These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5041 - 2015-12-26 14:47:23 UTC
Afk cloaky campers are just campbear fluff for players with PvE (or margin trading, or scamming) financed multiple accounts.

Which is why the devs are going to change it to render being undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe (4/4) to at least nominally vulnerable.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#5042 - 2015-12-26 18:13:41 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
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.


And actually it is listed as one of the few exceptions to the "Golden Rules" as put together by Akita T. So much for that.

"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

Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#5043 - 2015-12-26 19:16:19 UTC
I want to know how you got you power of telepathy? You seem to be reading the devs minds about things that nobody has said a word about in months.

Wormholer for life.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#5044 - 2015-12-26 19:28:10 UTC
Wander Prian wrote:
I want to know how you got you power of telepathy? You seem to be reading the devs minds about things that nobody has said a word about in months.


And if anything the few oblique comments certainly can be read going the other way, such as removing local.

Making local a delayed chat channel. Having the OA let players "claw it back" seems completely in line with these "Golden Rules" and principles they blather on about. In fact, the OA might even be better than local currently is. There have been hints that the OA will work better (depending on how it is set up) as part of a network--i.e. you might be able to see what is going on in an entire constellation vs. just the system a pilot is in. And of course it would be vulnerable to attack.

If the current state is balanced, which the Devs have basically been saying for years, then to preserve that balance in the face of change both sides have to give up something to get something.

"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

Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#5045 - 2015-12-27 15:12:45 UTC
This thread is about a fictisious problem that would be solved by a large dose of HTFU.

Wormholer for life.

Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5046 - 2015-12-27 16:44:24 UTC
Wander
Nullbears harvest moongoo. Its what you do when you want to do safe PvE in null-sec. Isk/per hour effort here is well beyond 500 mill.

The devs know what they are doing. And they are doing it.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1

Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#5047 - 2015-12-27 16:54:37 UTC
You are aware that the value of moongoo was nerfed 2 years ago and it made the big alliances have to come up with rental-plans to keep their funding up? The only people complaining about someone being in their system are sov-null ratters. If you are so worried about moongoo, go kill the POS

Wormholer for life.

Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#5048 - 2015-12-27 17:10:44 UTC
Wander Prian wrote:
You are aware that the value of moongoo was nerfed 2 years ago and it made the big alliances have to come up with rental-plans to keep their funding up? The only people complaining about someone being in their system are sov-null ratters. If you are so worried about moongoo, go kill the POS



Yeah, apparently no-one ever fights over POS. Honestly mate, you'd be better arguing with my cat for want of an honest, intellectual discourse.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#5049 - 2015-12-27 18:58:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Wander Prian wrote:
You are aware that the value of moongoo was nerfed 2 years ago and it made the big alliances have to come up with rental-plans to keep their funding up? The only people complaining about someone being in their system are sov-null ratters. If you are so worried about moongoo, go kill the POS


The notion that moon goo is something just "nullbears" do is laughable as it has been something that lead me to lots of fleets and fights. When IT Alliance first made its move back to NS we attacked Pandemic Legion's moon mining operations in Syndicate, Outer Ring, Aridia and Solitude before pushing into Fountain. Similarly with being part of the CFC/Imperium, we would go after the alliance/coalition level money makers--moons. When moon goo was nerfed and renting became a primary source of revenues for groups like PL and the Northern Coalition that was an interesting example in how mechanics changes can impact the meta game. Suddenly Goons did a 180 on rental income and created the Greater Western Co-Porsperity Sphere.

It wasn't until several years later that I actually started doing stuff with moon goo, and even then it was at the corporation level. I was helping to run a corp reaction farm. I got paid to do it, but the bulk of the ISK went to the corporation.

And the isk/hour can be reasonably high, but it is almost always done at a corporation level or even an alliance level--i.e. that ISK flows into the corporate or alliance wallets, NOT individual player wallets. Even a reaction farm has a high fixed cost (all those POS and POS modules, and the raw moon good that needs to be reacted) and there is some fairly decent amount of logistics involved as well. In short, it is something done by many different players vs. 1 player.

You can really spot the person who does not know what the **** he is talking about in this thread.

"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
#5050 - 2015-12-29 08:46:56 UTC
Alt "requirement" doesn't really fly in sov nullsec. It's a team game people, moaning you need friends is silly.

It could as easily replace one of the many, many scouts already in play over gates.


Also, finding cloakers still breaks them on all strategic levels. If you can locate it well enough to decloak it thus forcing nothing but safespot warping to be safe then they become trivial to find on grid too and on top of that you completely destroy non-covert cloaks. Actually even covert ones become pointless as no-one needs a cloak to bounce safespots.

This is the fundamental problem, any and I do mean ANY proposal to do ANYHTING to cloaks results in one of two things:

1) They can locate covert cloaks and the entire gameplay around cloaks dies in a fire. If you can find me doing over 400m/s cloaked, nothing but nothing has a chance to live no matter what the cloak is being used for.

or

2) They cannot reasonably locate moving covert cloaks thus nothing will actually change. If you cannot find me doing 400m/s cloaked then all covert cloaking gameplay is preserved (non covert is probably broken still) and if you cannot find me, the people who are just terrified of a neut in local will still cry.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5051 - 2015-12-29 09:52:51 UTC
Morrigan
False.

Location accuracy as a function of time would not break ATK cloaked activity for as long as a dscan cue is given the cloaked ship notifying it that the hunt is on and thus triggering avoidance tactics.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1

Xcom
US Space Force
Black Rose.
#5052 - 2015-12-30 18:58:41 UTC
Am I the only one noticing how cloaking gets indirect buffs each patch? Few patches back they added sister cov-ops ships, this patch they are increasing grid size. Also a huge part of the argument about cloaking was how you could dock and be invulnerable. Now you can't even do that as your base can get attacked and blown up.

What next?
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#5053 - 2015-12-30 20:47:35 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Am I the only one noticing how cloaking gets indirect buffs each patch? Few patches back they added sister cov-ops ships, this patch they are increasing grid size. Also a huge part of the argument about cloaking was how you could dock and be invulnerable. Now you can't even do that as your base can get attacked and blown up.

What next?



A few thoughts.

Yes, the stratios is a surprisingly strong ship for one that can fit a covert ops cloak. It can have quite a bit of tank (for a cloaking ship) field a nasty flight of drones, and if you put neuts in the highs drain a ratting ship's cap damn fast. So it is often the ship of choice for active hunting of ratting ships. It is grounds for reasonable discussion that it might need a balance pass.

However, that is for active hunters, not AFK cloaking. Many of the points regarding AFK cloaking still remain even if the cloaked ship is a stratios.

As for the new grid size, yeah that is likely to engender quite a bit of balance issues and cloaking might be one.

As for blowing up a citadel, yeah that is true you wont be "safe" indefinitely, but blowing one up is not like you come in and entosis it and watch it explode. In fact, according to this Dev Blog, the entosis link will not work on citadels. Further, while you'll die if you are docked there, your stuff in your personal hangar will be moved to a nearby NPC station or friendly citadel. It looks like CCP will still intend for these structures to be killed by fairly large fleets (well, relative to the citadel size).

"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

Xcom
US Space Force
Black Rose.
#5054 - 2015-12-30 22:53:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Xcom
I believe that the current AFK cloaking mechanic does fit into the current sov meta. Issue is just how the mechanic in itself is flawed. Its silly that we need a flawed mechanic to counter sov behind enemy line cov-ops battles. I think the whole argument loops around when the AFK cloaking is justified as a broken mechanic capping and countering solo farming in null space.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#5055 - 2015-12-31 00:44:56 UTC
Xcom wrote:
I think the whole argument loops around when the AFK cloaking is justified as a broken mechanic capping and countering solo farming in null space.


It's not broken either way.

And PvE should never be safe.

"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
#5056 - 2015-12-31 02:07:56 UTC
Xcom wrote:
I believe that the current AFK cloaking mechanic does fit into the current sov meta. Issue is just how the mechanic in itself is flawed. Its silly that we need a flawed mechanic to counter sov behind enemy line cov-ops battles. I think the whole argument loops around when the AFK cloaking is justified as a broken mechanic capping and countering solo farming in null space.


The reason it is flawed depends on your perspective.

The mechanic allows one detached player impact on how many players go about playing Eve. So is hugely disproportionate.

The philosophy that a ship can be undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe is bad.

The Devs have it under control though. So it will be fixed soon enough.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1

Xcom
US Space Force
Black Rose.
#5057 - 2015-12-31 06:24:19 UTC
If ones belief is that cloaking is working as intended its obvious that any change would impact there traditional mindset regarding the matter. The dogma around the idea that cloaking is working as intended without a hard direct counter is flawed. You just shouldn't be able to be safe anywhere in space unlocked and as of citadel even docked. Not even cloaked. Clearly if you don't believe in this then you shouldn't have any problems with the idea of having ANY form of offensive ability on a cloaking ship. Yet we do ergo the **** storm we are in, 250+ pages.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#5058 - 2015-12-31 06:41:33 UTC
Xcom wrote:
If ones belief is that cloaking is working as intended its obvious that any change would impact there traditional mindset regarding the matter. The dogma around the idea that cloaking is working as intended without a hard direct counter is flawed. You just shouldn't be able to be safe anywhere in space unlocked and as of citadel even docked. Not even cloaked. Clearly if you don't believe in this then you shouldn't have any problems with the idea of having ANY form of offensive ability on a cloaking ship. Yet we do ergo the **** storm we are in, 250+ pages.


Except if one is cloaked and "safe" then everyone in system is "safe" from that cloaked ship.

"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

Xcom
US Space Force
Black Rose.
#5059 - 2015-12-31 07:23:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Xcom
Except a cloaked ship do have the ability to turn of the cloak and attack its opponent when the outcome is desirable. The opposite doesn't hold.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#5060 - 2015-12-31 07:32:33 UTC
It's an extremely broken mechanic not at all keeping with EvE's design principals.

It is however broken intentionally, and the effects have been decreed balanced by developer fiat. Apparently ships not in dock are meant to be safe from player interaction as if docked, and the ability to project infinite threat from a completely safe position is ok so long as what you are not disturbing the big alliances that can ignore this kind of stuff.