. Big smile



It was hard to hold back from commenting on how you twist things. Sorry

BTW I quoted that exact line and stated how I thought he meant in. Where in that statement does he say that he doesnt want intel in that channel or he ONLY wants it to be for chat?

You attempt to make lil jabs at people and do things like that but honestly it makes you look like you aren't even reading the posts your responding to. It makes it very difficult to even take you seriously.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1088 - 2013-09-13 16:44:54 UTC
virgofire wrote:

It's possible I am misinterupting what Explorer said, but to me it seemed like very generic answers that never said yes or no on his position on intel gathering. He simple stated he was in favor of local being used for chat, which is already is and can be used for.

Also, wouldn't it make sense that if several CCP devs were in favor of making changes, that they would have stepped in and said so on this thread more than just a couple times?



You can see Poetic Stanzial's comemtn in the same twitter feed:

Quote:
Poetic Stanziel ‏@PoeticStanziel 29 Dec
@erlendur True. But CCP has been talking about that for years and still no movement. So it's just words until it isn't. :)


and

Quote:
Poetic Stanziel ‏@PoeticStanziel 29 Dec
@erlendur We do get tired of Soundwave talking about the possibility every Alliance Tournament. :)

"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
#1089 - 2013-09-13 16:46:23 UTC
virgofire wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
virgofire wrote:


"As a tech person I would want local to be a chat channel, yes."


Just helping you out Virgo...BTW, thought you were done responding to me. Big smile



It was hard to hold back from commenting on how you twist things. Sorry

BTW I quoted that exact line and stated how I thought he meant in. Where in that statement does he say that he doesnt want intel in that channel or he ONLY wants it to be for chat?

You attempt to make lil jabs at people and do things like that but honestly it makes you look like you aren't even reading the posts your responding to. It makes it very difficult to even take you seriously.


Twisting things? That's rich you are ignoring the twitter feed which states quite explicitly that CCP Exploerer would like to see local and intel gathering decoupled.

Pot, meet kettle.

"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
virgofire
Vay Mining Corporation
#1090 - 2013-09-13 16:52:05 UTC
Good call. I did miss that. Wasn't ignoring it but I did miss it. I wasn't as focused on the tweeter feed you originally posted as I did the other links.

I can admit when I make mistakes.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1091 - 2013-09-13 16:53:22 UTC
Back to the main point:

Cloaking is a counter to local intel, in the context of this discussion.

WHY is it a counter?

Because the effort to avoid conflict is unopposed. And local is the reason.

BECAUSE local informs players of all pilots in a system, instantly, it becomes intel.
BECAUSE that intel, can be used to react and avoid conflict, it has value.
BECAUSE it can reliably do this before an opposing pilot can intervene, the opposing pilot has zero options to interact with the resident, UNLESS the resident either makes a mistake, OR consents to the encounter.

These are facts. They are plain and simple, and can be proven in game.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1092 - 2013-09-13 17:02:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
TheGunslinger42 wrote:

These paragraphs are just a huge fallacy. You make an incorrect statement (that no one would die except to cloakers) to demonstrate a point (that prolonged cloaking isn't necessary). I believe this is called begging the question. Let me explain why you're so wrong. The reason plenty of people die in null currently is not because local isn't overpowered (it is, it provides near perfect safety), but because the majority of the people who currently die in null willingly engaged in the first place - they thought they had the upper hand, or just wanted some fun, or willingly took a risk. What you're saying here is nothing but a huge fallacy followed by baseless smears. I have never ONCE said I want easy kills, or that I don't want industrialists, miners, or even other PVPers to be left with "no chance" to escape. I do want them to have that chance, but I dont want it to be 100% guaranteed, and I want them to have to work for it.


I think this should be repeated; Lucas Kell, amongst others has used the "You just want easy kills!" line repeatedly, and it is false. I don't want easy kills, I want a challenge...but that implies a chance of success....and failure. I succeed the other guy fails, I fail the other guy succeeds. And it doesn't mean direct ship-to-ship PvP. If he gets away and taunts me in local...fine. If he undocks in a ship that is more of challenge for me and I decide to go for it...fine. If he then wins, good on him.

If I come with some friends and we catch him, great. If he gets away next time, also great. It would make the game more interesting and exciting. If he and his buddies, via a new intel system, form up their own counter fleet and we chase each other around taking shots at each other and having fun...awesome.

But nerfing cloaks given the current mechanics wont accomplish this, IMO. Instead, it will likely mean no more AFK cloaking, and no increase in PvP...at all (at least in the long run). Why? Because the AFK cloakers well know about the mechanic change or will soon learn about them and AFK camping will cease altogether and all that "PvP" with AFK cloakers will stop.

"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
#1093 - 2013-09-13 17:03:45 UTC
virgofire wrote:
Good call. I did miss that. Wasn't ignoring it but I did miss it. I wasn't as focused on the tweeter feed you originally posted as I did the other links.

I can admit when I make mistakes.


Thank you. And yes, I was incorrect to state CCP Explorer saw local as broken.

"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
#1094 - 2013-09-13 17:08:08 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Because AFK players in other states pay a price to be there. They pay for their POS they fight for the right to dock at their station. Outside of that, a cloaker is not putting any effort in, and not paying anything for the opportunity to add risk to a system. An alt get's created, flies to a system, then just sits in it, mostly AFK, then occasionally picking a nice easy kill.


And the AFK cloaker has paid for his ship, the modules, and riggs, and so forth. They have paid in terms of time getting in system.

You are quite simply flat out wrong here.

"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
virgofire
Vay Mining Corporation
#1095 - 2013-09-13 17:19:57 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Because AFK players in other states pay a price to be there. They pay for their POS they fight for the right to dock at their station. Outside of that, a cloaker is not putting any effort in, and not paying anything for the opportunity to add risk to a system. An alt get's created, flies to a system, then just sits in it, mostly AFK, then occasionally picking a nice easy kill.


And the AFK cloaker has paid for his ship, the modules, and riggs, and so forth. They have paid in terms of time getting in system.

You are quite simply flat out wrong here.


You do have to admit this isnt a 1 : 1 ratio when it comes to investment on the two sides. Your afk cloaker is investing and risking far less. I think that's the point of comments like Lucas's.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1096 - 2013-09-13 17:33:12 UTC
virgofire wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Because AFK players in other states pay a price to be there. They pay for their POS they fight for the right to dock at their station. Outside of that, a cloaker is not putting any effort in, and not paying anything for the opportunity to add risk to a system. An alt get's created, flies to a system, then just sits in it, mostly AFK, then occasionally picking a nice easy kill.


And the AFK cloaker has paid for his ship, the modules, and riggs, and so forth. They have paid in terms of time getting in system.

You are quite simply flat out wrong here.


You do have to admit this isnt a 1 : 1 ratio when it comes to investment on the two sides. Your afk cloaker is investing and risking far less. I think that's the point of comments like Lucas's.


I don't know if it were me I'd put up a POS on a moon to mine, even if it is low end crap it would help defray fuel costs. If it has a cyno jammer then that helps decrease risk by preventing titan bridges. So that serves a useful purpose too. And unless that POS is destroyed the fuel costs are the only real costs as the fixed costs (i.e. the POS, etc.) can be unanchored, moved, and even sold.

As for a station it provides a number of benefits such as a clone service, a place to store ships, modules, etc. A place in which to conduct trade if one is so inclined, etc.

And I don't see the reason for the fixation on balancing out isk costs? So a ship that costs 5 million isk, including the fit takes down a 50 million ship. So? I know of 2 T3s taking down a JF during a war with some clever planning. A 6.5 billion ship lost to 2 ships that probably cost at most 1.2-1.4 billion. Fair? Don't care, that is how this game is.

"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
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1097 - 2013-09-13 18:17:15 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Have you read mine?
A probe that costs a lot, and takes 10 minutes to run.
Explodes if cancelled, docked, jumping out of a gate, logging off or being destroyed.
If a cloaker changes grid after the probe is launched and before the probe finishes, they don't show up at all.
This way, it only affects AFK cloakers.

I don't want any other changes. All I want is for a cloaker to actually have to play the game if they want to sit in a system all day. Not just create an army of alts, and look at them a couple of times a day to see if there's a juicy drop target.


Oooohhh....a probe that costs "alot"? How much is that? A million isk each? I'll take 100. Ten million each? I'll take 100. 100 million each? I'll take 20. You get the idea, I could drop a billion on these no problem. So, a billion each? Yeah?

I was thinking 50m, but great, so you have loads of probes. So you launch your probes to find an active cloaker. He moves. You probes are now useless, they will return nothing. You wan waste 10 minutes not docking, jumping or logging off, waiting for your probes to finish, or lose them. Using them against an active cloaker will simply be throwing isk or time away.

Teckos Pech wrote:
As for leaving grid...great, but there are times when an active cloaker might be stationary for a considerable time. Why should they be gimped? Nope, not good enough. How about a 2 hour time limit for the scan process.
A cloaker moving grid is no problem, and the whole point is, they should have to put effort in. I get it, you are anti-effort. Proceed with crying about how local ruins your life in an anti AFK cloak thread.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1098 - 2013-09-13 18:19:42 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
virgofire wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Because AFK players in other states pay a price to be there. They pay for their POS they fight for the right to dock at their station. Outside of that, a cloaker is not putting any effort in, and not paying anything for the opportunity to add risk to a system. An alt get's created, flies to a system, then just sits in it, mostly AFK, then occasionally picking a nice easy kill.


And the AFK cloaker has paid for his ship, the modules, and riggs, and so forth. They have paid in terms of time getting in system.

You are quite simply flat out wrong here.


You do have to admit this isnt a 1 : 1 ratio when it comes to investment on the two sides. Your afk cloaker is investing and risking far less. I think that's the point of comments like Lucas's.


I don't know if it were me I'd put up a POS on a moon to mine, even if it is low end crap it would help defray fuel costs. If it has a cyno jammer then that helps decrease risk by preventing titan bridges. So that serves a useful purpose too. And unless that POS is destroyed the fuel costs are the only real costs as the fixed costs (i.e. the POS, etc.) can be unanchored, moved, and even sold.

As for a station it provides a number of benefits such as a clone service, a place to store ships, modules, etc. A place in which to conduct trade if one is so inclined, etc.

And I don't see the reason for the fixation on balancing out isk costs? So a ship that costs 5 million isk, including the fit takes down a 50 million ship. So? I know of 2 T3s taking down a JF during a war with some clever planning. A 6.5 billion ship lost to 2 ships that probably cost at most 1.2-1.4 billion. Fair? Don't care, that is how this game is.

I'm not talking about isk, I'm talking about effort. You guys have pointed out that to protect yourselves in null you need:
-A scout for each gate
-Bubbles for each gate
-On grid support, with cyno
-A jump range fleet

That's an awful lot of effort to rat in space we pay for.
Again though, you want no effort on your part, loads of effort on ours right? Cos we deserve it for blobbing or some bullshit.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1099 - 2013-09-13 18:24:09 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Back to the main point:

Cloaking is a counter to local intel, in the context of this discussion.

WHY is it a counter?

Because the effort to avoid conflict is unopposed. And local is the reason.

BECAUSE local informs players of all pilots in a system, instantly, it becomes intel.
BECAUSE that intel, can be used to react and avoid conflict, it has value.
BECAUSE it can reliably do this before an opposing pilot can intervene, the opposing pilot has zero options to interact with the resident, UNLESS the resident either makes a mistake, OR consents to the encounter.

These are facts. They are plain and simple, and can be proven in game.

They are YOUR FACTS. They are in dispute.
For starters, I don;t agree that opposing pilots have zero opportunities. If they did, killboards would be empty... but they aren't.
Stop ramming your same recycled idea into every AFK cloak thread.
WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT LOCAL
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A SINGLE ISSUE
Get that? Clear enough?
I know you think your local idea solves the problem, but it just complicates it further.
STOP chucking it in over and over. When you have something new to add, add it. I've essentially read the same post from you 50 or 60 times where you spew the same stuff and get the same responses.
You are not automatically correct just because you think you are.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1100 - 2013-09-13 18:30:25 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Back to the main point:

Cloaking is a counter to local intel, in the context of this discussion.

WHY is it a counter?

Because the effort to avoid conflict is unopposed. And local is the reason.

BECAUSE local informs players of all pilots in a system, instantly, it becomes intel.
BECAUSE that intel, can be used to react and avoid conflict, it has value.
BECAUSE it can reliably do this before an opposing pilot can intervene, the opposing pilot has zero options to interact with the resident, UNLESS the resident either makes a mistake, OR consents to the encounter.

These are facts. They are plain and simple, and can be proven in game.

They are YOUR FACTS. They are in dispute.
For starters, I don;t agree that opposing pilots have zero opportunities. If they did, killboards would be empty... but they aren't.
Stop ramming your same recycled idea into every AFK cloak thread.
WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT LOCAL
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A SINGLE ISSUE
Get that? Clear enough?
I know you think your local idea solves the problem, but it just complicates it further.
STOP chucking it in over and over. When you have something new to add, add it. I've essentially read the same post from you 50 or 60 times where you spew the same stuff and get the same responses.
You are not automatically correct just because you think you are.

Killboards are filled with consensual encounters, as well as the results of pilot error.

Show me ONE example that indicates a pilot did everything correctly to escape, and was still caught.

We are NEVER going to change cloaking without touching local, they are simply that connected, and it chucks game balance out the window to do otherwise.

Get that? Clear enough?

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...