These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#4821 - 2015-12-19 13:40:57 UTC
Jerghul wrote:

Wander
No reason to remove local except for "lore" as you call a game function that exists everywhere except in wormhole space. So why exactly is it that you want Concord to end the Ship ID Service (SIDS) it provides everywhere there are gates?

It would make "pretty big psychological effect" much worse by giving it a much more effective vehicle than afk campy cloaking in a way that makes EvE seem dead to casual player inspection are not good balancing reasons for change. So it cannot be a balancing solution you want.

So it has to be "lore".


Had you read the thread at all, you'd have noticed that the removal isn't a one-sided thing. The idea is that IF cloaks get nerfed in some way, THEN you need to remove local to balance the changes.

Also, the rest of your rationalisations are just pure nonsense, as is the " lore"

Wormholer for life.

Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4822 - 2015-12-19 14:00:23 UTC
That is not balancing from an "pretty big psychological effect" perspective. Its an extreme escalation of the issue.

(its like negotiating with 3 year-olds. No, you cannot have a piece of chocolate. Waah, I will only accept that if I can eat as much toffee as I want)

Balance is along the lines Mike suggests; Actively flown cloaked ships remain immune to unsolicited pvp. Only afk cloaks become potentially vulnerable after triggers demanding active player efforts are reached.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1

Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#4823 - 2015-12-19 14:05:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Wander Prian
Right after we remove the nerfs on the ships that can carry a covops-cloak. Meaning proper HP and resists and the ability to preheat modules before decloaking

Wormholer for life.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4824 - 2015-12-19 14:15:21 UTC
Wander Prian wrote:
Right after we remove the nerfs on the ships that can carry a covops-cloak. Meaning proper HP and resists and the ability to preheat modules before decloaking


Or, we can not have to rebalance a whole set of ships and modules based on the complaints of people who are just trying to make it easier to rat afk.

Hmm, decisions decisions.

"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
#4825 - 2015-12-19 14:16:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Why?

Actively piloted cloaky ships are not impacted at all by mechanisms of the type suggested. So no need to buff ships with you know, a pilot at his computer flying it.

Edit
Afk ratters are of course as vulnerable as ever to you know, cloaky ships with active pilots.

The only thing afk cloaky campers do more effectively than active cloaked ships is keep ratting and mining vessels from undocking. Its basically just a deflationary mechanism.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1

Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#4826 - 2015-12-19 14:39:27 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Why?

Actively piloted cloaky ships are not impacted at all by mechanisms of the type suggested. So no need to buff ships with you know, a pilot at his computer flying it.

Edit
Afk ratters are of course as vulnerable as ever to you know, cloaky ships with active pilots.

The only thing afk cloaky campers do more effectively than active cloaked ships is keep ratting and mining vessels from undocking. Its basically just a deflationary mechanism.


Because CCP had the wisdom to weaken all cov-ops capable ships because they knew it would be to OP otherwise since you couldn't find it when cloaked. So if you get the ability to find covops-cloaks, I want full T2-resistances and proper HP and DPS fitting to the size of the ship.

Wormholer for life.

Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4827 - 2015-12-19 14:42:30 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Brokk
You think bling is the determining factor that separates yolo yokels from good pvp pilots? A cloaked venture is also very risk adverse; small sig and inherent double stabs + low slots...its not something stopped easily even in transit to the camping system.


Flycatcher. Stopped your invasion dead in its tracks. You're welcome.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#4828 - 2015-12-19 14:47:50 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Mags
"Santa"

At least you are consistent. You believe in many an outlandish, childish thing.
Well if talking about game stuff is an outlandish and childish thing, then I guess we all in the same boat. Big smile

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4829 - 2015-12-19 15:17:56 UTC
Wander Prian wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
No one is as risk averse as an afk cloaky camper, yet they seem to enjoy null-sec fine.

Its about inertia, not risk aversion. Its a hassle to move and a hassle to move back if things don't work out with the corp that invited you to nullsec.

The default is keeping local btw. You have to think of good reasons for why Concord would suddenly decide to stop their pilot ID services, but continue to operate jump gates in null-sec.


Because the most important reason for gameplay-balancing is lore? Shocked Oookayy..


Oh the irony it's killing me!

"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
#4830 - 2015-12-19 15:20:52 UTC
Wander Prian wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Why?

Actively piloted cloaky ships are not impacted at all by mechanisms of the type suggested. So no need to buff ships with you know, a pilot at his computer flying it.

Edit
Afk ratters are of course as vulnerable as ever to you know, cloaky ships with active pilots.

The only thing afk cloaky campers do more effectively than active cloaked ships is keep ratting and mining vessels from undocking. Its basically just a deflationary mechanism.


Because CCP had the wisdom to weaken all cov-ops capable ships because they knew it would be to OP otherwise since you couldn't find it when cloaked. So if you get the ability to find covops-cloaks, I want full T2-resistances and proper HP and DPS fitting to the size of the ship.


Agreed, force recons, covert ops and stealth bombers having more HP and DPS.

"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
#4831 - 2015-12-19 15:22:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Mags
If you add a dollar to your wishes you could buy some bubblegum.

Brokk
So a flycatcher catches an afk camper in transit. So what? in an hour the flycatcher is somewhere else. System transit is not much of a risk, and once there you can remain forever.

Way to not understand why afk cloaky campers cause issues.

Mags
Its more your not understanding the big picture that makes your positions a bit immature. We all know the suspension of disbelief is important to being able to play games at all. You have to pretend something is real that is not. But hell, even dogs enjoy hunting and retrieving sticks, so its not very advanced.

Teckos
And I want titans to require less skills. Since we are adding unrelated wishes to things we want if afk cloaky camping mechanisms are changed.

Erasus montanus logic at its finest: Stones cannot fly. Mother cannot fly. Therefore, mother is a stone.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4832 - 2015-12-19 15:27:42 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Brokk
You think bling is the determining factor that separates yolo yokels from good pvp pilots? A cloaked venture is also very risk adverse; small sig and inherent double stabs + low slots...its not something stopped easily even in transit to the camping system.


Flycatcher. Stopped your invasion dead in its tracks. You're welcome.


Or an anchored bubble and even better about 6-10 cans spread around the bubble edge to help with de-cloaking (not that ventures can warp while cloaked). And full of DPS ships and lots and lots of dead ventures.

"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
#4833 - 2015-12-19 15:29:28 UTC
One dead venture moron. And a few hours later no dead venture as it passes through to afk cloaky camp until hell freezes over.

Yay to you to for not understanding afk cloaky camping at all.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1

Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4834 - 2015-12-19 15:33:53 UTC
Jerghul wrote:

So a flycatcher catches an afk camper in transit. So what? in an hour the flycatcher is somewhere else. Too system transit is not much of a risk, and once there you can remain forever.

Way to not understand why afk cloaky campers cause issues.


That's not what you said. I poked a hole in yet another of your moronic statements (Ventures hard to catch ahahahaha), which you now (surprise, surprise) changed to "and once there you can remain forever".

Which is true, but of course nobody gives a hoot. I can wait till you decloak and come at me bro. Imagine the horror. I would need at least a Crucifier to survive the onslaught.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4835 - 2015-12-19 15:50:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Its always been that argument Brokk. Not only is afk cloaky camping a totally riskless, brainless, and contentless eve feature, it can also be done in an almost free and sp-less way. The risk of being caught in transit is close to 0 and after that "hurdle" is overcome, then afk cloaky camping can be sustained forever.

You don't know what is afk cloaky camping. It could be venture, it could be a covert ops battleship. Anything causes the "pretty big psychological effect" that you are amazing good at consistently not understanding.

But again, do not try to understand things that are beyond you. We would not want the strain to cause you to hurt yourself after all...and Eve can be played at any level, so understanding is not required of you anyway.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1

Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4836 - 2015-12-19 16:05:33 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Brokk
You think bling is the determining factor that separates yolo yokels from good pvp pilots? A cloaked venture is also very risk adverse; small sig and inherent double stabs + low slots...its not something stopped easily even in transit to the camping system.


Flycatcher. Stopped your invasion dead in its tracks. You're welcome.


Or an anchored bubble and even better about 6-10 cans spread around the bubble edge to help with de-cloaking (not that ventures can warp while cloaked). And full of DPS ships and lots and lots of dead ventures.


Yeah, we nail a bunch of them like that. Got a nemesis just last night, so much for Invulnerability cloaks...Lol
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4837 - 2015-12-19 16:14:31 UTC
So much for completely not understanding "pretty big psychological impact" that stems from afk cloaky camping.

Do you not tire of QEDing the crap out of your failure to understand?

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4838 - 2015-12-19 16:44:09 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Jerghul wrote:

So a flycatcher catches an afk camper in transit. So what? in an hour the flycatcher is somewhere else. Too system transit is not much of a risk, and once there you can remain forever.

Way to not understand why afk cloaky campers cause issues.


That's not what you said. I poked a hole in yet another of your moronic statements (Ventures hard to catch ahahahaha), which you now (surprise, surprise) changed to "and once there you can remain forever".

Which is true, but of course nobody gives a hoot. I can wait till you decloak and come at me bro. Imagine the horror. I would need at least a Crucifier to survive the onslaught.


Yep, an invasion with no fangs really. Relying only on ships that can't even take on a ratting ship except with rather decent numbers is not going to be very effective. And even then, after the first attack the game is up...the super secret awesome weapon is revealed to a rubber knife.

"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
#4839 - 2015-12-19 17:54:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Teckos
Fail @grasping "pretty big psychological effect" derived from afk cloaky camping.

Failure at that scale pretty much invalidates any vestige of value your opinion on this topic has. So let me help you.

Viewing afk cloaky camping as a deflationary tool is the only argument for that has any merit.

You may want to write that down (or tattoo it on the back of your hand) so you can remember it.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1

Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4840 - 2015-12-19 19:35:10 UTC
I guess our psyches aren't big enough to contain the AwEsOmE risk bomb. Hence we just stumble blissfully unaware through the ordeal, none the wiser and all the merrier Lol

Or .... perhaps everybody fails to understand you because you haven't actually said anything yet?



Your Big Inherently Psychological Yokel Risk (that's of course not about any of us) is -- and I'm attempting to grasp the concept here so please lower yourself to my level and explain in English if you will -- so, the Yokelrisk comes from not knowing what it is exactly you've got up your sleeve, aye?

Might be a noobship, might be a battleship? That about right still?

See, the thing is ..... when you're aligned (or nimble enough) none of that matters. The only time a cloaked ship poses any danger is the moment you actually see it uncloak, on grid, right next to you.

Then your predator has some iffy bit of targeting delay going on (at least 5 sec) but let's completely ignore that too.
Not to mention only a recon can manage to get on grid with you without showing up on DScan; but let's ignore that too shall we?

It is understood that you need to be pretty close to get hard tackle, so there's some mobility issues with getting there under the radar. Some ratting occurs in anoms or behind acceleration gates; but picking up probes on DScan is hard as well.

So, you expect us to poop our pants because it *might* be anything while in reality, only a Stealth bomber could decloak and immediately tackle you? A stealth bomber which you can smartbomb with your battleship or outrun/kill with anything else?



Could you please explain --in English this time, Mr. Brainz--, why we should care about what ship you might have cloaked up? Because in reality, taking some caution on the PvE player into account, the risk really is minimal.

If it's a non-covops, the attempt is laughable.
If it's a bomber, good luck surviving long enough.
If it's a recon or T3, there is still an escape hatch.

Ergo, my failure to grasp why y'all so afraid to undock stems from the confidence we can handle whatever it is. Sure, a creative or patient hunter can pull one off but even then (a) the loss does not weigh against the profits - so just calculate those in and be done with it, (b) take an educated guess when the cloaker will probably be AFK anyway, and (c) rely on your backup fleet you ought to have when in sovspace, when the shooting starts.

Briefly put: you're an idiot of mass proportion and you're talking out of your 4ss about nothing at all. There is no risk. If you need help with psychological trauma, please consult a psychiatrist. Brokk out.