These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#5121 - 2016-01-06 07:26:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Jerghul wrote:


[snip]

AFK cloaky campers really are EvE financed multiple account* fluff.

*Accounts you control, but do not pay for with RL funds.

Not realistically accessible to the average EvE player (who is about 2 months old and who plays about 10hrs a week). So just another one of those established entitlements.


First off all accounts are paid for with RL funds. Even if I were to buy a PLEX with ISK that PLEX was initially bought with RL funds.

But aside from that lets go through the logic here, a guy is using an alt who is not making ISK, nor is this alt acquiring in game resources (minerals, rare and expensive modules), but yet will somehow make enough to PLEX his account? Pray tell how one goes about accomplishing this feat of financial legerdemain.

As for where you get your statistics, I see nothing to support your numbers so I'll just conclude they are completely made up.

"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
#5122 - 2016-01-06 07:31:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Xcom wrote:
This whole situation stinks. The devs know it and any clever person who really have thought this through knows it as well. Cloaking is broken and stupid. What makes it worse is how stupid it is that its used to counter the isk printing null space farming that also is just as stupid.


Soooo...letting in even more ISK into the in game economy is a good thing? Even though huge amounts are coming in already? We should remove a limiting factor? Do I understand your point here?

Xcom wrote:
Back in the day before cynos, IAC one of the dead Alliance I was part of, owned a constellation. One of the systems had archenor and was a nice source of isk for the Alliance. Some time after we moved in some jackass moved into the system with 2 cloaked BS and a cov-ops Arazu. Clearly he was selective about who he targeted but from time to time people would die to his cloaked attacks. We did bait him and kill him from time to time but he just replaced the ships and cloaked back up. All he did was to attack miners at random by locking them down with the recon then jump said target with the BS and pop him before any aid could get there. He didn't kill any bigger target then some random guy who did mine or rat alone. Just the fact that this stupidity did exist before cynos is a testiment that cyno removal wont fix the problem.


In other words he was killing those pilots who were doing it wrong. Teaching them, the hard way, the error or their ways?

Quote:
I have also been part of wormhole corps and I can also put in a note that AFK cloak shenanegans do appear in wormhole space as well. Sometimes assholes cloak up in smaller WH corps after probing down sights and jump people while they try to run said sight. You just end up having to move to another system to do anything with the included risk of getting jumped by a cloaked ship when trying to go through your wormhole.


Well, if you can't defend your space....

Quote:
Everything about cloaking is broken and only a portion of it is influenced by local.


Yeah, yeah, yeah. Whatever.

"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.
#5123 - 2016-01-06 09:37:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Xcom
Teckos Pech wrote:

Quote:
I have also been part of wormhole corps and I can also put in a note that AFK cloak shenanegans do appear in wormhole space as well. Sometimes assholes cloak up in smaller WH corps after probing down sights and jump people while they try to run said sight. You just end up having to move to another system to do anything with the included risk of getting jumped by a cloaked ship when trying to go through your wormhole.


Well, if you can't defend your space....


How are you supposed to defend your space? Probe down the cloaked ship? Its not possible to survive wormhole sight + pvp encounter when your logi is suddenly jammed by a falcon and some other baddys hammering you down. Your forum warrioring really needs a bit more brains and a bit more ingame experience.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#5124 - 2016-01-06 09:58:14 UTC
That's some impressive work for "afk" ships.

Your complaint is people can bring "unfair" PvP to you. That is the game.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5125 - 2016-01-06 10:08:04 UTC
Morrigan
Correct. Vulnerability to unsolicited pvp is indeed the game. Thank you for succinctly summing up my argument.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Xcom
US Space Force
Black Rose.
#5126 - 2016-01-06 10:12:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Xcom
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
That's some impressive work for "afk" ships.

Your complaint is people can bring "unfair" PvP to you. That is the game.

I'll bite just to level with you. Its fair pvp when you don't get mauled down like a bug. Its unfair when a ship de-cloaks in his preferred range and position, jams you under 7 seconds. Then have his buddys that were logged out in system warp in on top of you and you didn't see it coming or had any chance to counter the attack in any way possible. No local, no d-scan, no idea your being watched while your opponent had you watch listed and camped the system till you started running your system behind his "AFK cloak". Really good game design, best pvp experience.
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#5127 - 2016-01-06 10:48:31 UTC
Xcom wrote:

I have also been part of wormhole corps and I can also put in a note that AFK cloak shenanegans do appear in wormhole space as well. Sometimes assholes cloak up in smaller WH corps after probing down sights and jump people while they try to run said sight. You just end up having to move to another system to do anything with the included risk of getting jumped by a cloaked ship when trying to go through your wormhole.

Everything about cloaking is broken and only a portion of it is influenced by local.


I've lived in womrholes for about 5 years now and in that time I haven't seen very many logoff-traps, unless you are running capitals.

You cannot secure your space completely. You just need to get used to the fact that there could be someone watching you, planning to kill you. I like the unknown danger in W-space, that's part of the reason why I live there. I don't think cloaks are an issue. You just need to have enough people to make it safe enough to run the PVE.

Wormholer for life.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5128 - 2016-01-06 10:56:58 UTC
Wander
I can see why afk cloaky camping is not an issue in wormhole space. Its multifaceted. I am not adverse to nabbing mechanisms from wh-space and importing them to nullsec, but the afk cloaky camping issue is really best dealt with directly.

Null-sec should really not be wormhole space in everything but name. It would flatten the game.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#5129 - 2016-01-06 11:09:31 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Wander
I can see why afk cloaky camping is not an issue in wormhole space. Its multifaceted. I am not adverse to nabbing mechanisms from wh-space and importing them to nullsec, but the afk cloaky camping issue is really best dealt with directly.

Null-sec should really not be wormhole space in everything but name. It would flatten the game.


CCP agrees that nullsec shouldn't be the same as W-space and they have said they won't make them have same mechanics.

Wormholer for life.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#5130 - 2016-01-06 11:35:11 UTC
Wander Prian wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Wander
I can see why afk cloaky camping is not an issue in wormhole space. Its multifaceted. I am not adverse to nabbing mechanisms from wh-space and importing them to nullsec, but the afk cloaky camping issue is really best dealt with directly.

Null-sec should really not be wormhole space in everything but name. It would flatten the game.


CCP agrees that nullsec shouldn't be the same as W-space and they have said they won't make them have same mechanics.



Perhaps nullsec should import some of lowsecs features which make it immune to this scourge?
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5131 - 2016-01-06 12:01:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Morrigan
Incursions, burner missions or faction war you were thinking? Sure, why not. Not like there is much else to do in lowsec (the devs can check relative activity levels in different areas if they like).

Wander
As I point out when people raise the no local in null-sec spectre. Like I said; the issue with afk cloaky camping is best dealt with directly.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#5132 - 2016-01-06 14:06:17 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Morrigan
Incursions, burner missions or faction war you were thinking? Sure, why not. Not like there is much else to do in lowsec (the devs can check relative activity levels in different areas if they like).

Wander
As I point out when people raise the no local in null-sec spectre. Like I said; the issue with afk cloaky camping is best dealt with directly.


So breaking cloaks is your idea of a fix?

CCP has said before that they want to take the intel-aspect out of local and turn local to a chat-channel like it's supposed to be. They want to move the intel into a structure that you can mess with.
This move would allow CCP to make cloaks not show up on intel, unless you are decloakd, which would be balanced by giving you a way to find cloaked ships

Wormholer for life.
ISD Max Trix
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#5133 - 2016-01-06 14:30:39 UTC
Quote:
2. Be respectful toward others at all times.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.

12. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited.

The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a support ticket under the Community & Forums Category.

27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.


Post and those quoting them were removed.

ISD Max Trix

Lieutenant

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

I do not respond to EVE mails about forum moderation.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5134 - 2016-01-06 14:33:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Wander
Well, for as long as high sec also gets T3 loot as compensation for becoming wormhole surrogates, then I am sure they will be happy to lose local. Or probably not. It does not seem like good game design somehow to make the server seem empty.

But this thread is actually about afk cloaky camping.

I think we should just agree to disagree on to what degree nominal vulnerability breaks cloaking. My intent is that there be a mechanism that renders afk cloaky camping potentially costly.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#5135 - 2016-01-06 14:41:33 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
That's some impressive work for "afk" ships.

Your complaint is people can bring "unfair" PvP to you. That is the game.

I'll bite just to level with you. Its fair pvp when you don't get mauled down like a bug. Its unfair when a ship de-cloaks in his preferred range and position, jams you under 7 seconds. Then have his buddys that were logged out in system warp in on top of you and you didn't see it coming or had any chance to counter the attack in any way possible. No local, no d-scan, no idea your being watched while your opponent had you watch listed and camped the system till you started running your system behind his "AFK cloak". Really good game design, best pvp experience.


Cloaked ships are NOT that powerful. Even the stratios which might be a tad OP given that it can cloak and thus lurk up on the unaware ratter in NS is still not that powerful.

So if you are getting constantly beaten up by a cloaked gang it seems to me you guys are woefully outmatched and yeah...time to move.

Further, let me see if I apprehend the situation correctly....

You have a gang logged off in your wormhole. They are using a cloaked scout to find and tackle the lone guy doing something in system and then kill him.

Is that the problem? A group of guys killed one player?

Why weren't you using the watchlist?

And again, some impressive work for "AFK cloaking" as you put it.

"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
#5136 - 2016-01-06 14:48:46 UTC
Jerghul wrote:


I think we should just agree to disagree on to what degree nominal vulnerability breaks cloaking. My intent is that there be a mechanism that renders afk cloaky camping potentially costly.


Yes, and that can and most likely will be done via the observatory array.

Further, since CCP is moving/giving players an intel structure it also is reasonable to "move local" into said structure. Nobody is talking about "removing local", but instead simply moving it.

Your attempts to use strawmen arguments on this point though are duly noted.

"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
#5137 - 2016-01-06 14:52:27 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Wander
Well, for as long as high sec also gets T3 loot as compensation for becoming wormhole surrogates, then I am sure they will be happy to lose local. Or probably not. It does not seem like good game design somehow to make the server seem empty.

But this thread is actually about afk cloaky camping.

I think we should just agree to disagree on to what degree nominal vulnerability breaks cloaking. My intent is that there be a mechanism that renders afk cloaky camping potentially costly.


"AFK-cloaking" doesn't exist in a vacuum. There are reasons why it's done and it affects certain things. You cannot just "fix" one thing without having a ripple-effect around it. There is no simple fix to this as you have to think of all the different uses of cloaking before you can say your fix is balanced.

Wormholer for life.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5138 - 2016-01-06 15:09:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Wander
Hence my precision targeting only the afk contribution to the 4/4 (undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe). The impact of an ATK criteria to maintain the current status quo is hardly an outlandish demand.

Teckos
The whole OA discussion is an off-topic strawman that perhaps is deserving of its own thread, but does not belong in this one.

I also did not make a strawman argument as I seriously doubt you meant the local surrogate to be universally deployed and free of cost.

It would incidentally also require that gates become player controlled. But that is still a discussion for a completely different thread.

None of this is a pre-requisite for changing cloaks, nor a consequence of doing so.

Edit
Here is the thread you are looking for that is a dedicated OA change proposal thread.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=416522

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#5139 - 2016-01-06 15:33:10 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Wander
Hence my precision targeting only the afk contribution to the 4/4 (undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe). The impact of an ATK criteria to maintain the current status quo is hardly an outlandish demand.

Teckos
The whole OA discussion is an off-topic strawman that perhaps is deserving of its own thread, but does not belong in this one.

I also did not make a strawman argument as I seriously doubt you meant the local surrogate to be universally deployed and free of cost.

It would incidentally also require that gates become player controlled. But that is still a discussion for a completely different thread.

None of this is a pre-requisite for changing cloaks, nor a consequence of doing so.

Edit
Here is the thread you are looking for that is a dedicated OA change proposal thread.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=416522


Sigh.. You cannot just try to snipe one part of a mechanic without having it affect other things too. That "fix" of yours would have a seriously bad effects in w-space for example.

If you want to fix this "issue", you need to look at cloaking as a whole and that will bring the intel of local into the conversation also.

Wormholer for life.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5140 - 2016-01-06 15:46:24 UTC
Wander
If a complete audit were required, then it would relate more to reviewing afk behaviour. Given that afk is the target criteria.

But the whole point of 6 week release cycles is give leeway for changes without full information on their potential impact. Which is unreachable anyway as emerging player adaptation always changes the evaluation basis.



Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1