These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#4881 - 2015-12-20 17:15:55 UTC
Brokk
I don't see how Concord's Pilot ID Service (PIDS) can be removed in any other way than by giving the function an entosis toggle on-off.

The service has to be seen in the context of Concord providing Gate Services to retain coherency.

(I am not going to point out why turning nullsec into deadsec by masking players in system permanently is a horrid marketing idea)

Here is what I would do if someone died and made me Dev God:

Seekers start shutting down gates and turning off PIDS
Forcing players to reactivate gates and PIDS using entosis links
(I would make the gates and PIDS start functioning before entosis work is complete)
Players can also use entosis links to turn on and shut off gates and PIDS.

It gives a lot of pvp opportunity in a reasonable way.

I would be looking at other things that trying to entrench a losing mechanism to generate pvp and cause ratting/mining vulnerability.

For example
Docking up takes time without a tractor beam module installed on citadels (TB giving fast docking if installed)
Moon goo collection vulnerability of some sort (the really risk averse isk generating modus is goo transport).
Redocking timer on citadels (prolly needed anyway to avoid hotseating between station guns and ship).
modules revealing anoms preclude modules that degrade dscan.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4882 - 2015-12-20 17:17:58 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
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.


Citadels are to some extent going to become surrogate ships. Its better from an opportunity cost perspective to give citadels a powerful probe high slot for cloaky scanning. It also makes for better team play and citadel integration into pvp.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4883 - 2015-12-20 17:21:53 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
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.


Wow right over one's head! The point of this post was to show there is a way to determine "AFKness". If you assess a high probability of being AFK, then you ARE NOT VULNERABLE.

Pull your head out dude. HTFU, do something to help yourself vs. whining to the Devs.

Oh, and you can do a similar process for assessing the probability he'll be AFK for say the next 2, 3, 4 hours.

It is called Bayesian decision theory/learning. Your spam filter probably works the same way.

"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
#4884 - 2015-12-20 17:47:16 UTC
"Your spam filter probably works the same way"

The sublime trollish poetry of suggesting spam filters be introduced to deal with afk cloaky campers.

A game mechanism indiscernible from spam is a succinct way of presenting the issue.

But arguing you need crutches to ruin mikes day remains invalid.

Pray elaborate on why you think ships should be undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe.

That is the position you need to defend. What mind could possibly think that is a good idea?

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4885 - 2015-12-20 17:48:03 UTC
Jerghul wrote:

I don't see how Concord's Pilot ID Service (PIDS) can be removed in any other way than by giving the function an entosis toggle on-off.

The service has to be seen in the context of Concord providing Gate Services to retain coherency.


I live in Angel space. I do not recognise Concord's authority; nor any other empire for that matter Blink

There is no good reason to suddenly declare "we forgot how to build a POS - but we can build some medium Citadels now?" either. Nor was there any good reason to one day undock my Hurricane and notice the neut I had there yesterday magically didn't fit anymore. The lore really has to take the backseat here. IF there is a way to make it fit lore-wise, great. If there ain't, too bad.

I can however comment on the stargates. The entosisable structure, the Gate, is in fact a replacement for the jump bridge generator. All other "regular" stargates must absolutely remain the way they are. Because of two reasons: for one, entosis mechanics demand notes to spawn in the constellation, which can be tricky if you just cleaved your constellation in half by shutting down the gate. And secondly, if constellation nodes are somehow a non-factor, there is the simple fact you can shut somebody out (or somebody can box you in) and there ain't nothing you can do about it. Provided you actually carry an entosis link - which most people don't - you cannot stop people on the other side from entosising same as they can't stop you. Because, you know, the gate is closed and all. This is a stalemate, or a deadlock.

Let's not even get into the absolute security you can have in a system nobody else can enter. So nope: I don't think CCP is going to do that. You can have your own custom-built Gate structures, but you can't mess with the predefined stargates. If you want to close a gate, then camp it.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4886 - 2015-12-20 18:04:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Great, then you will not mind if Concord stops operating the Gates. Since you do not recognize its authority and all that.

Lore does not have to take a back seat to anything: there are no good reasons to turn off Pilot ID Service and Gates in null-sec.

However, if you want to do one, you should do both.

Did you want to discuss mechanics on how gates/pids could be toggled on off?

Losing Sov due to the inability to do nodes for any reason is a design feature, not a bad thing.
The point is more that there needs to be counter moves (which there are lots of)
That pilots might choose not to fly with entosis links is their problem.
At worst you are raising a balance issue on what timer the on-off toggle should be on.

Edit
And yah, it gives gate camping a different form. You can gate camp on a closed gate for example. Increasing the chance of making interesting kills as the oblivious try to use the gate you are at. But it also closes your immediate retreat. Imagine if a intedictor comes down and bubbles you...then awaits his buddies jumping, then warping in for the kills.

Lots of moves and countermoves. Good for the game.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4887 - 2015-12-20 18:12:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Brokk Witgenstein
Jerghul wrote:

Did you want to discuss mechanics on how gates/pids could be toggled on off?


Actually I don't. I don't believe CCP will do anything of the kind.

As for concord, they may review their ID sharing policy without automatically having to allow everyone and their uncle to shut down gates. They're supposed to be neutral; the moment they stop being neutral lore will see them evicted from their position of power in no time. Same as interbus for that matter.

Lore can be expanded upon; faulty mechanics are still faulty mechanics. However, I was here to discuss AFK cloaking. Not gates.


Edit: out of personal interest, could you link where it is said concord operates the gates? I can't find it. Thanks.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4888 - 2015-12-20 18:23:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
I fail to see why Concord run Pilot ID Services is a flawed mechanism if Concord run Gates in null-sec is not flawed.

(Edit: You get that the argument for removing PIDs is lorebased right?).

Are we not running a bit out of steam on the afk cloaky camping issue.

Its about afk cloaky campers.

Why should they be

1. Undocked
2. In hostile space
3. Afk
4. Safe

There is no valid reason for that to be the case.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4889 - 2015-12-20 18:30:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Brokk Witgenstein
Well, they actually should be

1. Undocked
2. In hostile space
3. Invisible

... what I'd like to know is how a network of OAs is going to make them "somewhat" visible without shouting it off the rooftops. Issue should in fact never have been that it's invulnerable -- the key question is "how did you even know it was there"? You shouldn't have.

As soon as we get our Stealth, you can have your scanner. That's only fair, aye?


Edit: yeah I get that it's lore but I can't find it in the chronicles. Never mind; if you don't have it off the top of your head, don't bother. It'll turn up eventually.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4890 - 2015-12-20 18:41:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Jerghul wrote:

I don't see how Concord's Pilot ID Service (PIDS) can be removed in any other way than by giving the function an entosis toggle on-off.

The service has to be seen in the context of Concord providing Gate Services to retain coherency.


I live in Angel space. I do not recognise Concord's authority; nor any other empire for that matter Blink

There is no good reason to suddenly declare "we forgot how to build a POS - but we can build some medium Citadels now?" either. Nor was there any good reason to one day undock my Hurricane and notice the neut I had there yesterday magically didn't fit anymore. The lore really has to take the backseat here. IF there is a way to make it fit lore-wise, great. If there ain't, too bad.

I can however comment on the stargates. The entosisable structure, the Gate, is in fact a replacement for the jump bridge generator. All other "regular" stargates must absolutely remain the way they are. Because of two reasons: for one, entosis mechanics demand notes to spawn in the constellation, which can be tricky if you just cleaved your constellation in half by shutting down the gate. And secondly, if constellation nodes are somehow a non-factor, there is the simple fact you can shut somebody out (or somebody can box you in) and there ain't nothing you can do about it. Provided you actually carry an entosis link - which most people don't - you cannot stop people on the other side from entosising same as they can't stop you. Because, you know, the gate is closed and all. This is a stalemate, or a deadlock.

Let's not even get into the absolute security you can have in a system nobody else can enter. So nope: I don't think CCP is going to do that. You can have your own custom-built Gate structures, but you can't mess with the predefined stargates. If you want to close a gate, then camp it.


Ha boxing in people while you burn all their **** to the ground. Yeah , no. Not going to happen. CCP would, I am sure, prefer fights to no fights. Bigger fights to smaller fights, and so forth. Fozziesov has reduced those are incentives, IMO. Letting an attacker close stargates and box in an alliances fleets will simplely make it worse.

Edit: pretty sure CONCORD operates/built the gates. I shot a gate by accident years ago and took a sec hit. Asked a GM and that was the response.

"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
#4891 - 2015-12-20 18:48:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
You have your stealth. In wormhole space where Concord does not run gates or PIDS.

I am not averse to Concord removing the services it provides (or the services being disruptable), but am against decoupling gate and PIDS services. Either both, or neither.

But I am reading your post to mean you accept that no pilot in null-sec should be

1. Undocked
2. In hostile space
3. Afk
4. Safe

If you accept that, then we can certainly speculate on what changes CCP might make to the game, but those changes are not conditional on removing 1-4 all being true (3 of 4 is fine).

Edit
Yes, Teckos. Concord operates both gates and Pilot ID services (PIDS). They are connected. Where there is one, there is the other.

Also, points on the tactical possibilities that emerge by closing gates just go to the mechanism of reopening them. I would find it amusing to see a push-shove pile of entosis links on a gate. One side trying to keep it closed, the other trying to open it.

There are of course always ways to bypass gates anyway. The point is more that it provides more reason to break up blobs. Which is a good thing.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4892 - 2015-12-20 18:59:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Lets look at some history here, for those here with special needs.

What is one of Goons usual tactics? Anyone? Hell camps. Now imagine the Imperium Hell camping while closing gates. Keeping 200, 300, 1,000 players locked in one system for a week or more. Even if they death clone out the Imprium opens the gates goes into that system and closes the gates till they burn everything to the ground.

Goons delight in showing CCP just how ****** their ****** ideas can be. Usually they tell CCP, "Hey that's a ****** idea CCP." Then CCP does it anyways and the Goons abuse the **** out of it till CCP changes it.

Closing stargates is a ****** idea. And has nothing to do with AFK cloaking.

"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
#4893 - 2015-12-20 19:09:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Tecklos
And hell camps are relevant how?

Hellcamping citadels is done by blowing them up. Hellcamping NPC owned stations will not change. Either you are hell camped or you are not. Closing gates does not change anything.

We are pretty much done with the afk cloaky camping topic. Only three of the following are going to be true at any one time:

1. Undocked
2. In hostile space
3. Afk
4. Safe

We are discussing other changes CCP might make. Like toggling gates/Pilot ID services. Which cannot be decoupled.

Edit: Is there anything more hipster (see urban dictionary) than obsessively playing EvE "ironically"?

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4894 - 2015-12-20 19:32:11 UTC
Jerghul wrote:

But I am reading your post to mean you accept that no pilot in null-sec should be

1. Undocked
2. In hostile space
3. Afk
4. Safe


I know what you're trying to do. I too started off this thread on that foot; yet along the way I have come to regard cloaked as safe. Sure I may be undocked but I can't refit, can't make ISK or mine roids. My only power is to look around, and I paid for that power with a highslot, CPU, increased targeting delay, reduced gank and tank.

If you ask the question black-and-white, I'd have to say "no". You can be undocked, in hostile space, and safe. Ain't nobody's business if I'm AFK or not. What I cannot do, is be all those things and actively participate. For example, you get the exact same list (undocked, in hostile space, afk and safe) after performing a logoff. Or similarly, one could raise the very same argument demanding every player to either log off in a station/POS or leave their ship in space where it was when the player logged off.

I have already accepted changes are coming though - so hammering on what is current is not advancing the cause. But being undocked, in hostile space, afk, safe AND unable to do 'stuff' is fine by me.

I'd even go further and state such is the basis for guerillia warfare: you are forced to deal with it if and when the cloaker chooses. It is his prerogative; the entire line of ships is balanced around this function. It is what they are supposed to do. It is okay for a Rupture to be good at blowing stuff up; it is okay for an Exhumer to mine more roids than my Rupture can; and it is okay for a stealth recon to have the combat initiative.

The only thing separating the AFK camper and any other vessel undocked behind enemy lines yet perfectly safe, is that the camper is logged in. That's the great crime he committed. He can watch you and you can't watch him. It's apparently quite infuriating, but "unacceptable"? Not at all. For any other ship it would be, but not for recons. Same as it is acceptable for a covops to scan down 46 signatures from behind the safety of his cloak -- he's merely doing his job.

There is a "general principle", sure -- but it does not apply to ships specifically designed for and pre-nerfed around the purpose.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4895 - 2015-12-20 19:35:37 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
True invisibility, and then some, is what they have now.

Currently, all we know is they exist.


Except for local which tells you with certainty that he is there.

"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
#4896 - 2015-12-20 19:46:32 UTC
I have already shown how one can get some idea of whether or not a cloaked hostile in system is AFK or not. Moving back and forth between the camped system and on next door will let anyone refine their estimate that the camper is AFK or not. After doing this 10 times you should be pretty confident that he is AFK or that he is not going to engage you

The same method can be used to determine if he will be AFK for a period of time too.

This is a perfectly valid counter.

So are standing fleets which reduce one's risk.

What is amazing is that people will not avail themselves of these methods.

"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
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4897 - 2015-12-20 19:55:10 UTC
Doesn't matter. We'll come up with some other means of harassing the weak. Rest assured: ISK printing machines will not be tolerated Cool
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4898 - 2015-12-20 20:08:31 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:


Wow right over one's head! The point of this post was to show there is a way to determine "AFKness". If you assess a high probability of being AFK, then you ARE NOT VULNERABLE.

Pull your head out dude. HTFU, do something to help yourself vs. whining to the Devs.

Oh, and you can do a similar process for assessing the probability he'll be AFK for say the next 2, 3, 4 hours.

It is called Bayesian decision theory/learning. Your spam filter probably works the same way.


No... That's like saying it's perfectly safe to play Russian Roulette just because the last 5 shots didn't kill anyone.

Abandoning the space isn't dealing with the camper.

No one is asking for a reduction in risk to just be handed over. The ability to contest control of the space, however, should be an active thing, not a passive default for fitting a cloak.

Nothing you have said excuses the fact that the cloaked camper is under zero risk while I am actively trying to hunt him down. He remains totally safe regardless of any possible action I can take for as long as he wishes.

It does not matter what else I may do when he is not there. I am perfectly willing to fight to control the space. What I am not willing to do is tolerate his presence, and it is not a balanced mechanic that allows him to be 100% safe while I hunt him but I have to be completely vulnerable while he hunts me.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4899 - 2015-12-20 20:18:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Jerghul wrote:

But I am reading your post to mean you accept that no pilot in null-sec should be

1. Undocked
2. In hostile space
3. Afk
4. Safe


I know what you're trying to do. I too started off this thread on that foot; yet along the way I have come to regard cloaked as safe. Sure I may be undocked but I can't refit, can't make ISK or mine roids. My only power is to look around, and I paid for that power with a highslot, CPU, increased targeting delay, reduced gank and tank.

If you ask the question black-and-white, I'd have to say "no". You can be undocked, in hostile space, and safe. Ain't nobody's business if I'm AFK or not. What I cannot do, is be all those things and actively participate. For example, you get the exact same list (undocked, in hostile space, afk and safe) after performing a logoff. Or similarly, one could raise the very same argument demanding every player to either log off in a station/POS or leave their ship in space where it was when the player logged off.

I have already accepted changes are coming though - so hammering on what is current is not advancing the cause. But being undocked, in hostile space, afk, safe AND unable to do 'stuff' is fine by me.

I'd even go further and state such is the basis for guerillia warfare: you are forced to deal with it if and when the cloaker chooses. It is his prerogative; the entire line of ships is balanced around this function. It is what they are supposed to do. It is okay for a Rupture to be good at blowing stuff up; it is okay for an Exhumer to mine more roids than my Rupture can; and it is okay for a stealth recon to have the combat initiative.

The only thing separating the AFK camper and any other vessel undocked behind enemy lines yet perfectly safe, is that the camper is logged in. That's the great crime he committed. He can watch you and you can't watch him. It's apparently quite infuriating, but "unacceptable"? Not at all. For any other ship it would be, but not for recons. Same as it is acceptable for a covops to scan down 46 signatures from behind the safety of his cloak -- he's merely doing his job.

There is a "general principle", sure -- but it does not apply to ships specifically designed for and pre-nerfed around the purpose.


You are attempting the false equivalence of a module and stations, and for some reason logged off and in space. Someone logged off is truely harmless.

My own list is actually smaller, you should not be both :

1. Undocked (or in a POS)
2. Safe

AFK, location of space, and other factors do not apply. If you are in space you are vulnerable to player interaction. That condition is irrespective of the presence of other players in space with you.

I am ok with this being contingent on a barrier of entry, like specialized hulls or equipment, but outright immunity should not be an option.

It's not ok that the cloak provides 100% safety while the recon scans every signiture in the solar system. Just like a ship good at blowing stuff up has to consider tank and/or logi backup to continually do that job, so should a recon need do more than simply activate his cloak to do his job.

There is literally nothing else like a cloak in evr, that allows and enables you to take action against your enemy with nothing they can do about it but surrender or just endure it.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4900 - 2015-12-20 20:25:09 UTC
Mike
I am actually covering all contingencies. Ships are semi-safe in non-hostile (hisec), and I do think that cloaky player action should be able to counter long range cloaking attempts (by warping off and forcing scanning to restart for example).

I categorically dismissed linking docked safety to degrees of undocked safety a number of times.

Brokk
Its not fine by me. 4/4 cannot reasonably apply. It does not even apply in hisec (afk auto piloted ships are given vulnerability windows prior to jumping gates).

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1