These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals

First post First post
Author
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#341 - 2015-01-19 15:14:06 UTC
RainReaper wrote:
hmmm... i dont really think there is a problem with afk cloaking.
the one problem with it is that you will have the advantage of sending in a huge fleet easily without much cost.
the only idea i can come up with is to make it so that you cant activate a cyno for 15 sec after uncloaking a cov ops cloak.
meaning that you can be prepared to either take the person down or gtfo if you have the stabs to wistand the scams. since regular cloaks cant warp when active they should not have the cooldown. with this cov ops ships would have to decloak somewhere safe and wait the 15 secs. if he gets noticed he cloaks or gtfo. if he dosent he can warp in and deploy cyno.
the problem is not the afk cloaking. its the fact that they can instantly get in a huge fleet to blap anyone while the defender dont even have a secound to grasp the situation before its to late.

Why don't they simply make this cyno tactic obsolete?

It seems the clear point of it, is to make a relatively undefended ship less able to use avoidance tactics.

The avoidance tactic, is based off the perfect instant warning it is possible to use local chat and have ready.

If quality of player effort determined whether these targets had sufficient warning, then I believe the game dynamic would be more competitive.
Local chat is not subject to human error.
It will add that non-friendly name to it's list the moment they enter the system, if not while they are still trying to load it.

In order to threaten targets, a tactic was needed which was not made obsolete by this instant warning.
That is where we are today.
RainReaper
RRN Industries
#342 - 2015-01-19 15:21:52 UTC  |  Edited by: RainReaper
Nikk Narrel wrote:
RainReaper wrote:
hmmm... i dont really think there is a problem with afk cloaking.
the one problem with it is that you will have the advantage of sending in a huge fleet easily without much cost.
the only idea i can come up with is to make it so that you cant activate a cyno for 15 sec after uncloaking a cov ops cloak.
meaning that you can be prepared to either take the person down or gtfo if you have the stabs to wistand the scams. since regular cloaks cant warp when active they should not have the cooldown. with this cov ops ships would have to decloak somewhere safe and wait the 15 secs. if he gets noticed he cloaks or gtfo. if he dosent he can warp in and deploy cyno.
the problem is not the afk cloaking. its the fact that they can instantly get in a huge fleet to blap anyone while the defender dont even have a secound to grasp the situation before its to late.

Why don't they simply make this cyno tactic obsolete?

It seems the clear point of it, is to make a relatively undefended ship less able to use avoidance tactics.

The avoidance tactic, is based off the perfect instant warning it is possible to use local chat and have ready.

If quality of player effort determined whether these targets had sufficient warning, then I believe the game dynamic would be more competitive.
Local chat is not subject to human error.
It will add that non-friendly name to it's list the moment they enter the system, if not while they are still trying to load it.

In order to threaten targets, a tactic was needed which was not made obsolete by this instant warning.
That is where we are today.


i think my idea was inded to make the cyno tactic obselete in that the cloaker would have to uncloak and wait a bit somewhere. leting players that accualy are active att the keyboard and indeed do use directional scan and if he see a cov ops ship he would then know that a fleet might be incoming, he could then either get back to safety or send in his own fleet, depending on what options the defender accualy have. if he was a bot he would still die due to not being att the keyboard and accualy making sure he is safe. the cloaker would ofcourse uncloak somewhere safe. and if he then noticed probes on dscan he could cloak back up and flee. meaning that both sides would be ready for an assault. instead of the attacker being the one that controls apsolutely everything.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#343 - 2015-01-19 15:51:41 UTC
RainReaper wrote:
...
i think my idea was inded to make the cyno tactic obselete in that the cloaker would have to uncloak and wait a bit somewhere. leting players that accualy are active att the keyboard and indeed do use directional scan and if he see a cov ops ship he would then know that a fleet might be incoming, he could then either get back to safety or send in his own fleet, depending on what options the defender accualy have. if he was a bot he would still die due to not being att the keyboard and accualy making sure he is safe. the cloaker would ofcourse uncloak somewhere safe. and if he then noticed probes on dscan he could cloak back up and flee. meaning that both sides would be ready for an assault. instead of the attacker being the one that controls apsolutely everything.

You are operating under a false detail.

Players are using this local based avoidance tactic, because it is the easiest and most efficient way to PvE.
(Under normal circumstances)

1. You don't need other players to help.
2. You can log in at any time, and that gives you an edge if you want rare spawns of rats or ore.
3. It is faster, since you don't need to use fittings for defense, but can truly optimize your return rate from PvE.

It works so often, that players become spoiled against using less convenient options which might show effective results against cloaked potential hostiles.

If we install a one sided change, and make the cloaked character unable to hot-drop, etc.... then seeing the new names appear in local will be the warning which causes the player to scramble for safety, if they are off grid from the target.
If they are on grid, seeing them de-cloak will cause the scramble. If they can warp scramble and lock down the target from leaving, no change takes place.
Such a scramble focused on AVOIDING contact, not adding an improvement to gameplay.

It's net effect would simply be a buff to friendly sov PvE in null.
RainReaper
RRN Industries
#344 - 2015-01-19 16:11:22 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
RainReaper wrote:
...
i think my idea was inded to make the cyno tactic obselete in that the cloaker would have to uncloak and wait a bit somewhere. leting players that accualy are active att the keyboard and indeed do use directional scan and if he see a cov ops ship he would then know that a fleet might be incoming, he could then either get back to safety or send in his own fleet, depending on what options the defender accualy have. if he was a bot he would still die due to not being att the keyboard and accualy making sure he is safe. the cloaker would ofcourse uncloak somewhere safe. and if he then noticed probes on dscan he could cloak back up and flee. meaning that both sides would be ready for an assault. instead of the attacker being the one that controls apsolutely everything.

You are operating under a false detail.

Players are using this local based avoidance tactic, because it is the easiest and most efficient way to PvE.
(Under normal circumstances)

1. You don't need other players to help.
2. You can log in at any time, and that gives you an edge if you want rare spawns of rats or ore.
3. It is faster, since you don't need to use fittings for defense, but can truly optimize your return rate from PvE.

It works so often, that players become spoiled against using less convenient options which might show effective results against cloaked potential hostiles.

If we install a one sided change, and make the cloaked character unable to hot-drop, etc.... then seeing the new names appear in local will be the warning which causes the player to scramble for safety, if they are off grid from the target.
If they are on grid, seeing them de-cloak will cause the scramble. If they can warp scramble and lock down the target from leaving, no change takes place.
Such a scramble focused on AVOIDING contact, not adding an improvement to gameplay.

It's net effect would simply be a buff to friendly sov PvE in null.


if you wherent fit for pvp but for pve. would you do a pvp fight?
i sure as hell would not. i would try to get a pvp fit ship instead.
also, removing local would not make players feel safer. it would make them feel even less safe.
(how can i be sure there isent someone outside the station ready to hotdrop my ass the exact moment i undock?)
small groups wont stand a chance against big groups with tons of titans.
im trying to come up with a way to make it so that both sides accualy might have a chance. instead of the attacker with the fleet that got 10 times the amount of people the smaller group have.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#345 - 2015-01-19 16:27:25 UTC
I will answer your points as best I can.
RainReaper wrote:

1 if you wherent fit for pvp but for pve. would you do a pvp fight?
i sure as hell would not. i would try to get a pvp fit ship instead.

2 also, removing local would not make players feel safer. it would make them feel even less safe.
(how can i be sure there isent someone outside the station ready to hotdrop my ass the exact moment i undock?)

3 small groups wont stand a chance against big groups with tons of titans.

4 im trying to come up with a way to make it so that both sides accualy might have a chance. instead of the attacker with the fleet that got 10 times the amount of people the smaller group have.

1
This is not the foundation of the issue. I would rather point out that null is never supposed to be safe from PvP, except for when players make it safe.
The design of EVE blocks absolute safety by design, otherwise the reward index for null sec would be reduced by necessity.
When considering safety not totally supported by players working together, High Sec supposedly represents the pinnacle of solo and small group survivability and safety.
Null is all about if you can do it, it is permitted.

2
If you are alone in null, with no direct support from other players, you should not expect to feel safe.
Seriously.

3
This is not the same issue. While there may be overlap, you also should be asking how the small group can attack the big group, unless they have guerrilla tactics such as extended cloaking and cyno use to cherry pick encounters.
I think we can both agree, the small group has no genuine chance fighting by brute frontal assault. They need to be able to prevent the bigger group from dictating the terms of engagement.

4
Now, how does the small group attack the big group, especially in their sov space?
Clearly the big group is not simply going to extend an invitation, so the small group must pick targets despite the big group resisting.

The cloaked guy represents the smaller force just as often as not.
They know they won't be steamrolling the system, and claiming sov there any time soon, but that doesn't mean they can't fight back or be effective in other ways.
RainReaper
RRN Industries
#346 - 2015-01-19 16:37:36 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I will answer your points as best I can.
RainReaper wrote:

1 if you wherent fit for pvp but for pve. would you do a pvp fight?
i sure as hell would not. i would try to get a pvp fit ship instead.

2 also, removing local would not make players feel safer. it would make them feel even less safe.
(how can i be sure there isent someone outside the station ready to hotdrop my ass the exact moment i undock?)

3 small groups wont stand a chance against big groups with tons of titans.

4 im trying to come up with a way to make it so that both sides accualy might have a chance. instead of the attacker with the fleet that got 10 times the amount of people the smaller group have.

1
This is not the foundation of the issue. I would rather point out that null is never supposed to be safe from PvP, except for when players make it safe.
The design of EVE blocks absolute safety by design, otherwise the reward index for null sec would be reduced by necessity.
When considering safety not totally supported by players working together, High Sec supposedly represents the pinnacle of solo and small group survivability and safety.
Null is all about if you can do it, it is permitted.

2
If you are alone in null, with no direct support from other players, you should not expect to feel safe.
Seriously.

3
This is not the same issue. While there may be overlap, you also should be asking how the small group can attack the big group, unless they have guerrilla tactics such as extended cloaking and cyno use to cherry pick encounters.
I think we can both agree, the small group has no genuine chance fighting by brute frontal assault. They need to be able to prevent the bigger group from dictating the terms of engagement.

4
Now, how does the small group attack the big group, especially in their sov space?
Clearly the big group is not simply going to extend an invitation, so the small group must pick targets despite the big group resisting.

The cloaked guy represents the smaller force just as often as not.
They know they won't be steamrolling the system, and claiming sov there any time soon, but that doesn't mean they can't fight back or be effective in other ways.


and how is the small group suposed to do anything if there is no local? the problem is that the smaller group wont stand a chance against a bigger group. wich is the reason why people hide when afk cloakers apear. they know that no matter what they do they cant win. and geting rid of local is no no way gonna encorage anyone to do anything.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#347 - 2015-01-19 16:56:02 UTC
RainReaper wrote:
...
1 and how is the small group suposed to do anything if there is no local? the problem is that the smaller group wont stand a chance against a bigger group. wich is the reason why people hide when afk cloakers apear. they know that no matter what they do they cant win. and geting rid of local is no no way gonna encorage anyone to do anything.


1
The small group is left with fewer options, clearly.
They can sit in the sov space of the bigger group, keep their cloak running continuously, and hope the big group does not feel safe enough to use the system despite their presence.

After a period of time, the big group views the system with less value, and considers them to be a smaller priority for defending in the event of an attack.
We keep getting camped there, and with little strategic value, we don't care if that place is lost. System Y0-Jabba, on the other hand, is a must keep...

Now, if local was not warning about cloaked presence, they could in theory attempt to engage the bigger group's targets of opportunity.
They would not know exactly WHO was in system, but the bigger group would not be warned in time to duck the sneak attacks either.
With such resolution possible, noone would AFK cloak, but the cloaked player would not need to either.
Remember, getting back to that space is difficult, so try to avoid getting popped by obvious baiting traps, or targets too capable of fighting.

Now, if the bigger group is camping the smaller one this way, that's just playing with your food.
The bigger group could simply steamroll the system, and claim sov, but they like having targets to shoot at on weekends, during the family barbecue while the alliance meeting is running on voice coms.

At least if local was less useful to the big group, they could not use these tactics as effectively.
(How else do you think they know about the people docked up, or hiding in the system, waiting on them to leave?
Local reveals more than enough to a solitary pilot)
RainReaper
RRN Industries
#348 - 2015-01-19 17:03:32 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
RainReaper wrote:
...
1 and how is the small group suposed to do anything if there is no local? the problem is that the smaller group wont stand a chance against a bigger group. wich is the reason why people hide when afk cloakers apear. they know that no matter what they do they cant win. and geting rid of local is no no way gonna encorage anyone to do anything.


1
The small group is left with fewer options, clearly.
They can sit in the sov space of the bigger group, keep their cloak running continuously, and hope the big group does not feel safe enough to use the system despite their presence.

After a period of time, the big group views the system with less value, and considers them to be a smaller priority for defending in the event of an attack.
We keep getting camped there, and with little strategic value, we don't care if that place is lost. System Y0-Jabba, on the other hand, is a must keep...

Now, if local was not warning about cloaked presence, they could in theory attempt to engage the bigger group's targets of opportunity.
They would not know exactly WHO was in system, but the bigger group would not be warned in time to duck the sneak attacks either.
With such resolution possible, noone would AFK cloak, but the cloaked player would not need to either.
Remember, getting back to that space is difficult, so try to avoid getting popped by obvious baiting traps, or targets too capable of fighting.

Now, if the bigger group is camping the smaller one this way, that's just playing with your food.
The bigger group could simply steamroll the system, and claim sov, but they like having targets to shoot at on weekends, during the family barbecue while the alliance meeting is running on voice coms.

At least if local was less useful to the big group, they could not use these tactics as effectively.
(How else do you think they know about the people docked up, or hiding in the system, waiting on them to leave?
Local reveals more than enough to a solitary pilot)


you have a point in that smaller groups could take down bigger groups with suprice attacks. but how can you be so sure that goons and such wont use it to no end to go after easy kills? small groups that wish to grow wont stand a chance cause they will be taken down before they even get a leg to stand on.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#349 - 2015-01-19 17:24:34 UTC
RainReaper wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
...

Now, if the bigger group is camping the smaller one this way, that's just playing with your food.
The bigger group could simply steamroll the system, and claim sov, but they like having targets to shoot at on weekends, during the family barbecue while the alliance meeting is running on voice coms.

At least if local was less useful to the big group, they could not use these tactics as effectively.
(How else do you think they know about the people docked up, or hiding in the system, waiting on them to leave?
Local reveals more than enough to a solitary pilot)


you have a point in that smaller groups could take down bigger groups with suprice attacks. but how can you be so sure that goons and such wont use it to no end to go after easy kills? small groups that wish to grow wont stand a chance cause they will be taken down before they even get a leg to stand on.

That's the whole conundrum we face, when dealing with tactics which work for smaller groups, but clearly are capable of scaling.

The AFK Cloaking tactic is both time consuming, and has no guarantee of results. Bigger groups have the option of using direct brute force, which is not necessarily time consuming, and has far more predictable results.

If you are a big group, and someone is long term cloaking in your system, there is more of a chance they are bluffing.
They would know that your bigger group can more easily pull together a counter drop, or simply speed-burn from the next system over. With such resources, they could overtank a PvE boat to survive, and tackle, so that they could cherry pick the most impressive ship from that doomed hot-drop the smaller group mounted.

For your enjoyment:

[Procurer, BAIT]
Reinforced Bulkheads II
Damage Control II

Passive Targeter II
Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I

Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II

Medium Drone Durability Enhancer I
Medium Drone Durability Enhancer I
Medium Drone Durability Enhancer I

Warrior II x5

With my skills, EFT says the unboosted Veldspar ore yield is 911
(It is unchanged for Ark, Bistot and Crokite, but this is EFT here)
EHP for me is 47,156

Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#350 - 2015-01-19 21:56:03 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Bullet Therapist wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
...

Since you did not describe a benefit to cloaked play alongside this, why are we giving Null PvE a buff with this?

It's kind of a no-brainer that null PvE can avoid most other hostiles, using the local warning system.
Why do we want to nerf the one play style that can counter this immunity?


1 Because local doesn't make anyone in null immune to non cloaky ships.

I think a better question is why should a cloaked ship be allowed to sit in space indefinitely without somehow being found, afk or not.

Let me take a moment, and squash this false logic before it becomes mistakenly accepted.

1
If I can see a name appear in local, and get off to a safe location where this hostile name cannot stop me, I beat them for the moment.
I can do this reliably, if I am prepared.
At that point, I can call up some friends, and possibly join them myself, and pew pew them till they leave.
Without that cloak, we can scan them down, chase them, pop them, have a merry time of it.
Obviously, if we put in the effort, they cannot endure, and we can go back to PvE stuff till the next time.

Now, if they have a CLOAK, we can't scan them down.
Sure, we can take turns doing PvE under protection, but that has limits to the patience of many players less suited to such a demanding environment.
I mean, it's not high sec, with NPC actions that can be included in defenses. You need actual players to fill those roles, which explains the higher rewards index.

Just because you can't eject them on your terms, doesn't change the fact it still takes an equal or greater number of players to beat a group.
You believe they can have a group available in moments, able to coordinate and cyno a drop on top of your ratting boat, but you cannot match their efforts.
You want the game to make their threat go away instead.

OH, wait, that is HIGH SEC. It already exists, so you don't need players sitting around to guard your PvE.
They have this thing called Concord, see....


On point one you're provably wrong. This assumes that all players can do three things all the time, which they can't, namely, that they pay attention perfectly, that they utilize the most rational practices (i.e. ratting aligned, using correct fits etc,) and that they react to situations optimally- which they don't. Which brings me to the proof: look at a killboard. Ratters and industrialists (even insta-align travelceptors) get caught in null every day, even in places, such as near the ends of dead end pipes, where statements like yours dictate it should be impossible.

Secondly, I'm not asking for risk do disappear. The risk index that you mention in nullsec swings far away from that of highsec, even without cloakies to consider. When you consider the time loss (this depends on where you live of course) and average losses incurred during activities, null PVE isn't really as profitable as some people here seem to believe for most players. Not everyone is ratting in a nyx or four smartbombing napocs in a quiet system.

Quote:
Just because you can't eject them on your terms, doesn't change the fact it still takes an equal or greater number of players to beat a group.
You believe they can have a group available in moments, able to coordinate and cyno a drop on top of your ratting boat, but you cannot match their efforts.
You want the game to make their threat go away instead.


This is a big statement here. Your last sentence here is putting words in my mouth I've never said. I don't want them to go away, I just want a limiting factor placed on the indefiniteness of cloaks. Back to the first sentence, you're right; it might take equal or greater numbers to beat a group, but- and this is important, with a cloaked camper you can not only know exactly what you need to 'win' an encounter, but you can initiate it when you're most likely to win. That's simply too much initiative to put in the hands of an aggressor.

Fourth, and this is kind of out there, but you're not safe even in highsec. I'm not trying to sound like a jerk over any of this, but you're not meant to be safe anywhere in EVE, highsec being no exception. I think though that afk cloaking is an issue that should have been dealt with during power projection changes (as that's what it's a fulcrum for) because they destabilized the balance of risk/reward too much. Like power projection, they need to be brought in line enough so that they're still used, but not as ubiquitous.
snorkle25
Interstellar Ventures LLC
#351 - 2015-01-19 22:08:20 UTC
In my opinion 'AFK' cloaking isn't the problem, its a symptom. I use the phrase 'AFK' Cloaking since the players in question would be a non issue if they where well and truly AFK. It is the fact that they are not (or at least enough of them are not) truly AFK but simply patient observant hunters that makes this an issue.

But lets get down to the real issue, what should the purpose of a cloak be and to what extent? Currently a Cloak simply hides the player on a very small scale, the grid. It does not conceal the players presence within the system or region (for the sake of this discussion lets omit WH space since that's a different realm altogether). Now the way the current hunter/prey relationship works in Eve, concealment is really only an issue, strategically, on the local and greater level. Therefore, at this time cloaks simply do not conceal the hunter forcing a player adaptation; pretending to be AFK so as to fool the prey into thinking that the hunter is no longer there (ie concealing the hunters presence).

The fact is that extended periods of cloaking do have a purpose, mostly in the collection of human intel. While in a system cloaked its often helpful to note who is undocked and in what ship type. What activities are being conducted. How often players are docking/redocking both in general and specific. What gates or routes do they take? Are there any exploitable patterns (personal, corporate or alliance wide)? All this adds up to a lot of time patiently at the keyboard cloaked and attentive and unlike spies its hard to burn a cloaker.

So whats the solution that 'fixes' this problem? The best solution in my opinion would be a delayed local, nominally a 10min delay. This way hunters can move through and hunt while intel gathers are still visible to the locals.

Many of you are now asking yourself, so how do we keep them out of our space?! The answer is the same way you stop anyone else, but up gate camps at regional gates into and out with insta-lockers and lots of de-cloak objects. Be active and proactive! And most of all, be out in space!! There are lots of example ways to bait out hot-droppers and the like.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#352 - 2015-01-19 22:27:17 UTC
Bullet Therapist wrote:
...
1 On point one you're provably wrong. This assumes that all players can do three things all the time, which they can't, namely, that they pay attention perfectly, that they utilize the most rational practices (i.e. ratting aligned, using correct fits etc,) and that they react to situations optimally- which they don't. Which brings me to the proof: look at a killboard. Ratters and industrialists (even insta-align travelceptors) get caught in null every day, even in places, such as near the ends of dead end pipes, where statements like yours dictate it should be impossible.

2 Secondly, I'm not asking for risk do disappear. The risk index that you mention in nullsec swings far away from that of highsec, even without cloakies to consider. When you consider the time loss (this depends on where you live of course) and average losses incurred during activities, null PVE isn't really as profitable as some people here seem to believe for most players. Not everyone is ratting in a nyx or four smartbombing napocs in a quiet system.

Quote:
Just because you can't eject them on your terms, doesn't change the fact it still takes an equal or greater number of players to beat a group.
You believe they can have a group available in moments, able to coordinate and cyno a drop on top of your ratting boat, but you cannot match their efforts.
You want the game to make their threat go away instead.


3 This is a big statement here. Your last sentence here is putting words in my mouth I've never said. I don't want them to go away, I just want a limiting factor placed on the indefiniteness of cloaks. Back to the first sentence, you're right; it might take equal or greater numbers to beat a group, but- and this is important, with a cloaked camper you can not only know exactly what you need to 'win' an encounter, but you can initiate it when you're most likely to win. That's simply too much initiative to put in the hands of an aggressor.

4 Fourth, and this is kind of out there, but you're not safe even in highsec. I'm not trying to sound like a jerk over any of this, but you're not meant to be safe anywhere in EVE, highsec being no exception. I think though that afk cloaking is an issue that should have been dealt with during power projection changes (as that's what it's a fulcrum for) because they destabilized the balance of risk/reward too much. Like power projection, they need to be brought in line enough so that they're still used, but not as ubiquitous.


1
I never claimed everyone played perfectly.
I said I could do a successful avoidance reliably, if I was prepared.
You can describe as many kill mails as you want. All that proves is that local gave them the warning, by adding in a non-friendly name, and they were not prepared to act on it.
It's a two part process, and local chat never fails to do it's part flawlessly.
That leaves the player.
They are not playing against the hostile, not yet.
They are playing against the clock. Knowing that under ideal circumstances, the hostile has to align and warp, travel in warp, and land on grid, all at the same point in time when their name first appears in local.
NOTHING a hostile does can remove those precious seconds of reaction time the PvE pilot has, allowing them to hit warp to a safe location.
All you are arguing on at this stage, is that a hostile has a chance to meet their target, IF the target screws up first.

2
Agreed, null is not a printing press for ISKies, but it is still more return on investment than high sec.
And quite arguably, in many circumstances, high sec can be far more dangerous compared to friendly sov null.

3
You are correct, I did draw a conclusion which may not have been appropriate.
In the event a cloak becomes limited, the operator will either be aware of this, and leave, OR actually be AFK when their cloak fails, and become a kill mail.
You want a limiting factor placed on the indefiniteness of cloaks. Under simplest terms, that means a timer which would expire, require resetting, something which could only be accomplished by a non AFK player.
THAT would then be enough to tell you that the name in local is, in fact, not AFK, but alert enough to monitor their ship, and quite possibly stalk possible targets around the system.

4
A cloaked player only represents a potential risk.
More to my point, they are the only counter to the ships which form the backbone of many alliances economic power.
Without the ISK generation, and in many cases ore and other dropped loot, they cannot sustain replacement of fighting ships.
This creates a new way to destroy your opponent's fighting ability, by starving it out of existence.
Now, in a more competitive aspect, these ships would actually not need to AFK cloak. They would show up, get their fill of kills, and be off.
AND / OR, maybe the defending players would kill them.
Either way, the path for resolution would be faster, but without the psychological drama it currently has.

Mags enjoys this part, so I respectfully submit that this is already a balanced and functioning part of the game, requiring no changes.
Jeremy Chieve
Doomheim
#353 - 2015-01-20 00:28:07 UTC
Thread is too long for me to read thru. If this havent been sugested before, then \o/.

I'd suggest a cloak overload timer of 10 minutes. Before it overloads and shuts Down for 30 Seconds, it blinks for a couple minutes, and you can tap the button to initiate a coolant injection. You would need to have coolant in Your cargohold to feed the cloak, like an ancillary booster. It shouldnt use more than one unit per cool Down. I also suggest the overload will slightly dmg the cloaking Device, and 10 overloads renders the module burntout.
Delegate
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#354 - 2015-01-20 00:34:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Delegate
Bullet Therapist wrote:
On point one you're provably wrong. This assumes that all players can do three things all the time, which they can't, namely, that they pay attention perfectly, that they utilize the most rational practices (i.e. ratting aligned, using correct fits etc,) and that they react to situations optimally- which they don't. Which brings me to the proof: look at a killboard. Ratters and industrialists (even insta-align travelceptors) get caught in null every day, even in places, such as near the ends of dead end pipes, where statements like yours dictate it should be impossible.


You are repeating this empty argument again, even though it was refuted few pages back. But ok, lets waste few dozens of words to state what's obvious and what was already mentioned in this thread.

You see, I could take your wording and use it – as is – in whatever I'm currently arguing about null. Or I could replace “null” with “low-sec” and here I have an omnipotent argument against changes in low-sec. Don't like d-scan changes to recons? Go take this template add "low-sec" after "null" and you are done. Perhaps you aren't satisfied with bubble mechanics? Here you have a ready-made argument, no need to change even a letter.
Why is this argument so omnipotent (read: devoid of merit)? Because there is nothing in it but two obvious truths about pretty much every game out there:
- if you have >40,000 players at peak hours, statistics say many dozens will screw-up, this way or the other, and will end up on a kill board,
- humans aren't perfect; they may not react optimally, they may not pay attention, etc.

Does this mean no balance change should ever be made to any game? For you know: what's written above is statistics and basic truths about human attention. They hold whatever game and whatever balance changes you are considering...

So what brought us to this fallacy?

Balancing game is about weighting certain mechanics against other mechanics on the basis of their merits. Its not about denying the need for changes by invoking the law of truly large numbers – and that is what Bullet is doing here(*). Its also not about denying the need for changes by invoking shortcoming of human attention. Whatever stupid mistake you imagine, its likely to be happen dozens of times daily, because – you see – a lot of players are logging in every day. What do these basic statistical facts tell us about d-scan, recons, cloaking, jump fatigue or sov mechanics? Not much. Not much indeed. Because they simply aren't arguments in a balance debate.

I pointed this out before, albeit within two sentences – which seemed more than enough, given how pathetic the argument is in the first place. But hey... we're wasting words in this thread, aren't we?

(*) Of course Bullet is invoking that law in a very one-sided way. One could easily say that there couldn't possibly be any balance issues behind afk cloaking, when so many asteroids are mined every day. So why we are reading this fallacy one way but not the other way? ... Because some players will never accept any possibility that the game mechanics may let them be ganked. We know that since like... page 10.

Bullet Therapist wrote:
Secondly, I'm not asking for risk do disappear. The risk index that you mention in nullsec swings far away from that of highsec, even without cloakies to consider. When you consider the time loss (this depends on where you live of course) and average losses incurred during activities, null PVE isn't really as profitable as some people here seem to believe for most players. Not everyone is ratting in a nyx or four smartbombing napocs in a quiet system.


Yes you are asking for risk to disappear by advocating a change that make local a perfect early warning tool. And please don't repeat again how 40,000 players will still generate kills or how someone may not pay attention while ratting. You are confusing risk with ineptitude.
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#355 - 2015-01-20 00:36:45 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:

1
I never claimed everyone played perfectly.
I said I could do a successful avoidance reliably, if I was prepared.
You can describe as many kill mails as you want. All that proves is that local gave them the warning, by adding in a non-friendly name, and they were not prepared to act on it.
It's a two part process, and local chat never fails to do it's part flawlessly.
That leaves the player.
They are not playing against the hostile, not yet.
They are playing against the clock. Knowing that under ideal circumstances, the hostile has to align and warp, travel in warp, and land on grid, all at the same point in time when their name first appears in local.
NOTHING a hostile does can remove those precious seconds of reaction time the PvE pilot has, allowing them to hit warp to a safe location.
All you are arguing on at this stage, is that a hostile has a chance to meet their target, IF the target screws up first.


Your three final statements aren't in any fundamental disagreement with any if my ideas so I'll leave them out for now.

I have a few with the first though and I'll outline them as follows:

Quote:
You can describe as many kill mails as you want. All that proves is that local gave them the warning, by adding in a non-friendly name, and they were not prepared to act on it.


This is incorrect as there are plenty of circumstances where a player is prepared to react to the presence of a potential hostile in local but doesn't have the time to do something about it. Interceptors are fast enough now that a range of PVE oriented ships are vulnerable in a large enough window that an interceptor can arrive in system, dscan, or simply shotgun to likely sites, land on grid and tackle in the time that a ship can warp out. A popular choice in particular is is the 100mn ishtar, which is slow aligning enough, and dependent upon orbiting (read not being aligned) that it can be caught by an interceptor. Ratting battleships (especially smart bomb fit ones) and carriers are also slow enough that they're likely to be caught inside the window that an interceptor provides.

The reaction, alignment, and warp speeds of battleships and carriers are slow enough that interdictor pilots have enough time to get in system, arrive on station or POS grid in time to drop bubbles, often even with defensively placed anchorable bubbles on ingress gates.

The breadth of sites that PVE players in null are likely to occupy is also limited. Not all anomalies are equally likely to harbor a ratting player. Forsaken hubs and mining anomalies are a much better choice for interceptors to warp to, as they are far more likely to have a player in them.

Quote:
It's a two part process, and local chat never fails to do it's part flawlessly.
That leaves the player.
They are not playing against the hostile, not yet.
They are playing against the clock. Knowing that under ideal circumstances, the hostile has to align and warp, travel in warp, and land on grid, all at the same point in time when their name first appears in local.
NOTHING a hostile does can remove those precious seconds of reaction time the PvE pilot has, allowing them to hit warp to a safe location.


This is also not accurate. They are playing against the player, as their adversary's tactics dictate the degree of time they have to get to safety. An aggressor's choice of ships determines how likely a ratter is to survive an incursion into a ratting system. By choosing interceptors and fast interdictors an aggressor dramatically increases his chance of catching a ship over sometime like a homogenous group of MWD cerbs with logi for example.

Again, I'm not arguing that cloaking up and watching a system should be removed. I think it's a perfectly valid tactic for players to use and I would never ask that it be taken away. The issue that I have is that it is a powerful tool that has very few drawbacks right now and that a player can remain in a ship, cloaked in space indefinitely. I think that there should be some work involved after initially bringing a ship into a system to maintain the invulnerability that cloaking provides. It's not an unreasonable request and it wouldn't take it away as a tactic, just like the force projection changes to jump drives; it doesn't make them entirely unsuitable but it does make their use require more work and planning for the power they provide.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#356 - 2015-01-20 00:54:05 UTC
Bullet Therapist wrote:
The issue that I have is that it is a powerful tool that has very few drawbacks right now and that a player can remain in a ship, cloaked in space indefinitely.



Its the only counter to the insta intel that is local.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#357 - 2015-01-20 01:19:13 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Bullet Therapist wrote:
The issue that I have is that it is a powerful tool that has very few drawbacks right now and that a player can remain in a ship, cloaked in space indefinitely.



Its the only counter to the insta intel that is local.

Aside from jump portals.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#358 - 2015-01-20 01:30:15 UTC
Rowells wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Bullet Therapist wrote:
The issue that I have is that it is a powerful tool that has very few drawbacks right now and that a player can remain in a ship, cloaked in space indefinitely.



Its the only counter to the insta intel that is local.

Aside from jump portals.


They require something to be in local to jump to, the second their cyno ship enters local the are seen.

AFK cloaking is the only thing that can counter local intel.
Haywoud Jablomi
Vay Mining Corporation
#359 - 2015-01-20 01:31:09 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Bullet Therapist wrote:
The issue that I have is that it is a powerful tool that has very few drawbacks right now and that a player can remain in a ship, cloaked in space indefinitely.



Its the only counter to the insta intel that is local.



Which is not an even counter, and is only as good as the person watching.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#360 - 2015-01-20 01:42:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
baltec1 wrote:
Rowells wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Bullet Therapist wrote:
The issue that I have is that it is a powerful tool that has very few drawbacks right now and that a player can remain in a ship, cloaked in space indefinitely.



Its the only counter to the insta intel that is local.

Aside from jump portals.


They require something to be in local to jump to, the second their cyno ship enters local the are seen.

AFK cloaking is the only thing that can counter local intel.

kill boards show, people have found a way around it without AFK cloaking. Not that I wouldn't love to see it gone, but definitely not as a solo change.