These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1761 - 2015-03-31 05:45:09 UTC
Aeryn Maricadie wrote:
1 It is the counter to local, as I stated previously, people afk cloak to degrade the quality of intel local provides. If a person is afk cloaked it prevents the other people in local from assuming it is safe/unsafe. If a pilot must be active to remain cloaked then the bears would know that it is in fact unsafe and therefore not undock. This is a lame mechanic indeed but if afk cloaking goes then local must too, otherwise people in sov null would be even safer than in high sec.
lol, no, they don't. It doesn't degrade anything. It simply uses local. And you even state there, it's about sov null. Again, it's a guerilla warfare tactic that will soon be redundant. And it's irrelevant if a player is active or not, the "bears" generally assume it's unsafe and PvE in a different system anyway. It doesn't stop them doing it, it simply moves them.

I do find it funny that you talk about "bears" while sitting there defending a mechanic that gives you 100% safety while AFK.

Aeryn Maricadie wrote:
2 yeah it is luck when players get the drop on ratting carebears, the players are lucky that they found the people that chose to disregard the OP intel tool that local is. Don't deny that most ratters run away to safety as soon as they see a single non-friendly person in local, if that was the case (that people didn't alter behavior due to seeing others in local) afk cloaking wouldn't be an issue because people would just ignore them and go on about their business. For every ratter killed many more get away before the hunters even get a chance to d-scan their location.
Well, you're wrong. You just lack the ability that those other PvPers have. You can sit there and whine on about how their entire playstyle is luck, but it's simply not the case. If you went of and learned how those players go their kills you'd realise it's not quite as impossible to catch the "bears" as you thought. But no, since you yourself are a carebear demanding 100% safety, you'd rather the mechanics supported you rather than you having to improve your skill.

Aeryn Maricadie wrote:
3 Afk cloaking is used in more than just sov null, quit pretending it isn't. Also the harassment you speak of conducted by afk ships would be harassment of actual ships if not for local alerting the residents to the very slightest whiff of danger.
I'm not saying it isn't, but it was born out of sov null. And no, once again if local wasn't there, there wouldn't be ships to harass. You'd be here crying about how there are no targets for you to shoot because everyone's playing elsewhere.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1762 - 2015-03-31 07:50:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Lucas Kell wrote:
Aeryn Maricadie wrote:
1 It is the counter to local, as I stated previously, people afk cloak to degrade the quality of intel local provides. If a person is afk cloaked it prevents the other people in local from assuming it is safe/unsafe. If a pilot must be active to remain cloaked then the bears would know that it is in fact unsafe and therefore not undock. This is a lame mechanic indeed but if afk cloaking goes then local must too, otherwise people in sov null would be even safer than in high sec.
lol, no, they don't. It doesn't degrade anything.


Oh yes it does. Just one guy shows up and you can't find him and look at what we get...all your posts about how nobody here understands anything except you. We are all idiots except you. 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
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#1763 - 2015-03-31 09:55:27 UTC
I have removed a rule breaking post and the one quoting it.

The Rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1764 - 2015-03-31 10:17:19 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
And no, once again if local wasn't there, there wouldn't be ships to harass. You'd be here crying about how there are no targets for you to shoot because everyone's playing elsewhere.


WH clearly show this is not correct.
Bogdo Lama
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1765 - 2015-03-31 11:12:26 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
And no, once again if local wasn't there, there wouldn't be ships to harass. You'd be here crying about how there are no targets for you to shoot because everyone's playing elsewhere.


WH clearly show this is not correct.


Imho you cant compare null to wh like that cause theyre not the same. You cant just check dotlan for npc kills and set route to wh and fly there. Instead you need to probe down random wh's that may or may not be occupied.
Also you know you can "voice guard" wh entries with alts giving "voice notification" when someone jumps in? Also trying to cyno your gang into wh might not work too well. Not to mention wh's mass limits that may prevent your fleet bringing in enough stuff to take on wh cap fleets. Also that if theres null and wh to choose without local id pick wh anyday and not just because i would make multiple times more iskies in wh's.. etc etc etc..
Ssoraszh Tzarszh
Mellivora Nulla Irrumabo
#1766 - 2015-03-31 13:13:13 UTC
Bogdo Lama wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
And no, once again if local wasn't there, there wouldn't be ships to harass. You'd be here crying about how there are no targets for you to shoot because everyone's playing elsewhere.


WH clearly show this is not correct.


Imho you cant compare null to wh like that cause theyre not the same. You cant just check dotlan for npc kills and set route to wh and fly there. Instead you need to probe down random wh's that may or may not be occupied.
Also you know you can "voice guard" wh entries with alts giving "voice notification" when someone jumps in? Also trying to cyno your gang into wh might not work too well. Not to mention wh's mass limits that may prevent your fleet bringing in enough stuff to take on wh cap fleets. Also that if theres null and wh to choose without local id pick wh anyday and not just because i would make multiple times more iskies in wh's.. etc etc etc..



"Voice Guard" ? why no i would rather not break the EULA and macro some gamey scripts to my alt and risk a silly ban. But thanks for letting CCP know this is a thing, i would like to think they might try and snuff out people who have set this up and banhammer them.

As for the general cloaky thin, in w-space you assume there are cloacked ships everywhere, especially if you have not had scouts on every entrance for the last 72 hours (yes they will wait that long for your venture). Every single noob, friggate or PI ship is bait and everyone assumes more reinforcements are on the way in cloaky ships anyway (mostly we expect Falcon's to show up).

However the issue with the null "afk cloak" is twofold, one you can see them in local confirming their presence and second people "expect", "their" space to be safe, they trust in their intel channels and have set the mindset for thousands of players to act in that way when operating in (especially sov) space.

In lowsec/npc null you have the same issues with neuts all over the place, people there have adapted the mindset that working (pvp or ratting) in that area of space comes with a lack of certainty (aka you never know if they are afk or waiting). And groups have adjusted, running around doing their thing in groups for example: looking at some people running lvl 5 missions with 6 or 7 ships here, take a logi with etc so that when you do get dunked on you have a small chance of doing anything silly and funny.

I would support a delayed local as a solution to afk cloaking, as with that system your mindset will be to expect it even when there is no one there. No expectancy of safety is to embrace the fact of life that silly killmails will happen but also that you are free of the oppression that is afk cloaking.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1767 - 2015-03-31 14:59:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
And no, once again if local wasn't there, there wouldn't be ships to harass. You'd be here crying about how there are no targets for you to shoot because everyone's playing elsewhere.


WH clearly show this is not correct.


On this point I lean more towards Lucas' position. With gates and cynos (yes, even still after the nerf) null sec is a bit more problematic than WH when it comes to local, intel, and so forth. While it could be argued that there is too much isk entering the economy via anomalies and that nerfing local/intel may be reasonable, but at the same time if that source of isk is nerfed too much we could end up with a situation just as bad as hyperinflation: deflation.

As has been linked in this thread CCP is watching the money supply and is aware that letting the money supply increase too much can be bad. Conversely not letting it increase fast enough can also be bad. If the value of isk is increasing faster than you can produce stuff you are better off just holding cash...and production goes down the crapper too (e.g. the Great Depression of which a major contributor was deflation which occurred when the money supply was allowed to actually shrink, countries that went off the gold standard early and actually allowed inflation had a much better time than those that stayed on the gold standard).

So...nerf local and nerf cloaks is probably the best approach along with a way to set up an intel infra-structure. Something that is vulnerable to hostile players. Something that could even be subverted would be really cool but is probably not something we'd see for quite some time.

Edit:

Just to be clear, I don't think whatever intel feature replaces local should be anywhere as good as local currently is which actually gives advance warning (in a way) to the resident ratter that a hostile has entered system.

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

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1768 - 2015-03-31 15:20:24 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Just to be clear, I don't think whatever intel feature replaces local should be anywhere as good as local currently is which actually gives advance warning (in a way) to the resident ratter that a hostile has entered system.

Agreed, an advance warning is a flawed presence, since it passes on that time element to the defender's ability to react.

It effectively handicaps the opposing player by an equal amount to the difference between when the name appears, and when that player is actually able to take actions after finishing the client loading system.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1769 - 2015-03-31 15:38:17 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
It is a counter to local.

Here is the logic:

*Statement which shows it's a use of local, not a counter to local*
Yeah, It's not a counter. Maybe the problem is that you don't know what a counter is. It's no more a counter to local than it is a counter to the ability to log in.


A counter, in this discussion, is a strategy that weakens or nullifies an existing strategy. Does AFK cloaking do this? Yes. The strategy of most ratters is the following:

1. Start ratting and keep an eye on local.
2. When a hostile enters system scoot to safety (POS, station, even a safe).
3. Wait until the hostile leaves.

The AFK cloaker is taking advantage of 1 and 3 in the above. Knowing that the ratter is looking at local, by getting to a safe and cloaking the AFK cloaker starts the process above....by using a cloak AND local. Knowing that pilots will typically also employ 3 they deny isk/resources to null PvE players.

In this case the intel value of local has been turned around and is being used against the PvE player. It is the very definition of a counter. You can try to use local to allow for "safe" PvE, but with that AFK cloaker there "safe" PvE is no longer possible.

You can keep denying this Lucas, in fact I hope you do with your usual approach as it will simply undermine your position by showing your intransigence and unwillingness to accept even the most reasonable arguments.

"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
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#1770 - 2015-03-31 16:39:45 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
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 youve just conceded again that afk cloakers get kills. Lol
So what if i just want more kills. Thats what this games about and you just want to rat with less risk.

Lucas Kell wrote:
The fact that local is used to show your presence in AFK cloaking is the only link between the two.

Lucas Kell wrote:
They shouldn't change together because they aren't related.


Says there is a link, then says they arent related....

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
#1771 - 2015-03-31 16:40:38 UTC

Lucas Kell wrote:

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.


leaping? screaming? caps?

This, added to the fact that its taken you this long to realise what my position is, just tells me you havent even been reading my replies before putting in these over-emotional knee jerk responses and hyperbole. You havent read the thread, cant make a consistent argument and argue like a child.


Quote:
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.


But you said it wouldnt empty out.

Lucas Kell wrote:

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.


You should know that a premise does not in fact mean i agree with your hypothesis...its a premise (note the word 'IF' at the beginning). I put the emptying of null as my premise to humor your doom and gloomery and then use simple supply and demand to show how flawed your hypothesis was. The only thing we agree on is that supply and demand is a thing.

Then you just conceded that some people would stay in null. So without local i can PvE for fat isks and PvP.

And then you say that CCP would intervene if things swing one way. And whos to say CCP dont already have plans for the reward systems of null. They are already talking about a complete overhaul of ore.

TL:DR

Null is changing, hopefully its losing local, null bears will cry and go else where. This isnt a bad thing.

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
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1772 - 2015-03-31 16:46:10 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
And no, once again if local wasn't there, there wouldn't be ships to harass. You'd be here crying about how there are no targets for you to shoot because everyone's playing elsewhere.


WH clearly show this is not correct.


On this point I lean more towards Lucas' position. With gates and cynos (yes, even still after the nerf) null sec is a bit more problematic than WH when it comes to local, intel, and so forth. While it could be argued that there is too much isk entering the economy via anomalies and that nerfing local/intel may be reasonable, but at the same time if that source of isk is nerfed too much we could end up with a situation just as bad as hyperinflation: deflation.

As has been linked in this thread CCP is watching the money supply and is aware that letting the money supply increase too much can be bad. Conversely not letting it increase fast enough can also be bad. If the value of isk is increasing faster than you can produce stuff you are better off just holding cash...and production goes down the crapper too (e.g. the Great Depression of which a major contributor was deflation which occurred when the money supply was allowed to actually shrink, countries that went off the gold standard early and actually allowed inflation had a much better time than those that stayed on the gold standard).

So...nerf local and nerf cloaks is probably the best approach along with a way to set up an intel infra-structure. Something that is vulnerable to hostile players. Something that could even be subverted would be really cool but is probably not something we'd see for quite some time.

Edit:

Just to be clear, I don't think whatever intel feature replaces local should be anywhere as good as local currently is which actually gives advance warning (in a way) to the resident ratter that a hostile has entered system.


Its all the same to me, WH get suddenly tengus just as much as null gets suddenly blackops.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#1773 - 2015-03-31 17:02:38 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
I really do love this idea that you guys put forward that if AFK cloaking didn't exist, all PvP activity would just cease in nullsec. It's absolute horseshit and you know it.


That would be because no one has said that

Lucas Kell wrote:
Any method which removes the ability to see people as soon as they arrive would pretty much wreck null, therefore if they replaced it it would have to be with a module or skill that did pretty much what local does now, making it a completely pointless change.


How would it wreck null when WH space and hi-sec do just fine without it?

If your only argument is that you can make more money else where for less risk. you are forgetting about supply and demand and/or admitting people would stay in null as well as ignoring the fact that null rewards could be changed as well.

Would you tell us that if the rewards were changed you wouldnt mind the removal of local?

Bogdo Lama wrote:


stuffs


If you think cyno's make null sec much worse for ratting than WH space, then surely the problem is at least partly to do with cynos, which can be rebalanced now that caps can use gates and local is going.

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
MatStar
Doomheim
#1774 - 2015-03-31 17:31:39 UTC
Hello All. Many pages to read and i m giving my contribution.

Cloaky camper in null are burning game play. They are safe as long they want and if you play in dedicated system then you usually just wait them to leave.

Ok it s a part of the game but when they are AFK most of day it 's bad. Most of them get paid to stay into dedicated sys so it s like they don't do nothing .

Can't CCP just put a timer ? there is timer everywhere, why not on this? Or use the capa i don't know. So you could tell me 1 against 20 it s nothing but we never know what's behind the cloaky camper.

anyway i don't think put a time is a bad thing. Or at least give us something to find them even it take hours.

Thx

Mat
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1775 - 2015-03-31 17:36:19 UTC
MatStar wrote:
Hello All. Many pages to read and i m giving my contribution.

Cloaky camper in null are burning game play. They are safe as long they want and if you play in dedicated system then you usually just wait them to leave.

Ok it s a part of the game but when they are AFK most of day it 's bad. Most of them get paid to stay into dedicated sys so it s like they don't do nothing .

Can't CCP just put a timer ? there is timer everywhere, why not on this? Or use the capa i don't know. So you could tell me 1 against 20 it s nothing but we never know what's behind the cloaky camper.

anyway i don't think put a time is a bad thing. Or at least give us something to find them even it take hours.

Thx

Mat


No. Not unless something is done regarding local.

"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
Aeryn Maricadie
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1776 - 2015-03-31 18:45:46 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Just to be clear, I don't think whatever intel feature replaces local should be anywhere as good as local currently is which actually gives advance warning (in a way) to the resident ratter that a hostile has entered system.

Agreed, an advance warning is a flawed presence, since it passes on that time element to the defender's ability to react.

It effectively handicaps the opposing player by an equal amount to the difference between when the name appears, and when that player is actually able to take actions after finishing the client loading system.

There already is a fine intel tool out there. d-scan
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#1777 - 2015-03-31 20:00:24 UTC
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1778 - 2015-03-31 20:10:04 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:

This.

Done.

F

Throwing away a potential encounter, because one side chooses not to undock, and the other side chooses not to engage substitute targets.

In addition, as this removes an obstacle to one side, as well as renders the other side's presence pointless, it clearly shifts the risk away from local residents of a null system.

Shifting risk, obviously also shifting balance.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1779 - 2015-03-31 20:19:37 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
And no, once again if local wasn't there, there wouldn't be ships to harass. You'd be here crying about how there are no targets for you to shoot because everyone's playing elsewhere.
WH clearly show this is not correct.
Yeah, because it's oh so populated.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#1780 - 2015-03-31 20:36:03 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Yeah, because it's oh so populated.


Are you saying PvP doesnt happen in WH's? or that you dont need a massively populated area to have healthy PvP?

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