These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2461 - 2013-10-18 14:41:11 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:

Do your suggested mechanic changes only apply to sov space? What about players in stations not being able to look out their windows and station cameras to see what is immediately outside the station? What about that brief time between gate cloak and covert ops cloak? What about the time between each scan?
...
Andy, it is not a great leap to surmise balance will be maintained. Having a station equipped with an on-grid overview is something myself and others have long agreed makes sense.
But it doesn't relate to cloaking, or how local affects cloaking.
So we only mention it when it is specifically addressed, since it is not a main point.

I ask again, do you propose changes to local mechanics to only affect sov null sec?
The issue of looking out of stations relates because proposals were made to disconnect both cloaked vessels and ships in station from local; so that neither would be listed in local nor see local. Do you continue to support and promote the local disconnect with cloaked and docked spaceships, or not?
I'll also ask again on the last two questions. Do you feel that a ship should be listed in local during the brief time between gate cloak and covert ops cloak? If there is a method to detect and scan cloaked ships, will the cloaked vessel dscan provide continuous results or interval-based results where a cloaked aggressor could easily be missed during its warp-in onto you? I support continuous dscan for both cloaked and non-cloaked, tbph.
Also, what do you think about a complete disconnect so that cloaked ships cannot dscan uncloaked ships or see local until they "surface" by decloaking?

Do I expect changes to only affect null?
No.
I expect them to have the most impact in null, for some aspects.
High sec won't care, and quite possibly can be excluded by dev discretion.
Wormholes don't want the means to hunt or detect cloaked ships, and they already block the pilot roster.
Low sec is already considered the hardcore PvP place, mostly because using local to keep safe is not practical as a tactic. Too many passing through. As perverse as I consider it, NBSI is the requirement for local as intel to this degree.

Any place with NRDS is being compromised by null's NBSI, since NBSI is easier to play in. NRDS requires discipline second only to that found in wormholes, since you must constantly be exposed to potential hostiles actually present, not just in theory.

As to your specifics:
I support the disconnect between ships docked in an outpost, or behind the shields of a POS, from local. Cloaking should be treated the same way.

I do not think it is reasonable to have pilots listed in local while they are under the "gate-cloak" effect. You are literally exposing them to hostile consideration before they can even react, while they cannot know who is present until they also load the system.

I am not thrilled about the gap forced between the gate cloak and the ship based cloak, but I accept it as a necessary balance point. It is needed for gameplay, many could argue quite reasonably. Being flashed in local for a second or two is fair.

My overview upgrade suggestion thread, which I maintain as a sensible idea even by itself, would deny the use of d-scan to a cloaked vessel. Specifically, it would decloak the ship, as I consider that broadcasting sensor energy is a conflict with blocking sensor energy. They COULD use probes, however, like they do currently.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Xcom
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2462 - 2013-10-18 14:48:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Xcom
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Xcom wrote:

How exactly is perma cloaking somehow a product of broken local?


*facepalm*

How exactly do you know somebody is cloaked in your ratting system?

Correlation does not imply causation. Just because the two have a relationship does not mean that the cloaking issues are caused by local.


Oh, and how exactly do you know, given current mechanics, you have an AFK cloaker in your system. Your semantic dance is mildly impressive, but you failed to answer the question. As did xcom, probably because he knows the answer is not going to help his argument one bit.

And lets think of it this way.

Lets suppose cloaked ships are removed from local. I show up in your preferred PvE system. You aren't there. Nobody is there. So I cloak and go to work.

How will you know I'm there?
If you don't know I'm there, that is, you think the system is empty, what will you do?

I'm guessing you'll argue something like this: I don't know who is there so I'll simply move back to high security space. Which proves my point. You currently rely on local for intel and by watering it down AFK cloaking without local is pointless as you'll go harvest resources where AFK cloaking makes no impact (high sec).

Another person may answer: Well, I wouldn't know your ship was in system so I'd undock and go about my business. Which again proves my point: AFK cloaking without local is pointless as this person would harvest resources blissfully unaware by ship was sitting at a safe cloaked.

I would argue that having cloaked ships removed from local would mean that every cloaked pilot in null would be at his keyboard. Which is completely ironic in that is what many of the anti-AFK cloak crowd claim they want, but something like this they reject out of hand. Which again strongly implies their position is based on self-interest and not game balance.


Here is a simple answer for you. If there was a ingame tool to actually scan for cloaked ships, said tool would be used. But it doesn't exist so its pointless arguing if a non existent tool would be used or not.

If said tool was neglected from being used and the cloaked ship would take advantage of the situation then ya you would have a point. But as there doesn't exist such tool it pointless saying if such an imaginary tool would be neglected or not.
Erica Sukarala
Rising Storm.
#2463 - 2013-10-18 14:49:21 UTC
Seems to me there is no way to completely defeat AFK cloakys, but you can deter them from messing with you by having friends or backup, doing things as a group, or baiting and/or counter dropping.

Nomnomnom
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2464 - 2013-10-18 14:55:57 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Do I expect changes to only affect null?
No.
I expect them to have the most impact in null, for some aspects.
High sec won't care, and quite possibly can be excluded by dev discretion.

High sec would have to either be excluded or considered specifically. You realise that war targets are seen on local right? Without local, there would need a way to find each other, or wars would simply be docking games and blind luck meetings in space. I think there are a lot of people that would in fact care.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2465 - 2013-10-18 15:00:48 UTC
Erica Sukarala wrote:
Seems to me there is no way to completely defeat AFK cloakys, but you can deter them from messing with you by having friends or backup, doing things as a group, or baiting and/or counter dropping.

Sure there is, I've already stated it.
After x amount of time AFK, you get warped to deadspace (like logging off but not) and cloaked (or left cloaking if you are a covops cloaker) and marked in local as AFK. Upon returning, you get warped back (like logging on) and marked as active. It's essentially the same as logging of AFK cloakers, but it doesn't disconnect them, it doesn't change their client state (windows, etc), it doesn't stop logging their chat, etc.
It would simply be a way of making sure an AFK player is treated as AFK and removed from consideration.

This solves the issue without affecting null mechanics or cloak mechanics and without affecting local.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2466 - 2013-10-18 15:08:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Correlation does not imply causation. Just because the two have a relationship does not mean that the cloaking issues are caused by local.


Oh, and how exactly do you know, given current mechanics, you have an AFK cloaker in your system. Your semantic dance is mildly impressive, but you failed to answer the question. As did xcom, probably because he knows the answer is not going to help his argument one bit.

And lets think of it this way.

Lets suppose cloaked ships are removed from local. I show up in your preferred PvE system. You aren't there. Nobody is there. So I cloak and go to work.

How will you know I'm there?
If you don't know I'm there, that is, you think the system is empty, what will you do?

I'm guessing you'll argue something like this: I don't know who is there so I'll simply move back to high security space. Which proves my point. You currently rely on local for intel and by watering it down AFK cloaking without local is pointless as you'll go harvest resources where AFK cloaking makes no impact (high sec).

Another person may answer: Well, I wouldn't know your ship was in system so I'd undock and go about my business. Which again proves my point: AFK cloaking without local is pointless as this person would harvest resources blissfully unaware by ship was sitting at a safe cloaked.

I would argue that having cloaked ships removed from local would mean that every cloaked pilot in null would be at his keyboard. Which is completely ironic in that is what many of the anti-AFK cloak crowd claim they want, but something like this they reject out of hand. Which again strongly implies their position is based on self-interest and not game balance.

Yes, I get it. You know that they are there because you see them in local. But you know a popup is there because you see it on your monitor. While removing the monitor fixes the issue, as does removing local, it by know means implies that it is the only option, nor does it imply it is the sole reason.
You are just stating again that because local is used to see an AFK cloaker is there, that it is the sole cause of the issue, and must be changed to fix it. I'm simply pointing out that it's not the sole cause, and it's not the only way to fix it. It's merely your chosen way. In my example, I personally would target the ability for a popup to appear without my permission rather than target my ability to see the popup, as removing my monitor has other much larger consequences.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2467 - 2013-10-18 15:11:35 UTC
Davader wrote:
There should be consequences of "anti-cloacking".

Ok, lets assume we made the cloacker to appear automatically in some period of his inactivity (being cloacked and afking).

Ok, fine. But to maintain the balance we should make the docked afkers to be undocked in same period of inactivity tiime.

Also, the guys afking for a long time under the POS force field should be kicked out of there and placed at random spots in the system.

If you think, that the afking cloacker is a problem - OK, but there always should be the other side. So, afking within force field or be afking in dock should be equal to afking in cloack.

Only this way it keeps the balance untouched.
See my post above. All AFK players in space would be affected in the same way. Nobody needs to be killed. I don't feel the need to be able to kill AFK cloakers, just remove them from consideration. This could be applied to all areas of space and all players equally.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2468 - 2013-10-18 15:14:12 UTC
Xcom wrote:


Here is a simple answer for you. If there was a ingame tool to actually scan for cloaked ships, said tool would be used. But it doesn't exist so its pointless arguing if a non existent tool would be used or not.

If said tool was neglected from being used and the cloaked ship would take advantage of the situation then ya you would have a point. But as there doesn't exist such tool it pointless saying if such an imaginary tool would be neglected or not.


That is not an answer.

Again, given current mechanics how do you know you have an AFK cloaker in your PvE system? What exactly tells you he is present?

Stop wishing for something that does not exist, but tell us how you would know given the game as it is today.

"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
#2469 - 2013-10-18 15:18:44 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:

Yes, I get it. You know that they are there because you see them in local. But you know a popup is there because you see it on your monitor. While removing the monitor fixes the issue, as does removing local, it by know means implies that it is the only option, nor does it imply it is the sole reason.
You are just stating again that because local is used to see an AFK cloaker is there, that it is the sole cause of the issue, and must be changed to fix it. I'm simply pointing out that it's not the sole cause, and it's not the only way to fix it. It's merely your chosen way. In my example, I personally would target the ability for a popup to appear without my permission rather than target my ability to see the popup, as removing my monitor has other much larger consequences.


Well we are getting there....

Sure, it is not the only means. We could just log off all players who provide no input for a certain amount of time and who have cloaks on their ships. That would "fix" it too. But it also leaves local with absolutely no counter.

So, how do we then counter the intel aspect of local? Something that never misleads a player (remember AFK cloaking is gone), it updates with information to give people already in system an advantage, and it is always there and costs nothing.

You want to make local even better with your fix.

Yet, that is not unbalanced?

"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
#2470 - 2013-10-18 15:21:46 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Davader wrote:
There should be consequences of "anti-cloacking".

Ok, lets assume we made the cloacker to appear automatically in some period of his inactivity (being cloacked and afking).

Ok, fine. But to maintain the balance we should make the docked afkers to be undocked in same period of inactivity tiime.

Also, the guys afking for a long time under the POS force field should be kicked out of there and placed at random spots in the system.

If you think, that the afking cloacker is a problem - OK, but there always should be the other side. So, afking within force field or be afking in dock should be equal to afking in cloack.

Only this way it keeps the balance untouched.
See my post above. All AFK players in space would be affected in the same way. Nobody needs to be killed. I don't feel the need to be able to kill AFK cloakers, just remove them from consideration. This could be applied to all areas of space and all players equally.


And make local intel perfect and with absolutely no counter.

Your suggestion is risible.

Wait, can AFK people in station be kicked out and warped to this dead space too....unless they are bubbled of course. Twisted

"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
Xcom
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2471 - 2013-10-18 15:28:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Xcom
Teckos Pech wrote:
Xcom wrote:


Here is a simple answer for you. If there was a ingame tool to actually scan for cloaked ships, said tool would be used. But it doesn't exist so its pointless arguing if a non existent tool would be used or not.

If said tool was neglected from being used and the cloaked ship would take advantage of the situation then ya you would have a point. But as there doesn't exist such tool it pointless saying if such an imaginary tool would be neglected or not.


That is not an answer.

Again, given current mechanics how do you know you have an AFK cloaker in your PvE system? What exactly tells you he is present?

Stop wishing for something that does not exist, but tell us how you would know given the game as it is today.


You simply don't. Said person in local could be sitting right next to you in a cloaked ship or hiding in a illegal deep safe with the current state of affairs. Oddly one is legal while the other one is not. How that is is a firkin mystery. But strangely the deep space alternative is countered by probes and provides no benefits like the cloakers ability to attack or D-scan for an opportunity to do so.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2472 - 2013-10-18 15:33:23 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Xcom wrote:


Here is a simple answer for you. If there was a ingame tool to actually scan for cloaked ships, said tool would be used. But it doesn't exist so its pointless arguing if a non existent tool would be used or not.

If said tool was neglected from being used and the cloaked ship would take advantage of the situation then ya you would have a point. But as there doesn't exist such tool it pointless saying if such an imaginary tool would be neglected or not.


That is not an answer.

Again, given current mechanics how do you know you have an AFK cloaker in your PvE system? What exactly tells you he is present?

Stop wishing for something that does not exist, but tell us how you would know given the game as it is today.


You simply don't. Said person in local could be sitting right next to you in a cloaked ship or hiding in a illegal deep safe with the current state of affairs. Oddly one is legal while the other one is not. How that is is a firkin mystery.


Again, I'm not asking for his specific location in space, but how do you know he is in your system and cloaked (ignoring legacy deep safes)? What is telling you this information?

"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
Xcom
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2473 - 2013-10-18 15:35:15 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Again, I'm not asking for his specific location in space, but how do you know he is in your system and cloaked (ignoring legacy deep safes)? What is telling you this information?


Are you trolling me?

That is the problem we have right now. That exact question your asking is the problem!
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2474 - 2013-10-18 15:39:54 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:

Yes, I get it. You know that they are there because you see them in local. But you know a popup is there because you see it on your monitor. While removing the monitor fixes the issue, as does removing local, it by know means implies that it is the only option, nor does it imply it is the sole reason.
You are just stating again that because local is used to see an AFK cloaker is there, that it is the sole cause of the issue, and must be changed to fix it. I'm simply pointing out that it's not the sole cause, and it's not the only way to fix it. It's merely your chosen way. In my example, I personally would target the ability for a popup to appear without my permission rather than target my ability to see the popup, as removing my monitor has other much larger consequences.


Well we are getting there....

Sure, it is not the only means. We could just log off all players who provide no input for a certain amount of time and who have cloaks on their ships. That would "fix" it too. But it also leaves local with absolutely no counter.

So, how do we then counter the intel aspect of local? Something that never misleads a player (remember AFK cloaking is gone), it updates with information to give people already in system an advantage, and it is always there and costs nothing.

You want to make local even better with your fix.

Yet, that is not unbalanced?
Well I don't consider AFK cloaking as a "counter" to local. It's a counter to a spread out null population, but it in no way counters local.
And I don't think local needs a counter. I think it's a pretty well designed mechanic that every can benefit from, aggressors or defenders. I think enough people die to show that there isn't a serious imbalance, and ships are well on their way to begin made fairly comparable giving plenty of choice. The removal of local would make T3s and the new SOE ships considerably better over non covops counterparts, as well as unbalancing a range of other mechanics.
I get that guerrilla warfare is pretty hard at the moment against null blocks, though I personally feel it should be hard to fight 1 vs 10000, but with the new personal structures, that should be made easier too. I just think the local change pretty much takes a nuke to the scales and would require a complete rebalance across the board. I'd personally like CCP to start building some content one day. They've already been balance overhauling for long enough.
I don't object to the idea of something to replace local in the long run, but there's so much else that needs to be considered and changed first. Honestly, AFK cloaking is also way down on my list, but there's also simple ways to fix that without causing issues.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2475 - 2013-10-18 15:43:55 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:

Yes, I get it. You know that they are there because you see them in local. But you know a popup is there because you see it on your monitor. While removing the monitor fixes the issue, as does removing local, it by know means implies that it is the only option, nor does it imply it is the sole reason.
You are just stating again that because local is used to see an AFK cloaker is there, that it is the sole cause of the issue, and must be changed to fix it. I'm simply pointing out that it's not the sole cause, and it's not the only way to fix it. It's merely your chosen way. In my example, I personally would target the ability for a popup to appear without my permission rather than target my ability to see the popup, as removing my monitor has other much larger consequences.


Well we are getting there....

Sure, it is not the only means. We could just log off all players who provide no input for a certain amount of time and who have cloaks on their ships. That would "fix" it too. But it also leaves local with absolutely no counter.

So, how do we then counter the intel aspect of local? Something that never misleads a player (remember AFK cloaking is gone), it updates with information to give people already in system an advantage, and it is always there and costs nothing.

You want to make local even better with your fix.

Yet, that is not unbalanced?

Point, observed by basis of repetition:
They do want this, and they are declaring this would be balanced, on the grounds of their opinion.
The fact that they cannot anticipate this having negative game effects can be ascribed to willful ignorance of these consequences.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2476 - 2013-10-18 15:44:43 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Davader wrote:
There should be consequences of "anti-cloacking".

Ok, lets assume we made the cloacker to appear automatically in some period of his inactivity (being cloacked and afking).

Ok, fine. But to maintain the balance we should make the docked afkers to be undocked in same period of inactivity tiime.

Also, the guys afking for a long time under the POS force field should be kicked out of there and placed at random spots in the system.

If you think, that the afking cloacker is a problem - OK, but there always should be the other side. So, afking within force field or be afking in dock should be equal to afking in cloack.

Only this way it keeps the balance untouched.
See my post above. All AFK players in space would be affected in the same way. Nobody needs to be killed. I don't feel the need to be able to kill AFK cloakers, just remove them from consideration. This could be applied to all areas of space and all players equally.


And make local intel perfect and with absolutely no counter.

Your suggestion is risible.

Wait, can AFK people in station be kicked out and warped to this dead space too....unless they are bubbled of course. Twisted
Well I'd say probably not, much like logging off they would remain in station.
They could if they were guaranteed not to be able to get caught on the undock and were redocked when returning, but docked players gain no benefit from being AFK as they aren't considered a potential threat. They could however be given the icon, thus allowing you to see who is AFK in station and who is freshly docked.

And it's not a counter to local. Still.
People simply move or log off with an AFK cloaker. It's not somehow making my intel worse off by having an AFK cloaker there, its no different to having a non-AFK cloaker there. AFK cloaking is just a way for people to effortlessly shut down systems for weeks at a time. It's pointless and adds no content to the game.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2477 - 2013-10-18 15:46:03 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Again, I'm not asking for his specific location in space, but how do you know he is in your system and cloaked (ignoring legacy deep safes)? What is telling you this information?


Are you trolling me?

That is the problem we have right now. That exact question your asking is the problem!

If local chat did NOT tell you about their presence, how would you know about them being in your system?

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2478 - 2013-10-18 15:47:56 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Again, I'm not asking for his specific location in space, but how do you know he is in your system and cloaked (ignoring legacy deep safes)? What is telling you this information?


Are you trolling me?

That is the problem we have right now. That exact question your asking is the problem!


No, I am not trolling you. But I have to wonder why you wont answer.

Here, I'll help you:

You know you have a hostile cloaked in system because of.....local and either d-scan and warping around or probes.

Local is telling you there is a hostile there. You try to scan him down, but you find no trace of a ship. You conclude (and reasonably so) that he is cloaked.

Local is what causes AFK cloaking. By showing up in a cloaked ship and sitting there for hours, even days on end, I adversely impact your play. Mission accomplished...via local.

Removing AFK cloaking from the game on the other hand would make local's intel without any form of counter. It gives you a distinct advantage over hostiles entering system, and it costs you nothing.

In short, removing AFK cloaking is a buff to local and PvEing.

It is unbalanced.

"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.
#2479 - 2013-10-18 15:48:42 UTC
Oh man, I've just realised I really don't care even remotely lol.
Keep everything as it is, it's simply not worth the energy arguing back and forth about something that will never be agreed by both sides. CCP probably won't change it in either way for the foreseeable future, so I'm officially station now that I don;t care. This whole argument has already taken up way more time than it is worth, I'm going to get back to looking at ideas that have some hope of implementation, and are worth the time. I don't even mine or rat anymore, so I care even less that before lol

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2480 - 2013-10-18 15:56:18 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Oh man, I've just realised I really don't care even remotely lol.
Keep everything as it is, it's simply not worth the energy arguing back and forth about something that will never be agreed by both sides. CCP probably won't change it in either way for the foreseeable future, so I'm officially station now that I don;t care. This whole argument has already taken up way more time than it is worth, I'm going to get back to looking at ideas that have some hope of implementation, and are worth the time. I don't even mine or rat anymore, so I care even less that before lol

I do hope you have fun with things, and try to remember none of what I said represented any hard feelings on my part.

Good luck in EVE, and I hope you have every success.

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