These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1721 - 2015-03-29 20:43:45 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
So what is the difference between dedicating a a fleet to watching the undock and dedicating a fleet to guard a system?

Also stations cannot be attacked, taken over or have docking rights revoked.
You don't need a fleet to watch a station, you need one active player, or even just your d-scan on the PvE player. Why should a player AFK in space be more difficult to look out for simply because they chose to fit a module. Honestly mate, keep on being deliberately obtuse and opting for risk free mechanics. When you want to wander back into the realm of active and balanced gameplay, let me know.

And in null they can. I already know what you are going to say to that and my pre-emptive response is stop being pedantic.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1722 - 2015-03-29 20:50:23 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Players camping in a POS, often AFK boosting for mining or other PvE.
Players camping docked in an outpost, often after ship spinning.
Players camping while logged out.
Players camping while cloaked, often meta gaming.

The only problem, is that we need each of these, or something with the ability to convey the same benefits.
The ability to meta game, or interrupt play without resetting progress, often defines the difference between success and failure.

If we could not build on previous efforts, our progress would never be more than could be achieved in a single session.
But we already know that.

The ability to sit docked in an outpost, or safely protected by a POS, is not being questioned here.
Logging out seems beyond reproach too.
I can certainly agree we need these as well.

The line is being neatly drawn at cloaking.
I don't think AFK boosting should exist in a POS.

And the reason it's being drawn at cloaking (and boosting) is because those actually convey a benefit over others in the system. Because you can't who's AFK cloaked and who's actively cloaking, you have to treat them all active and thus they are able to appear as a risk when they are not and they can freely move between those states without anyone knowing. With a docked or logged out player however, it's irrelevant whether they are active or not as when they move out of that state you are immediately aware if you are paying attention.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#1723 - 2015-03-29 21:00:16 UTC
Madd Adda wrote:


" there is nothing to tell me which client is making the sound."
hence why having one client with sound would be preferred.


Or why having something entirely different that was not dependent on sound would be preferred.

Madd Adda wrote:

i will concede the dscan point but, if your clients are all on the same grid, it wouldn't matter which client was with sound on. Grant it you might not have all clients on the same grid but why should that make my idea bad?


because i often have clients on separate grids/systems/WH's. As do many other players.

Madd Adda wrote:
You're trying to discredit it because you would either have to be active just to hear it (with sound on naturally)or have your clients all on the same grid (both of which are good practices imo).


What your failing to do is to look at the scope of the idea from anyones perspective but your own. Few people have all of their clients on the same grid all the time. Very few.

Madd Adda wrote:

You'd prefer like is now, someone warps in cloaked and attacks an alt, of which you have no sound on . How do you know you're being attacked? Wouldn't it be better to at least have it in the off chance you to hear it and you warp off?


id prefer to have an active way to look for cloaks. Not a passive menu option with a random chance of choosing the correct grid.

Madd Adda wrote:

Anyway, if you don't know which client the sound came then you do the sensible thing and warp all clients to safety. If you don't agree with that then you deserve to be ganked.


And if i need to defend whats on grid with me, how do i know which grid i need to get my buddies to? or im hunting the cloaker?

its not about running away all the time.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#1724 - 2015-03-29 21:27:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Lucas Kell wrote:
You're honestly insane if you believe that to be the actual truth.


says the null bear. Not the afk cloaker.
It was directly a response to null bears docking up, then undocking after we left. The information for which was provided to them by local. So instead we sat in system and went onto other things, making them think they were in danger when we were no where near our KB.

Then they eventually started undocking and trying to rat with hostiles in system. The cat and mouse game begins.

Lucas Kell wrote:

Daichi Yamato wrote:
When null bears started running away the second a neutral entered system, players started sitting in local 24/7 so that defenders couldnt be sure whether the neutral was active or not.
Which makes no sense, since according to all the crying cloakers in here they still do run away from every neut.


*facepalm*

read thread from beginning.

obviously not every bear runs from neuts. Its maranor, or whatever, that was saying its stupid and unprofitable to rat with neuts in local, but he hasnt a freaking clue either. People do in fact chance ratting with neuts in local. Thats why there are kills to show such.

What this discussion is about is:

Cloak is the counter to local. Local is the counter to cloaking.

They both create a crappy stalemate atm, but if one is to change (which null bears have been pressuring for forever), then the other should change (which is the counter pressure from people like me). Or keep them both as they are now.

Quote:
Exactly, you do it to counter PvE players with a stake in null, not to counter the fact that they can tell when local has a +1.


nope.

We counter PvE players with a stake in null by attacking them.
They counter us by knowing the exact point we enter and leave system and knowing when its safe.
We counter by sitting in local 24/7 to take away that certainty of our presence provided by local.

Quote:
Setting up shop doing what? There would be noone to shoot, and setting up PvE would be literally the dumbest idea possible, since you would be able to get more reward with less risk elsewhere. It's got nothing to do with wanting safe gameplay, it's simple logic. Why would someone opt to be paid less for being at more risk?



If theres no one there i can PvE with little risk...If there are people there who can attack me, i get to PvP. How can you not get that? edit- unless you think i cant PvP whilst PvE'ing. In which case, thats your problem right there.

How is removing local lowering the rewards below hi sec? all it does is add risk. I can still choose hi-reward hi-risk null without local, or low-reward low-risk hi-sec.

which is a thousand times better than hi-reward low-risk null we have now. And null bears have even been pushing for lowering the risk even further!

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Madd Adda
#1725 - 2015-03-30 02:03:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Madd Adda
Daichi Yamato wrote:
snip


fine fine, we both made our points, of which both think we're right. Let's allow CCP to evaluate this and see if it's viable.

Carebear extraordinaire

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1726 - 2015-03-30 07:36:06 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
says the null bear. Not the afk cloaker.
It was directly a response to null bears docking up, then undocking after we left. The information for which was provided to them by local. So instead we sat in system and went onto other things, making them think they were in danger when we were no where near our KB.

Then they eventually started undocking and trying to rat with hostiles in system. The cat and mouse game begins.
Lol, bullshit. It was a counter to sov being held by groups who couldn't be fought by the smaller ones. It was designed as a way to reduce ratting to cripple groups that relied on it for income.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
*facepalm*

read thread from beginning.

obviously not every bear runs from neuts. Its maranor, or whatever, that was saying its stupid and unprofitable to rat with neuts in local, but he hasnt a freaking clue either. People do in fact chance ratting with neuts in local. Thats why there are kills to show such.
There are kills primarily from people who aren't AFK cloakers, because they actually have the skills to hunt down players. It's only terrible people who are unable to score kills who choose instead to AFK cloak.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
Cloak is the counter to local. Local is the counter to cloaking.

They both create a crappy stalemate atm, but if one is to change (which null bears have been pressuring for forever), then the other should change (which is the counter pressure from people like me). Or keep them both as they are now.
Wrong. Cloak is not there to counter local, and local is not there to counter cloak. They are two separate mechanics. The fact that local is used to show your presence in AFK cloaking is the only link between the two. Your drawing line to link two mechanics where there are none in an effort to push the idea that both mechanics have to change together. They don't.

And like I said before, you want them to change cos you think it would make you able to score more kills if there were no local. It wouldn't, you'd be flying around empty space bawling your eyes out about how there's no targets.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
nope.

We counter PvE players with a stake in null by attacking them.
They counter us by knowing the exact point we enter and leave system and knowing when its safe.
We counter by sitting in local 24/7 to take away that certainty of our presence provided by local.
LOL, no, that's really not the case. Honestly mate I'm not going to argue this to death since it's cleak you've been sucking down the koolaid for a bit too long. You want to carebear around with your 100% safety while AFK mechanic. That's a crappy mechanic and should and hopefully will go. then you'll have to put in some goddamn effort rather than sleeping and making use of cloak mechanics which have needed a rebalance for a long time.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
If theres no one there i can PvE with little risk...If there are people there who can attack me, i get to PvP. How can you not get that? edit- unless you think i cant PvP whilst PvE'ing. In which case, thats your problem right there.

How is removing local lowering the rewards below hi sec? all it does is add risk. I can still choose hi-reward hi-risk null without local, or low-reward low-risk hi-sec.

which is a thousand times better than hi-reward low-risk null we have now. And null bears have even been pushing for lowering the risk even further!
I think you miss the point. Removal of local would increase risk in null. Whether you mitigate that is irrelevant. If the risk is too high, you'd move to highsec, for a small reduction in reward but an increase in safety. If the risk was fine, you'd move to wormhole space where you can make more. Staying in null, you'd be opting to have more risk than wormhole space with less reward than wormhole space. It's really quite simple. Only very "special" players would choose to do that.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#1727 - 2015-03-30 16:46:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Lucas Kell wrote:
Lol, bullshit. It was a counter to sov being held by groups who couldn't be fought by the smaller ones. It was designed as a way to reduce ratting to cripple groups that relied on it for income.


Yes...and when they saw us enter local every time they disappeared. so we started hanging around.

how cant you get past the first step?

Quote:
There are kills primarily from people who aren't AFK cloakers, because they actually have the skills to hunt down players. It's only terrible people who are unable to score kills who choose instead to AFK cloak.

Wrong. Cloak is not there to counter local, and local is not there to counter cloak. They are two separate mechanics. The fact that local is used to show your presence in AFK cloaking is the only link between the two. Your drawing line to link two mechanics where there are none in an effort to push the idea that both mechanics have to change together. They don't.


what youve done here is both concede afk cloakers get kills and then whine about the irrelevant lack of skill in afk cloaking. Its the most effective way of hurting null bear income, and even you know that.

Should we change this dynamic? yes i think so. But by changing both cloaks and local at the same time. That way we get a more interesting covert play with good risk/reward.

I have not said they have to change together. Ive said they should change together. The reason being that they are both equally infallible and opposing forces in afk cloaking. Your own admission that the two are linked by afk cloaking furthers my point.

Lucas Kell wrote:

And like I said before, you want them to change cos you think it would make you able to score more kills if there were no local. It wouldn't, you'd be flying around empty space bawling your eyes out about how there's no targets.


still not getting it. If there are no targets i can rat with other players like me in small gangs (and nikk will be mining somewhere i assume) and get space rich, and if there are i can PvP.

Does it boggle your mind that people manage to rat without the safety of local?

Lucas Kell wrote:

LOL, no, that's really not the case. Honestly mate I'm not going to argue this to death since it's cleak you've been sucking down the koolaid for a bit too long. You want to carebear around with your 100% safety while AFK mechanic. That's a crappy mechanic and should and hopefully will go. then you'll have to put in some goddamn effort rather than sleeping and making use of cloak mechanics which have needed a rebalance for a long time.


Im fine with cloaks losing their 100% safety. Its just you thats crying about how local should go with it.

Locals a crappy mechanic that provides safety that should and is rumored to go. Then you'll have to put some goddamn effort into ratting rather than merely glancing at a chat channel that needed a rebalance a long time ago.

edit- Your arguments repeatedly fall flat when you show a lack of knowledge, rant about lack of skill and cant even remember im all for getting rid of afk cloaking.

Lucas Kell wrote:

I think you miss the point. Removal of local would increase risk in null. Whether you mitigate that is irrelevant. If the risk is too high, you'd move to highsec, for a small reduction in reward but an increase in safety. If the risk was fine, you'd move to wormhole space where you can make more. Staying in null, you'd be opting to have more risk than wormhole space with less reward than wormhole space. It's really quite simple. Only very "special" players would choose to do that.


Do you think we get bounties or something in WH's? Do you think WH = null without local? Roll

If everyone entered WH's tomorrow the value of WH goods would plummet as supply increases. If everyone went to hi-sec tomorrow the value of LP would plummet. If everyone left null tomorrow, we'd get deflation and the value of raw isk would increase. With that, the value of null anoms increase.

Level 4's would not replace null anoms for isk generation and there arent enough hi-sec incursions to support the entire null sec playerbase. That makes null anoms very valuable if people leave null, much more valuable than WH's.

If you dont believe me, you either dont know economics, or you vastly under estimate the amount of raw isk that comes from null. Just so you know, its 'insane'.

its really quite simple.

GG.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1728 - 2015-03-30 17:12:22 UTC
I wasn't going to respond to this, but I noticed something being included which was so off-the-wall misleading, that I had to jump on it.

Honestly, we have people making a sincere effort to contribute to this discussion, and letting them absorb this point unopposed would be just wrong.

Lucas Kell wrote:
....
Daichi Yamato wrote:
*facepalm*

read thread from beginning.

obviously not every bear runs from neuts. Its maranor, or whatever, that was saying its stupid and unprofitable to rat with neuts in local, but he hasnt a freaking clue either. People do in fact chance ratting with neuts in local. Thats why there are kills to show such.

There are kills primarily from people who aren't AFK cloakers, because they actually have the skills to hunt down players. It's only terrible people who are unable to score kills who choose instead to AFK cloak.

...

There is no available skill that will let you catch a PvE player in sov null, without them first either screwing up, or making a bad judgement call.

When you arrive in a system, your name gets added to the list from local chat, as you arrive.
Not AFTER you load the system itself, but when your ship is added to the system, with the gate cloak effect.
And just for reference, that gate cloak effect exists because it is considered unfair for players to be vulnerable until they have finished loading the system, and can actually react.

During this time of acknowledged delay for the new arrival, the PvE player has the free opportunity to notice that new name, see it's clearly displayed standings, and decide whether they need to get safe before it can try to encounter them.
(Ability to evade based on whether the player was prepared, the same as many aspects of play)

Now, the new arrival has no control over whether this PvE player was prepared.
The new arrival can do nothing to stop the prepared PvE player from warping away to safety.
The new arrival only has the chance to catch PvE players who were either not paying attention, or for some reason were not prepared ahead of time to react.

Now, I would describe a player not watching this free warning, as having screwed up.
I would describe a player who was unprepared for a hostile's arrival, as having made a bad judgement call.

Let's not pretend the hostile arriving player has opportunities for an encounter, without this chain of events.
Baaldor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1729 - 2015-03-30 17:18:42 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
So what is the difference between dedicating a a fleet to watching the undock and dedicating a fleet to guard a system?

Also stations cannot be attacked, taken over or have docking rights revoked.
You don't need a fleet to watch a station, you need one active player, or even just your d-scan on the PvE player. Why should a player AFK in space be more difficult to look out for simply because they chose to fit a module. Honestly mate, keep on being deliberately obtuse and opting for risk free mechanics. When you want to wander back into the realm of active and balanced gameplay, let me know.

And in null they can. I already know what you are going to say to that and my pre-emptive response is stop being pedantic.



You know, you still have not answered my question.

What experience do you have besides dying in a hauler?


And AAA citizens is not experience, that right there is a farm to feed -A-. And that right there shows bias as to one form of play-style. And very little knowledge of the other.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1730 - 2015-03-30 19:53:10 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Stuff.
You seem to miss all points. Quite simply, an AFK cloaker forces a player to have to take more precautions in order to play which you have alluded to. Do you think it's right that someone who's not even in the same building as their PC should be completely safe indefinitely and able to have that effect with no ability for others to hunt them down?


Yes, I think it is right. I'm totally fine with the mechanic given the way local works.

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

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1731 - 2015-03-30 19:55:26 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
If the cloaked player is actively playing, then no, you should not be able to hunt him down. As it stands though you can pop you cloak on in a safe then go to bed, happy in the knowledge that you'll be in one piece in the morning, having provided the same appearance of threat as if you'd been active. Obviously that's a broken system. There's should be an inherent level of risk in any activity, and should you choose to leave your PC for 8 hours while floating about in space, you should expect to be destroyed if someone chooses to hunt you down.


Added emphasis to the key point....

Yes, local is quite broken, IMO. Big smile

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

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1732 - 2015-03-30 19:57:58 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
If the solution is to force one side into an encounter, both sides should be susceptible to it.

Being able to hunt a cloaked player is comparable to hunting a PvE player inside a POS or outpost.
It's nothing like the same. For starters a POS and an outpost costs a **** load more than a cloaking device. Secondly, both the POS and the outpost can be attacked while a cloaker is invulnerable. Thirdly, in both those situations the PvE player can be directly observed for activity and reacted to when they become active, a cloaker cannot be observed in that way.

Honestly, it can't be possible for you to have read all the posts I know you have on AFK cloaking and still be this oblivious, citing the same used up arguments for why it's OK for players to maintain completely safety while undocked (this is what you are saying, you are saying yes to 100% safety without having to actually do anything when challenged). I'm going to write you off as a confirmed troll.


False equivalence there Lucas. Outposts costs more, but do a heck of a lot more than a cloaking device. You can store stuff in them, you can make stuff in them. You can even sell stuff in them. Repair ships as well. And they can keep more than a single player safe at the same time...in fact, there is no upper bound to how many players can be kept safe in an outpost.

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

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1733 - 2015-03-30 20:05:38 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
If the player is AFK for whatever reason then they cannot harm you at all, only your perceived threat levl will cause you issues. Give players the means to hunt (with very high difficulty) those ships that are active (i.e. moving, scanning etc) and you give them the means to determine whther they believe a player to be AFK but there is still a level of paranoia as to whether they are really AFK or not. If the players keep scanning/watching d-scan for probes then they can go about their business without issue.

You realise this still is a terrible argument, right? Since you can;t tell whether or not a player is AFK, you have to react to them. Therefore an AFK cloaker is forcing a behavioral change in his target. Once again, to force any behavioral change you should have to be active.


If the solution is to force one side into an encounter, both sides should be susceptible to it.


This is a very good point. Most of the anti-cloak brigade want to "PvP" with a guy who is cloaked and AFK. Of course, that is silly because it isn't the cloak that is creating the problem here.

People can AFK cloak in worm-hole space all day long. Nobody cares. People can AFK cloak all day long in high sec and nobody cares. In both cases the reason is simple.

Local.

In WH space local is useless, by and large, as an intel tool. In high sec, the large number of players moving around with much greater ease and security make local a much less useful too than in null sec.

Yes, yes, I know...cynos. Gates!!! And bubbles. All very, very scary things, but these do not detract from this point.

1. You know there is a guy in system and cloaked when you see him in local and cannot scan him down.

In the end, it is via local that the AFK cloaked pilot (or even cloaked pilot at his keyboard) interacts with everyone else in that system. Remove local, and the ability to AFK cloak and have an impact is now drastically reduced.

And yes, simply removing local is a Bad Idea™ in that it would likely make things unbalanced in null sec. So, cloaks would have to be changed as well, probably by making cloaked ships scannable or something like that. Also, some other method of gathering intel would be very advisable as well.

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

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1734 - 2015-03-30 20:09:27 UTC
Baaldor wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Baaldor wrote:
Tell me what threat do they pose.

They are only safe while cloaked, and while cloaked they are not a threat to anyone.

Only when they decloak, threat may be present. that is of course they actually have a weapon system on the craft.
OK, so returning to the previous analogy, if I have 10 guns, 2 are unloaded, would you allow 2 of them to be fired at you? After all you know that 2 of them pose no threat.

No, I doubt you'd be up for that. You know that some are empty, but you know others aren't, so you treat them all with a level of caution. In the same way, you know that some cloakers are AFK, but you certainly aren't going to act as if they are AFK. Therefore a player who is AFK in space and 100% safe from retaliation is able to appear as much of a threat as an active player off grid. I honestly believe that if you are AFK in space, then your right to safety is forfeit.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
So simply put, why should a player be able to be in space and project risk while being 100% safe even while inactive?
The risk is inferred, not projected. Especially whilst inactive.
Pedant.


Problem with you analogy...you can't fire any of them while cloaked.


But he could decloak...so clearly that AFK...cloaker....errrr...uhhh...wait....

Oh darn. Oops

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

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1735 - 2015-03-30 20:14:09 UTC
Aeryn Maricadie wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
[quote=Baaldor]
[quote=Baaldor]. The chance CCP have suggested merely stop players being able to AFK for extended periods of time while cloaked. I honestly can't believe you guys have such a problem with that, since active cloakers will be unaffected, and you're all active cloakers that like to hunt people down, right?


AFK cloaking is the only current counter to the OP intel channel that is local. The mere fact that PvE bears claim that they "can't" do anything while there is a single non-friendly pilot in local is proof that local is a ridiculous intel tool. If ratters are already too afraid to undock when the cloaker may simply be afk, does anyone think they will undock when the cloaky must be active? Which brings us to what the bears really want, which is to improve their favorite intel channel to the point of eliminating pretty much all risk.


Three guys in an ishtars have very little to fear from a single ship, by and large. Especially if fit for PvP and ratting away.

Yes, the guy could have a cyno, and yes more ships than our three intrepid PvP fit ratters could handle...but should ratting be 100% safe? Seems to be where this objection is always heading. "They might bring in 254 guys!!!!!" Yes, the might. Or they might not. That ship might not even have a cyno, and is getting you to dock up in his noob ship. Welcome to null sec.

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

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1736 - 2015-03-30 20:20:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Lucas Kell wrote:

[quote=baltec1]
I have 100% safety in stations and have the same effect on spineless bears. I guess we should also force people to undock too.

The key difference there is you can be observed. We can watch the undock or watch you in the station and the moment you undock we know about it. Cloakers don't have that, they can seemlessly move between active an inactive and you'll only know when they are on grid and attacking. Also, stations can be attacked, taken over and docking rights clone contracts revoked making it a one time undock.

So you can "watch" for the cloaked player to decloak. Put out the probes or hit d-scan.

Yes, that seems silly, but it is about as silly as sitting on the undock wondering if baltec1 is docked up or cloaked in space waiting for him to do something.

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

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1737 - 2015-03-30 20:23:51 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:


baltec1 wrote:
I have 100% safety in stations and have the same effect on spineless bears. I guess we should also force people to undock too.
The key difference there is you can be observed. We can watch the undock or watch you in the station and the moment you undock we know about it. Cloakers don't have that, they can seemlessly move between active an inactive and you'll only know when they are on grid and attacking. Also, stations can be attacked, taken over and docking rights clone contracts revoked making it a one time undock..


So what is the difference between dedicating a a fleet to watching the undock and dedicating a fleet to guard a system?

Also stations cannot be attacked, taken over or have docking rights revoked.


And as long as I never undock, even if it is an outpost or conquerable station, I am 100% safe....kind of like if I keep my cloak on at a safe I'm 100%.

Boring, but still safe.

Roll

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

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1738 - 2015-03-30 20:26:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Lucas Kell wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
No, afk cloaking was started to counter local.
No, it was started as a way for small groups to affect larger null groups ratting with little to no investment. Local being used as a scapegoat didn't happen until long after AFK cloaking was being used, made up by people desperate for a reason why retaining 100% safety while AFK is a good idea. You're honestly insane if you believe that to be the actual truth.


Yes, by relying on local to let the larger group know that hostiles are in the area. Without local the above cannot be accomplished whilst both AFK and cloaked.

And the timing is not the issue. The AFK cloaker NEEDS local otherwise his task is fruitless. If there is no local, and I get in system, safe up and turn on my cloak then go AFK you wont know I'm there. And you'll undock and rat and mine and do all sorts of other things totally oblivious to the non-threat I pose.

However, if for some reason local suddenly reported my presence you'd become uncertain. Is he there? Is he AFK? Now, you re-evaluate your risk-reward calculus and then you change your behavior with the most common being: dock up and wait out the AFK cloaker.

The logic is pretty clear here. AFK cloaking NEEDS local for it to be a viable tactic.

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

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1739 - 2015-03-30 20:38:26 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
says the null bear. Not the afk cloaker.
It was directly a response to null bears docking up, then undocking after we left. The information for which was provided to them by local. So instead we sat in system and went onto other things, making them think they were in danger when we were no where near our KB.

Then they eventually started undocking and trying to rat with hostiles in system. The cat and mouse game begins.
Lol, bullshit. It was a counter to sov being held by groups who couldn't be fought by the smaller ones. It was designed as a way to reduce ratting to cripple groups that relied on it for income.


Lucas, read this very carefully.

I am not disagreeing with you that AFK cloaking can be used by smaller entities against larger (often sov holding) entities. My point, and Daichi's and Mag's and Nikk's, and many others is that to achieve the goal you've outlined above local is a necessary condition. You MUST have local for AFK cloaking to work. You MUST also have a cloak. Cloaks and local, together, are necessary and sufficient for AFK cloaking.

Your response, "Oh now its a way to disrupt ratting and resource gathering!" Does not really address the point we've all raised...that local is indeed very much part of the problem.

"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.
#1740 - 2015-03-30 20:53:47 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Yes...and when they saw us enter local every time they disappeared. so we started hanging around.
Which isn't the definition of a counter. You used local intel to counter sov holders PvE activities. The problem was lack of guerilla warfare mechanics which should soon not be an issue.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
what youve done here is both concede afk cloakers get kills and then whine about the irrelevant lack of skill in afk cloaking. Its the most effective way of hurting null bear income, and even you know that.

Should we change this dynamic? yes i think so. But by changing both cloaks and local at the same time. That way we get a more interesting covert play with good risk/reward.

I have not said they have to change together. Ive said they should change together. The reason being that they are both equally infallible and opposing forces in afk cloaking. Your own admission that the two are linked by afk cloaking furthers my point.
I didn't concede that lol, read it again. It quite clearly states that the majority of kills have nothing to do with AFK cloakers, they are from skilled PvPer. go ahead and chck the killboard stats.

And no, by changing (see removing) local you don't get anything more interesting, what you get is empty space with a bunch of people flying around scream "WHERE TARGETS GO?!?". The problem with people like you is you want to make it as easy as it is for you to score kills with an incredible lack of skill, but you don't factor into it that those targets will simply move on if it's too simple.

They shouldn't change together because they aren't related. The ability to AFK with 100% safety is a long standing oversight of the cloaking system which needs to be addressed as does AFK activity in EVE altogether. The only reason you think they should change together is through this idea that in order for something to negatively impact you, your opponents must also be negatively impacted. Well that's just not how it works.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
still not getting it. If there are no targets i can rat with other players like me in small gangs (and nikk will be mining somewhere i assume) and get space rich, and if there are i can PvP.

Does it boggle your mind that people manage to rat without the safety of local?
It doesn't boggle my mind that people can, I've lived in wormholes, it would boggle my mind that you would opt to have to work harder at PvE for less income. There would be literally no reason not to just PvE in wormholes if null had no local. You'd get more for less effort.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
Im fine with cloaks losing their 100% safety. Its just you thats crying about how local should go with it.

Locals a crappy mechanic that provides safety that should and is rumored to go. Then you'll have to put some goddamn effort into ratting rather than merely glancing at a chat channel that needed a rebalance a long time ago.
Lol? I'm saying you should lose your 100% AFK safety, and you're the one leaping in screaming "FINE! BUT NULL PVE SHOULD BE RUINED AS WELL!", as if removal of local and removal of ability to sleep while safely undocked are even remotely comparable in terms of severity.

And I won't have to put effort into anything, I don't rat or mine. I happen to like the fact that people live in null though and it certainly will be a shame if they remove local and it empties out.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
Do you think we get bounties or something in WH's? Do you think WH = null without local? Roll

If everyone entered WH's tomorrow the value of WH goods would plummet as supply increases. If everyone went to hi-sec tomorrow the value of LP would plummet. If everyone left null tomorrow, we'd get deflation and the value of raw isk would increase. With that, the value of null anoms increase.

Level 4's would not replace null anoms for isk generation and there arent enough hi-sec incursions to support the entire null sec playerbase. That makes null anoms very valuable if people leave null, much more valuable than WH's.

If you dont believe me, you either dont know economics, or you vastly under estimate the amount of raw isk that comes from null. Just so you know, its 'insane'.
Between the people moving to each different area of space and the few that remain behind it would still balance in favour of elsewhere, and should the balance of faucets fall too far away from the sinks, CCP would intervene by introducing changes. You're also forgetting that mining exists and is a large part of PvE too. The simple fact that finding a null PvE player is easy even without local would make it counter-productive to rat there. Not to mention that your entire premise there is based on the idea that null would empty out - so basically you agree with me.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.