These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mag's
Azn Empire
#4861 - 2015-12-20 09:36:18 UTC
Leghurt wrote:
Mags
The point is on the top of your head? Or you feel you just need to fuel fires? Or you somehow missed that I have, can and will use the lowest common denominator in discussion? Debate onto Mike what I will debate onto your sorry synonym for donkey.

Brokk was right. He was trying a civilized approach. No reason to snipe at him.
Santa. Yes. No, it's been like that since you start posting. Yes, pointing out you and Mike are being dishonest is a thankless task, but I don't mind.

Brokk was right. You can't help yourself. Big smile

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4862 - 2015-12-20 09:38:37 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Teckos
Blame the way your mind works for the fuzzy feeling you get when trying to ponder game features.

You want a forced undock feature now as compensation for any risk to your precious afk cloaky camper?

Sorry, you don't get to compare docked conditions and undocked degrees of safety.

I will repeat my helpful suggestion on how you can make scanable cloaky camping safer the next time you helpfully tell mike how he can compensate through behavioural change.

You could do with a few good lessons in reciprocity.


What, you said AFK and safety should not be compatible....but that is precisely what happens in a station and has been pointed out in NPC space, this represents the same type of "enduring implicit threat" as AFK cloaking.

Of course, people in NPC space rarely complain about AFK campers, it is usually sov PvE players, typically renters.

And the point is Mike can make himself safer the real issue is he refuses. Seriously, a good system can easily support 10 ratters. Why not form a standing fleet? Why not work together and kill anomalies together? Why not get on comms?

Why not move over a system? At the very least it will give you more intel....is the guy AFK or not. Here is how it works..

We want to know the following:

Prob(AFK|Stay)

That, what is the probability that the guy in system with Mike is AFK given that once Mike leaves system the guy does not follow. We can attempt to solve this via Bayes Theorem,

Prob(AFK|Stay) = Prob(Stay|AFK)*Prob(AFK)/Prob(Stay)

Mike is very wary of AFK cloaked ships, so his prior probability, Prob(AFK) is very high, lets say 0.1 (we don't want to set a prior probability to 1 or zero because those are dogmatic priors, no amount of evidence will get you to change your beliefs--e.g. the guy who owns the AFK cloaking account could be sitting right next to Mike with no computer access yet Mike would still assume the guy is actually ATK). We also need a probability for Prob(stay). Lets say it is 0.5. Now all that is left is, Prob(Stay|AFK). Since an AFK player cannot change systems this probability is 1. So now we have,


Prob(AFK|Stay) = Prob(AFK)/Prob(Stay)
=0.1/0.5
=0.2.

In other words, the fact that the guy did not follow Mike when he moved systems Mike can conclude that it is more likely the guy is AFK. Now, if we do it again, we'd use the same formula, but it would be,

Prob(AFK|Stay) = Prob(AFK|Stay)/Prob(Stay)
=0.2/0.5
=0.4.

This is actually a simplified approach, a more exact approach would yield the following results:

First time leaving system:

Prob(AFK|Stay) = 0.182

Second time leaving:

Prob(AFK|Stay2) = 0.304

Third time leaving:

Prob(AFK|Stay3) = 0.471.

On the seventh time of entering and leaving the system, the same gate, etc. we get,

Prob(AFK|Stay7) = 0.934.

A similar analysis could be done based on when the guy gets his kills.

But no, this is just silly nonsense...we should give Mike the means to hunt down and kill that AFK cloaker. Or more accurately, such a mechanics change will eliminate all risk from a guy cloaked in system....because they will stop doing it.

The logic of basic probability theory also tells us that overall Mike's risk level goes down.

So why should Mike get a reduction in his risk level? Why should Mike be allowed to gather resources with less risk...more easily.


That is a whole lot of blurf to attempt to justify a stance that I should, at all times, be at maximum vulnerability to attack, while you should be immune to attack even as you hunt me.

If you are in space, you should also be a valid target to hunters. Hunting ratters should not give you a license to be immune to interaction while you do it.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4863 - 2015-12-20 12:42:46 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Hunting ratters should not give you a license to be immune to interaction while you do it.


A cloaky ship is not immune to interaction.

Unless you're trying to claim that it is not possible to decloak someone at all? If you are, let me know ahead of time, thanks to an old injury I need to take a deep breath before laughing really hard.

"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.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#4864 - 2015-12-20 12:48:27 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Hunting ratters should not give you a license to be immune to interaction while you do it.


A cloaky ship is not immune to interaction.

Unless you're trying to claim that it is not possible to decloak someone at all? If you are, let me know ahead of time, thanks to an old injury I need to take a deep breath before laughing really hard.
It's not just that. He's doing his normal disingenuous use argument. He'll include local when it suits, then omit it when it doesn't. That last post of his, is a prime example.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4865 - 2015-12-20 12:54:33 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Hunting ratters should not give you a license to be immune to interaction while you do it.


A cloaky ship is not immune to interaction.

Unless you're trying to claim that it is not possible to decloak someone at all? If you are, let me know ahead of time, thanks to an old injury I need to take a deep breath before laughing really hard.
It's not just that. He's doing his normal disingenuous use argument. He'll include local when it suits, then omit it when it doesn't. That last post of his, is a prime example.


Oh yeah he's a dishonest shitbag.

For my part though, I know from personal experience that a cloaky camper is not invulnerable(or whatever bullshit Mike is slinging this time) to a damned thing. Say what you want about Goons, when they take offense they seriously take offense. Bastards go into this autistic out-of-body experience, then spend hours watching with probes on scan long enough to nail you with a counter cyno.

Never seen twenty blops so happy to kill a Purifier.

"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
#4866 - 2015-12-20 14:05:15 UTC
Still waiting for that counter to a ship camping under a cloak. If they aren't immune then surely there is a way to force them into the open with enough effort or something...


No?

Didn't think so.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4867 - 2015-12-20 14:08:07 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Still waiting for that counter to a ship camping under a cloak.


All the ways to deal with a cloaky camper have been listed out in this thread at least thrice that I know of.

You just don't listen to anything that doesn't agree with your deluded nonsense.

"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
#4868 - 2015-12-20 14:14:14 UTC
I heard suggestions to:

Abandon the Space---camper not dealt with.

Provide Escorts for every last miner in space---camper not dealt with

Fly Suicidal--- Camper not dealt with, though he is entertained.


What I don't see is a single way to do anything to that camper against his will, regardless of how much effort is put in. That's what we call immune.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4869 - 2015-12-20 14:16:02 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
I heard


What you wanted to hear, because you are intellectually dishonest.

"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
#4870 - 2015-12-20 14:22:10 UTC
So drop the trolling bullshit and spell it out. Provide one single example of a way to force action on a ship camping under a cloak. If you cannot provide such an example, then that ship is immune. It's a very simple concept that even you should understand.

If you can provide just one honest example of how to force an action on a cloaked camper at a safe you will have shut me up forever. Unless you can provide that example, you will continue to be nothing more than an incontinent toddler weeping for daddy to make sure no one comes and takes away your candy.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4871 - 2015-12-20 14:49:42 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
spell it out.


Nope. I'm not abiding by your definitions, your self serving demands, your false dichotomies, or anything of the sort.

At this point, after so many pages of your puerile whining, I am content to let you wallow in your own ignorance and laugh at your inability to play this game properly.

And the best part is that it would be easy to fix, but for your terrible, entitled attitude that demands isk/hr as some kind of right. Plenty of people operate normally every day under conditions you have deemed impossible and "unreasonable", but you can't manage. Well, you can't manage because you're bad, and not one thing about this game should be changed just because someone like you can't do it 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.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4872 - 2015-12-20 15:37:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
Right. Because you can't.

It is impossible to support a position where one side must remain in danger at all times, and the other side gets to keep 100% safety while creating that danger, and call that any sort of balanced.

All your self pleasuring aside, you have nothing. You never did.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4873 - 2015-12-20 15:48:55 UTC
Karous is actually supporting that he should be able to be undocked, in hostile space, afk, and immune to attack.

That is not even valid for players in high sec

Its insane unless he is playing Hello Kitty.

Which may suit his temperament better come to think of it.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4874 - 2015-12-20 15:50:24 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
spell it out.


Nope. I'm not abiding by your definitions, your self serving demands, your false dichotomies, or anything of the sort.

At this point, after so many pages of your puerile whining, I am content to let you wallow in your own ignorance and laugh at your inability to play this game properly.

And the best part is that it would be easy to fix, but for your terrible, entitled attitude that demands isk/hr as some kind of right. Plenty of people operate normally every day under conditions you have deemed impossible and "unreasonable", but you can't manage. Well, you can't manage because you're bad, and not one thing about this game should be changed just because someone like you can't do it right.


Karous, this thread topic is about you buddy. Its not about Mike.

Care to explain to us why you should be undocked, in hostile space, afk, and immune to attack?


Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4875 - 2015-12-20 15:52:15 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Leghurt wrote:
Mags
The point is on the top of your head? Or you feel you just need to fuel fires? Or you somehow missed that I have, can and will use the lowest common denominator in discussion? Debate onto Mike what I will debate onto your sorry synonym for donkey.

Brokk was right. He was trying a civilized approach. No reason to snipe at him.
Santa. Yes. No, it's been like that since you start posting. Yes, pointing out you and Mike are being dishonest is a thankless task, but I don't mind.

Brokk was right. You can't help yourself. Big smile


Pfft. Grow a pair.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4876 - 2015-12-20 16:02:06 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
spell it out.


Nope. I'm not abiding by your definitions, your self serving demands, your false dichotomies, or anything of the sort.

At this point, after so many pages of your puerile whining, I am content to let you wallow in your own ignorance and laugh at your inability to play this game properly.

And the best part is that it would be easy to fix, but for your terrible, entitled attitude that demands isk/hr as some kind of right. Plenty of people operate normally every day under conditions you have deemed impossible and "unreasonable", but you can't manage. Well, you can't manage because you're bad, and not one thing about this game should be changed just because someone like you can't do it right.


Karous, this thread topic is about you buddy. Its not about Mike.

Care to explain to us why you should be undocked, in hostile space, afk, and immune to attack?



Because someone might do something he doesn't like when he's not there to prevent it.
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4877 - 2015-12-20 16:02:09 UTC
imho, you shouldn't be immune to attack ... but nobody's supposed to know you're there in the first place. That's why I keep a weary eye on observatory arrays taking away not only the stealth factor, but also the current immunity.

I'd rather see stealth restored to its INVISIBLE status. As long as we can't get invisible, immune is the next best thing; whereas in fact immunity does go against the spirit of EvE.

The real question is: how does one make a cloaked ship truly invisible? ---> remove it from local if it has a cloak fitted. At that point, you could perhaps start scanning it down provided this scanning attempt takes some effort (for example: if it's like clicking DScan, that's too easy). This in turn makes it difficult to know when such an attempt would be in order; because you cannot account for cloaked ships logging in to your system.

The bottom line: replacing invulnerability with true invisibility is easier said than done; because if the end result is that ratters get jumped on without any chance whatsoever to know there was a cloaky in system, the new system would be just as broken as the old one.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4878 - 2015-12-20 16:13:22 UTC
True invisibility, and then some, is what they have now.

Currently, all we know is they exist.

What's being asked for is the ability to discover their general location.

Once that is known they are still invisible, and still require luck and effort to find.


If they are AFK, then it becomes possible to eventually uncover them. If they are active they can just warp off. Even a prototype cloak user can align under cloak, and thus unless very unlucky be able to escape before anyone could lock him---if he is active.
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4879 - 2015-12-20 16:18:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Brokk Witgenstein
Now usually, being invisible comes with a price -- in EvE's case, the price is inability to move and/or inability to actually DO anything. And this is why the current system really is balanced.

Apparently, CCP is revising that and I really hope they merely drop you at a random location "on grid, nearby". Pinpointing is out of the question. I'm glad we agree on that.


Edit: it is of course conceivable that multiple scans lead to multiple nearby locations, and by dropping a can and looking for the centre you get lucky. This, I would consider a good fix -- if nothing else, then at least because people ATK can counteract the other player's efforts.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4880 - 2015-12-20 16:27:29 UTC
They can move, it just slows them down. Even the Prototype users can move, just slowly, and they must break cover to actually warp.

I believe if pinpointing is possible it should require not only a specific ship but a specific module on that ship. All I ever asked for was a way to get on grid within a reasonable distance to attempt to find them. Contrary to the hyperbole spewed by Teckos I am not looking to inflict a sentence of certain and uncounterabe death on a cloaked ship, just the ability to put it at some risk, just as it is putting everyone else at risk. As Mag's said TWO WAY STREET.