These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#3381 - 2015-10-07 15:51:34 UTC
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
You've yet to explain how proposing a nerf to your stupidly overpowered mechanic (local) in conjunction with a nerf to cloaking is bad. Other than "something something I want to PvE in 100% safety"
It is the only system that acts as an early warning. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no other system that acts this way, and it is reliable. It does not guarantee safety, it only makes it easier for you to determine what everyone else are likely to do. It also gives you enough time to decide wether you should contunie your current activity or do something else. If there is another system that acts this way, I would like you to name it.

Cidanel Afuran wrote:
You're just bad at PvE if you think this is true. Local is a 100% guarantee of safety if you are watching it. If you aren't looking up corps/KBs of people in local with you as you are PvE-ing, you have no one to blame but yourself.
I'm curious, how observant or dilligent does a player cloaked in a safe spot have to be to achieve 100% safety?

And lastly, while I know the opinions of the others, what is your opinion on making local neutral?

The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#3382 - 2015-10-07 16:26:24 UTC
Lucien Visteen wrote:
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
You've yet to explain how proposing a nerf to your stupidly overpowered mechanic (local) in conjunction with a nerf to cloaking is bad. Other than "something something I want to PvE in 100% safety"
It is the only system that acts as an early warning. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no other system that acts this way, and it is reliable. It does not guarantee safety, it only makes it easier for you to determine what everyone else are likely to do. It also gives you enough time to decide wether you should contunie your current activity or do something else. If there is another system that acts this way, I would like you to name it.

Cidanel Afuran wrote:
You're just bad at PvE if you think this is true. Local is a 100% guarantee of safety if you are watching it. If you aren't looking up corps/KBs of people in local with you as you are PvE-ing, you have no one to blame but yourself.
I'm curious, how observant or dilligent does a player cloaked in a safe spot have to be to achieve 100% safety?

And lastly, while I know the opinions of the others, what is your opinion on making local neutral?

I am not the intended for this message, I get that.

But I can't help but respond, when I realize I have the information being requested.

To the first part: Name an early warning system, capable of alerting a PvE pilot to incoming threats.
(Context being Sov Null space)
Answer: Your alliance's intel channels.
Now, this requires player effort to propagate, and is subject to human error, but the point is we are playing a team game in this context. Needing to rely on your team is expected.

To the second part, how observant does a cloaked player need to be in order to achieve 100% safety?
This question seems to assume the cloaked player popped into existence, in a hostile system safely beyond any possible obstacle to reaching said system.
I know the BLOPs is a clever boat, but I think it still needs some help jumping into hostile space. Something something covert cyno, I think it was.... maybe a spy in your alliance lit it for him?
This is the wrong thread for that concern, you have much more significant issues to address.

Unless the hostile is in a nulli tactical cruiser, you can bubble the entry gates, and expose them with a degree of effort.
If they are in a nulli tactical cruiser, they are exposing an expensive asset to risk by engaging, and can be countered by convincing them they are at greater risk of loss by using cheaper PvE hulls.
Use the name 'Official Bait Ship' on a few, they love that.

No actual space ships will be harmed during the playing of the game, so don't worry too much either way. NASA and the other national space agencies around the world will still be there afterward.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#3383 - 2015-10-07 17:52:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Local is a tool you can use to help keep you safe.

If you are not distracted.
If you are not scrambled by rats.
If you are flying properly aligned.
Etc...

Local does not protect you. You protect yourself.

A cloak does protect you, perfectly, indefinitely.

Also, how do you use local to avoid the cloaked guy? It does nothing to him. All you can do is leave the system. Stabs? I guess I could risk that he does not have faction points, or a heavy interdictor, or a second point... Or, since he is coming either way I should just get safe. Neither thing allows you to do anything about the cloaked guy. It just allows you to fly suicidal, unprofitable, or crippled. Stupid is as stupid does, as your logic clearly shows.

You clearly simply do not comprehend what balance means. The cloaked guy is harming PvE activity by being there projecting threat. If you deny that as truth, then you should have no problem with a 15 minute log out timer. Since you aren't interacting with the game anyway, it should not matter, and the 'risk' of being uncloaked for less than 30 seconds when you log in at a random time is purely a non-factor. Certainly less than the risk of a cloaked ship hunting you somewhere in system.


You can't harm anyone when cloaked.

If you are distracted, don't have a depot with stabs to become un-scrammed, and are not properly aligned you deserve to lose your ship.

I understand balance. I am the one proposing a nerf to both playstyles. You're the one asking for a buff to what you do when counters already exist.

A second point? Is this your first time playing? Drop a depot at every site, orbit it and refit to a full low slot of stabs if pointed. You will escape 100% of the time. Understanding the current game mechanics and all that?



Name one counter to a ship already in system and cloaked. Just one single method of forcing that ship to do anything at all other than sit there for as long as it wants. Sure, you can catch it on the way in, and that would be reasonable if a PvE guy could set up his activity once ever and then pick and choose when and if he was in danger while being effective at his chosen task from that moment forward. It might be balanced at current profit levels then... Profits stay low, so does risk, with either situation being totally under my control and consensual at all times other than that set up.

When cloaked ships can no longer fit weapons or cynos, or any aggressive modules of any kind, only then will they stop projecting threat into the system they occupy. So long as PvE ships remain soft targets designed to use evasion as their primary defense, they should not fly in the presence of potential hostiles unless you want them to explode.

The fact is you don't want to admit that a cloaked ship is dangerous, and you don't mind twisting logic into coils while looking stupid to do it. You cannot put up one single argument for the current system being balanced other than things discarded over a hundred pages ago.

You aren't proposing a nerf to both playstyles. You are proposing a gutting of one playstyle in exchange for a barely noticeable change to the other. You might understand the word balance, but your definition is way off because you consider your own playstyle about 10000% more valid than any other.
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#3384 - 2015-10-07 20:26:52 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I am not the intended for this message, I get that.

But I can't help but respond, when I realize I have the information being requested.
It is within your right to answer Smile
And it was my last question that was more hinted at him spesifically.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
To the first part: Name an early warning system, capable of alerting a PvE pilot to incoming threats.
(Context being Sov Null space)
Answer: Your alliance's intel channels.
It is a good answer but as you say, it is dependant on player input so not as reliable.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
To the second part, how observant does a cloaked player need to be in order to achieve 100% safety?
This question seems to assume the cloaked player popped into existence, in a hostile system safely beyond any possible obstacle to reaching said system.
It was a trick question. A player that is already at a safe location, i.e. not near any celestial object and cloaked, do not really need to do anything to remain safe. If he does not move, there is a bigger chance that a POS is taken down than him being found.

What I'm trying to get across is why local is being defended. It makes you feel safe since it never lies. I don't like local the way it is now, but it should be obvious why its being defended. It is the same for the cloak is it not? Implement an ability or system to scan them down and the notion of safety is lost.

The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#3385 - 2015-10-07 20:49:33 UTC
Lucien Visteen wrote:
...

What I'm trying to get across is why local is being defended. It makes you feel safe since it never lies. I don't like local the way it is now, but it should be obvious why its being defended. It is the same for the cloak is it not? Implement an ability or system to scan them down and the notion of safety is lost.

Right there, the reliability of local, combined with the effective reliability of the cloak.

Absolutes in their own right, from a certain perspective.

These two aspects in opposition, because neither obstructs the other, results in the unfortunate yet perfect balance we refer to as a stalemate.

Neither side capable of gaining an advantage, so both locked against progress, leaving only retreat by one or both sides as the eventual option.

To progress, both need to be tweaked, specifically in the context of this exact circumstance.
I do not feel either has the game obstructing impact otherwise, so ideally would not be affected outside of this context.

I am hoping the OA structure can act in this capacity, but it is still unclear how it will behave.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#3386 - 2015-10-07 21:04:40 UTC
As I said, I know your opinion on this matter. I am unsure of Cidanels, hence why I felt the need to respond to his post.

The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't.
Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#3387 - 2015-10-08 05:15:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Cidanel Afuran
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Name one counter to a ship already in system and cloaked. Just one single method of forcing that ship to do anything at all other than sit there for as long as it wants. Sure, you can catch it on the way in, and that would be reasonable if a PvE guy could set up his activity once ever and then pick and choose when and if he was in danger while being effective at his chosen task from that moment forward. It might be balanced at current profit levels then... Profits stay low, so does risk, with either situation being totally under my control and consensual at all times other than that set up.

When cloaked ships can no longer fit weapons or cynos, or any aggressive modules of any kind, only then will they stop projecting threat into the system they occupy. So long as PvE ships remain soft targets designed to use evasion as their primary defense, they should not fly in the presence of potential hostiles unless you want them to explode.

The fact is you don't want to admit that a cloaked ship is dangerous, and you don't mind twisting logic into coils while looking stupid to do it. You cannot put up one single argument for the current system being balanced other than things discarded over a hundred pages ago.

You aren't proposing a nerf to both playstyles. You are proposing a gutting of one playstyle in exchange for a barely noticeable change to the other. You might understand the word balance, but your definition is way off because you consider your own playstyle about 10000% more valid than any other.


When cloaked there is no danger. No counter is needed. If they uncloak near you? I already gave you the counters to that. Remember?

Yet again, no one cloaked has ever killed anyone, and if you take the proper precautions you can avoid someone decloaking near you 100% of the time. Working as intended. Learn the game mechanics Mike.

And yes, proposing a nerf to cloaking as well as a nerf to the safety net that PvE-ers have is a nerf to both playstyles. (Here's a hint Mike-o-boy, a nerf to what I do (cloaking) and what saves your ass (local) is a proposed nerf to both playstyles). Good sweet baby jesus, do you ever think before you post?

This thread brought to you by Mike "I can't bother to learn existing game mechanics" Voidstar
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#3388 - 2015-10-08 09:50:42 UTC
Good job proving you are just a troll.

You can't do anything but pretend things are balanced in any way other than dev fiat. Take your pound of flesh granted by the gods and just go.
Plofkip Arji
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3389 - 2015-10-11 13:30:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Plofkip Arji
Hello,

I would like to propose some changes to Local channel (and maybe Station services) for AFK Cloaking:

Disclaimer:
My proposals are focused toward enhancing information gathering capabilities in a non invasive way, keeping things how they currently are. I am a fairly new player, thus I apologize in advance if my proposals do not take into account all the possible ramifications they might have on the game. I would greatly appreciate if more navigated players could point out possible issues.


  • Show "possible inactivity of a player" after X minutes of no user input given.
    • Having a visual cue of who might be AFK in Local would not change the current mind games, since players could voluntarily trigger the AFK state. On the other hand the little extra information coming from it would allow for slightly better decision making.

    I propose to implement such feature in Local, but a less "revolutionary" solution might be to extend the current Online/Offline capsuleer status (a yellow dot would mean "inactive"), keeping players tracking in the watchlist instead.

    The only problem I see so far with would be the ability of players to bypass it completely by means of third party software or Homer Simpson's problem solving

  • A way to keep track of who was in station last time you docked, some sort of "seen in station last time" tag.
    • The tag does not necessarily mean the player is in station, it means he/she might be in station. Docking again at a station would update your info on who is or isn't docked, when a pilot shows up in your overview the information will be automatically updated.

    This system might even be further extended by making it a station service of some sort, or even bringing NPC standings into play ( but complexity might spike off the roof then).

    This solution might be a bit off topic at a first glance, but I believe that in combination with the "possible inactivity of a player" it would help to figure out who is AFK cloaking and who is just idle in station.


EDIT:
After some more reading of the thread I realized my proposals touch the discussed topic only marginally, my apologies for that. I would like to try to fix it by proposing something more inherent to the topic.

Adding some sort of falloff range to cloaking devices.
If an object is in the falloff range, the cloaked ship will be visible on D-scan and can be seen by combat probes. This would allow for people to know about nearby cloakers without nerfing stealth.
This solution would probably require to change the minimum range of the D-scan to a smaller value, and I'm not sure what consequences that would have on gameplay.

Another variation of the above idea could show the cloaker in Overview when an object is in the falloff range, the ship's information, such as type and distance is simply replaced by ??? which would prevent people from getting lock on the cloaker. The closer the object gets to the cloaker, the more information will be displayed in Overview, resulting eventually in a de-cloak when too close. I think this would add even more cat and mouse gameplay to the whole thing.
Gramps Pljugi
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#3390 - 2015-10-11 19:01:48 UTC
What about cloaking needing capacitor power to run, enough to drain it over long periods of time (1-2 hours), but not enough to hammer away at the ships ability to do a fight during that time.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#3391 - 2015-10-11 21:38:42 UTC
The game's current cloaking system is fine as is.

No adjustment is necessary regarding cloaking mechanics.

The only adjustment that needs to happen is with the playerbase and their refusal to take risks.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#3392 - 2015-10-12 00:18:11 UTC
Divine Entervention wrote:
The game's current cloaking system is fine as is.

No adjustment is necessary regarding cloaking mechanics.

The only adjustment that needs to happen is with the playerbase and their refusal to take risks.

You mean more people should be willing to lose for your amusement. Seems fair and balanced. Roll
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#3393 - 2015-10-12 04:13:58 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
The game's current cloaking system is fine as is.

No adjustment is necessary regarding cloaking mechanics.

The only adjustment that needs to happen is with the playerbase and their refusal to take risks.

You mean more people should be willing to lose for your amusement. Seems fair and balanced. Roll


We all should be willing to lose for each others enjoyment, yes.

Give and take.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#3394 - 2015-10-12 09:16:01 UTC
Interesting. Yet you think current cloaking mechanics are fine, where the choices for the hunted are lose or lose more. The current stetup doesn't allow for win unless you are the hunter.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#3395 - 2015-10-12 10:21:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Divine Entervention
While it's impossible to be prepared against every scenario, it's also impossible to say the only option is "lose".

Anything being possible is a compelling beauty of EvE.

Once you detach yourself from the fear of loss of possession and focus on the experience of interaction, the game becomes a lot more enjoyable.

Maximization of any one particular facet eve offers by it's maximum potential severely limits the potential of possible enjoyment. Fit your AFK Isktars with a tank, be willing to take a DPS loss lowering your maximum Tick rather than choose to not risk anything at all, and while you might accumulate wealth at a slower pace, you might also experience enjoyment at an expedited one through the injection of original final fantasy-esque "random encounters".

But who knows right?

It's the unknown that paralyzes you into inaction, while it's the unknown that inspires the rest of us into acting.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#3396 - 2015-10-12 13:13:55 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Interesting. Yet you think current cloaking mechanics are fine, where the choices for the hunted are lose or lose more. The current stetup doesn't allow for win unless you are the hunter.



Confirming no-one ever counter-drops or baits, indeed that these ideas are impossible Roll
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#3397 - 2015-10-12 18:04:40 UTC
even senior GM's are forwarding people to this thread now... ccp knows it needs to be fixed :)
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#3398 - 2015-10-12 20:53:29 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
Ncc 1709 wrote:
even senior GM's are forwarding people to this thread now... ccp knows it needs to be fixed :)


What needs to be fixed, is your apparent lack of testicular fortitude.



Ed: Also, people are hassling GMs about this? What a bunch of pussies.
Alundil
Rolled Out
#3399 - 2015-10-12 20:56:01 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Interesting. Yet you think current cloaking mechanics are fine, where the choices for the hunted are lose or lose more. The current stetup doesn't allow for win unless you are the hunter.



Confirming no-one ever counter-drops or baits, indeed that these ideas are impossible Roll

Holy Christ on a stick - this thread is still picking up replies.


170 pages and counting and not a single "Blue Tag" post.....probably a pretty good reason for that.

I'm right behind you
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#3400 - 2015-10-12 20:57:56 UTC
I drop in on slow work days for the lols, mostly. Plus the tears are hilarious.

These people are worse than miners being bumped.