These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#2901 - 2013-11-13 19:06:02 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

Andy,

No. I have explained how the system I advocate would eliminate AFK cloaking. If you want to know how it would work, go read those posts.

That is exactly what you said last time I asked. I already read them. They are not simple at all. They do not resolve the afk cloaky issue at all. Yet you continue to advocate them here. So I give you a chance to explain why, and you refuse by pointing to a couple of links. If you don't want to talk about the details, then don't keep mentioning it here. Will you focus on the afk cloaky topic or continue to point at your local idea links without justifying why they will address everyone's concerns about afk cloaking or going into detail about what it would look like tactically for each side?

We could always just acknowledge that no one cares about that solo cloaky camper unless it has a cyno on it. I think that would move the discussion forward in a big way.

The problem is rooted in something that evolved in an unexpected way over time.

Simple? No. Not really.
It would have been fixed already if it were simple, and I think you know that. You should realize it without much effort, if you had not already.

Before local gave standings, it's use as an intel tool was not as effective, or relied upon. People had sound-a-like names to spoof with, and you learned not to rely on local completely.

When they found the group using local to relate standings instantly, by means of third party software, they solved it by adding it in for everyone.
I suspect they did not have any better options, and did not want to do this. Local could have had this from the start if they intended this. In any case, it strengthened the level of intel from local, causing many players to begin to rely on it.
It is human nature to make the least effort, whenever possible. We call it efficiency, and it is often a good thing.

In this case, the efficiency is also dumbing down the game. The whole point is to make player effort, in an interesting environment, translate into entertaining game play.
For every aspect you automate, game play is pushed back.
Push it far enough, and you are only watching the action, no longer controlling it.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2902 - 2013-11-13 19:07:36 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:

Ok, REAL game play aspects do not cater to the unlikely events at either extreme. Running into foolish players using foolish tactics is not the solid foundation for game play, and neither is the player with unlimited resources who has nearly supernatural awareness and can be lucky almost at will.

If you could even prep your defenses to PvE with a 90% probability that an encounter would not even have a CHANCE to threaten you, that would even be acceptable.
That player able to beat a 90% chance here, has to mount an overpriced ship together with superior numbers to even get on grid with you at all. The fact that it needs to be cost and manpower inefficient just to do this means you planned it well, as anyone foolish enough to go to such extremes is also unlikely to be able to come up with the tactics needed.
Your enemy cancels out when they realize you are simply not worth their effort, and they go looking for easier targets.

But, between the advance warning provided by local, and the proven ability to fit ISK making ships able to evade in the time available, nearly all halfway competent PvE players can achieve this degree of safety, and those willing to push themselves can actually be 100% with just a small amount of extra effort.

People asking to take the reality we have now, which is defined by the above paragraph, and make it more secure by removing the confusion sometimes created by hostiles unresolved in system, are asking too much.

Nikk,
There is no extreme in examining a less intelligent pvper simply solo jumping into a system, warping to a random anomaly, and then saying, "Where did he go, George. Where did he go?" He expects that he can just expect that where he warped to was a pve player aligned and ready to warp out on a drop of a hat; none of which is likely to be true. PVP must win by cleverness, which means devising clever tactics targeting the best systems and players/ships through careful research. You wouldn't try catching an interceptor with a bubble after the next release because your odds of success are very small. No one is entitled to catch or kill every target they might set their eye on with the ship of their choice. You want to pvp by running routes with solid intel without trying to go under the radar or to trick the intel? Then you have reduced your chances by your own less effective tactics. You want to catch a ship that is aligned and ready to warp out? Then you are not choosing the best targets. No one says that player has to have a large enough chance to make them happy about their ability to kill a Crane in HS jumping through gates without a wardec. That would not be a very well chosen target and no one would say that the Crane was OP. You want to kill a pod traveling through lowsec? Again, poorly chosen target, nothing is OP there, and their is no right or entitlement to increasing the chances until you are satisfied.

The entitlement to a "chance" to kill an object in this game is truly mind-boggling. And of course that "chance" is defined by the player trying to make it easier to get his killboard padded up.

Now, you are correct that some groups will continue their search when the find a very cheap target which is difficult for them to catch. They will also apparently complain about it in the forums. If you think it is too safe and easy, then don't do it. If you think it is the right level of safety and ease, then keep doing it. But I assure you that in the hands of the right pvpers in the right ships, safety levels are much, much lower. But we all accept that many players are simply not up to the task of challenging pvp, so please go find the kind of pvp where you can be successful.

We want you to be successful by your own merits, and oftentimes success means changing goals to what you know that you can achieve instead of banging your head against the same wall and failing all the time.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2903 - 2013-11-13 19:17:31 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:

Ok, REAL game play aspects do not cater to the unlikely events at either extreme. Running into foolish players using foolish tactics is not the solid foundation for game play, and neither is the player with unlimited resources who has nearly supernatural awareness and can be lucky almost at will.

If you could even prep your defenses to PvE with a 90% probability that an encounter would not even have a CHANCE to threaten you, that would even be acceptable.
That player able to beat a 90% chance here, has to mount an overpriced ship together with superior numbers to even get on grid with you at all. The fact that it needs to be cost and manpower inefficient just to do this means you planned it well, as anyone foolish enough to go to such extremes is also unlikely to be able to come up with the tactics needed.
Your enemy cancels out when they realize you are simply not worth their effort, and they go looking for easier targets.

But, between the advance warning provided by local, and the proven ability to fit ISK making ships able to evade in the time available, nearly all halfway competent PvE players can achieve this degree of safety, and those willing to push themselves can actually be 100% with just a small amount of extra effort.

People asking to take the reality we have now, which is defined by the above paragraph, and make it more secure by removing the confusion sometimes created by hostiles unresolved in system, are asking too much.

Nikk,
There is no extreme in examining a less intelligent pvper simply solo jumping into a system, warping to a random anomaly, and then saying, "Where did he go, George. Where did he go?" He expects that he can just expect that where he warped to was a pve player aligned and ready to warp out on a drop of a hat; none of which is likely to be true. PVP must win by cleverness, which means devising clever tactics targeting the best systems and players/ships through careful research. You wouldn't try catching an interceptor with a bubble after the next release because your odds of success are very small. No one is entitled to catch or kill every target they might set their eye on with the ship of their choice. You want to pvp by running routes with solid intel without trying to go under the radar or to trick the intel? Then you have reduced your chances by your own less effective tactics. You want to catch a ship that is aligned and ready to warp out? Then you are not choosing the best targets. No one says that player has to have a large enough chance to make them happy about their ability to kill a Crane in HS jumping through gates without a wardec. That would not be a very well chosen target and no one would say that the Crane was OP. You want to kill a pod traveling through lowsec? Again, poorly chosen target, nothing is OP there, and their is no right or entitlement to increasing the chances until you are satisfied.

The entitlement to a "chance" to kill an object in this game is truly mind-boggling. And of course that "chance" is defined by the player trying to make it easier to get his killboard padded up.

Now, you are correct that some groups will continue their search when the find a very cheap target which is difficult for them to catch. They will also apparently complain about it in the forums. If you think it is too safe and easy, then don't do it. If you think it is the right level of safety and ease, then keep doing it. But I assure you that in the hands of the right pvpers in the right ships, safety levels are much, much lower. But we all accept that many players are simply not up to the task of challenging pvp, so please go find the kind of pvp where you can be successful.

We want you to be successful by your own merits, and oftentimes success means changing goals to what you know that you can achieve instead of banging your head against the same wall and failing all the time.

Ad hominem again? A rather lengthy one at that.

Claiming I must have PvP as my interest, because you claim PvE needs this change, is disingenuous.

I am a PvE player above all else, and you do not represent us as a group, just yourself and your cohorts voicing agreement here.

You want less risk, I want more reward. These goals are entirely conflicting, but you refuse to address reward.
Do you assume PvE players want to grind more, over longer time, so they can be safer?

I don't.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2904 - 2013-11-13 19:25:34 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
...
We could always just acknowledge that no one cares about that solo cloaky camper unless it has a cyno on it. I think that would move the discussion forward in a big way.

The problem is rooted in something that evolved in an unexpected way over time.

Simple? No. Not really.
It would have been fixed already if it were simple, and I think you know that. You should realize it without much effort, if you had not already.

Before local gave standings, it's use as an intel tool was not as effective, or relied upon. People had sound-a-like names to spoof with, and you learned not to rely on local completely.

When they found the group using local to relate standings instantly, by means of third party software, they solved it by adding it in for everyone.
I suspect they did not have any better options, and did not want to do this. Local could have had this from the start if they intended this. In any case, it strengthened the level of intel from local, causing many players to begin to rely on it.
It is human nature to make the least effort, whenever possible. We call it efficiency, and it is often a good thing.

In this case, the efficiency is also dumbing down the game. The whole point is to make player effort, in an interesting environment, translate into entertaining game play.
For every aspect you automate, game play is pushed back.
Push it far enough, and you are only watching the action, no longer controlling it.

I appreciate your overview of the history surrounding local. Please do not assume that the lack of development initially in the standings system had anything to do with developer intent. They most likely saw the third-party stuff and said, hey, great idea and these guys love it too. Developers are not all-knowing and sometimes good 3rd party ideas inspire them. They probably wanted to do it because they liked the direction it took Eve because otherwise they would have left the issue alone and let the 3rd party stuff continue without devoting their precious resources into creating the in-game feature of it. Automation is always agood thing because it allows us to do more by freeing up our time and attention. Intelligent gamers are always capable of expanding their abilities and seeing more stuff that they can do in-game, including meta-gaming and socializing to name a couple of things. Less intelligent gamers are not capable of seeing new tactics and finding new ways to improve the use of their time. Then life passes them by and they are left asking on the forums why they can't pvp or catch anything, and then blaming everything on "local" or on some other game mechanic that doesn't just hand the catch and kill to them on a silver platter. The lazy fail and blame game mechanics or other people (sb's which choose the wrong ships and fail to catch them). The intelligent embrace automation and look for new ways to improve their effectiveness with automation in a constantly evolving and creative process.

Back to afk cloakies, let's admit that we only care about them when the OP makes an uncatchable enemy project unknown numbers to any place in a system, and then hold off on discussions which do not directly resolve afk cloakies with most players. Log timers and cyno fitting limitations are my 2 cents. Targets will not run very much at all with those changes and small gang pvp wins over the current constant evasion tactic.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2905 - 2013-11-13 19:39:35 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:

Ad hominem again? A rather lengthy one at that.

Claiming I must have PvP as my interest, because you claim PvE needs this change, is disingenuous.

I am a PvE player above all else, and you do not represent us as a group, just yourself and your cohorts voicing agreement here.

You want less risk, I want more reward. These goals are entirely conflicting, but you refuse to address reward.
Do you assume PvE players want to grind more, over longer time, so they can be safer?

I don't.

AD hominem means attacking the person and there is none of that here. Unless you are a pvp sb pilot looking to take offense at being told that you are trying to make it easier to get kills without additional effort .. but you strongly refuse to admit that. So no. Its not personal at all.

I know what pve players want, and they agree with me here too. I don't know of any real pve player who takes your position, besides perhaps you. I know of a couple who I have known a long time as pure pvp and hating pve, who have admitted to pretend for brief periods of time to be carebears, but they obviously do not count.

So how specifically will you get more reward? I think we all are interested in that part. And what would the rewards be, specifically? I maintain that there is no natural conflict between risk and reward. Sometimes intelligence factors in as a key component. Sometimes, RL dictates how ISK is obtained. Your idea will not impact the ISK generated by the major revenue streams created through whs or by Incursions. There will be no more reward. I do agree that increased safety is often advantagous even if the stream is slower, because the time required to replace assets eats a big hole in the rate of earnings.

And no, there is nothing disingenous, dishonest, or personal about anything I post here. Sometimes, people just have a hard time understanding how they might not be always perfectly right on every issue.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2906 - 2013-11-13 23:57:29 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
There is no set outcome.

You will never match your opponents skills, combined with ship and fitting, perfectly.
Because this will never match, you will never have the same opportunities at the same time.
It will always be, on some level, rock / paper / scissors.
But the oversimplified version that is this childs game grows out in both directions, and loops back on itself.

Will your choices give you the advantage?
Will you fit an overpriced ship to give you even more advantage? You would be less likely to lose, but at a higher cost.
Will your opponent show up in a 2 billion ISK gankmobile, and try to pop your 200 million ISK ratting ship?

There is no perfect effort, as no effort meets all needs perfectly.
Neither for PvE or hostile, both must make assumptions about their opponent, and both can be wrong.

How far they will be wrong, is where the game becomes interesting, and worth playing.
But, it has to be up to the players, and not blocked out by mechanics which dumb it down.
But you, right now, claim that anyone that dies in null made a mistake. You guys are claiming that all PVE players are 100% safe unless they make a mistake, yet that's not the case. In the same way you consider the differences in skill and fit to be variables in the equation, there are variables in the current equation. Stripping local will not change that.
The only thing stripping local will do is further the gap between large alliances that can afford huge intel structures and small alliances that can't. The only reason for a PVE player dying under your mechanic is the exact same reason they die now. Their level of skill or preparation was not high enough.

And all mechanics can be mastered. There's only a finite number of reasonable fits for PVE ships, and most contain one of a few key weaknesses. In a system with your new local idea, nothing would change. In a system without it, PVE players would lose.
On top of that there's still the issue that the gap between a covops PVP pilot and a non-covops PVP pilot would be too large. covops ships would need to be massively nerfed from a DPS and defense point of view to balance that even remotely.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2907 - 2013-11-14 00:12:28 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

Andy,

No. I have explained how the system I advocate would eliminate AFK cloaking. If you want to know how it would work, go read those posts.

That is exactly what you said last time I asked. I already read them. They are not simple at all. They do not resolve the afk cloaky issue at all. Yet you continue to advocate them here. So I give you a chance to explain why, and you refuse by pointing to a couple of links. If you don't want to talk about the details, then don't keep mentioning it here. Will you focus on the afk cloaky topic or continue to point at your local idea links without justifying why they will address everyone's concerns about afk cloaking or going into detail about what it would look like tactically for each side?

We could always just acknowledge that no one cares about that solo cloaky camper unless it has a cyno on it. I think that would move the discussion forward in a big way.


Go back, read them again, It it not my problem you didn't understand them.

As for the solo cloaky, did you ever look over Mark Hadden's KB? He has plenty of solo kills in his stealth bomber.

And since this isn't your thread, you sure are arrogant about it...telling everyone else what to post.

Here is an idea, go start your own thread on cynos.

"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
#2908 - 2013-11-14 00:19:31 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:

Ok, REAL game play aspects do not cater to the unlikely events at either extreme. Running into foolish players using foolish tactics is not the solid foundation for game play, and neither is the player with unlimited resources who has nearly supernatural awareness and can be lucky almost at will.

If you could even prep your defenses to PvE with a 90% probability that an encounter would not even have a CHANCE to threaten you, that would even be acceptable.
That player able to beat a 90% chance here, has to mount an overpriced ship together with superior numbers to even get on grid with you at all. The fact that it needs to be cost and manpower inefficient just to do this means you planned it well, as anyone foolish enough to go to such extremes is also unlikely to be able to come up with the tactics needed.
Your enemy cancels out when they realize you are simply not worth their effort, and they go looking for easier targets.

But, between the advance warning provided by local, and the proven ability to fit ISK making ships able to evade in the time available, nearly all halfway competent PvE players can achieve this degree of safety, and those willing to push themselves can actually be 100% with just a small amount of extra effort.

People asking to take the reality we have now, which is defined by the above paragraph, and make it more secure by removing the confusion sometimes created by hostiles unresolved in system, are asking too much.

Nikk,
There is no extreme in examining a less intelligent pvper simply solo jumping into a system, warping to a random anomaly, and then saying, "Where did he go, George. Where did he go?" He expects that he can just expect that where he warped to was a pve player aligned and ready to warp out on a drop of a hat; none of which is likely to be true. PVP must win by cleverness, which means devising clever tactics targeting the best systems and players/ships through careful research. You wouldn't try catching an interceptor with a bubble after the next release because your odds of success are very small. No one is entitled to catch or kill every target they might set their eye on with the ship of their choice. You want to pvp by running routes with solid intel without trying to go under the radar or to trick the intel? Then you have reduced your chances by your own less effective tactics. You want to catch a ship that is aligned and ready to warp out? Then you are not choosing the best targets. No one says that player has to have a large enough chance to make them happy about their ability to kill a Crane in HS jumping through gates without a wardec. That would not be a very well chosen target and no one would say that the Crane was OP. You want to kill a pod traveling through lowsec? Again, poorly chosen target, nothing is OP there, and their is no right or entitlement to increasing the chances until you are satisfied.

The entitlement to a "chance" to kill an object in this game is truly mind-boggling. And of course that "chance" is defined by the player trying to make it easier to get his killboard padded up.

Now, you are correct that some groups will continue their search when the find a very cheap target which is difficult for them to catch. They will also apparently complain about it in the forums. If you think it is too safe and easy, then don't do it. If you think it is the right level of safety and ease, then keep doing it. But I assure you that in the hands of the right pvpers in the right ships, safety levels are much, much lower. But we all accept that many players are simply not up to the task of challenging pvp, so please go find the kind of pvp where you can be successful.

We want you to be successful by your own merits, and oftentimes success means changing goals to what you know that you can achieve instead of banging your head against the same wall and failing all the time.


Entitlement to a chance of a kill?

Really reaching to use that very same criticism that has been leveled against you. Rather comical in your semantic gyrations.

"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
#2909 - 2013-11-14 00:31:45 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
And you are simply wrong.

Why do people AFK cloak? Because of local. It lets everyone know you are there and a threat.

If local did not report pilots in system then AFK cloaking would not work.

And if we add in ways to hunt down and AFK cloaked ship, then that is doubling down on killing AFK cloaking.

You did raise a valid point that if the cloaked ship is fit for speed and has a covert ops cloak that might not be enough.

I then suggested we also go with Nikk's idea that when the scanning ship is on grid with the cloaked ship (i.e. you get close enough) then the ship becomes visible.

Active players could avoid this by warping to safes.
Oh OK, so you don;t want a nerf to AFK cloaks, you want a massive nerf to cloaks in blob null, and a massive buff to them everywhere else?
In exchange for essentially higher sov bills, and making NPC null useless?

It's really hard to keep up with your ideas, since you seem to change your mind about what they are and what they accomplish between each post, depending on what would best suit you.



How will it be a "massive nerf to cloaks in blob null"?

And no it wouldn't make NPC space useless as there would be a similar system set up in NPC null that players there could access. Of course they can't change it much like they can't anchor certain POS modules there either or build supers.

My ideas haven't changed. Your portrayal of them has as you keep setting up bogus arguments so you can knock them down.

"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
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2910 - 2013-11-14 05:30:04 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

Andy,

No. I have explained how the system I advocate would eliminate AFK cloaking. If you want to know how it would work, go read those posts.

That is exactly what you said last time I asked. I already read them. They are not simple at all. They do not resolve the afk cloaky issue at all. Yet you continue to advocate them here. So I give you a chance to explain why, and you refuse by pointing to a couple of links. If you don't want to talk about the details, then don't keep mentioning it here. Will you focus on the afk cloaky topic or continue to point at your local idea links without justifying why they will address everyone's concerns about afk cloaking or going into detail about what it would look like tactically for each side?

We could always just acknowledge that no one cares about that solo cloaky camper unless it has a cyno on it. I think that would move the discussion forward in a big way.


Go back, read them again, It it not my problem you didn't understand them.

As for the solo cloaky, did you ever look over Mark Hadden's KB? He has plenty of solo kills in his stealth bomber.

And since this isn't your thread, you sure are arrogant about it...telling everyone else what to post.

Here is an idea, go start your own thread on cynos.

I never said that I didn't understand them. I said that they were not simple at all. Look up and see.

I know that solo sbs get kills. I never said that they didn't. I only said "that no one cares about that solo cloaky camper unless it has a cyno on it" Look above again and see. After the solo sb catches a player once or twice in null, they figure out how to defeat it. After they adjust their tactics, the sb fails in the mission and oftentimes also dies if it can be caught long enough or lowers its transversal long enough.

Since you titled this thread "AFK cloaking .." it stands to reason that you would want your own thread to remain true to the title and focus on the subject of the title. Obviously, you are free to attempt to distract readers from your own stated OP as much as you like, but THAT is a little dishonest, disingenous, etc. I am simply telling you to stay on your own topic. It is you who originally set this as the topic, not me. It would only be arrogance if I told you to change the title of this thread, but I haven't done anything of the sort. Anyhow, here is an idea, address my argument that "local" changes do nothing for afk cloaking and can even make the problem worse, and whatever the case certainly do not leave most people feeling like the issue has been addressed adequately. Not telling you what to post, just informing you that if you ignore such a strong argument against the legitimacy of discussions on local in this thread, then people are left wondering why you continue to discuss it here. Frankly, I would concede that local changes are an interesting discussion for another thread and do not help the afk cloaking issue at all, but that is me. I will continue to insist that we remain focused on the topic which you established: the issue with afk cloaking.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2911 - 2013-11-14 07:33:10 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
How will it be a "massive nerf to cloaks in blob null"?

And no it wouldn't make NPC space useless as there would be a similar system set up in NPC null that players there could access. Of course they can't change it much like they can't anchor certain POS modules there either or build supers.

My ideas haven't changed. Your portrayal of them has as you keep setting up bogus arguments so you can knock them down.
lol, bullshit. You change your arguments all the time.

So NPC null, that still gets "free intel" then? I'm sure we'd see all your tears there too.
and it would nerf cloaks in blob null, since blob null would easily have the intel set up, but on top of that would be able to see and scan out cloakies. It's exactly what you've been complaining against.

At the end of the day you've got this massively complex idea which in realism would just be a pain in the ass for nearly everyone. Only you and a tiny handful of people seem to want it, so accept the fact that it's a bad idea and move the **** on. I mean your tearful posts are pretty hilarious, but seriously guy, don't you have something better to do that whine about the same idea that will never ever get implemented?
AFK cloaking we know CCP have acknowledged, so there's hope for that one. Local though... not gonna change buddy.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2912 - 2013-11-14 14:21:52 UTC
You know, Lucas, I am not totally against the idea of thinking about changes to local mechanics, but not as a solution to afk cloaking, the topic of this thread. It really has to be considered on its own as an interesting experiment, and not as a solution to some problem which it may likely make worse.

I certainly do NOT endorse any idea simply for the sake of making things harder, less automated, or more complex. I have always held that difficulty comes from natural competition, and automation frees us up to increase our power and competition. Complexity is a natural result of freedom. The more choices we have, the more complex the system becomes. Complexity should never be forced, it should be founded in our freedom to choose among many options (like fitting).

Personally, I think that most people could easily support a general logoff timer. It doesn't target any specific group, and it is reasonable to logoff after 30 min of no interaction. This is a common practice with online accounts, computer systems, and forms to name a few. And if there are those who want to stay logged in while being afk, it is easy enough to send a key press to the client once every 30 minutes; even in an automated fashion, that being said, this idea may use a few small tweeks to ensure effectiveness without bothering active and semi-active players and gameplay.

Given the ability for hunters to work in pairs more effectively, I believe that the limit or fitting only two of the three cloak, cyno, point/bubble modules has minimal impact on gameplay. Cyno ships for capital movement are not affected. Non-cloaky cyno ships are not affected. Cloaky roams are not affected. And even cloaky cyno ships can work in pairs so that the point can speed tank while the cyno is stationary. In that light, most people can probably support this. So it only affects cloaky ships, but still allows cloaky ships to split the two roles to accomplish the same thing more effectively while still leaving a very small intel footprint. And all afk cloaky is resolved. Those who cannot handle a solo sb with point and no cyno will learn how soon enough, or keep giving them kills; either way, someone is happy and the other is learning and gameplay is continuing with people operating in the presence of solo cloak camping..

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Electrique Wizard
Mutually Lucrative Business Proposals
#2913 - 2013-11-14 14:32:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Electrique Wizard
Andy Landen wrote:
Given the ability for hunters to work in pairs more effectively, I believe that the limit or fitting only two of the three cloak, cyno, point/bubble modules has minimal impact on gameplay. Cyno ships for capital movement are not affected. Non-cloaky cyno ships are not affected. Cloaky roams are not affected. And even cloaky cyno ships can work in pairs so that the point can speed tank while the cyno is stationary. In that light, most people can probably support this. So it only affects cloaky ships, but still allows cloaky ships to split the two roles to accomplish the same thing more effectively while still leaving a very small intel footprint. And all afk cloaky is resolved. Those who cannot handle a solo sb with point and no cyno will learn how soon enough, or keep giving them kills; either way, someone is happy and the other is learning and gameplay is continuing with people operating in the presence of solo cloak camping..


Can you please explain to me why the nerf to fitting ships should occur?
I can think of no valid reason. You're saying people should learn to "team up". Do you then also support the inability for people to run anomalies solo? I think its fair that if you'll need 2 hunters to do a gank you'd need 2 pilots to run an anomaly aswel. So lets say if you have cap rechargers you should lose drone bandwidth. If you have guns you should lose the ability to fit tanking modules. That sounds legit.

Oh I've found the reasoning behind your pvp-hatred, you lost a ratting carrier to a solo stealth bomber pilot.

I am the Zodiac, I am the stars, You are the sorceress, my priestess of Mars, Queen of the night, swathed in satin black, Your ivory flesh upon my torture rack.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2914 - 2013-11-14 15:33:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Electrique Wizard wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
Given the ability for hunters to work in pairs more effectively, I believe that the limit or fitting only two of the three cloak, cyno, point/bubble modules has minimal impact on gameplay. Cyno ships for capital movement are not affected. Non-cloaky cyno ships are not affected. Cloaky roams are not affected. And even cloaky cyno ships can work in pairs so that the point can speed tank while the cyno is stationary. In that light, most people can probably support this. So it only affects cloaky ships, but still allows cloaky ships to split the two roles to accomplish the same thing more effectively while still leaving a very small intel footprint. And all afk cloaky is resolved. Those who cannot handle a solo sb with point and no cyno will learn how soon enough, or keep giving them kills; either way, someone is happy and the other is learning and gameplay is continuing with people operating in the presence of solo cloak camping..


Can you please explain to me why the nerf to fitting ships should occur?
I can think of no valid reason. You're saying people should learn to "team up". Do you then also support the inability for people to run anomalies solo? I think its fair that if you'll need 2 hunters to do a gank you'd need 2 pilots to run an anomaly aswel. So lets say if you have cap rechargers you should lose drone bandwidth. If you have guns you should lose the ability to fit tanking modules. That sounds legit.

Oh I've found the reasoning behind your pvp-hatred, you lost a ratting carrier to a solo stealth bomber pilot.

If you wanted to hotdrop, blue ball the anomaly through a cloaky cyno ship, then yes, I would agree.

And I have no pvp hatred. That is just something you made up in your mind. The only reason for that carrier loss was that a blue provided the warp in bookmark and I was at a stop in a blue system trying out the sentry configuration that someone talked about earlier. If my alliance and corp had not been failing apart at the time, they would have paid dearly for that hotdrop, but it could have easily gone the other way with a well-organized fleet, instead of the fail sb, blops bs, supercarrier trio hotdrop that I saw. That example shows that the issue was not the SOLO stealth bomber, but the cyno which brought in a single supercarrier with minimal support. The OP cyno blobs are the biggest problem with non-high sec which force super-alliances and massive intel and avoidance of risk to even stealth bombers for the sake of survival.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2915 - 2013-11-14 15:43:26 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
The entitlement to a "chance" to kill an object in this game is truly mind-boggling. And of course that "chance" is defined by the player trying to make it easier to get his killboard padded up.


Entitlement to a chance of a kill?

Really reaching to use that very same criticism that has been leveled against you. Rather comical in your semantic gyrations.

I just spotted that detail from this post, and when I read between the lines, my jaw dropped.

Entitlement to a chance.
The very definition of an MMO, especially where everyone is paying to play the game.
If you want risk free ISK, go buy PLEX, and sell it on the market. Everything else you do is subject to risk.

And as to padding my killboard, I would love to see where it can be demonstrated that I care at all about my kill board being padded. None of the things I ever trained for in EVE are significant ways of getting kills, at least not in the ways i use them.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2916 - 2013-11-14 17:55:58 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
The entitlement to a "chance" to kill an object in this game is truly mind-boggling. And of course that "chance" is defined by the player trying to make it easier to get his killboard padded up.


Entitlement to a chance of a kill?

Really reaching to use that very same criticism that has been leveled against you. Rather comical in your semantic gyrations.

I just spotted that detail from this post, and when I read between the lines, my jaw dropped.

Entitlement to a chance.
The very definition of an MMO, especially where everyone is paying to play the game.
If you want risk free ISK, go buy PLEX, and sell it on the market. Everything else you do is subject to risk.

And as to padding my killboard, I would love to see where it can be demonstrated that I care at all about my kill board being padded. None of the things I ever trained for in EVE are significant ways of getting kills, at least not in the ways i use them.

Why is your jaw dropping? Because the idea of making it harder for pve means easier for pvp and there seems to be a sense that pvp deserves the easier kills? Does it drop because someone would actually say it, or because such entitlement is truely bewildering?

Concerning your killboard, I believe you that this character, Nikk, will lack the pvp activity, and if this were your only character/account, then I would quickly accept your carebear claims. We should probably look at your other characters/accounts to more accurately understand the "Nikk" picture. Fortunately, it doesn't really matter whether you prefer any particular activity when it comes to rationally evaluating your ideas. I am still watching for proposals from Nikk and Teckos which would address the concerns of most people who keep addressing the forums with these concerns of AFK cloakers camping systems for months straight.

!! The problem is NOT that people run faster than the op cloaky sb cynos can blue ball hotdrop. The problem is that cloaked cynos cannot be countered until the blue ball sees and takes the opportunities without a sufficiently large counter-blob to stop them from their easy kills.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2917 - 2013-11-14 18:23:02 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I just spotted that detail from this post, and when I read between the lines, my jaw dropped.

Entitlement to a chance.
The very definition of an MMO, especially where everyone is paying to play the game.
If you want risk free ISK, go buy PLEX, and sell it on the market. Everything else you do is subject to risk.

And as to padding my killboard, I would love to see where it can be demonstrated that I care at all about my kill board being padded. None of the things I ever trained for in EVE are significant ways of getting kills, at least not in the ways i use them.

Why is your jaw dropping? Because the idea of making it harder for pve means easier for pvp and there seems to be a sense that pvp deserves the easier kills? Does it drop because someone would actually say it, or because such entitlement is truely bewildering?

Concerning your killboard, I believe you that this character, Nikk, will lack the pvp activity, and if this were your only character/account, then I would quickly accept your carebear claims. We should probably look at your other characters/accounts to more accurately understand the "Nikk" picture. Fortunately, it doesn't really matter whether you prefer any particular activity when it comes to rationally evaluating your ideas. I am still watching for proposals from Nikk and Teckos which would address the concerns of most people who keep addressing the forums with these concerns of AFK cloakers camping systems for months straight.

!! The problem is NOT that people run faster than the op cloaky sb cynos can blue ball hotdrop. The problem is that cloaked cynos cannot be countered until the blue ball sees and takes the opportunities without a sufficiently large counter-blob to stop them from their easy kills.

Easier kills?
Again you use this disingenuous term, which backhandedly implies the chance always exists for harder ones.

Fit correctly, and using existing mechanics, you can reduce the threat level to 0% chance. For those missing the point, that means NO chance, if you plan and execute correctly.
It should ALWAYS be possible, even if requires overwhelmingly unequal levels of effort.

The entire reason this thread exists, is to expose those flawed threads which claim to seek improving the game, but really just want to remove an obstacle to their specific play.

You CAN achieve solid and dependable results with effort, but since that is unreliable, certain people refer to this as too hard, or game killing level of difficulty. Only local allows lone wolf players the reliable level of intel that replaces group effort, and that is what is being protected against a mutual change.

The idea that effort in an MMO, should be meaningless, is the true game breaking aspect.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2918 - 2013-11-14 19:03:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:

Why is your jaw dropping? Because the idea of making it harder for pve means easier for pvp and there seems to be a sense that pvp deserves the easier kills? Does it drop because someone would actually say it, or because such entitlement is truely bewildering?

Concerning your killboard, I believe you that this character, Nikk, will lack the pvp activity, and if this were your only character/account, then I would quickly accept your carebear claims. We should probably look at your other characters/accounts to more accurately understand the "Nikk" picture. Fortunately, it doesn't really matter whether you prefer any particular activity when it comes to rationally evaluating your ideas. I am still watching for proposals from Nikk and Teckos which would address the concerns of most people who keep addressing the forums with these concerns of AFK cloakers camping systems for months straight.

!! The problem is NOT that people run faster than the op cloaky sb cynos can blue ball hotdrop. The problem is that cloaked cynos cannot be countered until the blue ball sees and takes the opportunities without a sufficiently large counter-blob to stop them from their easy kills.

Easier kills?
Again you use this disingenuous term, which backhandedly implies the chance always exists for harder ones.

Fit correctly, and using existing mechanics, you can reduce the threat level to 0% chance. For those missing the point, that means NO chance, if you plan and execute correctly.
It should ALWAYS be possible, even if requires overwhelmingly unequal levels of effort.

The entire reason this thread exists, is to expose those flawed threads which claim to seek improving the game, but really just want to remove an obstacle to their specific play.

You CAN achieve solid and dependable results with effort, but since that is unreliable, certain people refer to this as too hard, or game killing level of difficulty. Only local allows lone wolf players the reliable level of intel that replaces group effort, and that is what is being protected against a mutual change.

The idea that effort in an MMO, should be meaningless, is the true game breaking aspect.

Nikk, I am very sincere about the effort to get easier kills. Disingenous means insincere. I truly believe that if you make it harder for one group, it becomes easier for the other group. But we should hear your perspective on how your proposal would be any better.

Do keep in mind though that effort is not gamebreaking. Cyno blobbing and supers are, but those are topics for another thread which happen to make this afk cloaky cyno camping an issue. As I have said before, without those issues, I would have no problem preparing myself to handle a solo cloaky.

So, please describe a scenario which operates under your proposal where a solo bomber tries to enter and camp a system where both sides use skill, and show us what you believe is likely to happen in that scenario, and what the chances are for each possibility. The sb enters system, and players bring out the probes while he is cloaked and at the keyboard. Do they find him? Do they catch him? Can he prevent it? What are his tactics? What are the defender's tactics? Can they get a warpable point right on the moving sb and if they miss the decloak range, then what do they do next? Do they scan again and warp in again? How will they get the decloak if he doesn't warp off? How will they decloak him if he does warp off while cloaked? Will they ever have a real chance to catch the sb without some major error on his part? If they decloak, does he light a cyno? What does he do then? Just brawl it out solo with whoever is warping in to his location until he gets free of all of the points? What does your proposal look like in terms of the tactics in the field? Will most people come away from the experience thinking, "There is no issue with afk cloaking" ? What is your opinion on this?

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2919 - 2013-11-14 19:17:59 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
So, please describe a scenario which operates under your proposal where a solo bomber tries to enter and camp a system where both sides use skill, and show us what you believe is likely to happen in that scenario, and what the chances are for each possibility. The sb enters system, and players bring out the probes while he is cloaked and at the keyboard. Do they find him? Do they catch him? Can he prevent it? What are his tactics? What are the defender's tactics? Can they get a warpable point right on the moving sb and if they miss the decloak range, then what do they do next? Do they scan again and warp in again? How will they get the decloak if he doesn't warp off? How will they decloak him if he does warp off while cloaked? Will they ever have a real chance to catch the sb without some major error on his part? If they decloak, does he light a cyno? What does he do then? Just brawl it out solo with whoever is warping in to his location until he gets free of all of the points? What does your proposal look like in terms of the tactics in the field? Will most people come away from the experience thinking, "There is no issue with afk cloaking" ? What is your opinion on this?


See, that's the beauty of my compromise on the cloaking side.
You already have all of these answers.

The module I placed as the centerpiece for hunting cloaked vessels can be fitted onto any ship that could fit a regular cloak.
Launch your probes, or not, when you activate the module, your sensors suddenly detect any cloaked ship exactly as if they had no cloak active. For probes, this means you track and locate them exactly as if you were tracking an uncloaked vessel.

The downside? Like a cloak, you cannot activate any other module without disrupting it. The ships that can warp cloaked, can also warp with this active the same way. Other ships need to drop the module offline to warp, just like they would a cloak.

How do you attack the cloaked vessel?

You target them. The module does not have the no targeting aspect a cloak does, and the ship using it already defines targeting speed as well as maximum number of targets.
The module will let you target up to that limit, and each lock forcibly uncloaks that target.

We already know how to handle uncloaked ships, which they have now become.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2920 - 2013-11-14 19:25:18 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Easier kills?
Again you use this disingenuous term, which backhandedly implies the chance always exists for harder ones.
There IS a chance for harder ones If there isn't any chance of hard kills, and there isn't a chance of easy kills, then surely there would be no killls. But there aren't, there's hundreds of kills daily. Just because all types of kill are outside of your personal level of skill doesn't mean they don't exist.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Fit correctly, and using existing mechanics, you can reduce the threat level to 0% chance. For those missing the point, that means NO chance, if you plan and execute correctly.
It should ALWAYS be possible, even if requires overwhelmingly unequal levels of effort.
Why? Why when a perfect PVE pilot and a Perfect PVP pilot go head to head, should the PVP pilot win? The PVE pilot has no chance of killing the PVP pilot, since you can't fit for both PVE and PVP.
You see the problem is you still refuse to see a PVE pilot evading as a draw, you see it as a win for the PVE pilot. But it's not. They don't get to do their activity. The PVE pilot would only win if the PVP pilot was defeated.

You see, the "chance" you are talking about ALREADY EXISTS. You want to make that gap so wide, that all pilots can use that "chance", but all that means is the best PVP pilots will smash the ever living **** out of PVE pilots on a daily basis.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
The entire reason this thread exists, is to expose those flawed threads which claim to seek improving the game, but really just want to remove an obstacle to their specific play.
Really?
I thought it was to advertise to CCP that a majority of the playerbase has an issue with AFK cloakers. Thanks for that by the way Teckos. Now that CCP have confirmed they do have it in mind, a lot of us are considerably happier.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
You CAN achieve solid and dependable results with effort, but since that is unreliable, certain people refer to this as too hard, or game killing level of difficulty. Only local allows lone wolf players the reliable level of intel that replaces group effort, and that is what is being protected against a mutual change.

The idea that effort in an MMO, should be meaningless, is the true game breaking aspect.
Effort is not meaningless though. There exists effort on both sides as is, regardless of whether you choose to accept it. What you want to do is amplify the effect of solo PVP by shitting on PVE.
I have to ask this. If PVE players should have to use "group effort" as you claim, why do you argue for a change which makes Solo PVP easier? Surely PVP should also be group effort? So surely a cloak device should only work if you have mates (who cannot participate in the PVP) powering it? Thats what you want for PVE. You want to force PVE pilots to need to have PVP pilots helping them, so I would have expected, for fairness, your idea to have the same.

Oh yeah, that's right, I forgot. It's because you don;t give a **** about balance, what you want is an easy way to gank people.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.