These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4321 - 2015-12-11 09:02:07 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Wormhole mechanics make you safer compared to known gates and cynos.



Ratio of Ship kills to NPC kills for 2014, per Dotlan stats:

J-Space: 1 : 73.4

Null: 1 : 346.9

Please, do go on.

I've roamed null for days on end without ever being in any real risk. Hell, without even having to run a gatecamp.

Don't think I've had a day in WH space where someone hasn't at least shot at me.


I think that post proves Mike's point.

A sleeper rat is the equivalent of how many null sec rats? 10?

I am single blatting frostline frigates in a T1 battle cruiser. Sleeper drones are a whole different calibre of rat.


No you have it exactly backwards. SurrenderMonkey's statistics imply the following


  • On average a "ratter" in j-space will expect to kill 73 rats before himself being killed.
  • On average a "ratter" in NS will expect to kill 347 rats before himself being killed.


Or to put it differently a NS ratter will kill almost 5x as many rats before dying than a j-space ratter....j-space is actually less safe.

As for the value it depends doesn't it. A NS rat puts ISK right in your wallet. A sleeper rat does not. Not directly. You have to get the goodies out. Liquidity has value...so it is not that simple to just pick a number out of thin air like you just did.



There's also the fact in lower class holes the isk needs to be salvaged too, AND it is subject to market pressures.

In fact, my god, it's as if the people who live/lived there were right after all.

This is both unexpected and surprising. Oh wait, no it isn't. In the slightest.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4322 - 2015-12-11 10:38:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
There are tons of rats in null sec I would be comfortable engaging in a t1 frigate. I used to run belts all day in a passive shield myrmidon, though I had to be careful. I have only jumped into worm holes a few times, and ain't one of those sleepers I would feel comfortable engaging without either support or a Tanky battlecruiser+.

Your numbers may be skewed a bit by the quality of your rats.

I am aware you have to loot and salvage to see the ISK, but the market for those goods isn't too volatile.

Point remains you do pretty much exactly the same thing the NS PvE guy does. You secure your entrances and rat in relative peace. You do have some unique issues, but the basic business model is the same, except the location is orders of magnitude more difficult to access.

Not being an atk player, I too often scan down any sigs while I do my thing. It's not a huge burden.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4323 - 2015-12-11 12:31:24 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Point remains you do pretty much exactly the same thing the NS PvE guy does.


Wrong.

In a wormhole they actually do something, not just stay awake enough to watch 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.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4324 - 2015-12-11 12:59:44 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Point remains you do pretty much exactly the same thing the NS PvE guy does.


Wrong.

In a wormhole they actually do something, not just stay awake enough to watch local.


Not the person just doing PvE. He is watched over by others.

Just like happens in Null when your corp or alliance holds space by keeping people out of your territory.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4325 - 2015-12-11 13:03:01 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Not the person just doing PvE. He is watched over by others.


Ah, too bad you've already repeatedly rebuked even the very concept of that. What did you two call the idea of having standing fleets and scouts?

Oh yeah. "unreasonable."

"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
#4326 - 2015-12-11 13:04:40 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Not the person just doing PvE. He is watched over by others.

Just like happens in Null when your corp or alliance holds space by keeping people out of your territory.



Ah, too bad you've already repeatedly rebuked even the very concept of that. What did you two call the idea of having standing fleets and scouts?

Oh yeah. "unreasonable."



Yeah that is kind of a screeching U-turn there.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4327 - 2015-12-11 13:13:50 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Fractal
Actually, I have said repeatedly, that the cloaks were allowing you to handwave those efforts, which were being undertaken by entire alliances.

Then, I pointed out that on a smaller scale, requiring escorts for every individual ship was unreasonable when it reduced your profit per pilot below the levels of highsec income---IF YOUR MOTHERLOVING GOAL IS PVE.

That's what's called a conditional statement. One more time for the slow witted:

If you are just trying to make ISK, and you are forced to take measures that reduce profits below mid to high level high sec income, then it is unreasonable that you cannot counter that effect. This is not a rare, edge case profession. It affects a great many players, if not a solid majority, considering PVE is a much, much more common activity than PVP.

If your goal is literally ANYTHING ELSE then that isn't the same balance problem.

Removed some spam and a disrespectful comment. - ISD Fractal
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4328 - 2015-12-11 13:20:51 UTC
Ironically, this effect dissipates when you take 10 players on each side.

Because then you'd have 1 cloaker + 9 on the cyno on one hand ... and 10 PvP ships ratting on the other hand. Those 10 can (and will - tested and true) make money while securing their system at the same time...

so the one thing lacking in your equation is the number of players. If the number on your team is like, say, below 4 or so, then you're quite right. This however could be concidered an edge case, no?
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4329 - 2015-12-11 13:21:47 UTC
Thing is, 10 ishtars in a fleet make basically the same isk/hour as 10 solo ishtars in their own anomalies.

The core difference is not many people will want to BLOPs onto 7000+ dps, you're gonna lose ships.

The problem is not really a "problem" at all.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4330 - 2015-12-11 13:26:27 UTC
Not for what I've seen in null sec operations.

They rely on alliance level security intercepting incursions into their territory, along with intel channels to chase those that make it past the bubbled gates.

They do run corp and alliance level mining and even ratting ops, but also depend on individual efforts under the umbrella of the alliance wide security measures....


which may as well not exist with a cloaked camper in system.


Worse, it's not really 9 guys. Since you cannot interact in any way with the ship in space, you cannot even confirm if it's a cov-ops carrying a cyno, a newbie ship, or anything else. So it reasonably could be, but it's probably not...but since you can't force it to leave, log off, or fight they can bring the other 9 guys anytime they are ready while presenting the threat at all times.

This means that the ship in question must be treated at the higher end of a reasonable threat scale.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4331 - 2015-12-11 14:09:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Recap

Implicit risk is major EvE problem and is derived from a number of things including, but not limited to, afk cloaky camping Implicit risk should be dealt with using mechanisms that lower it to acceptable levels. Acceptable levels are defined as those giving acceptable player retention. Implicit risk should not be mitigated by changing mechanisms it is derived from unless there is no other option.

Implicit risk is at acceptable levels in wormhole space (a premise). This is surprising as wh local seen in isolation would increase implicit risk. Therefore, other compensating mechanisms in wormhole space have reduced implicit risk to acceptable levels.

An presentation of compensating wh mechanisms adapted for 0-sec that reduce implicit risks in wormholes (relevant to thread topic because implicit risk is derived from afk cloaky camping).

1. Rats 2.0
The sleeper lesson:
Break up the tailored tanks by adding more omni damage ships in rat fleets (imagine the rats cross trade ships. Mix it up a bit)
More ewar rats that can act as surrogate tackle for ratting vessels
A bit stronger sites to make it more small gang pvp'ish

These measures would protect ratters from themselves basically. Trend towards making ratters more small gang pvp ready.

2. Closing gates
Collapsing wormhole strategy lesson:
Allow gates to be closed and opened using entosis links.
A visual prompt on opposite side of gate to indicate if gate is currently being entosised (open or shut)

Simulates intentional wormhole collapses used to control access into a wh-system.

3. Natural phenomena
Modifiers let wormhole players tailor ships and skills specifically for the environment they live in. This lowers implicit risk as visitors must either fight at a disadvantage, or arrive after a solid amount of premeditation.

Allow sov holders to tailor a system's local combat ecosystem using infrastructure modules. Perhaps combined with star types in normal space also giving lesser combat modifiers.

(cont. later).

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4332 - 2015-12-11 14:42:07 UTC
You can't close gates in nullsec. Do you have any idea of how broken that is?

My god put the meth away.
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4333 - 2015-12-11 14:59:38 UTC
I rate this troll only 2 out of 10. Too blatantly obvious. Would grade 4 if at least funny.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#4334 - 2015-12-11 15:40:27 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Recap

Implicit risk is major EvE problem



Recap

Forum poster believes that repeating an unsubstantiated opinion many times will eventually turn it into a fact.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4335 - 2015-12-11 16:43:44 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Not the person just doing PvE. He is watched over by others.


Ah, too bad you've already repeatedly rebuked even the very concept of that. What did you two call the idea of having standing fleets and scouts?

Oh yeah. "unreasonable."


Yeah...WTF? Mike, you were often saying that such things were totally unreasonable. You did not even like my PvP fit ratting fleet. You complained about ISK/hour, but that is actually a Thing™ in WHs.

"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
#4336 - 2015-12-11 16:56:24 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Actually, I have said repeatedly, that the cloaks were allowing you to handwave those efforts, which were being undertaken by entire alliances.

Then, I pointed out that on a smaller scale, requiring escorts for every individual ship was unreasonable when it reduced your profit per pilot below the levels of highsec income---IF YOUR MOTHERLOVING GOAL IS PVE.

That's what's called a conditional statement. One more time for the slow witted:

If you are just trying to make ISK, and you are forced to take measures that reduce profits below mid to high level high sec income, then it is unreasonable that you cannot counter that effect. This is not a rare, edge case profession. It affects a great many players, if not a solid majority, considering PVE is a much, much more common activity than PVP.

If your goal is literally ANYTHING ELSE then that isn't the same balance problem.

Removed some spam and a disrespectful comment. - ISD Fractal


You know Mike, the problem is....in a WH they could have a cloaky sitting there watching them waiting for his buddies to get into position....and the WH guys would never know. According to Jerghul the "implicit threat" level should be sky high at this point. But look, the WH PvE guys are acting as if it isn't. Maybe because with no local there is no "implicit threat". (To be quite honest, I don’t think Jerghul even really knows what the term “implicit threat” really means.)

Further, how do you know that profits are below HS levels? I have pointed out that having people in fleet on comms might let you burn through the anomalies even faster. One factor that would help you out is that when the anomaly is dead being active on voice comms vs. being semi-active an alone you could waster time doing nothing. Second it seems to me that it is quite reasonable for a fleet of 6 guys to burn down an anomaly in 1/6th the time a solo guy would.

So suppose in an hour a solo guy could burn through 2 Havens and make, say 60 million ISK.

Six guys, might very well burn through 12 Havens in an hour and make 360 million ISK. Since you have 6 guys, the average ISK/hour is….60 million ISK, just as if they were each ratting alone.

And the numbers above are made up, not meant to be exact so don’t start screaming “60 million ISK/hour is horrible!!!” The point was to show the possibility of equivalent ISK/hour between the two scenarios.

"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
#4337 - 2015-12-11 16:59:39 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Ironically, this effect dissipates when you take 10 players on each side.

Because then you'd have 1 cloaker + 9 on the cyno on one hand ... and 10 PvP ships ratting on the other hand. Those 10 can (and will - tested and true) make money while securing their system at the same time...

so the one thing lacking in your equation is the number of players. If the number on your team is like, say, below 4 or so, then you're quite right. This however could be concidered an edge case, no?


This. Apparently Mike wants to secure his space in a cost free manner. Surprise he isn't asking for CCP to give TCUs and IHUBs for free and even anchor them so he can rat during that time frame as well.

Roll

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

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4338 - 2015-12-11 17:02:44 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
You can't close gates in nullsec. Do you have any idea of how broken that is?

My god put the meth away.


Look at my signature.

I am not making any value judgements on broken or not broken, I am just saying that closing wormholes of the mechanisms that decreases implicit threats in wormhole space. Which is uhm how broken do you reckon?

I trust you recognize that wormholes are gate surrogates.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4339 - 2015-12-11 17:03:45 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Recap

Implicit risk is major EvE problem



Recap

Forum poster believes that repeating an unsubstantiated opinion many times will eventually turn it into a fact.


Well, its my and Fozies unsubstantiated opinion then. I have posted the relevant quote many times.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4340 - 2015-12-11 17:06:15 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Not for what I've seen in null sec operations.

They rely on alliance level security intercepting incursions into their territory, along with intel channels to chase those that make it past the bubbled gates.

They do run corp and alliance level mining and even ratting ops, but also depend on individual efforts under the umbrella of the alliance wide security measures....


which may as well not exist with a cloaked camper in system.


Worse, it's not really 9 guys. Since you cannot interact in any way with the ship in space, you cannot even confirm if it's a cov-ops carrying a cyno, a newbie ship, or anything else. So it reasonably could be, but it's probably not...but since you can't force it to leave, log off, or fight they can bring the other 9 guys anytime they are ready while presenting the threat at all times.

This means that the ship in question must be treated at the higher end of a reasonable threat scale.


Mike this is a cultural thing. If NS alliances have a culture where people rat alone and they can't put that aside, that is not a game mechanics issue, it is a culture issue. If a perfectly valid tactic is being ignored...it is on the people ignoring it. Not CCP or the AFK cloaker.

And why do you want to interact with the cloaked ship? You do not like PvP. You would rather rat, and you can rat, just with fleet mates. You can make as much as you do ratting solo. Heck you might find you get more ISK/hour for another reason that occurred to me. If normally you'd do 2 anomalies/hour, but with 10 guys you 20! You might find you’ll get some faction loot, and also you’d likely get more escalations. For example, if you have to do 20 anomalies to get an escalation you’d have to rat solo for 10 hours to get 1 (on average). But with your 10 man fleet you should get an escalation every hour (again on average).

I'm sorry Mike, your position is just not supportable in my view.

"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