These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3621 - 2015-12-03 10:07:15 UTC
Jerghoul wrote:

Cloaks are broken in nullsec specifically and only because they impact negatively on player activity levels.


Cloaks don't impact activity levels at all. At the keyboard or not, they are one player logged in no matter what.

Cowardice and risk aversion impacts activity levels. And I say, if they would rather not play the game at all when they can't be 100% safe in their afk ratting, then good riddance. Any activity that generates assets into the game world(meaning, any and all PvE) should either be subject to risk, or it should stop existing completely.

But the only way they can be that risk averse to begin with is that they know the cloaker is in the system, thanks to local.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#3622 - 2015-12-03 10:22:51 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
I long, long ago took the "don't play here" option, and have not been back to null sec in years. It just wasn't fun.


Then why in the ever loving blazes are you even posting in this thread?


Why are you, wormhole boy?


Seriously?

You're asking why a wormholer has a vested interest in cloak changes?

For real?

Hot damn.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#3623 - 2015-12-03 14:06:03 UTC
Nah, but he sure has a lot to say about PvE, Null sec, etc... Seems like he would take his own advice.
Jerghoul
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#3624 - 2015-12-03 14:22:49 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Jerghoul wrote:

Cloaks are broken in nullsec specifically and only because they impact negatively on player activity levels.


Cloaks don't impact activity levels at all. At the keyboard or not, they are one player logged in no matter what.

Cowardice and risk aversion impacts activity levels. And I say, if they would rather not play the game at all when they can't be 100% safe in their afk ratting, then good riddance. Any activity that generates assets into the game world(meaning, any and all PvE) should either be subject to risk, or it should stop existing completely.

But the only way they can be that risk averse to begin with is that they know the cloaker is in the system, thanks to local.


Null-sec cloaky AFK camping and counter camping are specifically used to deter players from logging on and use the cloak-cyno combination to achieve that end.

A game mechanism (cloak+cyno potential) that encourages players not to play is a ****-poor game mechanic.

My personal favourite fix suggestion is giving cloaks a fuel requirement so that camping without crossing a gate (with the slight risk that entails) cannot be sustained for days, weeks, or months.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3625 - 2015-12-03 15:23:24 UTC
Jerghoul wrote:

Null-sec cloaky AFK camping and counter camping are specifically used to deter players from logging on and use the cloak-cyno combination to achieve that end.


That's not what it's for. And I say this as someone who done a TON of cloaky camping, and been paid to do it.


Quote:

A game mechanism (cloak+cyno potential) that encourages players not to play is a ****-poor game mechanic.


By this logic, you must positively hate Crimewatch, huh?

Somehow though, I bet that isn't the case.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#3626 - 2015-12-03 15:48:13 UTC
Jerghoul wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Jerghoul wrote:

Cloaks are broken in nullsec specifically and only because they impact negatively on player activity levels.


Cloaks don't impact activity levels at all. At the keyboard or not, they are one player logged in no matter what.

Cowardice and risk aversion impacts activity levels. And I say, if they would rather not play the game at all when they can't be 100% safe in their afk ratting, then good riddance. Any activity that generates assets into the game world(meaning, any and all PvE) should either be subject to risk, or it should stop existing completely.

But the only way they can be that risk averse to begin with is that they know the cloaker is in the system, thanks to local.


Null-sec cloaky AFK camping and counter camping are specifically used to deter players from logging on and use the cloak-cyno combination to achieve that end.

A game mechanism (cloak+cyno potential) that encourages players not to play is a ****-poor game mechanic.

My personal favourite fix suggestion is giving cloaks a fuel requirement so that camping without crossing a gate (with the slight risk that entails) cannot be sustained for days, weeks, or months.




What? A neutral in a system stops you playing the game?

What? Actually just what the hell?

There is more to the game than ratting in one system.

My god.
Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#3627 - 2015-12-03 16:09:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Cidanel Afuran
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Nah, but he sure has a lot to say about PvE, Null sec, etc... Seems like he would take his own advice.


I spend at least half my time PvE-ing, and spend a decent amount of time hunting in null, often solo. You DO realize WHs open up in null, right? I post in threads where I have a vested interest, unlike yourself.

You also seem hell-bent on ignoring any playstyle other than null ratting or hot dropping. Cloaks are used for far more than that, and your proposed changes royally screw over other playstyles (that are far more common than cloaky cynos)

I have never run higher than a level two mission. You know what section of the forums I have never posted in? (hint, it has to do with missioning)
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3628 - 2015-12-03 16:55:43 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Teckos likes to think he has the inside track to how I think, as shown by his near constant reframing of my arguments into things I have not said. I don't care about ISK. I do care that the 'counters' to a cloaker are all indirect and so costly that the profit of null sec drops below high sec. That's a simple balance issue---less risk, more reward.


Translation: I don't care about ISK, but I actually care about ISK, but I'll just use euphemisms like cost, reward, and profit.

No, I don't care about ISK, but it's unbalanced that I get more reward for less risk or effort in high sec. If the camper could be challenged and fought to reclaim that profitability it would be fine, but as it is, it's simply one player inflicting uncounterable loss on others.


Counters do not have to be direct. The counters to bumping are not all direct, most are indirect. Why must the counter be direct all the time?

"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
Jerghoul
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#3629 - 2015-12-03 17:17:35 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Jerghoul wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Jerghoul wrote:

Cloaks are broken in nullsec specifically and only because they impact negatively on player activity levels.


Cloaks don't impact activity levels at all. At the keyboard or not, they are one player logged in no matter what.

Cowardice and risk aversion impacts activity levels. And I say, if they would rather not play the game at all when they can't be 100% safe in their afk ratting, then good riddance. Any activity that generates assets into the game world(meaning, any and all PvE) should either be subject to risk, or it should stop existing completely.

But the only way they can be that risk averse to begin with is that they know the cloaker is in the system, thanks to local.


Null-sec cloaky AFK camping and counter camping are specifically used to deter players from logging on and use the cloak-cyno combination to achieve that end.

A game mechanism (cloak+cyno potential) that encourages players not to play is a ****-poor game mechanic.

My personal favourite fix suggestion is giving cloaks a fuel requirement so that camping without crossing a gate (with the slight risk that entails) cannot be sustained for days, weeks, or months.




What? A neutral in a system stops you playing the game?

What? Actually just what the hell?

There is more to the game than ratting in one system.

My god.


Null-sec AFK cloaky camping is a sov war technique used to target activity levels.

Its main goal is to discourage players from logging on in general, and more specifically to limit the number of players an alliance can muster in battle. Its not economic war so much as a measure to increase player attrition.

The nullsec AFK cloaky camping (with inferred cyno potential) is meant to keep players out of the game friend. Because killing your opponents activity levels helps win wars.

Its a pisspoor gamemechanic.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3630 - 2015-12-03 19:53:13 UTC
Jerghoul wrote:


Null-sec AFK cloaky camping is a sov war technique used to target activity levels.

Its main goal is to discourage players from logging on in general, and more specifically to limit the number of players an alliance can muster in battle. Its not economic war so much as a measure to increase player attrition.

The nullsec AFK cloaky camping (with inferred cyno potential) is meant to keep players out of the game friend. Because killing your opponents activity levels helps win wars.

Its a pisspoor gamemechanic.






That might be true now with the new sov mechanics, but generally speaking in the past this was not the case. Typically, being out and ratting while deployed was a Bad Thing™.

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

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3631 - 2015-12-03 19:57:09 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:


Could you find it in your heart to consider cloaked up = safe? Because true, it's not a station. But they do spend a highslot and considerable CPU, in return for the ability to move unseen. Other than that, though, they're pretty much doing nothing. Is there any good reason why they shouldn't be safe? They're not making ISK, they're not mining roids, they're not shooting you (yet) ...... they are simply logged in and sitting there. Is that a capital offense?


Not empty quoting.


Undocked means at risk. That's the very first principal of EVE. Supporters of cloaking use that very same argument to protect their own safety, because others would prevent them from suppressing the value of the space they camp if there was a choice.

Profit comes from many sources. They may not be making isk, but their goal is getting kills, suppressing PvE, and reducing the value of the system. Just because they aren't bringing in OAK does not mean they aren't effective at their goals.


Not all ships are equally at risk when undocked. So I don't have a problem with cloaks at a safe being very, very safe because it is also very limited game play for the person doing it. To remain that safe they have to do...pretty much nothing. I'm good with it. Strikes me as reasonably balanced.

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

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3632 - 2015-12-03 20:02:19 UTC
Jerghoul wrote:


My personal favourite fix suggestion is giving cloaks a fuel requirement so that camping without crossing a gate (with the slight risk that entails) cannot be sustained for days, weeks, or months.



Horrible idea as it nerfs cloaking ships even for non-AFK types.

No.

Next **** idea?

"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
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#3633 - 2015-12-03 20:24:52 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Jerghoul wrote:


Null-sec AFK cloaky camping is a sov war technique used to target activity levels.

Its main goal is to discourage players from logging on in general, and more specifically to limit the number of players an alliance can muster in battle. Its not economic war so much as a measure to increase player attrition.

The nullsec AFK cloaky camping (with inferred cyno potential) is meant to keep players out of the game friend. Because killing your opponents activity levels helps win wars.

Its a pisspoor gamemechanic.






That might be true now with the new sov mechanics, but generally speaking in the past this was not the case. Typically, being out and ratting while deployed was a Bad Thing™.


It's garbage.

If a cloaky makes them log off, or they can't compete with it what will they do when the actual armada rolls up?
Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#3634 - 2015-12-03 20:42:30 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
It's garbage.

If a cloaky makes them log off, or they can't compete with it what will they do when the actual armada rolls up?


POS spin until it's 100% blue for ten jumps and avoid fighting like the plague, like most sov null.
Jerghoul
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#3635 - 2015-12-03 22:59:15 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Jerghoul wrote:


My personal favourite fix suggestion is giving cloaks a fuel requirement so that camping without crossing a gate (with the slight risk that entails) cannot be sustained for days, weeks, or months.



Horrible idea as it nerfs cloaking ships even for non-AFK types.

No.

Next **** idea?


The purpose is to require cloaked ships to actively resupply regularly. I do not see how that could cause undue hardship. Also, nothing is inherently wrong with minor nerfs or buffs. They are actually desirable in principle to take full advantage of 6 week release cycles.

It seems the least intrusive of many options. Particularly as the specific design flaw relates to a combination of modules (cloak + cyno). There is no reason for why that particular combination could be limited to very specialized ship types, or even removed altogether.

Design flaw defined here as a game mechanic that is used specifically to increase Eve player attrition (get people to not play Eve).
Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#3636 - 2015-12-03 23:07:43 UTC
Jerghoul wrote:
The purpose is to require cloaked ships to actively resupply regularly. I do not see how that could cause undue hardship. Also, nothing is inherently wrong with minor nerfs or buffs. They are actually desirable in principle to take full advantage of 6 week release cycles.

It seems the least intrusive of many options. Particularly as the specific design flaw relates to a combination of modules (cloak + cyno). There is no reason for why that particular combination could be limited to very specialized ship types, or even removed altogether.

Design flaw defined here as a game mechanic that is used specifically to increase Eve player attrition (get people to not play Eve).


Requiring fuel for cloaks would do nothing but add unneeded tedium to the game. In addition to stocking up on pos fuel, ammo, drones, etc. now I need to continually restock cloak fuel as well? For the several dozen cloaked ships I use on a regular basis? This particular character hasn't docked in a station in over 45 days. Ain't nobody got time for cloak fuel.

Cloaked gameplay is what kept me from leaving EVE (and I don't hot drop on anywhere near a regular basis nor AFK camp systems). Your proposal is a big nerf to the countless other ways cloaks are used in EVE.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3637 - 2015-12-03 23:17:14 UTC
Jerghoul wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Jerghoul wrote:


My personal favourite fix suggestion is giving cloaks a fuel requirement so that camping without crossing a gate (with the slight risk that entails) cannot be sustained for days, weeks, or months.



Horrible idea as it nerfs cloaking ships even for non-AFK types.

No.

Next **** idea?


The purpose is to require cloaked ships to actively resupply regularly. I do not see how that could cause undue hardship. Also, nothing is inherently wrong with minor nerfs or buffs. They are actually desirable in principle to take full advantage of 6 week release cycles.

It seems the least intrusive of many options. Particularly as the specific design flaw relates to a combination of modules (cloak + cyno). There is no reason for why that particular combination could be limited to very specialized ship types, or even removed altogether.

Design flaw defined here as a game mechanic that is used specifically to increase Eve player attrition (get people to not play Eve).


The cargo bay is for things like ammo, cyno fuel, and nanite paste. Adding a fuel requirement would mean less of those other things, especially on a long deployment, especially in hostile space.

You don't nerf the game of players who are not "the problem" to get at those who "are the problem".

Here, let me give you an extreme example. Bots often go after rats. Solution--no more rats...so no more bots ratting. Bots often mine, so no more asteroid/ice belts. No more bots. Of course no more players killing rats, doing missions, or mining. It is a bad solution, even if it works.

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

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#3638 - 2015-12-03 23:20:52 UTC
Jerghoul wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Jerghoul wrote:


My personal favourite fix suggestion is giving cloaks a fuel requirement so that camping without crossing a gate (with the slight risk that entails) cannot be sustained for days, weeks, or months.



Horrible idea as it nerfs cloaking ships even for non-AFK types.

No.

Next **** idea?


The purpose is to require cloaked ships to actively resupply regularly. I do not see how that could cause undue hardship. Also, nothing is inherently wrong with minor nerfs or buffs. They are actually desirable in principle to take full advantage of 6 week release cycles.

It seems the least intrusive of many options. Particularly as the specific design flaw relates to a combination of modules (cloak + cyno). There is no reason for why that particular combination could be limited to very specialized ship types, or even removed altogether.

Design flaw defined here as a game mechanic that is used specifically to increase Eve player attrition (get people to not play Eve).



Your "fixes" for AFK-cloaking would break up gameplay in other places where cloaking is completely fine.

For example in wormholes it is completely normal to have a cloaky scout in a system for WEEKS at a time without any means of resupplying, since you don't want to let the locals know you are there and leaving the wormhole could mean losing the route to it if they roll the wormhole.

Restricting cloak+cyno -combo would break the whole idea behind Black ops- battleships and covert cyno's.


If you are fixing a single problem that affects only one part of the game, don't fix it by breaking the game for the rest of New Eden. A fix shouldn't need special casing, it shouldn't break working game-mechanics in other parts of the game.

Wormholer for life.
Jerghoul
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#3639 - 2015-12-03 23:31:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghoul
Wander Prian wrote:
Jerghoul wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Jerghoul wrote:


My personal favourite fix suggestion is giving cloaks a fuel requirement so that camping without crossing a gate (with the slight risk that entails) cannot be sustained for days, weeks, or months.



Horrible idea as it nerfs cloaking ships even for non-AFK types.

No.

Next **** idea?


The purpose is to require cloaked ships to actively resupply regularly. I do not see how that could cause undue hardship. Also, nothing is inherently wrong with minor nerfs or buffs. They are actually desirable in principle to take full advantage of 6 week release cycles.

It seems the least intrusive of many options. Particularly as the specific design flaw relates to a combination of modules (cloak + cyno). There is no reason for why that particular combination could be limited to very specialized ship types, or even removed altogether.

Design flaw defined here as a game mechanic that is used specifically to increase Eve player attrition (get people to not play Eve).





Your "fixes" for AFK-cloaking would break up gameplay in other places where cloaking is completely fine.

For example in wormholes it is completely normal to have a cloaky scout in a system for WEEKS at a time without any means of resupplying, since you don't want to let the locals know you are there and leaving the wormhole could mean losing the route to it if they roll the wormhole.

Restricting cloak+cyno -combo would break the whole idea behind Black ops- battleships and covert cyno's.


If you are fixing a single problem that affects only one part of the game, don't fix it by breaking the game for the rest of New Eden. A fix shouldn't need special casing, it shouldn't break working game-mechanics in other parts of the game.


A minor fuel requirement is hardly an intrusive suggestion.

I am not sure how restricting the cyno-cloak combination to a few specialized ships would break the whole idea behind black ops battleships either if you preferred that solution (it is a solution, though I will not outline why AFK cloaking is ok in a black ops battleship unless someone specifically wants to know).

The main point remains that the cyno-cloak combination potential for nullsec AFK campers is a serious design flaw that needs to be resolved. Design flaw defined here as a game mechanic that is used specifically to increase Eve player attrition (get people to not play Eve).
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#3640 - 2015-12-03 23:37:10 UTC
The very fact you keep banging on about cyno-cloaks tells me you've never seen the inside of J space. They door is over there.