These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
ISD Cura Ursus
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#1401 - 2013-09-17 16:07:16 UTC
OK this thread is starting to get a bit out of control.


Everyone stop the personal statements as to anyone's intelligence or maturity.

Discuss the issue and not the people.

Learn how to agree to disagree.

ISD Cura Ursus

Lieutenant Commander

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1402 - 2013-09-17 16:09:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Inefficient mining... I see. That is quite a revealing answer.

Ok, I have evaluated your views, and while they may be fine for you, they will impact the game quite negatively if followed through with.

You are advocating in favor of an all or nothing style of play.
Be it ratting in carriers, mining in max fitted exhumers, or PvP when you are in the mood, you want to play your way with no obstacles.
Obstacles do not belong in your game, and the need to adapt belongs to those who are playing the wrong way.

Specifics:
You feel entitled to automated intel advising you about hostile presence. You want that hostile presence to leave rather than be AFK beyond a certain point, as you have no intention of modifying your play to adapt to their presence.
If you are to be threatened, it must be by a blob reinforcing your structures, and being probably confronted by an equal blob.
You do not tolerate guerilla style tactics, such as camping. Blob or GTFO.

I assume you would reword this to be more flattering, but I suspect I have the details correct.
Would you care to suggest ways this can be made more accurate?
You are the one saying I minmax, I simply push for yield where possible. If I can get a better yield by moving, whats the point in staying? If you want to call that minmaxing fair enough.
And no, I'm in favor of NOT BREAKING NULL. You want to jam in some local changes which would clearly break null completely.
I'm not entitled to local any more than you are. It's simply a feature of the game that I use. If they change it, I'd have to find something else. But changing it would break a lot, whether you see it or not, and chances are null would become completely empty.
I have no issue with guerrilla tactics, I just have issues with you wanting the game change so only guerrilla tactics are viable and they have the massive advantage. If I'm to be threatened, it must be by someone actually playing and putting effort in, not by literally any random idiot in a covops. Your changes would make it so you could automatically win as long as you have a covops cloak.

So much as you've done previously, you've read some bits of post, then come up with some made up rubbish that you supposedly think I'm saying, when you know full well it's not. This is what Vas was talking about earlier. You do this because your actual argument has no strength, because your argument is purely in favor of making cloakers even more powerful, while they are already at the high end of the balance.
How about you leave my words as my words for people to read, and not post your incorrect interpretations of them.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman
#1403 - 2013-09-17 16:10:21 UTC  |  Edited by: JIeoH Mocc
Lucas Kell wrote:
I wouldn't call it whining, I'd call it arguing the case. And you are siding with the guys that want local removed... so...

I wouldn't call it siding, I'd call it arguing the case against removal of AFK cloak without something to compensate for the lack of risk. It's too easy, you told us so yourself.
And anyway, all this "miners leaving nullsec" nonsence, I'd refrain from such statements if i didn't have official statistics to back it up.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1404 - 2013-09-17 16:14:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
JIeoH Mocc wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
I wouldn't call it whining, I'd call it arguing the case. And you are siding with the guys that want local removed... so...

I wouldn't call it siding, I'd call it arguing the case against removal of AFK cloak without something to compensate for the lack of risk. It's too easy, you told us so yourself.
And anyway, all this "miners leaving nullsec" bullshit, I'd refrain from such statements if i didn't have official statistics to back it up.
What lack of risk?
I'm not going to suddenly be giggling to myself at how easy it is to mine, I just might actually see people when flying through null, rather than everyone being clustered into little moving groups that change systems when cloakers arrive.
And I don;t find it a lack of risk to be successful at avoiding combat as a miner. That's simply using my and my characters skills to evade people. If I could just plonk myself on a rock, hit F1, F2, F3, then go grab a drink, that would be risk free, but that's not the case. I have to be 100% aware and ready to warp out at a moments notice. Anyone that aware would be able to evade combat, regardless of their chosen profession.
EDIT: Oh and statistics wise, they have never made a change that would add that much risk to null industry. It's already only just better than high sec though, so Anyone mining for efficiency would move there.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1405 - 2013-09-17 16:17:52 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
The difference is, you are saying you have 100% safety while accomplishing something: While gaining bounties from ratting, or minerals from mining, or whatever. While cloaked I gain nothing. If you want to relinquish your rewards while you have this perfect safety, then I support that. Whats that, you don't?

Well then that is imbalanced, bro.
You are still doing something though. You are planning your attack, positioning your ship, making tactical bookmarks. Combat is about both planning and execution. If you were using a standard cloak, so to do anything you had to decloak, that would be even. But as a covops, you can fly around me unnoticed, setting up everything you need to execute with maximum chance of success.
PvP is not an isk generating activity, so you can't simply compare the two on that metric.


The point is you are directly gaining in game assets with zero risk, while what I do provides me nothing concrete. Intel, tactical warp ins, etc aren't direct measurable results - and they don't influence the economy or the rest of the game the way generated isk/materials do. To be able to gain isk/material with zero risk is incredibly broken. thanks for admitting it though
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1406 - 2013-09-17 16:21:07 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
JIeoH Mocc wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
I wouldn't call it whining, I'd call it arguing the case. And you are siding with the guys that want local removed... so...

I wouldn't call it siding, I'd call it arguing the case against removal of AFK cloak without something to compensate for the lack of risk. It's too easy, you told us so yourself.
And anyway, all this "miners leaving nullsec" bullshit, I'd refrain from such statements if i didn't have official statistics to back it up.
What lack of risk?
I'm not going to suddenly be giggling to myself at how easy it is to mine, I just might actually see people when flying through null, rather than everyone being clustered into little moving groups that change systems when cloakers arrive.
And I don;t find it a lack of risk to be successful at avoiding combat as a miner. That's simply using my and my characters skills to evade people. If I could just plonk myself on a rock, hit F1, F2, F3, then go grab a drink, that would be risk free, but that's not the case. I have to be 100% aware and ready to warp out at a moments notice. Anyone that aware would be able to evade combat, regardless of their chosen profession.
EDIT: Oh and statistics wise, they have never made a change that would add that much risk to null industry. It's already only just better than high sec though, so Anyone mining for efficiency would move there.


LMAO do you really think hitting the warp button the second local changes - before the other guy has even finished loading system - is using skill? It's not, bro.

Let me put it to you this way: What can the hunter to do catch you? Not counting mistakes/glitches on your end, what can he do - what effort can he put in, what skills can he use - to catch you reliably?

None. You yourself have said the mechanics - local, that is - provides you 100% safety.

That is imbalanced, because you should not be able to reap the rewards of null in 100% safety. I cannot believe you think you are entitled to that.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1407 - 2013-09-17 16:23:03 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
The difference is, you are saying you have 100% safety while accomplishing something: While gaining bounties from ratting, or minerals from mining, or whatever. While cloaked I gain nothing. If you want to relinquish your rewards while you have this perfect safety, then I support that. Whats that, you don't?

Well then that is imbalanced, bro.
You are still doing something though. You are planning your attack, positioning your ship, making tactical bookmarks. Combat is about both planning and execution. If you were using a standard cloak, so to do anything you had to decloak, that would be even. But as a covops, you can fly around me unnoticed, setting up everything you need to execute with maximum chance of success.
PvP is not an isk generating activity, so you can't simply compare the two on that metric.


The point is you are directly gaining in game assets with zero risk, while what I do provides me nothing concrete. Intel, tactical warp ins, etc aren't direct measurable results - and they don't influence the economy or the rest of the game the way generated isk/materials do. To be able to gain isk/material with zero risk is incredibly broken. thanks for admitting it though
But you are still accomplishing something. Technically I'm not gaining isk until I sell the product. So the mining part of if earns me nothing.
You can't just say "oh, since I can't directly measure my planning in isk and items, it's a zero valued activity", that's just crazy. If anything planning is the main part of your objective, with the kill simply being the execution of your planning.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1408 - 2013-09-17 16:24:32 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
You are the one saying I minmax, I simply push for yield where possible. If I can get a better yield by moving, whats the point in staying? If you want to call that minmaxing fair enough.
And no, I'm in favor of NOT BREAKING NULL. You want to jam in some local changes which would clearly break null completely.
I'm not entitled to local any more than you are. It's simply a feature of the game that I use. If they change it, I'd have to find something else. But changing it would break a lot, whether you see it or not, and chances are null would become completely empty.

Min Maxxing is a fitting philosophy, which focuses on a single aspect. It ignores any other concern where a fitting conflict might otherwise occur.

Actually, my changes have been not really mentioned. The first link below describes how I would change local, the second how I would implement the ability to hunt cloaked vessels.
The only significant change, would be a need for effort to have intel.
In this case, zero effort would expose you to risk, where in the current system it does not necessarily do this.

Ironically, it would kill AFK cloaking in two ways:
Either noone would know you were there, or they would hunt you down.
Specifically, the moment they started looking for you, you would be at risk comparable to not being cloaked at all.
(But they would need to make the effort)

Lucas Kell wrote:
I have no issue with guerrilla tactics, I just have issues with you wanting the game change so only guerrilla tactics are viable and they have the massive advantage. If I'm to be threatened, it must be by someone actually playing and putting effort in, not by literally any random idiot in a covops. Your changes would make it so you could automatically win as long as you have a covops cloak.

So much as you've done previously, you've read some bits of post, then come up with some made up rubbish that you supposedly think I'm saying, when you know full well it's not. This is what Vas was talking about earlier. You do this because your actual argument has no strength, because your argument is purely in favor of making cloakers even more powerful, while they are already at the high end of the balance.
How about you leave my words as my words for people to read, and not post your incorrect interpretations of them.


This tells me you have not looked at the ideas I actually do endorse.
Your interests are being met by them too.

I welcome a discussion in the appropriate thread, if you wish.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1409 - 2013-09-17 16:27:30 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
But you are still accomplishing something. Technically I'm not gaining isk until I sell the product. So the mining part of if earns me nothing.
You can't just say "oh, since I can't directly measure my planning in isk and items, it's a zero valued activity", that's just crazy. If anything planning is the main part of your objective, with the kill simply being the execution of your planning.

If you want to be taken seriously, this argument should be disavowed.

It's followup is: Who cares if I have ISK, if I cannot reach a market selling what I need?

To be overly kind, it is a different topic entirely.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1410 - 2013-09-17 16:33:32 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
LMAO do you really think hitting the warp button the second local changes - before the other guy has even finished loading system - is using skill? It's not, bro.

Let me put it to you this way: What can the hunter to do catch you? Not counting mistakes/glitches on your end, what can he do - what effort can he put in, what skills can he use - to catch you reliably?

None. You yourself have said the mechanics - local, that is - provides you 100% safety.

That is imbalanced, because you should not be able to reap the rewards of null in 100% safety. I cannot believe you think you are entitled to that.
I didn't say it was good skill, but it's still a skill. It's still something I have to consider and I have to do. It's not automatic.

And no, if I'm perfect on my timing and have been well prepared, then I get away. That's how it SHOULD be though, since my ships is DESIGNED TO ESCAPE. If I was in a battleship, chances are I can;t align as quick as you could get to me. If I was in an orca, I definitely can't. But a barge is designed to escape, so why are you so surprised it excels at doing that.

On the other side though, without local, you could simply jump on me between loads as I arrive, and I'd have no chance to escape. You feel that is somehow fair though?

Its ONLY 100% safety because I DO WHAT I AM SUPPOSED TO DO. How are you missing that. If you do WHAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO, then you are 100% safe too. You are saying that regardless of what I do, no matter how well prepared I am, I should have to die because you chose to attack me. You are saying bomber > exhumer thus exhumer must always lose. That's total nonsense.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1411 - 2013-09-17 16:34:38 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
This tells me you have not looked at the ideas I actually do endorse.
Your interests are being met by them too.

I welcome a discussion in the appropriate thread, if you wish.
No thanks. I've read your ideas fully, I think they are bad ideas, and I don;t fancy being lectured for the rest of the day on them.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman
#1412 - 2013-09-17 16:46:28 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:

Its ONLY 100% safety because I DO WHAT I AM SUPPOSED TO DO. How are you missing that. If you do WHAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO, then you are 100% safe too. You are saying that regardless of what I do, no matter how well prepared I am, I should have to die because you chose to attack me. You are saying bomber > exhumer thus exhumer must always lose. That's total nonsense.

Only that nullsec shouldn't be 100% safe, that's precisely the point. But i thnk everybody already understand that issue you have with concept of nullsec, so it's safe to move on.
And right now it is. I can make absolutely crazy ISK by taking no chances at all. AT ALL. If local changes - i warp out in a BS. I've less than 8sec warp out time, with a BS - and nothing can catch me like this, except maybe incredibly lucky interceptor, and for that i have 3 warpstabs. So please, don;'t tell me it's you or your skills - nullsec as is presents abnormal profit/risk ratio. AFK campers slant the chances, so if you want them removed - something gotta give.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1413 - 2013-09-17 16:47:07 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
This tells me you have not looked at the ideas I actually do endorse.
Your interests are being met by them too.

I welcome a discussion in the appropriate thread, if you wish.
No thanks. I've read your ideas fully, I think they are bad ideas, and I don;t fancy being lectured for the rest of the day on them.

As the core issue which causes AFK Cloaking behavior, how would you replace AFK cloaking?

For the sake of this, let us assume we are keeping everything else in place.

You are PvE'ing. The moment a player is AFK beyond point X, they are booted out of the game.

How will you be threatened?
Would this be balanced?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1414 - 2013-09-17 17:39:57 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Min Maxxing is a fitting philosophy, which focuses on a single aspect. It ignores any other concern where a fitting conflict might otherwise occur.
Indeed, however I will not focus on yield at a detriment to my defense. I field combat drones for example, not mining drones.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Actually, my changes have been not really mentioned. The first link below describes how I would change local, the second how I would implement the ability to hunt cloaked vessels.
The only significant change, would be a need for effort to have intel.
In this case, zero effort would expose you to risk, where in the current system it does not necessarily do this.
It would also mean you don't know a cloaker is there until he's on you.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Ironically, it would kill AFK cloaking in two ways:
Either noone would know you were there, or they would hunt you down.
Specifically, the moment they started looking for you, you would be at risk comparable to not being cloaked at all.
(But they would need to make the effort)
At no point have I said it wouldn't end AFK cloaking. In fact I've said a couple of times, of course it would. But it would also heavily damage a variety of other mechanics.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1415 - 2013-09-17 17:43:52 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
This tells me you have not looked at the ideas I actually do endorse.
Your interests are being met by them too.

I welcome a discussion in the appropriate thread, if you wish.
No thanks. I've read your ideas fully, I think they are bad ideas, and I don;t fancy being lectured for the rest of the day on them.

As the core issue which causes AFK Cloaking behavior, how would you replace AFK cloaking?

For the sake of this, let us assume we are keeping everything else in place.

You are PvE'ing. The moment a player is AFK beyond point X, they are booted out of the game.

How will you be threatened?
Would this be balanced?

Yes, They would no longer be able to at random come back undetected to scout and prep intel, having worked down their opponents into either moving or taking a massive risk while AFK.
That said, I wouldn't suggest this specifically as the ideal solution, but it's simple and effective..

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1416 - 2013-09-17 18:01:32 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Actually, my changes have been not really mentioned. The first link below describes how I would change local, the second how I would implement the ability to hunt cloaked vessels.
The only significant change, would be a need for effort to have intel.
In this case, zero effort would expose you to risk, where in the current system it does not necessarily do this.
It would also mean you don't know a cloaker is there until he's on you.

Having the ability to detect cloaked ships, also brings with it the responsibility for doing so in your own defense.
Either fit the scanning module, or have someone do it for you. You will know the moment they land on grid with it.

In a way, I appreciate your points.

However twisted the mechanics, local effectively simulates an automated sensor package. It lists items added to the system perfectly, giving you the opportunity to react to them.

You may like this thread, which takes this aspect and makes it more immersive.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=112964&find=unread
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1417 - 2013-09-17 18:05:33 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
As the core issue which causes AFK Cloaking behavior, how would you replace AFK cloaking?

For the sake of this, let us assume we are keeping everything else in place.

You are PvE'ing. The moment a player is AFK beyond point X, they are booted out of the game.

How will you be threatened?
Would this be balanced?

Yes, They would no longer be able to at random come back undetected to scout and prep intel, having worked down their opponents into either moving or taking a massive risk while AFK.
That said, I wouldn't suggest this specifically as the ideal solution, but it's simple and effective..

It also removes any risk associated with the return of a pilot considered AFK until that point.

Would you want the status kept at this level, or would you change it in other ways?

Keep in mind, you are removing the risk associated with the so-called AFK Cloaked pilot.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1418 - 2013-09-17 18:07:38 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Actually, my changes have been not really mentioned. The first link below describes how I would change local, the second how I would implement the ability to hunt cloaked vessels.
The only significant change, would be a need for effort to have intel.
In this case, zero effort would expose you to risk, where in the current system it does not necessarily do this.
It would also mean you don't know a cloaker is there until he's on you.

Having the ability to detect cloaked ships, also brings with it the responsibility for doing so in your own defense.
Either fit the scanning module, or have someone do it for you. You will know the moment they land on grid with it.

In a way, I appreciate your points.

However twisted the mechanics, local effectively simulates an automated sensor package. It lists items added to the system perfectly, giving you the opportunity to react to them.

You may like this thread, which takes this aspect and makes it more immersive.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=112964&find=unread

So again, to defend against 1 player, I need 2 players, and one of them will be locked in place unable to do anything but scan, and he has to literally do that and nothing else, since if he stops, we can't find cloakers.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1419 - 2013-09-17 18:09:34 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
As the core issue which causes AFK Cloaking behavior, how would you replace AFK cloaking?

For the sake of this, let us assume we are keeping everything else in place.

You are PvE'ing. The moment a player is AFK beyond point X, they are booted out of the game.

How will you be threatened?
Would this be balanced?

Yes, They would no longer be able to at random come back undetected to scout and prep intel, having worked down their opponents into either moving or taking a massive risk while AFK.
That said, I wouldn't suggest this specifically as the ideal solution, but it's simple and effective..

It also removes any risk associated with the return of a pilot considered AFK until that point.

Would you want the status kept at this level, or would you change it in other ways?

Keep in mind, you are removing the risk associated with the so-called AFK Cloaked pilot.

It wouldn't change anything except mean systems don't empty out, so what else would need to change? I'm still at risk of being shot by an active player, and an active player can still hold the system hostage as long as he likes. That change alone would be enough to ensure players have to actually play to attack null.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1420 - 2013-09-17 18:19:10 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Actually, my changes have been not really mentioned. The first link below describes how I would change local, the second how I would implement the ability to hunt cloaked vessels.
The only significant change, would be a need for effort to have intel.
In this case, zero effort would expose you to risk, where in the current system it does not necessarily do this.
It would also mean you don't know a cloaker is there until he's on you.

Having the ability to detect cloaked ships, also brings with it the responsibility for doing so in your own defense.
Either fit the scanning module, or have someone do it for you. You will know the moment they land on grid with it.

In a way, I appreciate your points.

However twisted the mechanics, local effectively simulates an automated sensor package. It lists items added to the system perfectly, giving you the opportunity to react to them.

You may like this thread, which takes this aspect and makes it more immersive.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=112964&find=unread

So again, to defend against 1 player, I need 2 players, and one of them will be locked in place unable to do anything but scan, and he has to literally do that and nothing else, since if he stops, we can't find cloakers.

I would not say that, at all.

If it was just against 1 player, this would be an easier task. The implied cyno means a player behind the client of each ship coming through.
As to the details, no, this system lets you use the mining ship itself, or ratting ship as the case may be.

You will see the probes they use, or you will see the formerly cloaked vessel as it reveals itself by using the d-scan. Either way, by making the trivial effort of activating your sensors, you provide for your own intel.