These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Xcom
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3001 - 2013-11-19 20:16:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Xcom
Although the AFK tag is a neat idea its not very practical. Anyone could use any number of methods to simulating click or key events and come off as non AFK.

You could even cage your cat on top of your keyboard and go to work. I don't think its a breach of EULA to let your cat play eve when your at work.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#3002 - 2013-11-19 20:28:17 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:

It is not an issue of "can it be balanced", by my idea or someone else's.
It is an issue of how too many voices have staked claims and opinions about the topic, so that any solution that is specific to cloaking or local risks being turned into an uproar of perceived betrayal.

Perception is the measure by which games rise and fall, and after the debacle around the captains quarters, and walking in stations, they probably want to avoid being painted by one side or another as ruining the game for everyone.

The solution which removes local and reveals cloakies to be locked and decloaked would create an uproar because to brings great changes which target specific groups with added benefits and nerfs on those groups primarily.

The only way to not betray entire groups is to treat all groups the same. An afk log affects every exactly the same way and only nerfs those who are not at the keyboard anyway. I don't mind the idea of betraying those who do are not playing the game anyway. If the afk group goes away, the game is left with those who are active and probably even more active then before and less inclined to move on to another MMO.

Anything that encourages more people to engage the game by getting rid of those who are not playing is a good thing. Trimming the fat and increasing our love and engagement of the current game contents will certainly make Eve stronger.

I won't debate how accurate your theory is at the moment, but I will point out that our excel sheet loving players won't be far behind screaming.

They crunch numbers, and can crush individual play on the expectation that the bigger picture is the most important aspect to everyone, at all times.
And if the risk is reduced as a result of this, then so are the rewards.

By the admission of several, these cloaked players have an impact that reduces the amount of ratting done, and amount of ore being mined.

What can one expect the devs to do, when this obstacle is removed? The same thing they always do, when confronted with an unwanted rise in production or revenue... they arrange for it to be reduced by other means.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3003 - 2013-11-19 20:29:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Andy Landen wrote:


The only way to not betray entire groups is to treat all groups the same. An afk log affects every exactly the same way...


Would be perceived as a nerf to the PvP side of the debate.

Either both sides give up something and get something, or any "fix" simply wont work since it will always be perceived as being unbalanced by which ever side is getting hit with the nerf bat.

Of course, if there is a third way that nerfs neither side and still addresses the issue of AFK cloaking, great. Would love to hear it.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#3004 - 2013-11-19 20:29:48 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Although the AFK tag is a neat idea its not very practical. Anyone could use any number of methods to simulating click or key events and come off as non AFK.

You could even cage your cat on top of your keyboard and go to work. I don't think its a breach of EULA to let your cat play eve when your at work.

My cat has her own account.

Not very chatty, but she loves mining. Giant space litterbox, I suspect she sees the belts as....
Electrique Wizard
Mutually Lucrative Business Proposals
#3005 - 2013-11-19 21:38:17 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:

By the admission of several, these cloaked players have an impact that reduces the amount of ratting done, and amount of ore being mined.


This is actually a feature. Ratting is bad and mining even worse.
Cloakies are the scales that balance to turn this evil.

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.

Xcom
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3006 - 2013-11-19 22:33:39 UTC
I do believe there exists such a perfect solution for the current problem. The issue is to hit it just right and not alienate anyone except the targeted group that needs eliminating.

The problem is to create a counter for a nitch type of cloaking behavior. Its generally referred to AFK cloaking but the basic gist of is to eliminate ships that have cloaking module on there ships and avoid confrontation whiles not docked and are not sitting actively in front of there PCs.

There is no need to alter other types of game mechanics to target this exact group. Its neither any reason to add extra game mechanics or overcomplicated features. Problem would just be to take action and cut through all the bullshit from all the players believing in AFK cloaking being a good game feature that should exist in the game. The second problem would be to create a very specialized feature to target only the type of behavior described above and not spill over to other types of cloaked play.

The targeted group would be cloaked ships with no pilot behind the wheals.
The group that must be protected and not affected by this feature, cloaked ships with a player behind the keyboard.

The trick is to find a feature so specialized to only affect one of the two groups and not spill over to the other one. It would also be preferred to be simplistic and easy to implement.

If a solution listed above would be found it would alienate the minimal amount of players in the game and at the same time create a more meaningful way to protect and defend space in general. This would make most players happy except for the group of players that love to AFK in there cloaked ships.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#3007 - 2013-11-19 22:45:49 UTC
Xcom wrote:
I do believe there exists such a perfect solution for the current problem. The issue is to hit it just right and not alienate anyone except the targeted group that needs eliminating.

The problem is to create a counter for a nitch type of cloaking behavior. Its generally referred to AFK cloaking but the basic gist of is to eliminate ships that have cloaking module on there ships and avoid confrontation whiles not docked and are not sitting actively in front of there PCs.

There is no need to alter other types of game mechanics to target this exact group. Its neither any reason to add extra game mechanics or overcomplicated features. Problem would just be to take action and cut through all the bullshit from all the players believing in AFK cloaking being a good game feature that should exist in the game. The second problem would be to create a very specialized feature to target only the type of behavior described above and not spill over to other types of cloaked play.

The targeted group would be cloaked ships with no pilot behind the wheals.
The group that must be protected and not affected by this feature, cloaked ships with a player behind the keyboard.

The trick is to find a feature so specialized to only affect one of the two groups and not spill over to the other one. It would also be preferred to be simplistic and easy to implement.

If a solution listed above would be found it would alienate the minimal amount of players in the game and at the same time create a more meaningful way to protect and defend space in general. This would make most players happy except for the group of players that love to AFK in there cloaked ships.

Ok, I get your point, you are claiming to want active play here, and AFK Cloaking is something you see violating that.

Two considerations need to be met by your idea.

1. A method needs to exist, to give players an outlet for solo or small gang based harassment of economic targets.

2. The expected increase in mining and ratting needs to be countered, or the devs will reduce rewards to keep null sec income levels stable.

There is no reason why one idea cannot meet both points.

If income levels ARE reduced, due to the lack of obstacles, it will mean a longer grind to rat or mine simply to reach the results expected or needed. Do we want players to sink more time in exchange for less risk?
Heinky
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#3008 - 2013-11-19 23:30:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Heinky
THEY INVENTED LOCATER AGENTS AGAINST AFK CLOACKING

YOU CAN SEE WHAT SHIP HE IS IN

STOP WHINING AND GO USE YOUR MISSION AGENTS
Lethin
Gold Star Red Swords and White Shield
#3009 - 2013-11-19 23:30:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Lethin
Um really shocked a local chat timer hasn't been suggested. edit: implemented, any macros or bot is EULA breaking and is a banable and shouldn't be viewed as an accepted counter argument. Your in local when active. When an afk time is hit. You leave local. Or just make connecting to local a safety button option.. Where leaving local closes all comms except voice. or just get rid of it. Newbies join newbie corps and can talk in there. If they get lost they can look on google just like everyone else. Tough beans... Or just get rid of the list and only display what's being said... everything else it does is accomplished using d scan. Increase low and null sec rats and ore value and let carebares spend forever doing anything in high sec and let risk takers prosper, passive game elements are borring, I much better enjoy my time in low sec actively playing.
Xcom
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3010 - 2013-11-19 23:42:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Xcom
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Xcom wrote:
I do believe there exists such a perfect solution for the current problem. The issue is to hit it just right and not alienate anyone except the targeted group that needs eliminating.

The problem is to create a counter for a nitch type of cloaking behavior. Its generally referred to AFK cloaking but the basic gist of is to eliminate ships that have cloaking module on there ships and avoid confrontation whiles not docked and are not sitting actively in front of there PCs.

There is no need to alter other types of game mechanics to target this exact group. Its neither any reason to add extra game mechanics or overcomplicated features. Problem would just be to take action and cut through all the bullshit from all the players believing in AFK cloaking being a good game feature that should exist in the game. The second problem would be to create a very specialized feature to target only the type of behavior described above and not spill over to other types of cloaked play.

The targeted group would be cloaked ships with no pilot behind the wheals.
The group that must be protected and not affected by this feature, cloaked ships with a player behind the keyboard.

The trick is to find a feature so specialized to only affect one of the two groups and not spill over to the other one. It would also be preferred to be simplistic and easy to implement.

If a solution listed above would be found it would alienate the minimal amount of players in the game and at the same time create a more meaningful way to protect and defend space in general. This would make most players happy except for the group of players that love to AFK in there cloaked ships.

Ok, I get your point, you are claiming to want active play here, and AFK Cloaking is something you see violating that.

Two considerations need to be met by your idea.

1. A method needs to exist, to give players an outlet for solo or small gang based harassment of economic targets.

2. The expected increase in mining and ratting needs to be countered, or the devs will reduce rewards to keep null sec income levels stable.

There is no reason why one idea cannot meet both points.

If income levels ARE reduced, due to the lack of obstacles, it will mean a longer grind to rat or mine simply to reach the results expected or needed. Do we want players to sink more time in exchange for less risk?


Those are interesting and vital points to the global economical systems of eve. The problem is that its outside the scope of AFK cloak play and honestly should be addressed in a more in depth thread on there own. But the general consensus is that if you eliminate income in null people find alternative methods to grind. People already grind with ease in high sec so reducing the risk in null wouldn't inflate the economy. It would just open alternatives to grinding.

But in general AFK cloak methods are cheep tactics and are used because there lacks a counter to them. There was in fact a and more balanced method introduced in the latest patch addressing your two points, warp speed buffs on interceptors. Alternative methods to small gang warfare and harassment's of economical targets should be added in a more meaningful and balanced method like the interceptor buffs. At the same time old broken mechanics should be flushed out as in the AFK cloak method.

Having a broken mechanic as in the AFK cloaking system in the game cheapens the experience of null space and eliminates meaningful pvp and decision making. Its frustrating having a system locked down by a single individual while its not frustrating getting ganked by a roaming interceptor gang. That is because there exists counters to the latter but not the former.

Effort should result in affect. The problem is that its impossible to affect cloaked ships in safespots in any way possible. That is worse then trying to balance the economy by keeping this broken method in. I would rather flush out broken mechanics then worry about the global economy.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3011 - 2013-11-20 00:01:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Xcom wrote:
I do believe there exists such a perfect solution for the current problem. The issue is to hit it just right and not alienate anyone except the targeted group that needs eliminating...

Perhaps it has already been suggested, but a 30 minute cycle time on the cloak should target that group quite effectively without affecting even the active cloakies (much). After the cycle time, the cloak would drop and it would have to be activated manually again. Even implementation of a bot would be rather difficult as pressing the F1 key at the wrong time would be catastrophic, but waiting too long after the decloak would also be quite dangerous. If the cycle time varied randomly between 25 minutes and 35 minutes, the risks of afk cloaking would rise dramatically. What do you think about a 30 min cycle time on all cloaks?

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3012 - 2013-11-20 00:06:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Xcom wrote:
I do believe there exists such a perfect solution for the current problem. The issue is to hit it just right and not alienate anyone except the targeted group that needs eliminating.

The problem is to create a counter for a nitch type of cloaking behavior. Its generally referred to AFK cloaking but the basic gist of is to eliminate ships that have cloaking module on there ships and avoid confrontation whiles not docked and are not sitting actively in front of there PCs.

There is no need to alter other types of game mechanics to target this exact group. Its neither any reason to add extra game mechanics or overcomplicated features. Problem would just be to take action and cut through all the bullshit from all the players believing in AFK cloaking being a good game feature that should exist in the game. The second problem would be to create a very specialized feature to target only the type of behavior described above and not spill over to other types of cloaked play.

The targeted group would be cloaked ships with no pilot behind the wheals.
The group that must be protected and not affected by this feature, cloaked ships with a player behind the keyboard.

The trick is to find a feature so specialized to only affect one of the two groups and not spill over to the other one. It would also be preferred to be simplistic and easy to implement.

If a solution listed above would be found it would alienate the minimal amount of players in the game and at the same time create a more meaningful way to protect and defend space in general. This would make most players happy except for the group of players that love to AFK in there cloaked ships.


Resource denial/economics warfare is totally valid. Right now the way to go about doing that is to use AFK camping. So, if you remove that you are declaring a type of game play (resource denial/economic warfare) invalid, at least implicitly.

What will happen if AFK cloaking is dis-allowed via a change to game mechanics?

I argue the following will occur:

1. People will be able to PvE in null more than they currently do.
2. As a result income will rise.
3. Demand for goods in game will also rise (also out of game, what is the current price of a PLEX, expect that to go up, maybe even alot).
4. People will see the higher rewards-to-risk ratio and more people will end up moving to null sec.
5. The Devs seeing this increased flow of isk into the game and having an interest in the in-game economy they may very well intervene directly.

Propositions 1 & 2 are pretty banal and non-controversial to me. Where things start to get interesting is 3. Now you might think that the extra isk from ratting or whatever in Null is great, and for a time it might even be easier to get your PLEX if that is how you "pay" for your account. But as the demand increases and the price increase you'll find yourself having to rat even more....which some people might like, but in the end that **** is still called grinding and this may not be a game play enhancing result.

Proposition 4 is also intriguing to me, that it is quite possible that some of the same people complaining about AFK campers might show up here on the forums complaining about the poop-socking ratters in their ideal systems. About how they can't get a good anomaly anymore because of other people showing up. I could even see the cost of renting going up as well for you renters. After all, the additional time ratting and doing PvE could mean that any given system is no more valuable. And your corp or alliance might want even more people to try and help cover possible rental increases.

Proposition 5 also has plenty of evidence as well. Alchemy changes, particularly the ones for technetium back when it was a T2 production bottleneck is an example. The moon goo re-balancing is yet another. Nerfs to things like incursions are yet another. I'd even argue that the implementation of invention was CCP intervening in the Eve economy because they did not like what they saw. Want more examples? Drone poo removal, changing loot drops for missions, changing insurance payouts. All of these things had a direct impact on the economics of the game.

Qne speaking of economics, the eve economy is largely a closed economy. Whatever happens in 1 part will have a direct impact elsewhere in the game economy. Change the flow of isk in one part and it will, absolutely, have secondary and tertiary effects through out the rest of the economy. Moon goo, is currently a fixed quantity. There is only so much of it, and hence there is only so much T2 components that can be produced at any given time. Increase the over all level of isk in the game and those prices have to go up. Which will necessitate more grinding for isk. This will continue until there is a new equilibrium level...and all that extra isk you are making doesn't see like as much as it initially did.

And lastly, Eve is a game where players seem to take delight in causing mayhem, chaos and destruction and when it leads to another player or player(s) raging in local, or the forums, etc. That is particularly delightful. So, removing local could very well lead to more things like log on traps, AWOXing, to name two ways to keep doing what they are doing now with AFK cloaking.

It is a basic lesson of economics....everything comes with a trade off(s)....everything. What are the trade offs from getting rid of AFK cloaking by simply logging the cloaker off, or some other boneheaded solution? Its funny, you go to any discussion about the economy and when somebody says, "I mine my minerals, hence they are free..." everyone is quick to point out the opportunity cost argument. But they ignore the opportunity cost argument here. Is part of that cost increased AWOXing and a noticable jump in PLEX prices, and more people competing for more anomalies?

"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
#3013 - 2013-11-20 00:09:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Andy Landen wrote:
Xcom wrote:
I do believe there exists such a perfect solution for the current problem. The issue is to hit it just right and not alienate anyone except the targeted group that needs eliminating...

Perhaps it has already been suggested, but a 30 minute cycle time on the cloak should target that group quite effectively without affecting even the active cloakies (much). After the cycle time, the cloak would drop and it would have to be activated manually again. Even implementation of a bot would be rather difficult as pressing the F1 key at the wrong time would be catastrophic, but waiting too long after the decloak would also be quite dangerous. If the cycle time varied randomly between 25 minutes and 35 minutes, the risks of afk cloaking would rise dramatically. What do you think about a 30 min cycle time on all cloaks?


That is also a nerf to active cloakers. Right now, if I am in a system and scouting, or something and it means I'll be at my keyboard, but doing something longer than 30 minutes, that is a nerf to my ACTIVE game play. If I don't hit the button in time I'm decloaked, possibly killed...so you can try and target a group I'm not in?

See, you keep trying and failing at your targeting. You even admit it with our parenthetical "much". But anybody suggest you don't face enough risk in null and why that is just crazy talk.

I'll even give you an example, during Max 2.0 when we hit the NC capital and failed to take it,I went back in with a group of guys in recons and bombers to try and clear bubbles on ****-caged POSes. After working on that for awhile, lots of the guys went AFK at safes. I decided to extract on my own. Took me a good while to work my way around the bubbles/gate camp on the gate I was going to leave by. I had noticed a lack of pilots and that bubbles weren't that extensive on that back side of the gate. Then I had to manually fly through the bubbles, cans, and so forth. This kind of thing would have made that nearly impossible.

So, no. This is something that nerf's active cloaking and should not be implemented so you can have a reduction in the risk you face while ratting.

"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
#3014 - 2013-11-20 00:50:03 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Resource denial/economics warfare is totally valid. Right now the way to go about doing that is to use AFK camping. So, if you remove that you are declaring a type of game play (resource denial/economic warfare) invalid, at least implicitly.

What will happen if AFK cloaking is dis-allowed via a change to game mechanics?

I argue the following will occur:

1. People will be able to PvE in null more than they currently do.
2. As a result income will rise.
3. Demand for goods in game will also rise (also out of game, what is the current price of a PLEX, expect that to go up, maybe even alot).
4. People will see the higher rewards-to-risk ratio and more people will end up moving to null sec.
5. The Devs seeing this increased flow of isk into the game and having an interest in the in-game economy they may very well intervene directly.

Propositions 1 & 2 are pretty banal and non-controversial to me. Where things start to get interesting is 3. Now you might think that the extra isk from ratting or whatever in Null is great, and for a time it might even be easier to get your PLEX if that is how you "pay" for your account. But as the demand increases and the price increase you'll find yourself having to rat even more....which some people might like, but in the end that **** is still called grinding and this may not be a game play enhancing result.

Proposition 4 is also intriguing to me, that it is quite possible that some of the same people complaining about AFK campers might show up here on the forums complaining about the poop-socking ratters in their ideal systems. About how they can't get a good anomaly anymore because of other people showing up. I could even see the cost of renting going up as well for you renters. After all, the additional time ratting and doing PvE could mean that any given system is no more valuable. And your corp or alliance might want even more people to try and help cover possible rental increases.

Proposition 5 also has plenty of evidence as well. Alchemy changes, particularly the ones for technetium back when it was a T2 production bottleneck is an example. The moon goo re-balancing is yet another. Nerfs to things like incursions are yet another. I'd even argue that the implementation of invention was CCP intervening in the Eve economy because they did not like what they saw. Want more examples? Drone poo removal, changing loot drops for missions, changing insurance payouts. All of these things had a direct impact on the economics of the game.

Qne speaking of economics, the eve economy is largely a closed economy. Whatever happens in 1 part will have a direct impact elsewhere in the game economy. Change the flow of isk in one part and it will, absolutely, have secondary and tertiary effects through out the rest of the economy. Moon goo, is currently a fixed quantity. There is only so much of it, and hence there is only so much T2 components that can be produced at any given time. Increase the over all level of isk in the game and those prices have to go up. Which will necessitate more grinding for isk. This will continue until there is a new equilibrium level...and all that extra isk you are making doesn't see like as much as it initially did.

And lastly, Eve is a game where players seem to take delight in causing mayhem, chaos and destruction and when it leads to another player or player(s) raging in local, or the forums, etc. That is particularly delightful. So, removing local could very well lead to more things like log on traps, AWOXing, to name two ways to keep doing what they are doing now with AFK cloaking.

It is a basic lesson of economics....everything comes with a trade off(s)....everything. What are the trade offs from getting rid of AFK cloaking by simply logging the cloaker off, or some other boneheaded solution? Its funny, you go to any discussion about the economy and when somebody says, "I mine my minerals, hence they are free..." everyone is quick to point out the opportunity cost argument. But they ignore the opportunity cost argument here. Is part of that cost increased AWOXing and a noticable jump in PLEX prices, and more people competing for more anomalies?



Its difficult to say exactly how the economy will be affected by removal of the AFK cloaking method. But what is certain is that AFK play and specifically AFK cloaking isn't a good game mechanic. Other methods could be implemented to increase risk in null but that's besides the point. AFK cloaking is the topic at hand, lets try focus on that.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3015 - 2013-11-20 03:05:40 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
Xcom wrote:
I do believe there exists such a perfect solution for the current problem. The issue is to hit it just right and not alienate anyone except the targeted group that needs eliminating...

Perhaps it has already been suggested, but a 30 minute cycle time on the cloak should target that group quite effectively without affecting even the active cloakies (much). After the cycle time, the cloak would drop and it would have to be activated manually again. Even implementation of a bot would be rather difficult as pressing the F1 key at the wrong time would be catastrophic, but waiting too long after the decloak would also be quite dangerous. If the cycle time varied randomly between 25 minutes and 35 minutes, the risks of afk cloaking would rise dramatically. What do you think about a 30 min cycle time on all cloaks?


That is also a nerf to active cloakers. Right now, if I am in a system and scouting, or something and it means I'll be at my keyboard, but doing something longer than 30 minutes, that is a nerf to my ACTIVE game play. If I don't hit the button in time I'm decloaked, possibly killed...so you can try and target a group I'm not in?

See, you keep trying and failing at your targeting. You even admit it with our parenthetical "much". But anybody suggest you don't face enough risk in null and why that is just crazy talk.

I'll even give you an example, during Max 2.0 when we hit the NC capital and failed to take it,I went back in with a group of guys in recons and bombers to try and clear bubbles on ****-caged POSes. After working on that for awhile, lots of the guys went AFK at safes. I decided to extract on my own. Took me a good while to work my way around the bubbles/gate camp on the gate I was going to leave by. I had noticed a lack of pilots and that bubbles weren't that extensive on that back side of the gate. Then I had to manually fly through the bubbles, cans, and so forth. This kind of thing would have made that nearly impossible.

So, no. This is something that nerf's active cloaking and should not be implemented so you can have a reduction in the risk you face while ratting.

You will be just fine as an active cloaker. You will see the 30 minute cycle coming to an end and you will warp to a safe spot and then decloak and re-cloak to reset the cycle/timer. The safe spot reset is the "not much" part because most other cloakers travel between systems and naturally reset their cloak cycles within the 30 minute interval.

... Are you saying that you manually fly cloaked through gate bubbles for more than 30 minutes with hostiles on field? I can do the math and at 400 m/s (24 km/min) while cloaked, 30 minutes of travel is about 720 km. Are you saying that you traveled through 720 km of hostile bubbles with hostiles orbiting for the decloak? Cuz if you are, then you've got some major cahones, man.

So if you think that limiting cloaks to 720 km of continuously cloaked light with the option to do a quick reset at optimum intervals represents a substantial nerf, than I have got to ask what kind of work you are doing that regularly requires a pair of grande cahones. And please, stop talking about trying to increase or decrease risk because this has nothing to do with trying to manipulate risk for any group. The fact that it may affect the risk of some group by a small amount is an unintended and irrelevant side effect. All smart pve merely shifts ops to other systems rendering any previously perceived risk from the afk cloak irrelevant and unsubstantial, so anything which removes afk play from the game has an effect on an irrelevant and unsubstantial risk to pve.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3016 - 2013-11-20 05:11:51 UTC
Xcom wrote:



Its difficult to say exactly how the economy will be affected by removal of the AFK cloaking method. But what is certain is that AFK play and specifically AFK cloaking isn't a good game mechanic. Other methods could be implemented to increase risk in null but that's besides the point. AFK cloaking is the topic at hand, lets try focus on that.


But risk is part of the issue. To deny this is like trying to deny that a cat is a mammal.

Why do people AFK cloak? To increase the perceived risk for PvE pilots and deny them access to resources/isk. Why do PvE pilots dislike it so? Because it increases their perception of risk.

Risk is undoubtedly an integral aspect of this discussion. To pretend otherwise is silly.

"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
#3017 - 2013-11-20 05:14:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Andy Landen wrote:

You will be just fine as an active cloaker.


No, I wont. Read your description again. After 30 minutes my module shuts off and requires a manual restart, by that time I'd be killed by the interceptors and other ships around the gate.

This is a horrible idea that nerfs active play as well as AFK play. You claim you only want to nerf AFK play, but when it is pointed out your idea fails in this regard you say, "Oh its no big deal."

And I note you lose nothing in regards to PvE.

To quote Lucas, its complete bullsh*t.

Quote:
... Are you saying that you manually fly cloaked through gate bubbles for more than 30 minutes with hostiles on field? I can do the math and at 400 m/s (24 km/min) while cloaked, 30 minutes of travel is about 720 km. Are you saying that you traveled through 720 km of hostile bubbles with hostiles orbiting for the decloak? Cuz if you are, then you've got some major cahones, man.


Don't be ridiculous. Of course not. I already noted I had to fly around the gate. I warped in at a safe/perch near the gate. I then had to slow boat around the gate to the point where the bubbles/campers were the thinnest. Then I had to slow boat to the gate and then jump out. Yes, more than 30 minutes, first I wasn't going 400m/s. I was in a recon so more like 225m/s. You did read the part where I noted the bubbles/campers weren't as concentrated on the back side of the gate--i.e. the side opposite of just about everything else in system?

This wasn't just some half-assed gate camp with 1 bubble, but quite a few T2 large bubbles and also smaller bubbles. They were hoping to catch and kill any stragglers from the failed head shot to the NC. The T2 bubbles have a 40km radius. So with several of these and the smaller bubbles, imagine half the circumfrence of a circle that has a diamter of say 160 km. That right there is a bit over 251 KM of the 406.8km I would travel over the course of 30 minutes (or a bit over 18 minutes), at least. And when I finally decided to head towards the gate it wasn't like I could fly in a straight line to the gate. There were ships moving around the gate, there were cans out, and so forth. And it wasn't like I was flying a perfect half circle either. But it did take me more than 30 minutes.

Or how about today, I was making a safe (insta undock to be precise) with a stealth bomber, would have taken 22.7 minutes in that ship. Of course, if I had done it in a recon I would not have made it before my cloaking module shut off since a recon moves a bit over half the speed of a bomber. Lets say a recon moves at 3/4 the speed of a bomber, the time needed to make a safe in the recon would be 22.7*(4/3) = 30.303....whoops decloaked.

So, we have active players game nerfed so you can rat with increased security. Sorry, no.

Edit: Another example:

During a big fleet fight the FC asked for people in cloakies in the support fleet to x up. These people were to get into various positions around a POS. Now, suppose they are working on that, but oh noes!!! One guy has to make a safe where he is, warp off and warp back. Then another guy. And when the FC wants to use these pilots sometimes they are there, sometimes not as they had to warp off to a safe to reactivate their cloak and warp back.

Now we aren't nerfing the play style of 1 guy, but now hundreds.

Great job!!!

Any other ****** sh*tty ideas?'

Edit: Those are all examples of game play I have experienced where your idea would suck worse than Eric Cartman sucking the sweat off of a dead donkey's balls. Yes, even the last one, I was one of the recon guys getting into position around the POS.

"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

supernova ranger
The End of Eternity
#3018 - 2013-11-20 06:28:00 UTC
How about cloaking releases a relay probe with users name attached to it within a random 50km radius

shows up on dscan but the cloaked player can move it from the probe scanner view to anywhere in the system

the probe is displayed with "(active)" if it has been moved or launched within the last 1h 10m and "(inactive)" if it has not been moved or interacted with in that time

Possibly: if the probe is "(inactive)" the player will remain in local but can not observe its changes or discussions
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#3019 - 2013-11-20 15:32:45 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Xcom wrote:
I do believe there exists such a perfect solution for the current problem. The issue is to hit it just right and not alienate anyone except the targeted group that needs eliminating...

Perhaps it has already been suggested, but a 30 minute cycle time on the cloak should target that group quite effectively without affecting even the active cloakies (much). After the cycle time, the cloak would drop and it would have to be activated manually again. Even implementation of a bot would be rather difficult as pressing the F1 key at the wrong time would be catastrophic, but waiting too long after the decloak would also be quite dangerous. If the cycle time varied randomly between 25 minutes and 35 minutes, the risks of afk cloaking would rise dramatically. What do you think about a 30 min cycle time on all cloaks?

Absolutely not.

This solution breaks more than it fixes, and what it fixes is specific to:
Cloaked + AFK + No intention of active play for reasons relating to griefing.

Please understand, you need to make the rest of the game bend out of proportion in order for this to be balanced, and that is not going to be supported by most players as a result.

If you could target just the griefing side alone, and not touch cloaking any more than the rest of the game, you might have something.
But I know of no means of determining intentions on this level, short of voluntary player admission, and if we expect that we may as well expect self regulation too.
Xcom
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3020 - 2013-11-20 15:42:21 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Xcom wrote:



Its difficult to say exactly how the economy will be affected by removal of the AFK cloaking method. But what is certain is that AFK play and specifically AFK cloaking isn't a good game mechanic. Other methods could be implemented to increase risk in null but that's besides the point. AFK cloaking is the topic at hand, lets try focus on that.


But risk is part of the issue. To deny this is like trying to deny that a cat is a mammal.

Why do people AFK cloak? To increase the perceived risk for PvE pilots and deny them access to resources/isk. Why do PvE pilots dislike it so? Because it increases their perception of risk.

Risk is undoubtedly an integral aspect of this discussion. To pretend otherwise is silly.


Yes risk is part of it and risk also brings challenge. As all good games risk and challenge are balanced to create content. Except there is no content here. There is just plain risk added. There is no counter, there is no game play, no nothing. Its you watching the guy in local and know hes been there for hours and he can kill you if you rat or mine. Because CCP didn't add any content to interact with that risk other then wait for it.

In relation to other games like Super Mario it would be like getting killed by the blue turtles every time. As soon as they spawned they would target you and kill you and it would be game over. That is not meaningful content and in relation to risk vs reward, that's just pore game design because there is only pure lopsided risk.

Fast interceptors on the other hand isn't. The risks are apparent, if an interceptor show up in your local system you better hope he doesn't have the new implants or he will be in your belt tagging you and waiting for his friends to show up. The reason its balanced is cause the interceptor gang cant stick around for hours or days. They leave when there job is done and you can always scout for there incoming attack.

The only reason AFK cloaking is used is cause there is an apparent lacking counter. The second CCP would add a counter all the AFK cloaking would disappear and people would have to sit actively in front of there PCs when trying to camp a hostile system.