These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3321 - 2013-11-30 22:03:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Astroniomix
Andy Landen wrote:


PS to Teckos, I haven't heard a peep from you about my latest proposal which actually holds many elements which align with ideas you have promoted. Quite curious to see such silence from you on it. Intriguing indeed.

Please link wherever you posted this "idea" I don't feel like digging through your post history any more (I had to stop after I read you claiming that you used to sit in a pos cloaked)

EDIT: found it, your idea is still **** because you won't let go of the ******* cyno on cloaked ships thing. And the log off timer, and you appear to think that regular cynos are "stealthy" You have some good ideas, but you constantly say stuff that makes it look like you don't even play this game.
NightmareX
Pandemic Horde High Sec Division
#3322 - 2013-11-30 22:10:34 UTC
Astroniomix wrote:
NightmareX wrote:
Astroniomix wrote:
How does an automatic AFK flag not achieve the same thing?

The afk flag achieve that if you are afk, everyone that search your ingame name up or anyone that see you in local should see you as afk.

What's bad with that?

They get free intel with no effort.

This would actually muck things up in wormholes, you no longer need to watch a POS to see if the inhabitants leave it, just add the guys in it to your watchlist and warp out once any of them no longer show as AFK.

So just because local was designed like it was from the day one, it means you have to get free benefits by afk cloaking just because local was designed like it was?

Your comparions are horrible.

Here is a list of my current EVE / PVP videos:

1: Asteroid Madness

2: Clash of the Empires

3: Suddenly Spaceships fighting in Tama
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3323 - 2013-11-30 22:13:01 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
PS to Lucas, Teckos has made it clear that he diverges from Nikk on Local and instead promotes a rather complicated sov-based intel structure supporting local. He is not advocating removing local so much as allowing pieces of it to be removable as hostiles come in and hit key infrastructure. I disagree because it still promotes blob mechanics, whereas I prefer mechanics which promote small and medium gang action over the blob "I win" button. I like blobs, but I think that the little guy or even the solo player should have strong advantages as well.
Indeed with the blob mechanics. Big groups would find it much easier to hold intel structures. Teckos doesn't mind that as he's in one of the biggest blue groups there is, so he'd never have to worry about it. Chances are he would never even need to look at one of those structures.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3324 - 2013-11-30 22:29:01 UTC
NightmareX wrote:

So just because local was designed like it was from the day one, it means you have to get free benefits by afk cloaking just because local was designed like it was?

Your comparions are horrible.

Actually people give us those free benefits. I'd be more than willing to make "afk" cloaking non viable, it's boring, but you don't want it. You just want an "is it safe?" flag.
Vas Eldryn
#3325 - 2013-11-30 22:29:17 UTC
I'd actually love to hear from CCP, will they every consider redesigning the game to omit local....

If YES, we can continue with removal of local debate with techos

If NO, then we can talk about AFK cyno camping, which i think, if memory serves, is the heading of this thread.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3326 - 2013-11-30 22:34:24 UTC
Astroniomix wrote:
NightmareX wrote:

So just because local was designed like it was from the day one, it means you have to get free benefits by afk cloaking just because local was designed like it was?

Your comparions are horrible.

Actually people give us those free benefits. I'd be more than willing to make "afk" cloaking non viable, it's boring, but you don't want it. You just want an "is it safe?" flag.
Uhhh that "is it it safe" flag is the same thing as making AFK non-viable. You want local removed, making active cloakers enormously powerful and guaranteeing you can go kill some PVE players with ease. You don;t want a challenge, you want to gank players with no chance of them fighting back. So maybe you should get off your high horse buddy.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3327 - 2013-11-30 22:36:03 UTC
Vas Eldryn wrote:
I'd actually love to hear from CCP, will they every consider redesigning the game to omit local....

If YES, we can continue with removal of local debate with techos

If NO, then we can talk about AFK cyno camping, which i think, if memory serves, is the heading of this thread.
I doubt they will ever answer that directly. I can't imagine them removing it though. The reaction from players to the threads suggesting it over the years has been heavily negative, and WH space is nearly totally empty. I can;t imagine why they would ever think it's a good idea.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3328 - 2013-11-30 23:04:14 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Pointing out a Bad Idea™ is indeed a Bad Idea™ is not trolling.
But you point out any idea that is not your idea as a bad idea. That's trolling.


Not if they are all bad. And so far they have all been bad because, as I've noted, they nerf other players than the intended target. Heck a logoff timer can now, without violating the EULA, be by-passed by a number of methods.

And active player who, for whatever reason stops provided input to the client, but is still at his keyboard, he'd have his game play effected.

"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
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3329 - 2013-11-30 23:10:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Astroniomix
Lucas Kell wrote:

Uhhh that "is it it safe" flag is the same thing as making AFK non-viable. You want local removed, making active cloakers enormously powerful and guaranteeing you can go kill some PVE players with ease. You don;t want a challenge, you want to gank players with no chance of them fighting back. So maybe you should get off your high horse buddy.


I actually don't want local removed. I want cloaked ships to not appear in local, and then for a means of hunting down cloaked vessels to be added. But keep on thinking what ever it is you think I want.

And you STILL haven't answered why it's necessary to be warped into the middle of nowhere once the game determines you're "afk".

Also if you think WH space is almost vacant because of lack of local, you're even dumber than you look.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3330 - 2013-11-30 23:13:20 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
So your idea, since it heavily nerfs a lot of other types of gameplay is a bad idea.
Besides, they nerf loads of stuff that ends up nerfing other people. Pointing out a single occasion based around specifically targeting a class does not mean that all nerfs ever have only affected a single group.


Possibly, but it would be nice if you could come up with something other than that daft idea of hiding a 2,000 man fleet in a station to get some sort of surprise on an attacker.

Quote:
That is YOUR OPINION. It's not the only way. It's moronic to ignore all other ideas. If you want only your ideas to be valid, go and make your own game. CCP will continue to listen to the community, not some egotistic prick that thinks he knows best.
And WH space has nearly no active players. A lot of good having no local did.


So you admit that removing local would stop AFK cloaking. That's progress...baby steps and all that.

Quote:
Still YOUR OPINION. Other ideas are also valid, easily as valid as yours.


Yeah, so. And no, opinions are not all equally valid. That is just errant nonsense. If we were to assign equal weight to all opinions, and keeping the context to Eve, we'd have to give equal weight to those ideas that we know the community really hates--e.g. micro-transactions/pay-to-win.

Quote:
In my opinions it's a dumb idea to nuke local and cause a LOT of other issues. You want to tip the entire balance in favour of you. That's your idea, and you can stick by it. I think it's a dumb idea, and I'll stick by that.


There you go again. Nobody is in favor of simply "nuking local" And this is the gist of your argument? My opinion is just as good as yours! Okay. Feel free to think that, but this is even worse than your correlation does not imply causation argument.

"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
Vas Eldryn
#3331 - 2013-11-30 23:15:46 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Pointing out a Bad Idea™ is indeed a Bad Idea™ is not trolling.
But you point out any idea that is not your idea as a bad idea. That's trolling.


Not if they are all bad. And so far they have all been bad because, as I've noted, they nerf other players than the intended target. Heck a logoff timer can now, without violating the EULA, be by-passed by a number of methods.

And active player who, for whatever reason stops provided input to the client, but is still at his keyboard, he'd have his game play effected.


well how about the suggestion that cloaks have a limited operational life of x hours in space, I know this would re-purpose cloaking as a tactic instead of a shield, but I think that would be a good thing.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3332 - 2013-11-30 23:25:19 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Pointing out a Bad Idea™ is indeed a Bad Idea™ is not trolling.
But you point out any idea that is not your idea as a bad idea. That's trolling.


Not if they are all bad. And so far they have all been bad because, as I've noted, they nerf other players than the intended target. Heck a logoff timer can now, without violating the EULA, be by-passed by a number of methods.

And active player who, for whatever reason stops provided input to the client, but is still at his keyboard, he'd have his game play effected.
In your opinion. They are all valid. I think the worst idea so far is your idea to nuke the hell out of local.

Explain exactly how your idea has no effect on other players that aren't the intended target? It clearly does have an effect on others, thus by your own definition, it's a bad idea.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3333 - 2013-11-30 23:26:33 UTC
Astroniomix wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:

Uhhh that "is it it safe" flag is the same thing as making AFK non-viable. You want local removed, making active cloakers enormously powerful and guaranteeing you can go kill some PVE players with ease. You don;t want a challenge, you want to gank players with no chance of them fighting back. So maybe you should get off your high horse buddy.


I actually don't want local removed. I want cloaked ships to not appear in local, and then for a means of hunting down cloaked vessels to be added. But keep on thinking what ever it is you think I want.

And you STILL haven't answered why it's necessary to be warped into the middle of nowhere once the game determines you're "afk".

Also if you think WH space is almost vacant because of lack of local, you're even dumber than you look.
Oh ok. So you want non-covops ships to be redundant for solo and small gang pvp?
And you want to easily sneak up on PVE players and miners?

Glad to see you want a challenge through a fair and balanced idea and not easy killboard stats...

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3334 - 2013-11-30 23:33:29 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Possibly, but it would be nice if you could come up with something other than that daft idea of hiding a 2,000 man fleet in a station to get some sort of surprise on an attacker.
Sigh... Read the thread. I stated a handful of reasons, and that was one of them. Clearly a defender, with intel infrastructure, would have an advantage over an attacker with none. I don't even know why that would need to be explained since it's a basic fact.

Teckos Pech wrote:
So you admit that removing local would stop AFK cloaking. That's progress...baby steps and all that.
Not only have I never said it wouldn't I've stated HUNDREDS OF TIMES that it would It's just nuking local would have a HUGE amount of affect on other people. Again, read you own thread.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Yeah, so. And no, opinions are not all equally valid. That is just errant nonsense. If we were to assign equal weight to all opinions, and keeping the context to Eve, we'd have to give equal weight to those ideas that we know the community really hates--e.g. micro-transactions/pay-to-win.
All opinions are equally valid. Why are YOUR opinions more valid that anyone else's? Who the **** are you? Just some guy that can;t be bothered to read and like to troll a lot, that's who. So your opinions hold no more weight than anyone else's.

Someone's opinion being valid doesn't mean they automatically put in the idea, it simply means that it warrant discussion, which you won;t allow people. Because your an egotistic ass that believe's your ideas are considerably better than all other people's.

Teckos Pech wrote:
There you go again. Nobody is in favor of simply "nuking local" And this is the gist of your argument? My opinion is just as good as yours! Okay. Feel free to think that, but this is even worse than your correlation does not imply causation argument.
What you want is a local nuke with a bunch of decorated trimming added after. It starts with the nuking of local then goes off into a web of bad ideas to make up for the holes you created with the nuke.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3335 - 2013-11-30 23:58:56 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:

NO. The AFK Cloaker is "successful" at system camping because with about 30 mil ISK in a cyno stealth bomber he is able to OWN a sovereign system for which another corp is paying billions for each month, and there IS NO DIRECT COUNTER against him and NO RISK TO HIM. And that PISSES OFF those who are PAYING for a system which the cloaky cyno mechanism renders impossible to defend 24/7. THAT is why you have so many afk cloaky threads linked there on your first page. The problem is not that the cloaky cannot be countered (wormholes prove this), the problem is that the CYNO CANNOT BE COUNTERED when it is CLOAKED, except sometimes through VAST and CONTINUOUS EFFORTS to purge all assault forces within cyno range. Since carriers jump very long distances (about 15 ly), it is impractical to clear hostile carrier fleets from attack range. But as you see, EVERY ONE OF THESE ISSUES revolves around CYNOS. Without cynos, SOLO afk cloaking would have very little threat value and would not disrupt ops, so you see that without cynos there would be no SOLO AFK cloaking.


My god, back to cynos again are we? We have already gone over this.

If an AFK cloaker has a cyno...
If that AFK cloaker with a cyno actually has a fleet ready to go....
If that AFK cloaker with a cyno and has a fleet ready to go has enough in fleet oto take out the opposition....
And if the intended targets aren't paying attention (e.g. the in game map can give away the position of fleet in a system within cyno range) then yeah, it could be bad.

But that is alot of ifs. In other words, if you are going to take the most risk averse stance...that is on you.

"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
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3336 - 2013-12-01 00:08:51 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Astroniomix wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:

Uhhh that "is it it safe" flag is the same thing as making AFK non-viable. You want local removed, making active cloakers enormously powerful and guaranteeing you can go kill some PVE players with ease. You don;t want a challenge, you want to gank players with no chance of them fighting back. So maybe you should get off your high horse buddy.


I actually don't want local removed. I want cloaked ships to not appear in local, and then for a means of hunting down cloaked vessels to be added. But keep on thinking what ever it is you think I want.

And you STILL haven't answered why it's necessary to be warped into the middle of nowhere once the game determines you're "afk".

Also if you think WH space is almost vacant because of lack of local, you're even dumber than you look.
Oh ok. So you want non-covops ships to be redundant for solo and small gang pvp?
And you want to easily sneak up on PVE players and miners?

Glad to see you want a challenge through a fair and balanced idea and not easy killboard stats...

There's a reason I left the mechanics of the "cloaking detection" ambiguous. I'm well aware of the potential effects on fleet use for cloaked ships.

I'm starting to think you aren't pretending to be stupid, you really are this dumb.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3337 - 2013-12-01 00:14:05 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:


No, there was zero chance that any kind of tank would have made any difference at all. Ironically, I did kill the SB and force the Panther off the field and survive another couple of minutes after all that. But my Falcon alt was useless because supers can be NEITHER jammed NOR pointed normally. Red Alliance is Russian speaking and my corp was failing at the same time that they were more concerned with evacuating, so I had no intention of fitting to survive a hotdrop, especially from a super. There was a large gang sitting on a hostile Titan in the area and ready to escalate anything. Nothing could have saved that carrier except that a blue would betray me and staying docked. My strategy to avoid getting caught worked so long as a blue did not betray my position with a bookmark, and even with the bookmark, the SB only gained point about 1 second away from my carrier entering warp. Oftentimes betrayal renders losses absolutely unavoidable. If I could have seen the future of betrayal, I would have fit a warp stab for sure, but when betrayal enters the equation, anything can happen and nothing can be secured, especially when cynos enter the equation and you are not just dealing with one or two lone FRIGATES.


Frankly, you really need to upgrade who you associate with in-game....or at least pay attention to things like, "There was a large gang sitting on a hostile Titan in the area...."

Quote:
The cyno causes SOLO cloaked frigates to "own" sov space for free.
The cyno causes BLOBS.
The cyno causes pve ops to move systems.
The cyno causes sovereignty to mean nothing as capital ships jump deep behind enemy lines in giant blobs and disrupt all operations and infrastructure.
The cyno prevents preparations/defenses by obscuring the composition of the enemy fleet.
The cyno protects the enemy fleet until it is ready to jump in and engage.
The cyno enables the immortal supercaps to escape all but bubbles and HIC points, rendering them almost as risk free as the AFK cloaky and the fleet on the Titan before engagement.


No, no, no, no, no and no.

They aren't owning the sov space for free when it includes the possibility of a super or two...and a hostile fleet on a titan in case thing escalate. That is quite an investment, IMO.

Blobs are due to the fact that always having an extra gun never hurts.

How often do capital ships jump around willy nilly in game? Very rarely actually, especially if it means jumping into hostile sov space where you can be counter dropped unless you plan very, very carefully.

With the use of spies, and other in-game resources you can find out quite a bit on enemy fleet composition pretty easy. Most of the time a staging system is not even a secret since it is information that will get out before the force even moves to that staging system. Heck, Goons release that information to the public now. The Mittani writes his CEO update on Goon forums then posts the same thing pretty much verbatim on themittani.com.

Things like titan jump bridges often means the fleet is sitting on the edge of a POS bubble in a big fat mess...perfect for a bombing run or 3. BLOPS will often sit inside the POS, that is true, but it is the POS shield that is providing the protection then.

Supers are not nearly as devoid of risk as you claim.

Quote:
The cyno CAUSES all of this. Local merely informs us of some of this after it has happened; after the cyno, there is only about 2-3s before the local and overview warnings are too late.


No, the biggest beef one could level against cynos is that they let fleets of capitals and super capitals cross the galaxy relatively quickly allowing a group like PL to have a tremendous level of force projection...which ironically is one of the reasons we don't see your claim about capitals jumping deep into enemy territory all that often.

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

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3338 - 2013-12-01 00:26:47 UTC
Astroniomix wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Astroniomix wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:

Uhhh that "is it it safe" flag is the same thing as making AFK non-viable. You want local removed, making active cloakers enormously powerful and guaranteeing you can go kill some PVE players with ease. You don;t want a challenge, you want to gank players with no chance of them fighting back. So maybe you should get off your high horse buddy.


I actually don't want local removed. I want cloaked ships to not appear in local, and then for a means of hunting down cloaked vessels to be added. But keep on thinking what ever it is you think I want.

And you STILL haven't answered why it's necessary to be warped into the middle of nowhere once the game determines you're "afk".

Also if you think WH space is almost vacant because of lack of local, you're even dumber than you look.
Oh ok. So you want non-covops ships to be redundant for solo and small gang pvp?
And you want to easily sneak up on PVE players and miners?

Glad to see you want a challenge through a fair and balanced idea and not easy killboard stats...

There's a reason I left the mechanics of the "cloaking detection" ambiguous. I'm well aware of the potential effects on fleet use for cloaked ships.

I'm starting to think you aren't pretending to be stupid, you really are this dumb.
How am I being dumb? If cloakers are not on the local list, but regular ships are, then why the **** would anyone fly a non-covops? A covops would be considerably easier to sneak up on people.

It's not me being dumb is you are not explaining your ideas. You're basically coming in 160 pages into a thread and screaming "I HATE LOCAL AND WANT TO BE UBER" then throwing personal attacks at me.
Go back to your bridge.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
NightmareX
Pandemic Horde High Sec Division
#3339 - 2013-12-01 00:41:08 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
You're basically coming in 160 pages into a thread and screaming "I HATE LOCAL AND WANT TO BE UBER" then throwing personal attacks at me.
Go back to your bridge.

He started ad hominem attacks on me aswell when i gave explanations on different things on why afk cloaking is bad and when he couldn't counterargument that. So he turned around and started to bring in other stuffs to confuse us and to take the focus away from 'afk cloaking' as the whole topic should be about.

So just take what that person say with a pinch of salt. He's a troll.

This also applies to Nikk and Teckos.

Here is a list of my current EVE / PVP videos:

1: Asteroid Madness

2: Clash of the Empires

3: Suddenly Spaceships fighting in Tama
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3340 - 2013-12-01 02:07:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Teckos Pech wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:

NO. The AFK Cloaker is "successful" at system camping because with about 30 mil ISK in a cyno stealth bomber he is able to OWN a sovereign system for which another corp is paying billions for each month, and there IS NO DIRECT COUNTER against him and NO RISK TO HIM. And that PISSES OFF those who are PAYING for a system which the cloaky cyno mechanism renders impossible to defend 24/7. THAT is why you have so many afk cloaky threads linked there on your first page. The problem is not that the cloaky cannot be countered (wormholes prove this), the problem is that the CYNO CANNOT BE COUNTERED when it is CLOAKED, except sometimes through VAST and CONTINUOUS EFFORTS to purge all assault forces within cyno range. Since carriers jump very long distances (about 15 ly), it is impractical to clear hostile carrier fleets from attack range. But as you see, EVERY ONE OF THESE ISSUES revolves around CYNOS. Without cynos, SOLO afk cloaking would have very little threat value and would not disrupt ops, so you see that without cynos there would be no SOLO AFK cloaking.


My god, back to cynos again are we? We have already gone over this.

If an AFK cloaker has a cyno...
If that AFK cloaker with a cyno actually has a fleet ready to go....
If that AFK cloaker with a cyno and has a fleet ready to go has enough in fleet oto take out the opposition....
And if the intended targets aren't paying attention (e.g. the in game map can give away the position of fleet in a system within cyno range) then yeah, it could be bad.

But that is alot of ifs. In other words, if you are going to take the most risk averse stance...that is on you.

Am I back to the cyno problem with AFK cloakers? I never left that issue. First, everyone that complains about cynos in this thread ultimately mentions the inability to remain constantly prepared for a cyno hotdrop. Second, everyone admits that a solo stealth bomber isn't that big of a threat by itself, and can be dealt with fairly easily by a small group. Third, everyone sees cyno hotdrops on pve assets in their region as a fairly frequent occurence and readily testifies that they are a substantial threat. So no if this and if that because HOTDROPS HAPPEN ALOT. I am still waiting for you to admit that if cloakies could not fit cynos, small groups would continue operations and AFK cloaking would cease; thus proving that the potential for the cyno causes AFK cloaking.

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