These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Proposal] AFK game play - the cloaked vessel

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#381 - 2014-05-07 18:22:22 UTC
Theophilas wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Mr Theophilas, you should really read this thread before jumping to that conclusion.
Noone wants PvE to get a free ride here.


Yes... you do.

AFK camping interferes with your ISK per hour, so you would like CCP to nerf it.

Actually, my only issue with AFK camping is that it is boring.

If I take a cloaked ship into a competing alliance's PvE systems, I get sick of seeing them scatter like roaches with the lights flipped on.

If I happen to be mining, I can't trust that a straight fight would happen if I stood my ground, rather than a hot drop fiesta.
That means resolution of this stand-off scenario is delayed indefinitely, since neither side feels confidant enough to engage the other.

I don't want dull stalemates. The first part of that name tells me all I need to know, 'stale'.

I want player driven resolution. Sure, I understand I will need to fight in an exhumer or ratting ship, or be willing to forego being able to mine or rat. That's the price, and I should be able to pay it.

I presume you would not walk away from a fight, if you knew neither side would be able to hot drop?
That presumes, of course, that the PvE ships are as combat worthy as the typical stealth craft, and you trust your gate camps to keep out the pure fighting ships.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Nofearion
Destructive Brothers
Fraternity.
#382 - 2014-05-11 17:00:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Nofearion
On the subject of AFK Cloaking. I am finding out that for a select few it is a Passive source of income.
Hence the very opposed views on this thread.
So if I have this right, someone has had something terrible happen to them. or well maybe not really they just have some motivation to spend isk to mess with someones else's Isk making.
I have to be honest I have been finding it very hard to find out rates as an average. I have seen everything from 25 mil per system per day up to 100 mil per day.
Once a contract is agreed upon the afk cloaker flies and sneaks into what ever system, finds a safe spot and cloaks up.
He stays there down time to down time until the contract has run its time.
sometimes a macro or bot is used to ensure that as soon as down time is over the pilot is logged on and cloaked.
The reasoning that it is hard to get information on the dubious profession should be obvious.
This aspect of gameplay encourages AFK Play.
I have not found any good arguments that this sort of play has an positive benefits for the game.
Keep in mind I am ok with cloaky camping, so long as the pilot is active.
I still think I should have a mechanic to interact with that pilot should he decided to remain cloaked.
(please do not bring the arguments of Docked pilots and wot not. it is rather tired at this point.)
Mechanics should encourage active game play. this is stated in many CCP goals.
Thoughts?
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#383 - 2014-05-11 22:52:52 UTC
Nofearion wrote:
On the subject of AFK Cloaking. I am finding out that for a select few it is a Passive source of income.
Hence the very opposed views on this thread.
So if I have this right, someone has had something terrible happen to them. or well maybe not really they just have some motivation to spend isk to mess with someones else's Isk making.
I have to be honest I have been finding it very hard to find out rates as an average. I have seen everything from 25 mil per system per day up to 100 mil per day.
Once a contract is agreed upon the afk cloaker flies and sneaks into what ever system, finds a safe spot and cloaks up.
He stays there down time to down time until the contract has run its time.
sometimes a macro or bot is used to ensure that as soon as down time is over the pilot is logged on and cloaked.
The reasoning that it is hard to get information on the dubious profession should be obvious.
This aspect of gameplay encourages AFK Play.
I have not found any good arguments that this sort of play has an positive benefits for the game.
Keep in mind I am ok with cloaky camping, so long as the pilot is active.
I still think I should have a mechanic to interact with that pilot should he decided to remain cloaked.
(please do not bring the arguments of Docked pilots and wot not. it is rather tired at this point.)
Mechanics should encourage active game play. this is stated in many CCP goals.
Thoughts?

The interests of meta gaming, in this context, should not hold sway over active gaming.

Active gaming should always be the holy grail, which is the primary design concern.
That is not reflected in current design, I feel.

Rather, I see an unfinished game more often translating into a stalemate than an interesting, player driven, solution.

It is established and respected by authorities already, that the current situation is both balanced and fair.
CCP may not have improved resolution over all these years of complaints, but you can be assured they are aware of it, and have confirmed at least fairness exists.

I am not arguing to make it more fair. That is already done to death, and is exactly why we have the stalemates like this.

I am arguing to put player sourced failing, talent and effort more into the game.
By denying the effort to gather intel, we also deny player skill and human failing on this aspect.
Following basic intel gathering, on both sides being necessary here, we can then proceed to resolution.
The hostile cannot know who is present without looking, and they should be exposed to detection during this period of discovery as well.

Having both sides automatically reported to the other only serves to make both react, and since the game places the hostile at a disadvantage, this results in a stalemate.
(Both have the opportunity to make one warp before the other can intervene, placing the defender in safety and the attacker in limbo, which is where we are now)

The price of ISK should always be constant vigilance against threat.
If this cannot be sustained for good gameplay, then I think the time sink aspect needs to be reduced until it can. AFK play creates more problems than it solves, I feel in this context.

The game is treating vigilance as not sustainable currently, so is automating it.
This is creating consequently our current set of problems here.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Nofearion
Destructive Brothers
Fraternity.
#384 - 2014-05-14 12:19:38 UTC
Nikk once again we are in agreement.
the wanted effort for interaction is stated by many. I have a theory about this.
The ones seeking active game play are busy playing the game so only discuss things in game and spend little time on the forums.
The ones who spend a lot of time on the forums are either participating in Non-active play or are bored at work (like myself) and hence spend a lot of time on the forums.
This theory would explain why this topic has many more detractors posting than those who are positive.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#385 - 2014-05-14 13:20:49 UTC
Nofearion wrote:
Nikk once again we are in agreement.
the wanted effort for interaction is stated by many. I have a theory about this.
The ones seeking active game play are busy playing the game so only discuss things in game and spend little time on the forums.
The ones who spend a lot of time on the forums are either participating in Non-active play or are bored at work (like myself) and hence spend a lot of time on the forums.
This theory would explain why this topic has many more detractors posting than those who are positive.

Yeah, I post from work as well.

I tend to get down time in 10 to 20 minute bursts, which while great for posting here, is flat useless in the game itself.
Plus, it is often interrupted. EVE doesn't have a pause button.
I can copy a post to a notepad document if I need to pick it up again later.

I spend more time anticipating play, than actually playing, quite often.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Meytal
Doomheim
#386 - 2014-05-16 20:02:42 UTC
Nofearion wrote:
Issue –
Once a pilot is able to get into a system and cloak up there is no current in game mechanic to interact with that pilot as long as he remains cloaked.
There is no in game or out of game mechanic to know if the pilot is afk or at keyboard
There is no in game mechanic to know if the cloaked pilot has a cyno or not.
There is no in game mechanic to properly assess the threat of force projection from the cloaked pilot.
The pilot if they so choose can stay cloaked from down time to down time.

- Once a pilot is able to get into a system and dock up, there is no current in-game mechanic to interact with that pilot as long as he remains docked up.
- There is no in-game or out-of-game mechanic to know if that pilot is afk or at keyboard.
- There is no in-game mechanic to know if that docked pilot has a cyno or not.
- There is no in-game mechanic to properly assess the threat of force projection from the docked up pilot.
- The pilot, if he or she so chooses, can stay docked up from downtime to downtime.

Nerf docking then?
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#387 - 2014-05-16 20:16:27 UTC
Meytal wrote:
Nofearion wrote:
Issue –
Once a pilot is able to get into a system and cloak up there is no current in game mechanic to interact with that pilot as long as he remains cloaked.
There is no in game or out of game mechanic to know if the pilot is afk or at keyboard
There is no in game mechanic to know if the cloaked pilot has a cyno or not.
There is no in game mechanic to properly assess the threat of force projection from the cloaked pilot.
The pilot if they so choose can stay cloaked from down time to down time.

- Once a pilot is able to get into a system and dock up, there is no current in-game mechanic to interact with that pilot as long as he remains docked up.
- There is no in-game or out-of-game mechanic to know if that pilot is afk or at keyboard.
- There is no in-game mechanic to know if that docked pilot has a cyno or not.
- There is no in-game mechanic to properly assess the threat of force projection from the docked up pilot.
- The pilot, if he or she so chooses, can stay docked up from downtime to downtime.

Nerf docking then?

A valid point.

Like cloaking, docked pilots are taking advantage of an intended game mechanic to avoid unwanted interaction.
Like cloaking, direct ISK income is limited. (Market purchase and sale efforts possible)

While cloaking allows observation of objects in space, it denies refitting and other maintenance options.
While docking allows refitting and repair maintenance options, as well as reshipping entirely, it denies observation opportunities.

Perhaps, it is not that the abilities exist, but that players are being told when to use them so well that avoiding conflict has become overly simple.

I favor player driven resolutions.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Nofearion
Destructive Brothers
Fraternity.
#388 - 2014-05-19 12:27:33 UTC
Theophilas wrote:
Thanks to CCP's infinite wisdom, if you lite a cyno in an anom, the rats will target and kill you near instantly... this is just ONE example of many that highlight to what great lengths CCP has gone to too make it virtually impossible to kill a ratter that is smart and doesn't want to get caught.

Complaining about AFK camping isn't you worrying about dying whatsoever, it is literally you complaining about having to worry and not be AFK yourself.

It is so unbelievable to me that ratters STILL complain that null security space isn't safe despite everything CCP has done to make it near impossible to kill them.

If any of you damn PVE nerds want some tips on how to rat and never die, shoot me a PM and we can rap about it.

Writing this post made terribly sad. I'm gonna go take a self-pity nap.


An yet another poor pittiful pilot that has no understanding of this thread whatsoever.
after your self-pity nap how about you shoot me a covo and I will explain that this thread is about since you obviously do not have time to read it first before posting.
Nofearion
Destructive Brothers
Fraternity.
#389 - 2014-05-19 12:32:04 UTC
Meytal wrote:
Nofearion wrote:
Issue –
Once a pilot is able to get into a system and cloak up there is no current in game mechanic to interact with that pilot as long as he remains cloaked.
There is no in game or out of game mechanic to know if the pilot is afk or at keyboard
There is no in game mechanic to know if the cloaked pilot has a cyno or not.
There is no in game mechanic to properly assess the threat of force projection from the cloaked pilot.
The pilot if they so choose can stay cloaked from down time to down time.

- Once a pilot is able to get into a system and dock up, there is no current in-game mechanic to interact with that pilot as long as he remains docked up.
- There is no in-game or out-of-game mechanic to know if that pilot is afk or at keyboard.
- There is no in-game mechanic to know if that docked pilot has a cyno or not.
- There is no in-game mechanic to properly assess the threat of force projection from the docked up pilot.
- The pilot, if he or she so chooses, can stay docked up from downtime to downtime.

Nerf docking then?

I was not going to even respond to this.
Yes Nerf Docked pilots, that will fix everything.
Please see Nikks and My post in this thread and others about proposed changes to the way pilots receive intel.
Then Mock away
Steelradio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#390 - 2014-05-21 08:28:52 UTC
People keep asking if someone is afk then why are they a threat. Simply put is because you don't know. An afk player should not present the same threat as an active player. People are saying things are balanced but if I can present the same threat whilst I'm out at the pub as I can whilst at my computer, that's not balanced. To understand this, you need to understand why cloaky campers are a threat just being there. If you belong to a small corp or alliance you might not have anywhere to move to, you might not have people to support you in your tz. Not cloaky campers are a threat, as they should be but I should know if he is a threat or not and be able to take the risk with that information to go out ratting or mining. I shouldn't have to take that risk only for him to be out at mcdo

I have no issue with cloaky camping, I'm primarily a miner purely because that's what I have the time to do and yet I don't mind cloaky campers. Cloaky camping itself is a viable mechanic and a valid tactic but being afk isn't playing the game. I go out mining, if I use a can I have to be at my client every 1.5 - 3 minutes to move ore from hulk to can. I can't just set the lasers going and go afk all day so why can cloaks?

My suggestion to fix cloaks would be to simply be you have to reactive them. Rather than turning it on and that being that, you activate it and it creates a cloak field that last X amount of time. After X amount of time that field becomes unstable and you have a set amount of time to reactivate the cloak before you become visible. This option in no way breaks or nerfs cloaks. It won't stop camping or recon or hot dropping, it simply requires some player interaction to use. Frankly if you say no to having to reactivate a module, you are only arguing because you want to be lazy and have things made easy for you. Which ironically is the arguement people use against people wanting a change to cloaks. Yes it works both ways.
Maru Sha
The Department of Justice
#391 - 2014-05-21 15:14:15 UTC
This is no idea for scanning down a cloaked ship but once you can be fairly sure there is one close by ... how about a mobile structure that you can deploy and assume control of. Then, like the directional scanner, you would select a (limited) angle of aperture, point in one direction and activate the module which sprays a cloud of highly accelerated particles in that direction and depending on the density of the particle stream (which depends on angle and distance), a ship get's uncloaked.
Nofearion
Destructive Brothers
Fraternity.
#392 - 2014-05-21 18:29:55 UTC
Maru Sha wrote:
This is no idea for scanning down a cloaked ship but once you can be fairly sure there is one close by ... how about a mobile structure that you can deploy and assume control of. Then, like the directional scanner, you would select a (limited) angle of aperture, point in one direction and activate the module which sprays a cloud of highly accelerated particles in that direction and depending on the density of the particle stream (which depends on angle and distance), a ship get's uncloaked.


That is a very interesting option and a viable solution to the "sonar" Suggestion.
Raw Matters
Brilliant Starfire
#393 - 2014-05-24 11:37:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Raw Matters
I have not read the entire thread, so please bear with me if this is a duplicate (its 20 pages, seriously!). This is basically a repost from a suggestion I made about 3 years ago.

I in general like how cloaking works and wouldn't want it to be removed or reduced to a pointless module, but then having an afk cloaker 24/7 in your system, silently waiting for the one moment to launch his cyno with zero methods to deal with it, is not only annoying but imo an abuse of game mechanics.

My suggestion was (and still is) to add a module that can be deployed in sov space that will charge over a period of 8-12 hours and then allows to launch a system-wide EMP that will disable all cloaking devices and prevents reactivation of such modules (if they were active during the initial blast) for 5-10 minutes (exact numbers to be determined).

This would:

  • Not disable fly-by cloaking as using a module on a 8-12h timer for some random cloaker passing through the system is highly unlikely.

  • Not disable the usefulness of cloaking, as there is no change to the current mechanic in general.

  • Allow sov owners to have a chance to hunt down (interact as the op said) for a limited time, which will be a fight between scanning skills and the cloakers ability to evade those. A good cloaker will be able to evade during the downtime of his device, jumping from save-spot to save-spot then he can re-cloak and is safe for another 8 hours minimum. However he might loose some safe-spots during that time and needs to make new ones or will eventually face an enemy fleet the next time he uses the now scanned safe-spots again.

  • Disallow to stay cloaked AFK, as you never know when the next EMP blast will hit you. If one is AFK during that time, the ship will be located and destroyed easily by the sov holder.

Such an EMP blast will be a very low threat for the average cloaker, but deadly for anyone who is afk most of the time. This would reduce the usage of spys to at least semi-active chars, and help against those who are botting. Because realistically no one is sitting in a system 24h a day and watches the local/scanner, people are using illegal scripts/bots for that.
Steelradio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#394 - 2014-05-24 14:56:21 UTC
Raw Matters wrote:
I have not read the entire thread, so please bear with me if this is a duplicate (its 20 pages, seriously!). This is basically a repost from a suggestion I made about 3 years ago.

I in general like how cloaking works and wouldn't want it to be removed or reduced to a pointless module, but then having an afk cloaker 24/7 in your system, silently waiting for the one moment to launch his cyno with zero methods to deal with it, is not only annoying but imo an abuse of game mechanics.

My suggestion was (and still is) to add a module that can be deployed in sov space that will charge over a period of 8-12 hours and then allows to launch a system-wide EMP that will disable all cloaking devices and prevents reactivation of such modules (if they were active during the initial blast) for 5-10 minutes (exact numbers to be determined).

This would:

  • Not disable fly-by cloaking as using a module on a 8-12h timer for some random cloaker passing through the system is highly unlikely.

  • Not disable the usefulness of cloaking, as there is no change to the current mechanic in general.

  • Allow sov owners to have a chance to hunt down (interact as the op said) for a limited time, which will be a fight between scanning skills and the cloakers ability to evade those. A good cloaker will be able to evade during the downtime of his device, jumping from save-spot to save-spot then he can re-cloak and is safe for another 8 hours minimum. However he might loose some safe-spots during that time and needs to make new ones or will eventually face an enemy fleet the next time he uses the now scanned safe-spots again.

  • Disallow to stay cloaked AFK, as you never know when the next EMP blast will hit you. If one is AFK during that time, the ship will be located and destroyed easily by the sov holder.

Such an EMP blast will be a very low threat for the average cloaker, but deadly for anyone who is afk most of the time. This would reduce the usage of spys to at least semi-active chars, and help against those who are botting. Because realistically no one is sitting in a system 24h a day and watches the local/scanner, people are using illegal scripts/bots for that.


The only issue I have with this is that it still allows afk cloaking, someone can actively camp you cloaked, wait for you to pop emp, bounce around for 10 minutes until they can recloak then go afk for 6-8 hours knowing they are safe for that long. Still doesn't deal with the overall issue of cloaky camping.

Would prefer it if the device had a 30 minute - 1 hour cooldown but would only disable the cloak for 1 minute. Would allow sov holders to scan the player if they are still and afk but still allow people to still camp and bounce around for a minute before being safe but they would still have to be at their computer at a regular basis.
Raw Matters
Brilliant Starfire
#395 - 2014-05-24 17:36:03 UTC
Steelradio wrote:
The only issue I have with this is that it still allows afk cloaking, someone can actively camp you cloaked, wait for you to pop emp, bounce around for 10 minutes until they can recloak then go afk for 6-8 hours knowing they are safe for that long.

That is true, but only once you activated the module. As long as it is not activated, but charged and ready to launch the blast, the cloaker must stay alert and at his PC because you could activate it any moment.

In addition - as I wrote - numbers are to be determined. Maybe a 2h timer is better?
Nofearion
Destructive Brothers
Fraternity.
#396 - 2014-05-25 17:13:47 UTC
10 minutes or 2 hours that is a better window to catch someone that what we have now.
I do not have a problem with active cloakers, this would give an opportunity to catch them.
Instead of an emp blast that could have range limitation, how about a gravity sensor net. with a similar time frame of reset?
thoughts?
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#397 - 2014-05-25 22:22:45 UTC
Exposing one side of the equation to risk, by means of a blast or what have you, requires a balance.

Do not assume balance is lacking, simply because it is not convenient. Balance means fair.
Balance does not mean fun.
Balance does not mean interesting.

Balance simply means the chances of one event is directly comparable to it's considered opposite potential.

If we suggest that a perpetual unknown risk is more than can be desired for good play, then we must also push the other direction, so it's balanced potential is made real.

This means, if we make PvE play safer by allowing the resolution of the unknown threats, then the unknown threats must gain equal opportunity to resolve their target's fate.

Life always seems to favor your opponent, until you consider how their task seems equally set against them.

The grass is not greener on the other side of the fence.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#398 - 2014-05-26 21:22:05 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Exposing one side of the equation to risk, by means of a blast or what have you, requires a balance.

Do not assume balance is lacking, simply because it is not convenient. Balance means fair.
Balance does not mean fun.
Balance does not mean interesting.

Balance simply means the chances of one event is directly comparable to it's considered opposite potential.

If we suggest that a perpetual unknown risk is more than can be desired for good play, then we must also push the other direction, so it's balanced potential is made real.

This means, if we make PvE play safer by allowing the resolution of the unknown threats, then the unknown threats must gain equal opportunity to resolve their target's fate.

Life always seems to favor your opponent, until you consider how their task seems equally set against them.

The grass is not greener on the other side of the fence.

Nikk, having read some of your posts I'm convinced you do know your shlt.

But posting in all these redundant grr cloakies threads will slowly make you crazier than Colonel Kurtz from Apocalypse Now.

Let them renters tremble and/or die, mate. They're not worthy of your wisdom (while it lasts). Big smile

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Seraph IX Basarab
Outer Path
Seraphim Division
#399 - 2014-05-26 21:59:26 UTC
You know what I think the real issue is? It isn't afk cloaking, it isn't carebears, it's current sov mechanics and passive income mechanics. We're trying to deal with a symptom rather than the cause for all of this.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#400 - 2014-05-26 23:47:44 UTC
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Exposing one side of the equation to risk, by means of a blast or what have you, requires a balance.

Do not assume balance is lacking, simply because it is not convenient. Balance means fair.
Balance does not mean fun.
Balance does not mean interesting.

Balance simply means the chances of one event is directly comparable to it's considered opposite potential.

If we suggest that a perpetual unknown risk is more than can be desired for good play, then we must also push the other direction, so it's balanced potential is made real.

This means, if we make PvE play safer by allowing the resolution of the unknown threats, then the unknown threats must gain equal opportunity to resolve their target's fate.

Life always seems to favor your opponent, until you consider how their task seems equally set against them.

The grass is not greener on the other side of the fence.

Nikk, having read some of your posts I'm convinced you do know your shlt.

But posting in all these redundant grr cloakies threads will slowly make you crazier than Colonel Kurtz from Apocalypse Now.

Let them renters tremble and/or die, mate. They're not worthy of your wisdom (while it lasts). Big smile

Actually this thread is hitting on that main point, it is not a nerf cloaked thread at all.

The main point is to drive player based resolution, with changes to both sides so noone gets an "I WIN" button.

I have an interest in playing both sides involved, as a miner and a cloaked pilot.

What I do NOT want, is for one side to have an advantage, or both being pushed into stalemates because of two mechanics having a combined effect.
Sadly, we have the latter now, but it is balanced... it just doesn't offer players a chance to resolve it except for bizarre events.

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