These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#5021 - 2015-12-24 15:54:49 UTC
Morrigan and karous
You are actually going in circles by projecting afk cloaky risk aversion onto mike.

Its a waste of time. Your battle is lost.

Just as the battle for removing Concord's Player ID Service in null sec is lost unless the Devs are also contemplating removing Concord's gates in null sec. Given that those services are interconnected.

Though the amazing level of entitlement you have when viewed by the level of compensation you want for changes to the 4/4 is of course mind-boggling.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#5022 - 2015-12-24 17:56:40 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:


[snip]

You're going in circles:

There's no counterplay - move systems - doesnt count because
They're immune - so is someone docked/POS'd - doesnt count because you can watch the station
But you can't possibly have an alt/fleet with the ratting fleet back to highsec
They're immune - so are you from them - nu-uh, they're scary.

You have options galore to hand, you just handwave away all of them because it doesn't suit.


Ahhh yes, the Mike Merry Go Round.

I like how Mike's escort fleet has to sit there bored out of their skulls. But he seems to steadfastly ignore the idea of having a ratting fleet or even a standing fleet in the same system. If you have 4-5 sanctums, up to 10 havens...you can easily have 10 people in there ratting at a single time. Yes, they could cyno in a 50 man fleet...but look at the in game map for crying out loud.

"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
#5023 - 2015-12-24 19:02:43 UTC
Yup. But no one does because a) better things for 50 guys to kill, b) 6-7k dps will **** up the incoming fleet and c) you can be counter dropped.

Meanwhile the ratting fleet makes better ticks and better escalation hits due to kill rate.

All of this of course explains why the CFC pulled up sticks and went to highsec years ago....oh...wait.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#5024 - 2015-12-24 22:20:34 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Yup. But no one does because a) better things for 50 guys to kill, b) 6-7k dps will **** up the incoming fleet and c) you can be counter dropped.

Meanwhile the ratting fleet makes better ticks and better escalation hits due to kill rate.

All of this of course explains why the CFC pulled up sticks and went to highsec years ago....oh...wait.


Or why they don't have a doctrine called Mazefleet...oh...never mind.

"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
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#5025 - 2015-12-24 22:46:45 UTC
It's really not about the God forsaken isk. That is just where the main damage is done for afk camping, the subject of the thread. It's a complete side issue to the problem.

The problem is the inability to hunt cloaks proactively in any fashion. They are too safe. They don't present a challenge, they present a situation that has no win condition, only varying degrees of loss.

No, the guy in a station is not the same level of threat. If he is in the station you can go check that, and you know he isn't doing something else. Sure, if your goal was just PvE it's the same situation with profit as null, but that isn't and never was the problem. The problem was that the cloak is too safe as a module while the structure is not only designed for safety but also less safe.

You consent to PvP by pressing undock. That is one of the core concepts of the game. If you are outside a dock it is supposed to be possible to hunt and kill you. The cloak being as safe as it is would be fine if there was a way to force it into action so it could be caught. There is not. Cloaks are too safe because they allow 100% safety beyond even that of being docked for unlimited and uninterruptible periods of time.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#5026 - 2015-12-24 22:51:15 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Yup. But no one does because a) better things for 50 guys to kill, b) 6-7k dps will **** up the incoming fleet and c) you can be counter dropped.

Meanwhile the ratting fleet makes better ticks and better escalation hits due to kill rate.

All of this of course explains why the CFC pulled up sticks and went to highsec years ago....oh...wait.

Who the hell cares what the biggest alliance does. They have the manpower to do anything they want. Their size immunized them from most game balance considerations years ago. They won EvE, yippee for them.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#5027 - 2015-12-24 23:13:36 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
It's really not about the God forsaken isk.


You've demonstrated otherwise many times in this thread.

"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.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#5028 - 2015-12-25 00:59:27 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:


No, the guy in a station is not the same level of threat.


You're right...he is even more of a threat.

1. You don't know when he'll suddenly become active.
2. You don't know what ship he'll un-dock in...heck he could 20 or 30 ships to chose from!
3. He is totally immune.
4. He can see you in local.
5. You wont see him un-dock unless you spend all your time watching the station.

My God, CCP needs to nerf stations immediately. I insist on an un-dock button so I can eject the malcontents from their perfect safety and PvP them!! That will show them. Roll

"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
#5029 - 2015-12-25 01:02:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Oh...and I'll just leave this here,

Consent to PvP

Quote:


  • You consent to PvP when you click "undock".
  • You are not safe in 1.0 security space. CONCORD is there to punish, not to protect. Get used to the idea.
  • In most cases, the only way to be 100% safe from agression inside the game is to be docked in a station. Being cloaked in a secret safespot could work too.



Link

So much for it not being intended. Roll

Note to Mike: google is your friend.

"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
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#5030 - 2015-12-25 01:17:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
That says it can work. Says nothing about should. But fair enough.

In which case they need to disable the ability to use dscan and probes, and give them a visible effect when on grid and allow them to be targetted.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#5031 - 2015-12-25 03:21:10 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:


The problem is the inability to hunt cloaks proactively in any fashion.


Well, I think Thunder1971, Solaen Delan, Mykyl David, mordshoernchen and Flandre Scarlette might all disagree with that assertion.

"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
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#5032 - 2015-12-25 07:01:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:


The problem is the inability to hunt cloaks proactively in any fashion.


Well, I think Thunder1971, Solaen Delan, Mykyl David, mordshoernchen and Flandre Scarlette might all disagree with that assertion.


Eh? Should I know these people?

Also, know when you have won. Not sure who writes the EvE Wikia, but what the hell if they are going to advertise it as safe, then fine. The stance I will take is that they should be visible and targetable on grid, and probably should be on the overview, as well as unable to use Dscan or probes. If being equivalent to docked justifies it, then make it equivalent to docked.

If these people have some sort of secret sauce that is somehow allowing them to hunt cloaks against their will, I would be interested in knowing how.

If this is just more garbage about how you can smartbomb them at a gate, then it's just another example of a pilots poor decisions leading to their demise.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#5033 - 2015-12-25 10:26:12 UTC
See... The argument has been that the cloak is supposed to make you safe, and it's safety is justified by the ship being harmless. Basically being cloaked is like being docked except mobile. That clearly isn't accurate as there is plenty a cloaked ship can do that an opponent would wish to prevent. So if the safety stays, then the negative action needs to go. No scanning, probing, and the safe personal observation needs to go. I would argue that acting safely as a fleet warp in point should go as well. If you are dangerous, then you should likewise be exposed to danger. It's not about being able to threaten anyone- the argument has been repeated over and over that they aren't a threat. So be it, let's make it a reality and not just a hairsplitting talking point.

That's partially why I am on the fence concerning the overview. On the one hand I know nobody who plays closely zoomed in enough to pick out a shimmering ship graphic in space next to your ship. All zoomed out and little chevron shapes is all we see most of the time. It would be rare, if not down right miraculous to find a ship that way.

On the other, stealth is a thing. Showing up on the overview would make being just a shimmer pointless. Perhaps if you showed up but still had to be manually targetted. I am coming down on the side of not showing up on the overview until the cloak breaks, which it would do as soon as someone completed a lock.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#5034 - 2015-12-25 11:21:58 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
See... The argument has been that the cloak is supposed to make you safe, and it's safety is justified by the ship being harmless. Basically being cloaked is like being docked except mobile. That clearly isn't accurate as there is plenty a cloaked ship can do that an opponent would wish to prevent. So if the safety stays, then the negative action needs to go. No scanning, probing, and the safe personal observation needs to go. I would argue that acting safely as a fleet warp in point should go as well. If you are dangerous, then you should likewise be exposed to danger. It's not about being able to threaten anyone- the argument has been repeated over and over that they aren't a threat. So be it, let's make it a reality and not just a hairsplitting talking point.

That's partially why I am on the fence concerning the overview. On the one hand I know nobody who plays closely zoomed in enough to pick out a shimmering ship graphic in space next to your ship. All zoomed out and little chevron shapes is all we see most of the time. It would be rare, if not down right miraculous to find a ship that way.

On the other, stealth is a thing. Showing up on the overview would make being just a shimmer pointless. Perhaps if you showed up but still had to be manually targetted. I am coming down on the side of not showing up on the overview until the cloak breaks, which it would do as soon as someone completed a lock.


No Mike, cloaks come with trade offs. And this safety you are talking about is only while at a safe spot....and you cannot be an actual threat at a safe spot while cloaked. You have stated several parts to your problem:

1. You don't know if he is AFK or not.
2. Given 1, you assume he is always ATK.
3. You don't think ships should be able to have an influence on others without facing some sort of possibility of reprisal.

There are ways to establish if the cloaker is AFK with a fairly high degree of belief. Number 2 is always going to trip you up though since even if the guy who owns the account is tied up in your basement, literally, you still would not un-dock. With point 2 there is no amount of empirical evidence that will get you to un-dock given that there is a neutral/hostile in system with you. Dogmatism is bad, mmkay.

As for 3, it has been pointed out ad infinitum that while they are safe from you...you are safe from them. Thus, it is merely an issue of determining if they are AFK or not--i.e. going back to 1.

And no, being cloaked and moving around...puts you at risk. That is why those players all died. They were in stratii and they all died.

"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
#5035 - 2015-12-25 11:55:17 UTC
Your new idea also breaks scouts, blockade runners and makes camps inescapable.

Bravo.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#5036 - 2015-12-25 12:18:52 UTC
If they are AFK or not does not matter in even the slightest.

It's the s degree of safety combined with the amount of action they are capable of. At a safe they are completely safe, yet can use decanter and probes. On grid they are nearly completely safe unless stupidly close, yet can act as a warp in for others, and provide specific Intel on ship types, and limited Intel on fitting s and such from direct observation.

Tactically speaking all they can do is see local from inside a station. If they are going to be that safe, then they should be that limited. You have successfully made your argument that cloaks should be equal to stations. Now we should actually make that the case, and ensure that a cloaked ship operating outside the limitations of a station is properly at risk.

Let them rely on stealth, and not on immunity. Keep them off the overview, make them difficult to see, but targettable on grid. That way they have the lion's share of initiative, but not an unbreakable lock on it.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5037 - 2015-12-25 12:46:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Teckos
Beyond pointing out that a local discussion is off topic and that the Concord's Pilot ID service is inherently tied to the gates it runs? Or mentioning that even raising no local as compensation for cloak changes shows the gross, bloated sense of entitlement many vets share, and why CCP will never offer that as compensation to cater to their immunity needs?

Yah, funny, I have not mentioned it beyond those points.

Edit
Morrigan
Blockade runners really do need a nerf. The risk free PI/moongoo revenue they bring is obscene. Scouts can always be ceptor based. I have yet to lose one. Unless you were talking about afk cloaky scouts getting broken. Well, yah. AFK see.

Multiboxing is allowed, but there is no godly reason to cater to vets personal force multipliers.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#5038 - 2015-12-25 14:09:12 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
If they are AFK or not does not matter in even the slightest.

It's the s degree of safety combined with the amount of action they are capable of. At a safe they are completely safe, yet can use decanter and probes. On grid they are nearly completely safe unless stupidly close, yet can act as a warp in for others, and provide specific Intel on ship types, and limited Intel on fitting s and such from direct observation.

Tactically speaking all they can do is see local from inside a station. If they are going to be that safe, then they should be that limited. You have successfully made your argument that cloaks should be equal to stations. Now we should actually make that the case, and ensure that a cloaked ship operating outside the limitations of a station is properly at risk.

Let them rely on stealth, and not on immunity. Keep them off the overview, make them difficult to see, but targettable on grid. That way they have the lion's share of initiative, but not an unbreakable lock on it.


Spoken like someone who has never run a gate camp. I'm not even surprised. If we can see it,. we will kill it. ****, more than half the time we kill it even if we couldn't see it.

It's a top buff to CODE too as you've just broken the cloak & MWD trick too.

Neat work.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5039 - 2015-12-26 07:28:40 UTC
A nerf is needed when pilots can be undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe. It goes against the most basic golden rules of EvE

And which is why the nerfbat is coming.

The tears, oh the tears.

Campbears. Pfft.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#5040 - 2015-12-26 12:39:33 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
A nerf is needed when pilots can be undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe. It goes against the most basic golden rules of EvE


No, it's just how cloaks are intended to work. It's the benefit to their otherwise crippling penalties.

"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.