These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#2741 - 2015-08-10 19:52:37 UTC
The OA is fine for the level of play it represents. I already discussed why it's not an appropriate counter to cloaking in general.

Basically, it's about scale. Structures can alter local play conditions, but ships should be countering the effects of structures, not the other way around.

A good example is the siphons used on moon mining. You can use the little, mobile and disposable thing to selectively circumvent the big, stationary and semi-permanent thing. Trying to use the big, stationary and semi-permanent thing to circumvent something that freely moves at will is simply not going to be workable, especially as the thing is so big that individuals are not the intended users of that system.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#2742 - 2015-08-10 20:28:33 UTC
Interestingly enough Mike Voidstar, you are proving my point for me better than I am.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
PvE is done in ships that *will* lose in a stand up fight with almost anything intended for combat. They are designed by CCP, or else forced into fits by the mechanics, to rely on evasion. They are not intended to face combat and survive.

Where is it written that thou shalt PvE in drone ships that aren't suited for PvP activity? That's a player choice, not a restriction of game mechanics.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
The only reasonable tactic is to keep the space they operate in clear, or put them away and defend the space. It is not reasonable to ask a ship that relies on evasion for survival to operate in the presence of hostiles.

Why not? The cloaking ship relies entirely on evasion for survival in the face of hostiles and they seem to be doing just fine.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
So yeah, the cloaked guy in system is a problem for a solo PvE operator. It's not just psychological, it's the circumventing of his only reasonably effective defense option.

So do we just say that PvE cannot operate solo? Fair enough... But the same should be true of PvP as well then. Which once again leaves us with broken cloaks since they enable solo hunting deep in enemy territory, and blobbing as everyone's only legitimate option for any kind of play.

Really? How effective is blobbing at counter a lone cloaker operating within a single system. I was under the impression that it didn't work. On a gate, sure, more ships increase your odds of catching them.

Also, again, you can operate PvE solo, you are choosing not to based on your desire to fit for maximum ISK-generating capability.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
Active effort should trump passive effort. If someone wants to clear cloaked ships from space they should be able to do that. If the cloaks are AFK, then they should not be if they intended to live.... Just like every body else. Cloaks, or any other module or even ship, should assist a playstyle not be the entirety of it.

You're assuming that there is no effort on the part of the cloaking player. As a former AFK cloak camper, I can assure you that there is effort involved. You need to find out where to go, you need to figure out how to get there, and you have to survive long enough to reach your destination, none of which are easy to accomplish without assistance. Sure, once they're in-system and off-grid they can operate with little effort, but don't overlook how hard it likely as for them to get there.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
But so long as the game is designed such that a class of player solely exists to provide content as unchallenging targets to the rest of the players- and it's a dedicated design goal that they must remain that way at all times despite any efforts taken to contrary- then the game as a whole is terminally ill. It's not just cloaks that are broken, it's the devs themselves... And that kind of rigged game is simply not fun.

The game is designed to do no such thing. You are choosing to create this situation because you wish to maximize your ISK/hour/player. I am rightly and truly loathe to say this because it is so cliche, but if you want to do PvE content in the kind of environment you are describing...hisec is that way. (Which, incidentally, is another player choice.)

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2743 - 2015-08-10 20:37:41 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Techos, how about the active effort of reshipping to something that can find them and then hunting them down?
It's not even an option.

That ship does not have to be a combat monster. In fact I suggest the same shipline designed for cloaks being the only things that can find them.

It's not a lot of effort to watch local, reship and prepare for PvP. The problem is that you can't do that. You can watch local, reship and masturbate for the next few hours because cloaks are broken, but you can't actually PvP them, they have to want to PvP you and will only do so if you are in a ship that cannot fight them.


But there is no effort in your intel over all. If the goal is that things in game, broadly speaking, should take player effort and activity, then local fails when one considers it as the primary intel tool in low and null sec. Further that tool is not at risk. So if the metric for good game design is risk and activity, then local fails. And the one way to make local less beneficial, AFK cloaking, many people want to nerf. I see this as bad game design and bad for the overall balance. Thus, my position, nerf cloaks, nerf local. And by nerf local I mean make it require effort and be vulnerable to attack/subversion.

"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
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#2744 - 2015-08-10 20:37:46 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Techos, how about the active effort of reshipping to something that can find them and then hunting them down?
It's not even an option.

That ship does not have to be a combat monster. In fact I suggest the same shipline designed for cloaks being the only things that can find them.

It's not a lot of effort to watch local, reship and prepare for PvP. The problem is that you can't do that. You can watch local, reship and masturbate for the next few hours because cloaks are broken, but you can't actually PvP them, they have to want to PvP you and will only do so if you are in a ship that cannot fight them.


* PvE in a PvP fit
* move systems
* scan down a hole/go exploring
* work on trades
* take an alt to the camper's home system and **** with them
* keep PvE-ing, but with friends/alts ready to save you

Why, exactly are you sitting around doing nothing just because there is someone cloaked in your system?


Well, it's all been discussed to death over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again... But what the hell.

First assumption: PvE guy wants to PvE

He isn't going to go camp someone else, jump through a wormhole/explore, do market trades, etc... Because at that point he stops being PvE guy and instead becomes camper, hole dweller/explorer, market, etc guy.

Second assumption: anyone has the right to operate in any space they can reach. It does not matter why I want this system instead of one a jump over, I should have equal rights to launch science fiction death at anyone attempting to deny my right to this particular patch of space.

Third Assumption: PvE guy is going to PvE in a PvE ship and/or fit, either because he has no choice or because he can if he just wants to. PvE ships and fits rely on evasion, and do not have the option of operating reasonably safely in the presence of hostiles. Their sole defensive option is to avoid engagement. This is because tackle is absolute, and once caught the ship may as well self destruct for all the chance at survival it has. PvE ships that can survive tackle long enough to get help that isn't already present are not PvE ships, they are PvP bait ships and are generally incapable of profitably performing their PvE cover task, or in some cases not capable at all.

So we have taken care of the following strawmen:
* move systems
* scan down a hole/go exploring
* work on trades
* take an alt to the camper's home system and **** with them

Now, for the sake of your actual non-strawman arguments, we are assuming he is more or less solo, though in practice it really does not matter. The only change is how much the escort is costing in overall profits, and while each escort is a smaller cut of a group operation, you more quickly run into the point of an unprofitable op as well, in addition to essentially paying pilots to masturbate because nothing will happen with a response fleet in system. Not fun for anyone involved. The point is similar on doing PvE in a PvP fit- except that for many PvE activities it's not possible due to requiring mining or industrial ships, immature skill sets that don't allow for content to be completed with a PvP fit, or the PvE in question is just too strong for a single or very small group PvP setup.

Thus the camper at the very least represents a loss of income of around half to the solo PvE guy, just for passively sitting there. I think it's a fairly reasonable position to take that someone would want to challenge an enemies right to cut his income in half.

So, assuming that PvE guy wants to PvE, and is willing to PvP and challenge the campers right to camp the space, what is he to do?

In any other activity in the game he could find the guy and shoot him. That's what happens to AFK miners, haulers, and other individuals who operate in contested space while AFK while still being effective at their chosen task.

But.... In this case the cloak stops things. PvE guy is left with not playing in that space, accepting a massive cut in profitability, or flying suicidal.

As per Fozzie, it's important that PvE be disrupted. It is apparently a design goal that if your intent is PvE then you do not have the right to reship and challenge your enemy for control of the space in pvp. You can either continue to play as a soft target for PvP players, or stop playing PvE entirely, which for those that enjoy PvE means stop playing at all.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2745 - 2015-08-10 20:59:09 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:


snip



Mike,
The thing is you are making choices in all of the above. You are choosing to play solo, you are choosing to use a min/max fit with regards to rats, you are choosing to do this in NS. You are choosing not to avail yourself to other aspects of the game (exploration, trading, etc.). That’s fine, nobody is saying you can’t. But choices come with both costs and benefits.

Second, you contend you are arguing for balance. I disagree. You claim right now we are at an extreme. When a cloaky camper comes in and AFK cloaks you are completely 100% disrupted from doing PvE. But your solution, finding the AFK cloaked ship and shooting it…will put us at the other end of the spectrum….if the current form of play is not balanced according to you, then neither is your solution because there will be zero AFK cloaking and no meaningful disruption of PvP aside from roaming players. We don’t want to be at extremes. That is why I’d prefer a solution that can disrupt PvE and encourage active play.

"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
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#2746 - 2015-08-10 20:59:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Sonya Corvinus
Mike Voidstar wrote:

stuff


And here we have the problem (and I say this as a historical carebear/PvE-er who is trying to get over the PvP learning curve).

There is no such thing as a "PvE" player in EVE. It's fundamentally designed so that everyone is a PvP-er, whether they like it or not.

Let's take a look at what you said:

Quote:
He isn't going to go camp someone else, jump through a wormhole/explore, do market trades, etc... Because at that point he stops being PvE guy and instead becomes camper, hole dweller/explorer, market, etc guy.


If you want to exclusively do PvE, then you have to accept that you will spend time docked up/hiding. EVE is a game where PvP is valid, anytime, anywhere. If you don't want PvP, then accept your choice and stay station spinning.

Quote:
Second assumption: anyone has the right to operate in any space they can reach. It does not matter why I want this system instead of one a jump over, I should have equal rights to launch science fiction death at anyone attempting to deny my right to this particular patch of space.


You don't have the right to operate anywhere you can reach. You have the right to operate anywhere you can reach that you can defend. If you haven't joined a group that can hold multiple systems, then deal with the consequences of having unfriendlies in your chosen system. You have every right to keep operating in that system. Ratting/missioning? drop a depot filled with stabs and rofl refit if Mr. Cloaky tries to point you. Mining? fit a point and have an alt/some friends ready to deal death. This is a multiplayer game. Use other people. You don't have the right to do whatever PvE you want, solo, in a PvP-centric multiplayer game.

Quote:

Third Assumption: PvE guy is going to PvE in a PvE ship and/or fit, either because he has no choice or because he can if he just wants to. PvE ships and fits rely on evasion, and do not have the option of operating reasonably safely in the presence of hostiles. Their sole defensive option is to avoid engagement. This is because tackle is absolute, and once caught the ship may as well self destruct for all the chance at survival it has. PvE ships that can survive tackle long enough to get help that isn't already present are not PvE ships, they are PvP bait ships and are generally incapable of profitably performing their PvE cover task, or in some cases not capable at all.


So yet again, go ratting in a PvP setup. Less efficient? Sure, but now you can get that nice juicy killmail too. Did you completely ignore the fact that I told you to do your PvE-ing in a PvP ship? Keep a PvP ship fit at your pos and swap out when good ol' local stops being 100% blue. No risk of being caught on dock/undock!

And friends. Have friends in system. Remember, multiplayer game, right?

Look, I'm primarily a solo/very small group player, and have historically done more PvE than PvP. That being said, I know what kind of game EVE is. When I choose to play solo, I'm logged in with at least 3 characters, often more. Solo play in an MMO is counter-intuitive. I also have a fully fit PvP ship in every POS I run/station I base out of for every character, because EVE is a PvP game at its heart. Saying cloaking needs to be nerfed because you refuse to jump into a PvP ship is you trying to fundamentally change EVE because you don't accept the core of what it is.

Games like EVE aren't always about what YOU want to do ATM. It's about what the other guy wants to do as well. It's up to you to counter what he wants to do. It isn't up to CCP to change the mechanics to nerf his/her gameplay. You don't like cloaky campers? Either refit to PvP and carry on as usual, killing them when they show up, or get out and bore them so much that they leave.

A camper who gets no kills or tears will stop camping you very quickly.

EDIT: Mike, a question

If you are hauling something in an orca, let's say and gates get camped, should you be allowed to cloak up and wait the gankers out, or should game mechanics keep you from hiding your billion ISK cargo?

Does the anti-AFK cloaking work both ways, or only when it favors the PvE-er?
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#2747 - 2015-08-10 21:20:21 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:

Where is it written that thou shalt PvE in drone ships that aren't suited for PvP activity? That's a player choice, not a restriction of game mechanics.
Not all PvE ships can even mount weapons. Not all PvE content is capable of being done in PvP fits even among those that are done in combat hulls. Amusingly in your straw man you site the one example that does fare less badly in PvP encounters.

Quote:

Why not? The cloaking ship relies entirely on evasion for survival in the face of hostiles and they seem to be doing just fine.

The cloaking ship is using a cloak. You know that module that costs next to nothing, uses almost no cap, and renders the ship safer than if it was docked in an outpost or tucked behind POS shields? Let the PvE guy use one while being effective at PvE and you won't get many complaints from that side of the fence either.

Quote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
So yeah, the cloaked guy in system is a problem for a solo PvE operator. It's not just psychological, it's the circumventing of his only reasonably effective defense option.

So do we just say that PvE cannot operate solo? Fair enough... But the same should be true of PvP as well then. Which once again leaves us with broken cloaks since they enable solo hunting deep in enemy territory, and blobbing as everyone's only legitimate option for any kind of play.

Really? How effective is blobbing at counter a lone cloaker operating within a single system. I was under the impression that it didn't work. On a gate, sure, more ships increase your odds of catching them.


Excellent job of failing to comprehend and making my point for me at the same time.

*cloak is balanced, because per Fozzie primary design goal is PvE is always in direct danger no matter what*
*if we say PvE cannot operate solo, then we should say the same of PvP, because balance.*
*if we say PvP cannot operate solo, then cloak is back to unbalanced because it enables solo hunting, and only blobbing is left because no one can be solo.*

Your point that at present no amount of active effort by any amount of people can force an active cloak into confrontation is accurate, just misplaced for your side of the conversation.

Quote:
Also, again, you can operate PvE solo, you are choosing not to based on your desire to fit for maximum ISK-generating capability.

Or because I am mining, hauling, doing content too strong for a generalized PvP fit, etc. But it should not matter. If I want control of the space, I should be able to fight for it. But because I want to PvE, I am not allowed to.



Quote:
You're assuming that there is no effort on the part of the cloaking player. As a former AFK cloak camper, I can assure you that there is effort involved. You need to find out where to go, you need to figure out how to get there, and you have to survive long enough to reach your destination, none of which are easy to accomplish without assistance. Sure, once they're in-system and off-grid they can operate with little effort, but don't overlook how hard it likely as for them to get there.


Why does your proactive effort in reaching the system and setting up your camp have more value than my proactive efforts to clear the space for PvE activity? Why does that effort grant you the right to opt out of PvP while still threatening PvE pilots with immenent destruction until the very second you decide to deliver that destruction?

Because I want to PvE. Since it is a design goal that PvE solely exist as soft targets for PvP I cannot be allowed to challenge you for control of that space. Your solo covops isn't much danger to a PvP fleet, and you don't need to camp an active PvP fleet anyway. But if I want to PvE I must be under direct threat at all times, or else directly escorted by a bigger direct threat to the camper.


[/quote]The game is designed to do no such thing. You are choosing to create this situation because you wish to maximize your ISK/hour/player. I am rightly and truly loathe to say this because it is so cliche, but if you want to do PvE content in the kind of environment you are describing...hisec is that way. (Which, incidentally, is another player choice.)
[/quote]

Much of that is already addressed. You don't have to go far before PvE in a group is less profitable than high sec. Not all PvE can be done in PvP boats or fits, and again you don't have to compromise too much before you are better off in high sec just on pure profitability.

Part of the lure in coming to null sec is improved profitability, certainly for the solo or small gang operator.

However, when directly asked about cloaks, Fozzies answer was that it was very important that PvE remained vulnerable, and then he laughed the rest of the issue off with the glib remark about ships do very little dps while cloaked. The balance of the cloak literally does not matter so long as it is enabling the disruption of pve, because that is the primary design goal of EvE.

PvE professions exist in game solely as content for PvP.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#2748 - 2015-08-10 21:29:57 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

stuff


And here we have the problem (and I say this as a historical carebear/PvE-er who is trying to get over the PvP learning curve).

There is no such thing as a "PvE" player in EVE. It's fundamentally designed so that everyone is a PvP-er, whether they like it or not.

Let's take a look at what you said:

Quote:
He isn't going to go camp someone else, jump through a wormhole/explore, do market trades, etc... Because at that point he stops being PvE guy and instead becomes camper, hole dweller/explorer, market, etc guy.


If you want to exclusively do PvE, then you have to accept that you will spend time docked up/hiding. EVE is a game where PvP is valid, anytime, anywhere. If you don't want PvP, then accept your choice and stay station spinning.

Quote:
Second assumption: anyone has the right to operate in any space they can reach. It does not matter why I want this system instead of one a jump over, I should have equal rights to launch science fiction death at anyone attempting to deny my right to this particular patch of space.


You don't have the right to operate anywhere you can reach. You have the right to operate anywhere you can reach that you can defend. If you haven't joined a group that can hold multiple systems, then deal with the consequences of having unfriendlies in your chosen system. You have every right to keep operating in that system. Ratting/missioning? drop a depot filled with stabs and rofl refit if Mr. Cloaky tries to point you. Mining? fit a point and have an alt/some friends ready to deal death. This is a multiplayer game. Use other people. You don't have the right to do whatever PvE you want, solo, in a PvP-centric multiplayer game.

Quote:

Third Assumption: PvE guy is going to PvE in a PvE ship and/or fit, either because he has no choice or because he can if he just wants to. PvE ships and fits rely on evasion, and do not have the option of operating reasonably safely in the presence of hostiles. Their sole defensive option is to avoid engagement. This is because tackle is absolute, and once caught the ship may as well self destruct for all the chance at survival it has. PvE ships that can survive tackle long enough to get help that isn't already present are not PvE ships, they are PvP bait ships and are generally incapable of profitably performing their PvE cover task, or in some cases not capable at all.


So yet again, go ratting in a PvP setup. Less efficient? Sure, but now you can get that nice juicy killmail too. Did you completely ignore the fact that I told you to do your PvE-ing in a PvP ship? Keep a PvP ship fit at your pos and swap out when good ol' local stops being 100% blue. No risk of being caught on dock/undock!

And friends. Have friends in system. Remember, multiplayer game, right?

Look, I'm primarily a solo/very small group player, and have historically done more PvE than PvP. That being said, I know what kind of game EVE is. When I choose to play solo, I'm logged in with at least 3 characters, often more. Solo play in an MMO is counter-intuitive. I also have a fully fit PvP ship in every POS I run/station I base out of for every character, because EVE is a PvP game at its heart. Saying cloaking needs to be nerfed because you refuse to jump into a PvP ship is you trying to fundamentally change EVE because you don't accept the core of what it is.

Games like EVE aren't always about what YOU want to do ATM. It's about what the other guy wants to do as well. It's up to you to counter what he wants to do. It isn't up to CCP to change the mechanics to nerf his/her gameplay. You don't like cloaky campers? Either refit to PvP and carry on as usual, killing them when they show up, or get out and bore them so much that they leave.

A camper who gets no kills or tears will stop camping you very quickly.

EDIT: Mike, a question

If you are hauling something in an orca, let's say and gates get camped, should you be allowed to cloak up and wait the gankers out, or should game mechanics keep you from hiding your billion ISK cargo?

Does the anti-AFK cloaking work both ways, or only when it favors the PvE-er?


Did you fail to read the thread?

I am perfectly willing to reship and contest control of the space. Let's assume I do... Here we go, dock, reship, fly out....and... Right. He is camping under a cloak and immune to anything 100000 locals can do to locate and challenge him for the space. Either PvE stops entirely, or profitability is cut by around half, at least.

And yes. Cloaks are broken. If that Orca pilot wants to stay alive he should have to remain active and evading as well. That use would require a buff to non-covert cloaks as they can't be used the same way, but absolutely the PvE hauler does not get to just opt out either, so long as he remains in space and effective at his goal.
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#2749 - 2015-08-10 21:35:54 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Did you fail to read the thread?

I am perfectly willing to reship and contest control of the space. Let's assume I do... Here we go, dock, reship, fly out....and... Right. He is camping under a cloak and immune to anything 100000 locals can do to locate and challenge him for the space. Either PvE stops entirely, or profitability is cut by around half, at least.

And yes. Cloaks are broken. If that Orca pilot wants to stay alive he should have to remain active and evading as well. That use would require a buff to non-covert cloaks as they can't be used the same way, but absolutely the PvE hauler does not get to just opt out either, so long as he remains in space and effective at his goal.


Did you fail to read what I wrote?

Link me where it says you have a right to 100% min/maxed optimal ISK from PvE activities 23.5/7 and I will start to take you seriously.

Keep PvE-ing in your blinged ratting/missioning fit with friends a system over and bait the camper. Or accept that you are playing a multiplayer game and

1. take the temporary isk loss
2. move to another system

To date, someone with an active cloak has killed zero players in EVE. I predict that trend will continue for a while now.

Mike, you want 100% risk free PvE? Hop over to SiSi. Something isn't broken just because it goes against your own personal playstyle.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#2750 - 2015-08-10 21:37:30 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:


snip



Mike,
The thing is you are making choices in all of the above. You are choosing to play solo, you are choosing to use a min/max fit with regards to rats, you are choosing to do this in NS. You are choosing not to avail yourself to other aspects of the game (exploration, trading, etc.). That’s fine, nobody is saying you can’t. But choices come with both costs and benefits.

Second, you contend you are arguing for balance. I disagree. You claim right now we are at an extreme. When a cloaky camper comes in and AFK cloaks you are completely 100% disrupted from doing PvE. But your solution, finding the AFK cloaked ship and shooting it…will put us at the other end of the spectrum….if the current form of play is not balanced according to you, then neither is your solution because there will be zero AFK cloaking and no meaningful disruption of PvP aside from roaming players. We don’t want to be at extremes. That is why I’d prefer a solution that can disrupt PvE and encourage active play.


No, I do other things.

But why are all the *forced* choices on the PvE side? Non-consent should be for everyone, not just the one who does not want to shoot people as his primary activity.

How is it that it's ok to project a disruptive threat on PvE, but there is no option to disrupt that threat for a limited time?

He can come back, others will take his place. I have not advocated a walled garden that cannot be entered, just that it be possible to eject those I find objectionable.

When the objectional party is a PvE pilot that right is assumed, and in fact currently protected even against other PvP action.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#2751 - 2015-08-10 21:43:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
Sonya Corvinus wrote:


Did you fail to read what I wrote?

Link me where it says you have a right to 100% min/maxed optimal ISK from PvE activities 23.5/7 and I will start to take you seriously.

Keep PvE-ing in your blinged ratting/missioning fit with friends a system over and bait the camper. Or accept that you are playing a multiplayer game and

1. take the temporary isk loss
2. move to another system

To date, someone with an active cloak has killed zero players in EVE. I predict that trend will continue for a while now.

Mike, you want 100% risk free PvE? Hop over to SiSi. Something isn't broken just because it goes against your own personal playstyle.



How is it 24/7? Did I somehow stick all of null sec on a private server by killing a cloaked camper? Did I somehow invent permadeath in EvE for those that use cloaks?

We have PvE can be shot to prevent PvE. All I am asking is PvP can be shot to allow PvE.

I am not asking to be sealed away in a passive bubble. I am perfectly willing to engage the hostile. Except not in a PvE fit, at his leisure. Why is that only fair if it favors him?

And hey, it's true no one dies to a ship with an active cloak, so that makes it ok he is immune to being interfered with? How about those pods, haulers, shuttles, most miners, and anyone without an active target lock? They should all be immune like a cloak too, right? Didn't think so.
Nofearion
Destructive Brothers
Fraternity.
#2752 - 2015-08-10 21:57:52 UTC
"To date, someone with an active cloak has killed zero players in EVE. I predict that trend will continue for a while now."

Pure genius, pack your bags and go home the problem has been solved!.

For me it boils down to this.

1. I do not really want anyone I do not know or maybe just don't like, sitting in whatever space I am in, spying on me.
2. AKF cloaking does take effort, however there is no counter to it.
3. AFK cloaking does not encourage active game play.
4. Saying well AFK is no harm. - How to determine if you are afk or not? No thanks I too like to cloaky.
5. I should if I wish have a tool to hunt that cloaked person afk or not.
a.If he is not afk he should be very hard to find and kill
b. if he is afk I should have no problems finding, uncloaking, and destroying said cloaky pilot. hopefully before he drops a bunch of blops on my head.

I could care less if a solo bomer or even a cruiser shows up - solo not going to kill my pve ship.
however I do not want him making bookmarks, setting up pos locations, or other intel gathering. I should have a Viable counter.
Not to mention I think the cat and mouse of hunting and being hunted would be fun.
of course somone will find fault or take advantage of any situation if possible.

So in the interest of good trade there are many good suggestions that do not require a nerf as it is to cloak, more of another tool to combat them, that is not a nerf that is a plus to the game. for both sides.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#2753 - 2015-08-10 22:02:47 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Techos, how about the active effort of reshipping to something that can find them and then hunting them down?
It's not even an option.

That ship does not have to be a combat monster. In fact I suggest the same shipline designed for cloaks being the only things that can find them.

It's not a lot of effort to watch local, reship and prepare for PvP. The problem is that you can't do that. You can watch local, reship and masturbate for the next few hours because cloaks are broken, but you can't actually PvP them, they have to want to PvP you and will only do so if you are in a ship that cannot fight them.


But there is no effort in your intel over all. If the goal is that things in game, broadly speaking, should take player effort and activity, then local fails when one considers it as the primary intel tool in low and null sec. Further that tool is not at risk. So if the metric for good game design is risk and activity, then local fails. And the one way to make local less beneficial, AFK cloaking, many people want to nerf. I see this as bad game design and bad for the overall balance. Thus, my position, nerf cloaks, nerf local. And by nerf local I mean make it require effort and be vulnerable to attack/subversion.


There is no effort in your Intel either. You only know I am there to be shot because of local. But you would be fine without it, or having it compromised because you are in a PvP ship and not reliant on evasion. You have the leisure to scan and find targets, pick out the most vulnerable and make your kill effortlessly. The PvE pilot does not have that. If you get on grid he loses his ship for sure, and more than likely his pod as well. It's a rigged game.

Rather than drive conflict, PvE is simply a soft target. You don't want them to reship and engage, or you could hang around and that could happen.

It's not a question of losing isk/hr, that's a moronic assumption. Much PvE cannot be done in a PvP fit. Even if it was, why isn't it allowable for the PvE guy to fight to retain the max isk/hr? Not many, and certainly not I, am asking for it without a fight. However even a single hostile in system cuts isk in half or risks suicide, why should that be ok unchallenged and unchallengable? Because it's not a choice... It's a design goal that PvE be a soft target for your enjoyment.
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#2754 - 2015-08-10 22:06:17 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:


How is it 24/7? Did I somehow stick all of null sec on a private server by killing a cloaked camper? Did I somehow invent permadeath in EvE for those that use cloaks?

We have PvE can be shot to prevent PvE. All I am asking is PvP can be shot to allow PvE.

I am not asking to be sealed away in a passive bubble. I am perfectly willing to engage the hostile. Except not in a PvE fit, at his leisure. Why is that only fair if it favors him?

And hey, it's true no one dies to a ship with an active cloak, so that makes it ok he is immune to being interfered with? How about those pods, haulers, shuttles, most miners, and anyone without an active target lock? They should all be immune like a cloak too, right? Didn't think so.


/sigh. PvP can be shot. When they are PvP-ing. Someone with a cloak can't shoot you. They aren't PvPing.

You are doing nothing but whine and ask for risk free ISK generation.

Also, when you have to resort to reductio ad absurdum, it shows me you're grasping at straws to try and support your poor idea.

Your KB suggests you aren't willing to engage the hostile at all.

Again, SiSi is that way -->
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#2755 - 2015-08-10 22:15:02 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
PvE professions exist in game solely as content for PvP.

Only those PvE-ers who fail to recognize that EvE is an inherently PvP-centric game and stubbornly fit for maximum ISK/hour/pilot at the expense of PvP ability.

Those pilots will always be targets. On this I don't think we disagree.

But they are targets only because they choose to be. It's that choice that they make, it's not a condition that's forced on them by game mechanics.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2756 - 2015-08-10 22:21:21 UTC
Ummmm.... I rarely PvE, and when I do I do it in a PvP capable ship.

This only to illustrate I have no clue what exactly is meant with the concept of "PvE ships" and statements such as "PvE ships can't even mount weapons" .... mine can mount weapons just fine. It helps to kill dem rats, after all.

Should we be able to kill the cloaked Orca someone asked? Hell, why not! I mean ..... some dude flying an Orca apparently without backup / intel channels into a camp and barely managing to warp to a safe and cloak up? Sweeet baby Jebus it's christmas in September!

Honestly ..... more stuff to kill? Are we opposed to that?

I would also like to point out cloaked ships (Stratios, cloaky Strategic Cruisers, Recons come to mind) aren't exactly in a bad place to defend themselves against "regular" PvP ships. Making them targets AFTER A WHILE (<< emphasis that -- I never asked them to become scannable immediately; only if they sit in roughly the same spot for over half a hour) can only provoke more fights. Isn't that what we all want folks?

While the cloaky Orca / Tornado / Sabre may not like it, a covert ops cloak wouldn't even feel a change since it can move, and thus, remain fully undetectable.

This shameless plug only to point out it's not all about PvE ships falling "victim" (and, while we're on the subject, make your goddamn PvE ship combat capable and take the fight if/when it lands on grid) but -- it's not about PvE at all, is it? See, sometimes we're camping a bubble. And we see some Legion fly in (we know it's links alright; what else would it be?) and it's sitting there for 40 minutes. Watching us. Ready to provide links when they choose to crash our camp.

Just because there's a cloaky doesn't mean everyone should run, right? We stay put; gudfite is coming and besides, our own cloaky is watching the other gate so we're not exactly saints either.

Would my proposed change (make them scannable after 30+ minutes of utter inactivity) affect said scenario? NO!

Would we like to scan this cloaky if it was still there 2 hours later? Hell yeah, why not? If he's not AFK we won't find him, +1 for trying though, no harm done. If he IS AFK...... then we blow it up, juicy killmail.

Why is this such a bad thing? When did the whole cloaking thing become a PvE-related issue? Is it because somebody thinks there should be "PvE" ships that apparently cannot kill things? Because, where I come from, a Vargur can put up one hell of a fight. If not sure you want to risk it, can always rat in a Sacrilege; works fine too believe me.

I don't care for carebears. Doesn't mean we should get a free carebear-of-the-day pass; but here's the thing: it bothers me some dude is AFK. In space. Secure. Does it matter why I want to blow him up? If he's not AFK we wouldn't find him and there wouldn't be an issue.

I'm not in favour of turning this into a shipclass competition of "PvE" versus "PvP" ships -- to illustrate: I don't give a rat's arse YOUR Mining barge can't kill stuff. Mine can; dual drone damage amplifiers, longpoint, 10MN AB ... not my fault you want to fit for maximum mining yield and then tell us "but I have no gunz!" This is not about ship classes -- it's about cloaks. Should be vulnerable after awhile, would get us more fights. More fights for *everyone involved* Or you mean to tell me a Stratios is not capable of defending itself?

I was on board with the whole "there must be a counter to cloaks" thing as it would make things a little more interesting. Now many pages later I realize that both the prey AND the hunter are risk averse?? No matter how this discussion plays out, PvE guy may have to go easy on the bling and bring a ship not only geared towards one goal and one goal only. On the other hand, Cloaky Guy really should toughen up and allow PvP to befall him too! Both your ships are MORE than capable!

Neither of you wants to put them shinies at risk. If ye cloakers would be looking for a fight, you wouldn't be moving heaven and earth to avoid it. And if the "victims" were willing to fight, then why do they always pull "mah PvE boat can't shoot!" as an example? Look guys. Did you actually want to engage or .... you know what? Why don't you BOTH dock up and we'll entosis your space for you, hm?
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#2757 - 2015-08-10 22:33:36 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:


How is it 24/7? Did I somehow stick all of null sec on a private server by killing a cloaked camper? Did I somehow invent permadeath in EvE for those that use cloaks?

We have PvE can be shot to prevent PvE. All I am asking is PvP can be shot to allow PvE.

I am not asking to be sealed away in a passive bubble. I am perfectly willing to engage the hostile. Except not in a PvE fit, at his leisure. Why is that only fair if it favors him?

And hey, it's true no one dies to a ship with an active cloak, so that makes it ok he is immune to being interfered with? How about those pods, haulers, shuttles, most miners, and anyone without an active target lock? They should all be immune like a cloak too, right? Didn't think so.


/sigh. PvP can be shot. When they are PvP-ing. Someone with a cloak can't shoot you. They aren't PvPing.

You are doing nothing but whine and ask for risk free ISK generation.

Also, when you have to resort to reductio ad absurdum, it shows me you're grasping at straws to try and support your poor idea.

Your KB suggests you aren't willing to engage the hostile at all.

Again, SiSi is that way -->


Without a target locked they can't shoot you.

In a shuttle they can't shoot you.

In a Pod they can't shoot you.

In a freighter they can't shoot you.

It's a ridiculous argument. You deny that the cloaked ship is dangerous?

I am not asking for risk free isk generation. The ability to generate isk should be driving conflict. It is motivating me to challenge the camper for control of space so I can generate isk there. If he is present and forcing me to reship I am not generating isk.

Why do PvE focused pilots have to do PvP in a ship not suited to the task? Why isn't it ok for them to evacuate and return in combat ships? Why should their opponents be able to opt out ov PvP until they PvE guys get tired of waiting and go back to non-combat ships? Non-consent works for everyone right?

Attacking me or my killboard does nothing for your argument. However, showing the absurdity of your argument isn't grasping at straws.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#2758 - 2015-08-10 22:39:31 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
PvE professions exist in game solely as content for PvP.

Only those PvE-ers who fail to recognize that EvE is an inherently PvP-centric game and stubbornly fit for maximum ISK/hour/pilot at the expense of PvP ability.

Those pilots will always be targets. On this I don't think we disagree.

But they are targets only because they choose to be. It's that choice that they make, it's not a condition that's forced on them by game mechanics.



It's not about Isk/hr.

Often it's about isk/at all. Much PvE cannot be done in ships that are capable, never mind competitive, in PvP.

Eve was supposed to be a sandbox. It isn't. You can choose to play a certain way, or you can choose to be entertainment for those that do.
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2759 - 2015-08-10 22:42:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Brokk Witgenstein
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Why do PvE focused pilots have to do PvP in a ship not suited to the task? Why isn't it ok for them to evacuate and return in combat ships? Why should their opponents be able to opt out ov PvP until they PvE guys get tired of waiting and go back to non-combat ships? Non-consent works for everyone right?


True. But it'd still be funny if there were a way to catch them ratters without them warping off, wouldn't you agree? There is room for compromise here to get a little risk on both parties. Not only on the ratter, agreed; but I'm getting the feeling AFK Cloaking is specifically aimed at those flying loot pinatas.

Give the trolls less incentive and you might still win the argument; but you're not going to win by using ^^^THIS as an example ;-)

I'm beginning to think the only reason AFK Cloaking got blown out of proportion and the debate gets overheated is because of this kind of ship. Which is not what I had in mind when I deposited my first 2 cents in this thread. Am I right in assuming that if the targets were less juicy, cloakers would have something better to do than to camp your system? If so, then I think I understand what this whole thread is really all about.

Is this the link between local chat and cloak immunity that has been eluding me since page 1?
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#2760 - 2015-08-10 23:37:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Why do PvE focused pilots have to do PvP in a ship not suited to the task? Why isn't it ok for them to evacuate and return in combat ships? Why should their opponents be able to opt out ov PvP until they PvE guys get tired of waiting and go back to non-combat ships? Non-consent works for everyone right?


True. But it'd still be funny if there were a way to catch them ratters without them warping off, wouldn't you agree? There is room for compromise here to get a little risk on both parties. Not only on the ratter, agreed; but I'm getting the feeling AFK Cloaking is specifically aimed at those flying loot pinatas.

Give the trolls less incentive and you might still win the argument; but you're not going to win by using ^^^THIS as an example ;-)

I'm beginning to think the only reason AFK Cloaking got blown out of proportion and the debate gets overheated is because of this kind of ship. Which is not what I had in mind when I deposited my first 2 cents in this thread. Am I right in assuming that if the targets were less juicy, cloakers would have something better to do than to camp your system? If so, then I think I understand what this whole thread is really all about.

Is this the link between local chat and cloak immunity that has been eluding me since page 1?


Nope. It's not just bling ships. That's just the straw-du-jour for a certain type of pro-cloak advocate.

I have been dropped on in a T2 fit Myrmidon worth relatively nothing while just keeping the belts clear for some mining friends, not a single module of higher meta than 5 on it. I assume he profited by scooping my abandoned drones. I hit warp at under 15% structure once the ECM drones gave me the chance to run.

Read back 100 pages or so. I have been more eloquent and reasoned in the past, I've just not slept for the last 30 hours or so at the moment so am losing a bit of coherency.

It's really all about entitlement. Campers feel they are being unfairly denied a killmail because the pve pilots run. They won't stay to face any kind of actual fight, and complain that they just get blobbed if they stick around. I have personally had encounters where I got away, came back and hunted the other guy solo in the system over an hour before logging, so it's not as if blobbing is always the way. Risk Adversity exists in equal measure on both side, except one side is actually flying a ship that was designed to fare poorly in combat and has a good reason to avoid a fight.