These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman
#1201 - 2013-09-16 15:07:42 UTC  |  Edited by: JIeoH Mocc
Oh wow, this really became ridicilous.

Asking for NON ATTACKING PLAYERs to be removed, WTF am i reading, bhaha.

It's crystal clear, Lucas. Your cognitive dissonance grows roots in a misconception of what a MMO is, what kind of MMO EvE actually is, and what's the null-sec space supposed to be.
You've been raising a great deal of concerns, and been given plenty of advices regarding them, but it really comes down to this, isn't it.
Because frankly, your arguments are astonishingly out of place. "WASTE MY TIME" on fighting for your existence in null... Yeah.

Either that, or you're a troll. I am not that sure.

Also regarding MACROs... No need for a micro. All you need is a servo motor. A Servo motor and a 10$ controller would get a randomized time to click within any limits. And any kind of logic you'd choose to implement.
So under 15$ and a touch of common sense (school kids nowdays, you know) , you'll get ... you'll get nothing except 10500 more pages in this thread.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1202 - 2013-09-16 15:10:01 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Null sec is supposed to be risky...if you can't deal with a cloaked pilot, you are playing the wrong game.
I put forward the question that you seem to gloss over. Where is the risk for the cloaked pilot?

The cloaked pilot, as with any other pilot in the game, experiences risk at the point where they shift from being a potential threat to an actual threat.

A logged out pilot, possibly in a group of similar pilots working together, is also a threat.
They appear after logging in, and unless locked in place by a timer, vanish from the game when logged out.

A docked pilot also represents a potential threat.
A pilot in a POS, similar.

The docked and POS'd pilot, however, can be active in other ways.
While I am sure it will be changed at some point, a POS sitting pilot can boost other pilots for improved combat and PvE performance.
A pilot in an outpost can purchase and fit items, manufacture, resell, etc.
A pilot in a cloaked vessel... not so much. I am sure they can access the market to a limited degree, but that can be done anywhere the market exists.

The question you seem to be avoiding, is why the PvE pilots should not need to deal with risk beyond trivial levels?
Why should their play be elevated to consensual regarding combat?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1203 - 2013-09-16 15:10:49 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Remember that episode of the simpsons where homer had the bird desk toy thing that repeatedly dipped its head, and he set it up to press a button.

what if I do that

No botting, no exploits, no scripting, no nothing. Just something mechanically tapping the button.

Idea defeated by something that is both undetectable by CCP and something they'd never ban anyway
It's not undetectable, and it would also be bannable. They can detect things like that by looking at precision timings on your actions.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1204 - 2013-09-16 15:15:45 UTC
Sura Sadiva wrote:
snipping to save space...



Note: In case people missed it I am snipping the quotes above to save space. Original post here.

Regarding the Threat concept:

I prefer to use the term probability vs. Frequency. This might seem like a trivial distinction, but bear with me. Probabilities can be both objective or subjective. An objective probability is based on facts, like a coin flip with a fair coin and given the laws of physics. We'd asses this probability as 0.5 heads, 0.5 tails.

A subjective probability on the other hand can be used when you don't have the luxury of stating the initial conditions "fair coin and given the laws of physics." For example, I could make a subjective probability estimate of getting ganked when flying a freighter through Uedama. Further, via Bayes theorem I can update that initial assessment as I get more data (e.g. I go to eve-kill and look up freighter kills in Uedama, send in a scout and do some scanning, etc.).

For most players undocking in null is going to entail a subjective probability for being attacked. For example, if you log in and see nobody in local you'll asses a low probability of being attacked and will be more likely to undock. You might look at intel channels for a bit first, ask around in corp/alliance chat and revise that initial estimate down (you may not use Bayes theorem explicitly, but implicitly the effect would be similar). As the conditions change you'll keep changing that probability.

Your overall idea could be used for evaluating mechanics changes. We'd want to look at things like expected losses for people in null, in this case people engaged in PvE. Obviously we don't want the expected loss over some time interval to be greater than expected benefit of engaging in PvE. That is if:

E(B) < E(L), (simplifying tremendously here)

Then nobody would want to engage in PvE. We'd prefer for E(B) > E(L). This way PvE is going to be attractive. The larger E(B) is relative to E(L) the more people will want to engage in PvE and the more people we'll have in null.

Now one way to achieve this is to use game mechanics to set E(L) = 0. However, the problem with this approach is that it is in direct conflict with the very nature of the game (i.e. a sandbox where players create the most interesting content--e.g. sov wars, the metagame which has spawned their own websites such as Kugu).

We could write the above inequality as:

E(B)/E(L) > 1.

So when making a change to mechanics you'd look at that and make sure that the above is, at least, satisfied.

Another way to change the above inequality is to change the value of B. By increaseing B, all other things constant, E(B) increases and the ratio increases. So, if a mechanic change reduces E(B)/E(L) then increasing B could restore it to its original point. That is if the mechanic change increases risk, by increasing the benefits you will offset that increased risk of loss.

TL;DR: This, or something like it, could provide a framework to evaluate changes to the game in regards to null security space. Obviously this is very general right now and simplified, but with actual data (which CCP has) and with people who understand things like math (which I'm sure CCP has or could get access too) it could be done.

And I don't want to screw over PvE pilots. All PvPers (or a the vast majority) PvE at least occasionally. I PvE. I have in game friends and alliance mates who PvE. I want null to be someplace they can make isk and want to stay...yes...so the ones who aren't blue I can sometimes shoot. Twisted And sometimes they will escape (probably more often than they are caught). And maybe they'll reship and shoot me, and on occasion send me home via pod express. Big smile

"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
#1205 - 2013-09-16 15:15:53 UTC
Delt0r Garsk wrote:
The ultimate solution, remove local, or even better cloaks remove you from local. Then you won't know if a cloaky is in system and get all funny about it.

Is that a joke... not really. I live in a WH. I assume, often correctly that there is always someone stalking me. I mostly get away. I still run sites and make isk and stuff.

They are assuming that you can be pointed and caught, but some unique quality of a wormhole prevents this.

This is the flaw in their logic.

The wormhole pilot who points you already has his backing in the same system, they simply warp to him if they were not already present.

No cyno needed, so whether it is possible becomes a meaningless question.
They won't fire cans of tuna at you either, so the availability of tuna is also meaningless.

They want to believe that local is not creating the very situation they are protesting against, as they wish to avoid any need to adapt.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1206 - 2013-09-16 15:17:32 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Remember that episode of the simpsons where homer had the bird desk toy thing that repeatedly dipped its head, and he set it up to press a button.

what if I do that

No botting, no exploits, no scripting, no nothing. Just something mechanically tapping the button.

Idea defeated by something that is both undetectable by CCP and something they'd never ban anyway
It's not undetectable, and it would also be bannable. They can detect things like that by looking at precision timings on your actions.


You're delusional if you think CCP are going to ban people for mechanically repeating a button press.

Their entire point - something you yourself quoted - revolves around players gaining some benefit from it. I don't gain anything from tapping spacebar repeatedly.

It'd also be trivial, both with something like autohotkey or a mechanical device, to randomise the timing of the presses
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1207 - 2013-09-16 15:17:37 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
The cloaked pilot, as with any other pilot in the game, experiences risk at the point where they shift from being a potential threat to an actual threat.

A logged out pilot, possibly in a group of similar pilots working together, is also a threat.
They appear after logging in, and unless locked in place by a timer, vanish from the game when logged out.

A docked pilot also represents a potential threat.
A pilot in a POS, similar.

The docked and POS'd pilot, however, can be active in other ways.
While I am sure it will be changed at some point, a POS sitting pilot can boost other pilots for improved combat and PvE performance.
A pilot in an outpost can purchase and fit items, manufacture, resell, etc.
A pilot in a cloaked vessel... not so much. I am sure they can access the market to a limited degree, but that can be done anywhere the market exists.

The question you seem to be avoiding, is why the PvE pilots should not need to deal with risk beyond trivial levels?
Why should their play be elevated to consensual regarding combat?

That's a chosen action though. You have no risk unless you chose to engage in risk. Much like a docked player, or a POS'd player, except a cloaker can't be observed and can move around gaining a tactical advantage.
And I never said PVE players should have no or low risk. You can misquote and misinterpret as much as you want, doesn't make it the case. I simply stated that I think all players should have to be active to be able to even resemble a risk.

Now go ahead and respond telling me that I'm wrong, and how I'm just carebearing for PVE, how cloakers are so hard done by and how your removing local so cloakers have an even bigger advantage is the way to go.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1208 - 2013-09-16 15:19:02 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:


And I'm happy to bump.
You realise you are simply creating a pool to show CCP how many different people have complained about AFK cloaking right? You are doing it so you can laugh, but they will see it as a huge list of complaint threads all based on the same subject. So thanks I guess.


Lucas, I have been in game quite a while now. Coming up on 6 years. This issue was a dead horse so badly beaten when I first checked out the forums it wasn't funny.

So, if I were to asses a probability of CCP making a change to just cloaks based on all that data over all that time, I'd make that probability very, very low. Especially since CCP's stated views on the game are basically: HTFU.

"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.
#1209 - 2013-09-16 15:21:22 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
You're delusional if you think CCP are going to ban people for mechanically repeating a button press.

Their entire point - something you yourself quoted - revolves around players gaining some benefit from it. I don't gain anything from tapping spacebar repeatedly.

It'd also be trivial, both with something like autohotkey or a mechanical device, to randomise the timing of the presses
Raise a ticket asking if you are allowed to use a mechanical device to automatically push a button for you in game while you are away. Short of that you are just speculating. Any action you repeatedly take via automation can have a benefit, in this case it would be avoiding a cloak timer.
Sure, if you set up a button clicker that literally does nothing, like repeatedly clicking on a blank piece of space, they won't care, but if it invoke any in game action, you'd probably get the banhammer.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1210 - 2013-09-16 15:22:33 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:


And I'm happy to bump.
You realise you are simply creating a pool to show CCP how many different people have complained about AFK cloaking right? You are doing it so you can laugh, but they will see it as a huge list of complaint threads all based on the same subject. So thanks I guess.


Lucas, I have been in game quite a while now. Coming up on 6 years. This issue was a dead horse so badly beaten when I first checked out the forums it wasn't funny.

So, if I were to asses a probability of CCP making a change to just cloaks based on all that data over all that time, I'd make that probability very, very low. Especially since CCP's stated views on the game are basically: HTFU.

Show me their stated views.
The only thing I've ever seen on an official level is they need to find a balanced way of dealing with it. Same as the local issue.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1211 - 2013-09-16 15:22:52 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
You may not be familiar with the mechanics, but in order to launch a bomb the ship must be decloaked. So to claim a cloaked ship killed anything is wrong. It wasn't cloaked initially. It couldn't have been. Therefore you could have caught and killed it, therefore it was facing plenty of risk itself.
Correct, however the challenge was only to give an example of a player killing another while cloaked. Launching a bomb then cloaking would satisfy this.


What!?!?! You are admitting a cloaked ship faces risk!?!?!?! OMG!?!?!?!

Where is my diary, I need to mark this day in red!!!!!

P

"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

Harry Forever
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1212 - 2013-09-16 15:23:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Harry Forever
just remove local and AFK cloaking will be gone, no need to afk cloak anymore

the problem is just created by people docking because they see you coming
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1213 - 2013-09-16 15:24:17 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
The cloaked pilot, as with any other pilot in the game, experiences risk at the point where they shift from being a potential threat to an actual threat.

A logged out pilot, possibly in a group of similar pilots working together, is also a threat.
They appear after logging in, and unless locked in place by a timer, vanish from the game when logged out.

A docked pilot also represents a potential threat.
A pilot in a POS, similar.

The docked and POS'd pilot, however, can be active in other ways.
While I am sure it will be changed at some point, a POS sitting pilot can boost other pilots for improved combat and PvE performance.
A pilot in an outpost can purchase and fit items, manufacture, resell, etc.
A pilot in a cloaked vessel... not so much. I am sure they can access the market to a limited degree, but that can be done anywhere the market exists.

The question you seem to be avoiding, is why the PvE pilots should not need to deal with risk beyond trivial levels?
Why should their play be elevated to consensual regarding combat?

That's a chosen action though. You have no risk unless you chose to engage in risk. Much like a docked player, or a POS'd player, except a cloaker can't be observed and can move around gaining a tactical advantage.
And I never said PVE players should have no or low risk. You can misquote and misinterpret as much as you want, doesn't make it the case. I simply stated that I think all players should have to be active to be able to even resemble a risk.

Now go ahead and respond telling me that I'm wrong, and how I'm just carebearing for PVE, how cloakers are so hard done by and how your removing local so cloakers have an even bigger advantage is the way to go.


So then the mechanics should change, and players should be limited or removed based on your personal interpretation of what it means when you see a name in the local chat?

Sorry, no.

What about people who for whatever reasons - simply not caring, or due to actually expelling a bit of effort to figure things out - interpret that name in local as not a risk? This happens, you know. In fact, that is the entire point of prolonged cloaking - the strategy exists because you hope someone will interpret you as not being a risk.

CCP shouldn't remove players or strategies simply because you regularly interpret it one way and don't like the way you interpeted it. Such a suggestion is braindestroyingly stupid
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1214 - 2013-09-16 15:27:11 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
You're delusional if you think CCP are going to ban people for mechanically repeating a button press.

Their entire point - something you yourself quoted - revolves around players gaining some benefit from it. I don't gain anything from tapping spacebar repeatedly.

It'd also be trivial, both with something like autohotkey or a mechanical device, to randomise the timing of the presses
Raise a ticket asking if you are allowed to use a mechanical device to automatically push a button for you in game while you are away. Short of that you are just speculating. Any action you repeatedly take via automation can have a benefit, in this case it would be avoiding a cloak timer.
Sure, if you set up a button clicker that literally does nothing, like repeatedly clicking on a blank piece of space, they won't care, but if it invoke any in game action, you'd probably get the banhammer.


Raising a ticket would be pointless because I a) know the answer and b) wouldn't be allowed to repost the response anyway.

And the entire point would be that whatever button you press wouldn't do anything except act as a heartbeat to the client. Sometimes when I'm reading things on my computer I hit a random key to stop the screen turning off for inactivity/power saving. This is the same thing. I'd not be getting anything
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1215 - 2013-09-16 15:28:28 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:


And I'm happy to bump.
You realise you are simply creating a pool to show CCP how many different people have complained about AFK cloaking right? You are doing it so you can laugh, but they will see it as a huge list of complaint threads all based on the same subject. So thanks I guess.


Lucas, I have been in game quite a while now. Coming up on 6 years. This issue was a dead horse so badly beaten when I first checked out the forums it wasn't funny.

So, if I were to asses a probability of CCP making a change to just cloaks based on all that data over all that time, I'd make that probability very, very low. Especially since CCP's stated views on the game are basically: HTFU.

Show me their stated views.
The only thing I've ever seen on an official level is they need to find a balanced way of dealing with it. Same as the local issue.


Go look back upstream. I linked to where CCP states their views on the game in general.

As for cloaks, I never indicated that CCP has made any such statements, I did make an inference though.

Now, if you still want to go on about CCP's stated views, I'd suggest putting reading comprehension into your training queue. P

"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.
#1216 - 2013-09-16 15:31:22 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
They are assuming that you can be pointed and caught, but some unique quality of a wormhole prevents this.

This is the flaw in their logic.

The wormhole pilot who points you already has his backing in the same system, they simply warp to him if they were not already present.

No cyno needed, so whether it is possible becomes a meaningless question.
They won't fire cans of tuna at you either, so the availability of tuna is also meaningless.

They want to believe that local is not creating the very situation they are protesting against, as they wish to avoid any need to adapt.

No, that's now what we've said at all you arrogant prick.
What we've said is that WH space has SEVERAL DIFFERENCES.
One is Cynos. In combination with WH sizes and WH classes, this means it's unlikely you'll have a 250 man fleet dropped on your head.
With thsoe sizes comes ship limitations. A chose of WH can restrict you to subcap only, or less than battleships, etc.
WHs also have less points of entry, as you can collapse the ones you don't want, in some cases, sealing it shut.
You can also see the amount that's poured into your wormhole by looking at it's state of collapse. If it's suddenly unstable, and you haven't used it, it's a good chance you are not alone.
WHs also mean you omnitank. Omnitanking in null is pretty much suicide and at the very less inefficient, as they hit hard on their chosen types every time.

Stop spewing out nonsense, accusing other people of saying things they have not said, just so you can force your crappy ideas on them.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1217 - 2013-09-16 15:34:07 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:


And I'm happy to bump.
You realise you are simply creating a pool to show CCP how many different people have complained about AFK cloaking right? You are doing it so you can laugh, but they will see it as a huge list of complaint threads all based on the same subject. So thanks I guess.


Lucas, I have been in game quite a while now. Coming up on 6 years. This issue was a dead horse so badly beaten when I first checked out the forums it wasn't funny.

So, if I were to asses a probability of CCP making a change to just cloaks based on all that data over all that time, I'd make that probability very, very low. Especially since CCP's stated views on the game are basically: HTFU.

Show me their stated views.
The only thing I've ever seen on an official level is they need to find a balanced way of dealing with it. Same as the local issue.


Go look back upstream. I linked to where CCP states their views on the game in general.

As for cloaks, I never indicated that CCP has made any such statements, I did make an inference though.

Now, if you still want to go on about CCP's stated views, I'd suggest putting reading comprehension into your training queue. P

All I've seen is a dev post where you misquoted a dev and got reamed out for it. If you've linked to an actually official response on it, then it's buried somewhere and you'll need to relink it.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1218 - 2013-09-16 15:35:35 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Raising a ticket would be pointless because I a) know the answer and b) wouldn't be allowed to repost the response anyway.

And the entire point would be that whatever button you press wouldn't do anything except act as a heartbeat to the client. Sometimes when I'm reading things on my computer I hit a random key to stop the screen turning off for inactivity/power saving. This is the same thing. I'd not be getting anything

Oh yeah, you know the answer. So what is it then?

In this instance you WOULD be getting something. You'd be bypassing your cloak timer.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1219 - 2013-09-16 15:37:07 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
So then the mechanics should change, and players should be limited or removed based on your personal interpretation of what it means when you see a name in the local chat?

Sorry, no.

What about people who for whatever reasons - simply not caring, or due to actually expelling a bit of effort to figure things out - interpret that name in local as not a risk? This happens, you know. In fact, that is the entire point of prolonged cloaking - the strategy exists because you hope someone will interpret you as not being a risk.

CCP shouldn't remove players or strategies simply because you regularly interpret it one way and don't like the way you interpeted it. Such a suggestion is braindestroyingly stupid
so TL;DR is yes, you do want to keep it in so you get easy kills from people you've worn down from leaving your PC logged on?
Thanks coward.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1220 - 2013-09-16 15:40:03 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
You may not be familiar with the mechanics, but in order to launch a bomb the ship must be decloaked. So to claim a cloaked ship killed anything is wrong. It wasn't cloaked initially. It couldn't have been. Therefore you could have caught and killed it, therefore it was facing plenty of risk itself.
Correct, however the challenge was only to give an example of a player killing another while cloaked. Launching a bomb then cloaking would satisfy this.


What!?!?! You are admitting a cloaked ship faces risk!?!?!?! OMG!?!?!?!

Where is my diary, I need to mark this day in red!!!!!

P

Sure, mark it all you want. How many times do I have to say CLOAKING IN GENERAL I AM NOT AGAINST.
Here, I'll say it again since you seem to have reading problems.
THE ISSUE IS, AFK CLOAKERS CAN CREATE THE APPEARANCE OF THREAT WHILE REMAINING RISK FREE AND EFFORT FREE.
The fact that they may or may not later chose to engage in a risk is beside the point. I don;t give a **** what they do while they are active, whether it's risky or not, but when they aren't playing they shouldn't be there providing an appearance of risk to purposely lower system activity.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.