These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#4761 - 2015-12-18 04:39:26 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Monkey
Bad, good, who cares?


You do, if you're actually trying to make a persuasive argument, because no, that extremely non-committal comment directly preceded by an explicit statement that AFK cloaking is not a problem most certainly did not suggest...

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



"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4762 - 2015-12-18 04:41:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Oh, so you do not believe that quote means "they are going to remove local, yay".

Funny, I wonder where that stupid rumour came from then.

Edit
I think I am convincing the people I want to convince. Or rather - I am raising the relevant bullet points the team needs to look at.

Multi-disciplinary teams. Some poor sod actually has to read this dunghill of a thread before any change.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#4763 - 2015-12-18 04:46:54 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Jerghul wrote:
Oh, so you do not believe that quote means "they are going to remove local, yay".

Funny, I wonder where that stupid rumour came from then.


On a long enough timeline? It's pretty likely that it will eventually be replaced by a better, more game-like, less perfect intel solution.

There's next to no chance of AFK cloaking being altered without changes to local that effectively amount to substantial nerfs.

For now, AFK cloaking isn't a problem because it is literally the sole solution to another problem. If the latter problem is addressed, there is room for change in the solution. Until then? You're kidding yourself, and laughably so.

Quote:
Multi-disciplinary teams. Some poor sod actually has to read this dunghill of a thread before any change.


Well now you're definitely kidding yourself. You're talking about a permathread that was specifically created as an excuse to lock all of the other AFK cloaking whine threads. Roll

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4764 - 2015-12-18 04:50:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
The notion that changing local in NS to be like local in w-space (removing local henceforth) will make EVE seem 'dead' is an interesting an new twist to the AFK cloaking debate I have been following for...almost 8 years. It is also completely false, at least from the perspective of many players.

First off, I don't think anyone has suggested that local be removed from HS. Nor has anyone suggested it be removed from LS. So right out of the gate we see that the claim has...issues.

Additionally, nobody is suggesting that local be removed and that's that. Instead, in looking over the Observatory Array (OA) thread one of the more common suggestions was to make local dealyed in sovreign NS and let sov holders "claw it back" with the OA. So for the member of the sov holding alliance and maybe even blues, local (or its replacement) in many systems where they have put forth the effort to do so will see EVE as "alive". Those who would be blind...would be those intruding into sov space.*

So this notion that EVE would be percieved as dead is just nonsense. Or at least there needs to be more argument put behind the notion that mere assertion. However, the primary advocate of this claim has shown an almost pathological inability to provide coherent arguments.

"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
#4765 - 2015-12-18 05:10:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Monkey
God invented interns for a reason. Some poor sod will be going through this and making a nice bullet point list for some team meeting.

Teckos
They are not going to remove local in null-sec. Doing so is horrible marketing. At the very worst, there might be a mechanism that can toggle local (entosis links turning it on/off). That could work under assumption that populated systems will keep theirs on generally.

Its still dangerous for as long as players keep yapping about EvE dying.

Edit
And you see? My value to quality assuring bullet points is proven. If indeed it is true that not a single player thought of issues relating to making EvE look dead (nullsec is assumed btw, unless someone specifically mentions a different part of space).

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4766 - 2015-12-18 05:26:09 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
I'm sure there will be something new very soon, if not tomorrow then on Saturday. My guess, local is what drives new subscriptions.


Holy ****...I wasn't too far off. Lol

"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
#4767 - 2015-12-18 05:35:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Teckos
It would be hard to overestimate the marketing value of local. How would a new player on a trial account in high sec ever figure out that scamming attempts are not entirely representative of the EvE community if high sec had wh style local?

Not that we are thinking of highsec of course.

Do you have any more self-quotes you would like to share with us until the other members of your wan...mutual appreciation club return for some huggles?

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4768 - 2015-12-18 06:04:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
Teckos Pech wrote:
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.


No, you are trying to reshape my argument to something more to your liking.

CCP could also increase the cloaked ships risk, without making risk less for anyone else. If the ship can remain hidden through ongoing active effort, that is the case. He can do all he does now, just not while taking a nap or going to work. I have to respond if he is there or not.

I do not assume there will be no change in behavior. In fact, changing behavior is exactly what I am hoping for. That cloaked ship can stay in one spot as long as he wants---subject to interference by other players, just like everything else in EVE. I expect him to remain active to remain safe, just like the rest of EVE. I expect his effectiveness to decrease if he goes afk, just like the rest of EVE. Yes, I even expect him to be easy to kill if afk, Just. Like. The. Rest. Of. EVE.

I don't mind being hunted, and having to respond to the hunter. What I am after is that if the threat is there, the pilot also be there, and a method of bringing the conflict to a resolution be possible. I don't require him to die. If he sees probes and moves off, that's fine with me. If he sees probes and prepares to attack, also fine. If he sees activity in the system and decides it's too risky and leaves, fine with me. But creating a presence that must be responded to with no way to bring retaliation to him is not balanced.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4769 - 2015-12-18 06:13:08 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

No, you are trying to reshape my argument to something more to your liking.


He's summing it up perfectly, which you hate because your position, when all listed out like that, makes you look really bad.


Quote:

CCP could also increase the cloaked ships risk, without making risk less for anyone else.


A literal impossibility in a game based on competition.


Quote:

I don't mind being hunted, and having to respond to the hunter.


You mind very much, that's why you're here crying to have your uncertainty completely removed.

It's also why, despite all your puffing about afk this and that in this thread, you have repeatedly argued for afk freighters to be safe in highsec. Screw the truth and screw consistency, only the carebear narrative matters, more safety!


Quote:

What I am after is that if the threat is there, the pilot also be there


And I know this part is a lie, because that's exactly what we already have.

If they are afk, they are by definition absolutely no threat. If they are at the keyboard, then they are hunting you and are a threat.

And both are completely legitimate positions.

You just cannot stand not knowing which one is the case. You are demanding a complete, total end to any uncertainty you have.

And that will never happen. Deal with it.


Quote:

But creating a presence that must be responded to with no way to bring retaliation to him is not balanced.


Cloaking devices are balanced. That's why you hate them so much, because you hate game balance and you want the game broken to be in your favor.

"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
#4770 - 2015-12-18 08:07:03 UTC
So now local is a marketing tool? I've probably heard it all.


Also the docking analogy is actually accidentally quite funny as a cloaked player presents the same threat as a docked one Lol

And "prototype cloaks are less safe by design"? Garbage. Citation needed.


Finally just a reminder that any solution presented so far will either castrate non covert cloaks, or if non covert cloaks are not then covert will remain just as they are today. It's a paradoxical to suggest otherwise, but I'm sure that won't stop you anyway.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4771 - 2015-12-18 08:07:07 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:


[snip]

CCP could also increase the cloaked ships risk, without making risk less for anyone else. If the ship can remain hidden through ongoing active effort, that is the case. He can do all he does now, just not while taking a nap or going to work. I have to respond if he is there or not.


Pray tell how this would work? I'm just not seeing it.

Quote:
I do not assume there will be no change in behavior. In fact, changing behavior is exactly what I am hoping for. That cloaked ship can stay in one spot as long as he wants---subject to interference by other players, just like everything else in EVE. I expect him to remain active to remain safe, just like the rest of EVE. I expect his effectiveness to decrease if he goes afk, just like the rest of EVE. Yes, I even expect him to be easy to kill if afk, Just. Like. The. Rest. Of. EVE.


Went right over your head. Of course there is going to be a change in behavior. The point was to find out WHY there was a change in behavior. And that why is....risk. It will increase the risk of the cloaked player without a doubt. Further, an increase in their risk and the subsequent change in behavior results in less risk for you...why how convenient.

Quote:
I don't mind being hunted, and having to respond to the hunter. What I am after is that if the threat is there, the pilot also be there, and a method of bringing the conflict to a resolution be possible. I don't require him to die. If he sees probes and moves off, that's fine with me. If he sees probes and prepares to attack, also fine. If he sees activity in the system and decides it's too risky and leaves, fine with me. But creating a presence that must be responded to with no way to bring retaliation to him is not balanced.


If he is AFK he is not hunting anyone. Very early on I noted your issue isn't so much AFK cloaking as it is simply cloaks combined with uncertainty.

"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
#4772 - 2015-12-18 08:09:55 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:


Finally just a reminder that any solution presented so far will either castrate non covert cloaks, or if non covert cloaks are not then covert will remain just as they are today. It's a paradoxical to suggest otherwise, but I'm sure that won't stop you anyway.


Yes, in NS, anything that allows for scanning cloaked ships will hit non-covert cloaks and the hulls that fit them harder. Which is a bit of a problem for BLOPs.

"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.
#4773 - 2015-12-18 08:12:28 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:


Finally just a reminder that any solution presented so far will either castrate non covert cloaks, or if non covert cloaks are not then covert will remain just as they are today. It's a paradoxical to suggest otherwise, but I'm sure that won't stop you anyway.


Yes, in NS, anything that allows for scanning cloaked ships will hit non-covert cloaks and the hulls that fit them harder. Which is a bit of a problem for BLOPs.


Not to mention it completely breaks caps.

Which is a common theme of Mike's, considering how he wanted to break caps to fix his "I'm entitled to fly a freighter solo" problem.

"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
#4774 - 2015-12-18 08:16:12 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:


Finally just a reminder that any solution presented so far will either castrate non covert cloaks, or if non covert cloaks are not then covert will remain just as they are today. It's a paradoxical to suggest otherwise, but I'm sure that won't stop you anyway.


Yes, in NS, anything that allows for scanning cloaked ships will hit non-covert cloaks and the hulls that fit them harder. Which is a bit of a problem for BLOPs.



Yup. No-one can see it though, well.....no-one in favour of gutting cloaks is admitting to seeing it. Slightly different.

Still amusing that only nullsec seem to have this scourge. More amusing still that there's be no substantive reasons as to why this is from the people wanting to break high sec, lowsec & wormhole space to keep their afktars happy.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4775 - 2015-12-18 08:19:55 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:


Finally just a reminder that any solution presented so far will either castrate non covert cloaks, or if non covert cloaks are not then covert will remain just as they are today. It's a paradoxical to suggest otherwise, but I'm sure that won't stop you anyway.


Yes, in NS, anything that allows for scanning cloaked ships will hit non-covert cloaks and the hulls that fit them harder. Which is a bit of a problem for BLOPs.



Yup. No-one can see it though, well.....no-one in favour of gutting cloaks is admitting to seeing it. Slightly different.

Still amusing that only nullsec seem to have this scourge. More amusing still that there's be no substantive reasons as to why this is from the people wanting to break high sec, lowsec & wormhole space to keep their afktars happy.


Yeah, even with my preferred change to local/scanning/cloaks it will be a problem. That is why I think the idea of scanning a cloaked ship should require the ship stay in system and not have warped for a period of time, possibly a good amount of time, like 10 even 20 minutes. That way the BLOPs could get an exit cyno in place. Or maybe give that hull a bonus to being scanned. IDK...but yeah it would be a problem if not handled well.

"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
#4776 - 2015-12-18 08:29:33 UTC
To be honest, if local just completely died, no coming back, goes full wormhole, pick your term; then there would be a variety of options available. The only thing is that that particular predicate would mean that there's no real point in goofing with cloaks.


Also, it'd be fun to hunt the GMs. Is it a banhammer to pop them? Big smile
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4777 - 2015-12-18 10:17:25 UTC
You guys are like the human centipede, eating each others drek and only able to see the rear in front of them.

Cloaks are ok in every area of space for the exact same reason. They are too safe. This does not impact every area of space equally, due to differing rule sets.

High sec is almost completely unaffected. The only use I have ever heard of for a cloak in high sec was sneaking up on a mission boat using smartbombs to get him to concordokken himself. The reason is because it would be prohibitively expensive to actually try and secure that space due to concord, so it's very unlikely and all but impossible to even try.

Low sec sees plenty of cloaks and in many of the same uses as null. The issues are felt less because without bubbles and reletively remote locations it's still very hard to secure space for long. It has happened, and afk camping has been done there, but in general the ruleset makes it less likely to keep it clear so the camping has less effect as well, except in the odd backwater system.

Null is where you see it the most because you can sort of control that space, until a cloaked camper handwaves all that empire building nonsense away with his I win button.

I won't speak about wormholes as I have only daytripped into them. Obviously the ruleset makes for a very different situation with them.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4778 - 2015-12-18 10:27:47 UTC
So let me see if I have this right.

Lowsec is less secure, has more neuts yet the inhabitants manage fine.

Can you genuinely not see that your own words tell you that there are solutions available to you, right now to deal with them? You're sat there saying you don't need to secure your space 100% to live/make isk in lowsec.

Can you explain why the nullbears get to be the special snowflakes? Why is it the nullbears need some imagined safety blanket? Why is it you think they deserve one? You don't just get to throw up bubble walls and relax, it doesn't work like that.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4779 - 2015-12-18 10:59:12 UTC
If by fine you mean second least used after wormholes... At least for ratting and mining. Things like faction war give the place something other than space tumbleweeds to watch.

I suppose there is probably a lot of ratting going on in wormholes, but the rats make it a completely different experience.

I am not asking for anything special for the null locals, however. All that is requested is that the visiting hostiles, regardless of security status of the space, not have a 100% LOL I win button to hide behind while hunting. It's people using cloaks that are the special snowflakes.

They would still need to defend their space, but it would now be possible to confront the campers instead of just tolerate them.

You don't see the ridiculousness of demanding that every individual miner have a defense fleet and complaining that they get out of space when hunted, but anyone with a cloak can just go take a nap? Teckos and Karrous want to argue that a freighter should have escorts to get through high sec, but your titan should be able to tiptoe through the tulips and just blueball it's hunters away while you go to work? Somehow it breaks freighters if people who start fights with them and keep them pinned with bumping for 30 minutes while a gank squad forms up get a suspect flag, but it also breaks all other caps if a pack of active hunters has a chance of finding your titan AFK while you wait on downtime?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4780 - 2015-12-18 11:07:49 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

You don't see the ridiculousness of demanding that every individual miner have a defense fleet


Wrong.

All anyone here is saying is that if you refuse to bother defending yourself, as you repeatedly have(claiming that it's "unreasonable" to lift a finger in your own defense), that you don't get to cry when you die.

Your dying is working as intended, if you refuse to defend yourself.

If you don't want to die, try actually playing the game instead of farming in an unbalanced isk printing machine. Oh wait no, changing even one iota of your special snowflake fit is also "unreasonable", right?

"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.