These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4741 - 2015-12-18 02:14:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Teckos
You want me to care what you think I should think you think about me? Crimea River.

Review the previous posts (click on my profile) and see that I brought up the point a few posts earlier

*Reminds self not to mistake stupidity for malice*

Monkey
wh space is as lively as Inuvik on a Tuesday evening in November.

I don't even want to guess at what tiny fraction of EvE pilots operate there.

Edit
Here, let me help you

Quote:
2015-12-17 19:04:09 UTC |
Teckos
That last post shows really clearly you do not understand implic..."pretty big psychological effect".

Instead of having to worry only when there is someone in system, you get to worry all the time. Hell, you could be the only person logged on EvE and you would still have to worry.

It will also make it seem like EvE is dead unless you put more effort into it than most people do. Which is probably the main reason against touching local outside of the tiny niche we know as wormhole space.

2015-12-17 19:06:37 UTC |
"I want to develop a MMOG. I know, I will introduce things on a broad scale that makes it look like no one is playing the game"

Sounds like a plan Big smile

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4742 - 2015-12-18 03:16:21 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

No, I get it. I'm not asking to be able to just see them on the overview and fly up. However, there's a lot of room between 100% safe and flying in the clear.


Actually ..... I see you haven't commented on my previous post (about non-covops cloaks) ...... because the room between 100% safe and flying in the clear, well... that's exactly what I'm struggling with: IS there a lot of room? Build one (1) vulnerability into the cloaking mechanism and all non-covops are pretty much hosed.

I know it's tedious because grrr cloaks and all; but honestly, it's delicate. I'm not sure if there a lot of manoevering space in-between. Even tampering with the Holy Local Chat as a compromise may tempt cloakers into giving up some invulnerability, but ironically, it's not the covert cloaks that are going to be screwed. It's the regular ones -- the ones that don't pose a threat and are purely used in defensive capacity.

I would love to hear your thoughts on that one. Thanks.



Prototype cloaks are, by design, supposed to be less safe, or at least less useful, than the cov-ops version.

If we were to rework cloaks with an eye toward delaying pinpointing as opposed to the current all or nothing mechanic we have now, then balance could be struck in how much delay there is. In the case of my proposed false positive set-up, covert cloaks could generate extra false signals, and thus be safer than a prototype under the same conditions, and groups of cov-ops would actually increase each other's safety. Other mechanics could be developed with similar goals. At the end of the day, the real difference between the two cloaks is one provides an opportunity to be caught before entering and upon exiting warp. They can still move, align, and be ready to warp when they see probes, and actively piloted would still have opportunity to escape before hunters arrived.

However, cloaks aren't structures, so using them to create conditions similar to docking is not appropriate. There *should* be a non-zero chance of having a cloak pierced and the protected ship being put at risk. All respect and honor to the Cap ship pilots, but waiting out downtime under a cloak while afk should never have been a thing and highlights the broken conditions currently in play. I mean, think about it.... you are evading active pursuit by multiple opponents by sitting perfectly still under your cloak and taking a nap. You were backed into a corner, and just pushed the Iwin Button instead of supporting your cap ship appropriately in the first place.

Part of what is getting so strongly reacted too is that a group of pilots that do not normally see non-consensual pvp are being faced with the idea that maybe they should. They want to make sure that all of the risk being generated stays firmly on their opponent, or that their precious titans will stay safe, and their scouting ops never face opposition, their positioning and maneuvers never get countered, etc.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4743 - 2015-12-18 03:29:32 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

However, cloaks aren't structures, so using them to create conditions similar to docking is not appropriate.


It's really hard to be this wrong, but he pulled it off.

"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
#4744 - 2015-12-18 03:30:51 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Odd statement, as neither my stance in the freighter thread or here reduced risk or effort in any way. What I asked for in both cases was opportunity to respond.


Sorry Mike, but in the freighter thread it was a way to reduce risk, or more accurately shift it over to the bumping ship....after you already skipped over several chances to "respond". You wanted one last 'get out jail free' card. It clearly reduces the risk by upping the risk of the bumper who is using an expensive faction ship.

Here you want to shift risk from yourself over to the cloaked camper. You want to make it so you can scan them down and increasing their risk while decreasing yours.

Now, to convince me otherwise you are going to have to provide a very good explanation. To date you have failed because you simply say, "No, I don't." That is just a flat assertion with no argument or logic behind it.

Here is a question, if cloaked ships could be scanned would that increase their risk given the current behavior of players using cloaks? That is, don't give me this bullshit that they'll adapt...adaption is a f*cking response to a change in risk! If you increase my risk by changing the mechanics my behavior will change to mitigate the risk increase. Or to put it differently again, you are are foolish enough to use the "they'll adap" argument you are indirectly admitting you want their risk to increase.

Let me repeat the question for you:

Assuming cloak using players do NOT change their behavior and scanning cloaked ships becomes possible, will the risk for players using cloaks increase, decrease or stay the same? Please explain.

Here is my answer, risk will increase. It will increase because being stationary while being scanned is a good way to be scanned down then killed.

Your turn.


Well Mike, gonna try to answer it or shall we just assume you have no answer....primarily because you know the answer wont help your position?


As my statement was that it didn't reduce risk, you don't really have a point.

I won't be that pedantic however, as you seem to think risk exists on a teeter-totter, and increasing risk on one side reduces risk on the other. Not so, however.

Part of your argument in claiming balance currently is that an AFK ship poses no risk. Since you cannot reduce risk below zero, if we assume no change in behavior then risk is not being lowered because none existed in the first place. However, even in the case of non-zero risk, no risk is being removed, it is instead being transferred to the camp hunting ship. Just as a ratter can get friends, fleet up, etc... so can the camper. In fact, one of the primary dangers of a camper is the danger of fleetmates at the other end of a Cyno.

I would say you are correct in that if no change in behavior occurs, then risk for the cloaked ship will increase into the realm of certain destruction. I will further state that such an increase is entirely appropriate, as a ship in space with an afk pilot deserves certain destruction. It has been my contention this entire time that the safety of a cloak that allows a pilot to go afk for an unlimited time period with no risk at all is what makes it unbalanced.

The risk to a ship in an otherwise empty system is irrelevant, especially if the reason the system is empty is because the risk was actively dealt with.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4745 - 2015-12-18 03:40:06 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

I won't be that pedantic however, as you seem to think risk exists on a teeter-totter, and increasing risk on one side reduces risk on the other. Not so, however.


Completely so.

If two people are in opposition, making one side's life harder makes the other side's life easier, by definition.

There is no debating that, it's a simple fact.


Quote:

Part of your argument in claiming balance currently is that an AFK ship poses no risk.


And that is also, literally true.

An afk player cannot activate modules, or perform any kind of offensive action. What you're crying about is the possibility that they aren't afk.

What you are crying about is uncertainty.

And the answer is "too bad, deal with it." You are supposed to have uncertainty in your disgusting farming, that is fully intended.

"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.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4746 - 2015-12-18 03:53:22 UTC
Karous
He is dealing with it by making a relevant argument that gives developers more meat on the bone when they look at the implic..."pretty big psychological effect"

Embrace change and harden up a bit my friend.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4747 - 2015-12-18 03:56:07 UTC
Jerghul wrote:

He is dealing with it


No, he's not. He's crying to the devs to do his job for him, so he can go back to farming in his unbalanced isk printing ship.

That might as well be the definition of not dealing with it.

Now shut it, you. I tire of your blatant trolling.


Quote:

Embrace change and harden up a bit my friend.


Harden up a bit, and embrace actually playing the game without having it changed in your favor first. ******* hypocrite.

"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.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4748 - 2015-12-18 04:04:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Kaarous
What Mike is asking for does not decrease his risk at all unless you are thinking that cloaky campers will run away like little mice (I am alluding to something like rats except smaller and less significant) as soon as the tiniest element of risk to them is introduced.

Community involvement is a desirable part of EvE, just as providing relevant feedback helps the development process. Its just something you need to learn to live with in the CCP universe (though not all game companies are as community orientated, so there are always games you can play where player views are completely ignored. EvE just happens to not be one of them).

It does seem obvious someone needs to harden up, and it aint Mike Big smile.

Edit
I just finished filling a tray of Quafe Ultra (24 of them) and was thinking the Frostline sites should drop actual trays we can put the Quafe in. That is with a single character. How has your playing been going? The Frostline sites are designed as pvp hubs btw; a decent number of ship explode in connection with site spawning (07 broadcast had a graph:).

You do play EvE, right Karous?

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4749 - 2015-12-18 04:11:44 UTC
Jerghul wrote:

What Mike is asking for does not decrease his risk at all


Whatever happened to your "implicit risk" bullshit?

According to that, he very much is begging on his scuffed knees for his risk to be removed.

Besides, I was talking about uncertainty, and I have been since page 2.


Quote:

Community involvement is a desirable part of EvE


Ah yes, so we should nerf anything that prevents good old Mike here from being afk in an anom by himself, right?

Right? Because if we lie hard enough, removing player interaction totally counts as encouraging it, right?


Quote:

just as providing relevant feedback helps the development process.


If you took your feedback and shoved it in a wormhole, it would be the first time you've been in one.

"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.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#4750 - 2015-12-18 04:16:33 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


Whatever happened to your "implicit risk" bullshit?



He traded it in for "Yolo yokels". I think he's hoping that an alliterative nonsense phrase will catch on more easily.

I bet he tries rhyming, next.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4751 - 2015-12-18 04:20:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Mike Voidstar wrote:

As my statement was that it didn't reduce risk, you don't really have a point.

I won't be that pedantic however, as you seem to think risk exists on a teeter-totter, and increasing risk on one side reduces risk on the other. Not so, however.


Well, so it doesn't reduce the risk for the cloaked ship. Does it go up? Man this is worse than getting my son to clean the the cat pan.

As for risk and teeter-totters, I suppose in general you have a point. That, CCP could change mechanics to make your risk smaller while not increasing the risk of the guy using the cloaking device. However, in this context it seems pretty clear that making cloaked ships vulnerable to being scanned down would not only increase their risk, but also reduce your risk.

The reduction in risk would stem from the change in behavior that would follow. It seems quite reasonable that once cloaked ships were made vulnerable to being scanned that nobody would AFK cloak even for short periods. As such the risk they keep imposing on you, which is quite well documented in this thread so please don't try to deny this, would be...greatly diminished if not reduced to zero.

Quote:
Part of your argument in claiming balance currently is that an AFK ship poses no risk. Since you cannot reduce risk below zero, if we assume no change in behavior then risk is not being lowered because none existed in the first place. However, even in the case of non-zero risk, no risk is being removed, it is instead being transferred to the camp hunting ship. Just as a ratter can get friends, fleet up, etc... so can the camper. In fact, one of the primary dangers of a camper is the danger of fleetmates at the other end of a Cyno.


Wrong. Totally wrong. A few posts back I stated explicitly the opposite regarding AFK cloaked ships and risk. I wrote the following,

Quote:
No. Look, the guy cloaked in your system (AFK or not) absolutely does represent an increase in the level of risk you face.


Further, my question was not the risk you face, but the risk faced by the cloaked pilot who does not change his behavior even if cloaked ships can be scanned down. But lets take it as a given that the cloaked pilot at a safe has zero risk, you are quite correct his risk cannot go down. Therefore it must either go up or remain the same. Now, which of those is it? Up or remain the same? Pretty simple here Mike.

Quote:
I would say you are correct in that if no change in behavior occurs, then risk for the cloaked ship will increase into the realm of certain destruction. I will further state that such an increase is entirely appropriate, as a ship in space with an afk pilot deserves certain destruction. It has been my contention this entire time that the safety of a cloak that allows a pilot to go afk for an unlimited time period with no risk at all is what makes it unbalanced.


Well...finally, took you long enough to come to the obvius conclusion.

No it is not appropriate when a pilot has fit a module that not only allows for stealth, but comes with severe downsides...that's just bullshit they should face certain destruction when using said module at a safe spot. Also, look at what you have done. Gone from one extreme end of the spectrum, as I noted we assumed the cloaked/safe ship faces zero risk, to risk that is absolutely certain...and yet you find this balanced, but the other extreme unbalanced.

Seriously, your position is compeletely laughable. It can be summarized as, "I demand the aboslute right to kill any cloaked ship that lingers too long in one spot." Compared to your complaints about facing an probability of being engaged by a cloaker somewhere between zero and one, a priori, this position of yours just underscores pretty much everything Kaarous has been saying.

"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
#4752 - 2015-12-18 04:21:52 UTC
I added an edit to my above post.

Implic..."pretty big psychological effect" remains if cloaky campers remain. You are arguing that cloaky campers with run away like little things that run away a lot if even the slightest risk to them is introduced.

Mike is betting that cloaky campers are indeed very like little things that run away a lot in the face of even tiny risk. Which I guess tells you everything you need to know about the level of regard he holds for yolo yokels.

Ouch, Mike burned you good with that line of reasoning.

If you pull your cloaky camper because of some slight risk, then you are removing pvp interaction, not Mike or any mechanisms that might be introduced.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4753 - 2015-12-18 04:23:20 UTC
Monkey
I traded it in for easier words. To, you know, help you guys understand.

Instead of implicit risk, I now type out implic..."pretty big psychological effect".

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4754 - 2015-12-18 04:23:39 UTC
Jerghul wrote:

Mike is betting that cloaky campers are indeed very like little things that run away a lot in the face of even tiny risk.


No, that's just good old Mike projecting his behavior onto other people.

"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.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4755 - 2015-12-18 04:24:47 UTC
No need to project.

You are doing a very good rendition of a stereotypical extreme risk adverse EvE player.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4756 - 2015-12-18 04:25:47 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


Whatever happened to your "implicit risk" bullshit?



He traded it in for "Yolo yokels". I think he's hoping that an alliterative nonsense phrase will catch on more easily.

I bet he tries rhyming, next.


No, no, no...

Don't you see it works like this:

enduring implicit threat = volatility = yolo yokels = local makes EVE seem alive = whatever is convenient in the moment.

It is like trying to beat up water. No matter how hard and accurately you hit it, it just flows away and comes back with something completely new. Like the latest 'local makes EVE seem alive'. When it is pointed out that this is a brand new reason for not removing local you get your intelligence insulted. I'm sure there will be something new very soon, if not tomorrow then on Saturday. My guess, local is what drives new subscriptions.

"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
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4757 - 2015-12-18 04:26:09 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
No need to project.


You'd think that, but he does it anyway.

"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.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4758 - 2015-12-18 04:27:25 UTC
Implicit threat is now = implic...."pretty big psychological effect" Teckos

I don't know how to dumb it down even more for you. So I think you will just have to try and understand what it means.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#4759 - 2015-12-18 04:29:12 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Monkey
I traded it in for easier words. To, you know, help you guys understand.

Instead of implicit risk, I now type out implic..."pretty big psychological effect".


I'm still waiting for you to actually point out where he suggested that "pretty big psychological effect" was undesirable in any way.

It was said in roughly the same context as one might say, "Cornflower blue is a popular color choice for ties," or, "Working from home is an attractive option in modern environments." You somehow managed to derive a judgment - that "pretty big psychology effects" are a bad thing, essentially - from this benign and very neutral observation of state.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4760 - 2015-12-18 04:37:17 UTC
Monkey
Bad, good, who cares?

The post was very clear on Devs wanting to look into implic..."pretty big psychological effect" and mitigate it somewhat.

The echo chamber took it to mean "remove local - yay"

Which of course I have shown does nothing to lessen impli..."pretty big psychological effect", it just transfers it to a different vehicle and makes it a lot worse.

In addition to making EvE seem dead amounting to an uhm courageous marketing strategy I am pretty sure CCP will pass on (yay interdisciplinary teams that make sure things like that are considered).

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1