These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Xcom
US Space Force
Black Rose.
#5201 - 2016-01-09 11:15:44 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Xcom wrote:
Its all opinion based.

People that prefer things to stay as they are argue relentlessly for the traditional mechanics staying rigid. Use every possible mechanic in defence to point out how everything is related.


Actually most people are saying that for cloaking to change - the mechanic which it most directly interferes with and is in fact the only counter to in many systems - local - also needs altered.

Many try and sweep this under the carpet as "off topic" when in fact the two share a symbiotic relationship. You cannot have an "afk cloaker" problem without local (and to a lesser extent, the watch list).

A further consideration is that in the drive to kill off "AFK" cloaking, there is a severe risk of breaking or greatly diminishing the other activities of cloaks. To date still no-one has found a way which can threaten a cloaky who is at the pub, without shattering other areas of space and other cloak uses.

Any balance debate has a responsibility for the direct knock on effects of a proposed change to be considered these are not off topic - this is simple diligence.

Tying this to a structure in response to finding cloaks alone is not actually valid - not everywhere can have structures. Now if one were to say this is ok because the areas where one cannot place a structure do not have this problem then you're effectively saying it's not actually a global problem. Which undermines the notion that it is even "broken" in the first place.

Finally, the level of "noise" a complaint gets doesn't make for a broken mechanic - see high sec ganking, bumping, war decs and so on and so forth.


Morrigan This is your opinion. Its not a fact or anything other then your wishes regarding how the game should and shouldn't be. Some do believe that any impact caused by tweaking the cloaking dilemma won't impact on local in any extent other then minor ripples. I believe that people just use that as an excuse to firmly hold on to cloaking the way it is.
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#5202 - 2016-01-09 12:58:41 UTC
If the fix was something easy and simple, don't you think it would have already been done years ago instead of us bickering about it in this 261 page thread?

Wormholer for life.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#5203 - 2016-01-09 13:05:51 UTC
Xcom wrote:

This is your opinion. Its not a fact or anything other then your wishes regarding how the game should and shouldn't be.


Now look in the mirror and repeat this.

Then realize that you're projecting like crazy.

"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.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#5204 - 2016-01-09 13:41:25 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Xcom wrote:
Its all opinion based.

People that prefer things to stay as they are argue relentlessly for the traditional mechanics staying rigid. Use every possible mechanic in defence to point out how everything is related.


Actually most people are saying that for cloaking to change - the mechanic which it most directly interferes with and is in fact the only counter to in many systems - local - also needs altered.

Many try and sweep this under the carpet as "off topic" when in fact the two share a symbiotic relationship. You cannot have an "afk cloaker" problem without local (and to a lesser extent, the watch list).

A further consideration is that in the drive to kill off "AFK" cloaking, there is a severe risk of breaking or greatly diminishing the other activities of cloaks. To date still no-one has found a way which can threaten a cloaky who is at the pub, without shattering other areas of space and other cloak uses.

Any balance debate has a responsibility for the direct knock on effects of a proposed change to be considered these are not off topic - this is simple diligence.

Tying this to a structure in response to finding cloaks alone is not actually valid - not everywhere can have structures. Now if one were to say this is ok because the areas where one cannot place a structure do not have this problem then you're effectively saying it's not actually a global problem. Which undermines the notion that it is even "broken" in the first place.

Finally, the level of "noise" a complaint gets doesn't make for a broken mechanic - see high sec ganking, bumping, war decs and so on and so forth.


Morrigan This is your opinion. Its not a fact or anything other then your wishes regarding how the game should and shouldn't be. Some do believe that any impact caused by tweaking the cloaking dilemma won't impact on local in any extent other then minor ripples. I believe that people just use that as an excuse to firmly hold on to cloaking the way it is.



To be honest mate you either didn''t read all of what I wrote, or didn't understand it.

Read it again. It explains balancing 101 and gives examples of why the people wanting to change cloaks in isolation are doing it wrong.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5205 - 2016-01-09 14:07:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Wander
But for the boisterous defenders of established multiple account entitlement it might have. It used to be more of a marginal issue (there are hardware requirements that have become much more commonplace). Anyone and their dog can afk cloaky camp once they learn to manage their time effectively.

Morrigan
Or...an established multiple account entitlement could simply be removed with no compensation.

I vote for doing that.

Kaarous
It is hardly projection for Xcom to point out that all we are doing here is sharing banter and opinion. Send a paper letter to CCP if you want real traction (I pre-beta test a game series, and have used the power of the pen to bypass test team lead intransigence on occasion. With good effect I might add).

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Xcom
US Space Force
Black Rose.
#5206 - 2016-01-09 14:14:56 UTC
No one thinks changing cloaking won't have any impact on other factors. Its just acceptable to some and not to others. Its a fact when a game is unfair people get upset. Saying that people that get shaffed by the AFK cloaking problem should suck it up and live with it is the issue most people pro change in this thread are facing. Its just hard for me to understand why anyone would like the idea of having a game mechanic around that directly causes this much rage, or be defending it by creating even more rage.
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#5207 - 2016-01-09 14:25:12 UTC
I think all of us in this thread agree it should be changed, but disagree strongly on the methods of that change

Wormholer for life.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#5208 - 2016-01-09 14:39:27 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Its a fact when a game is unfair people get upset.


Fun fact. Carebears get upset not because the game isn't fair, but because they're allowed to lose in the first place.

Quote:

Saying that people that get shaffed by the AFK cloaking problem should suck it up and live with it is the issue most people pro change in this thread are facing.


You do need to suck it up and accept the fact that you are supposed to have uncertainty and risk in your gameplay, most of all if that gameplay is PvE of any kind, and extra especially PvE in nullsec.


Quote:

Its just hard for me to understand why anyone would like the idea of having a game mechanic around that directly causes this much rage, or be defending it by creating even more rage.


It's hard for me to understand why anyone who complains about this mechanic thinks that they belong in 0.0 space in the first place.

Oh, and I don't give a flying rat's ass about your feelings, or anyone else's. If you're enough of a child to "rage" about something like this in a videogame, then all you're doing is proving that you don't belong in EVE Online.

"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.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#5209 - 2016-01-09 14:42:13 UTC
Wander Prian wrote:
I think all of us in this thread agree it should be changed, but disagree strongly on the methods of that change


Not one thing about cloaking devices needs to be changed. Right now they are probably one of, if not the most balanced module concept this game has. You disappear from grid, but in exchange you cannot have any mechanical effect on it at all. It's more or less perfect.

The only thing that needs to be changed here is the free, untouchable, instant source of intel that allows carebears to cry and whine about people in their system in the first place.

The only thing that needs changed is local. No local, literally no effect from afk cloaking. The cloaked ship would have to actually be hunting you to have any effect whatsoever.

"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.
Xcom
US Space Force
Black Rose.
#5210 - 2016-01-09 14:58:21 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
You do need to suck it up and accept the fact that you are supposed to have uncertainty and risk in your gameplay, most of all if that gameplay is PvE of any kind, and extra especially PvE in nullsec.

This is a bit of a contradiction to the rest of your idea of cloaking being balanced. Why is there no uncertainty in cloaking? There is enough prove that using a cloak does bring benefits beyond the risk of its use.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5211 - 2016-01-09 15:05:17 UTC
Xcom
I would not bother being baited by Karous when he types out stuff like the post you cited. The thread is actively monitored by moderators.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#5212 - 2016-01-09 15:11:40 UTC
Xcom wrote:

Why is there no uncertainty in cloaking?


There is. But obviously not as much as someone who is generating assets into the game world would entail, because the cloaked player derives absolutely zero mechanical benefit from it.

There is a vast gulf of difference between being afk and cloaked, and actively gaining resources.

"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
#5213 - 2016-01-09 15:12:43 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Xcom wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Xcom wrote:
Its all opinion based.

People that prefer things to stay as they are argue relentlessly for the traditional mechanics staying rigid. Use every possible mechanic in defence to point out how everything is related.


Actually most people are saying that for cloaking to change - the mechanic which it most directly interferes with and is in fact the only counter to in many systems - local - also needs altered.

Many try and sweep this under the carpet as "off topic" when in fact the two share a symbiotic relationship. You cannot have an "afk cloaker" problem without local (and to a lesser extent, the watch list).

A further consideration is that in the drive to kill off "AFK" cloaking, there is a severe risk of breaking or greatly diminishing the other activities of cloaks. To date still no-one has found a way which can threaten a cloaky who is at the pub, without shattering other areas of space and other cloak uses.

Any balance debate has a responsibility for the direct knock on effects of a proposed change to be considered these are not off topic - this is simple diligence.

Tying this to a structure in response to finding cloaks alone is not actually valid - not everywhere can have structures. Now if one were to say this is ok because the areas where one cannot place a structure do not have this problem then you're effectively saying it's not actually a global problem. Which undermines the notion that it is even "broken" in the first place.

Finally, the level of "noise" a complaint gets doesn't make for a broken mechanic - see high sec ganking, bumping, war decs and so on and so forth.


Morrigan This is your opinion. Its not a fact or anything other then your wishes regarding how the game should and shouldn't be. Some do believe that any impact caused by tweaking the cloaking dilemma won't impact on local in any extent other then minor ripples. I believe that people just use that as an excuse to firmly hold on to cloaking the way it is.



To be honest mate you either didn''t read all of what I wrote, or didn't understand it.

Read it again. It explains balancing 101 and gives examples of why the people wanting to change cloaks in isolation are doing it wrong.


Honestly, no. He was dead on. You have your points and reasons for sticking with them, but simply holding them does not make you or them right.

In particular is your view of all the other stuff being 'broken' by no longer being invulnerable for unlimited periods of time. If the stuff is that important, then it should also be at risk, not protected by cloaks as strong as they are. There is no function in game that can be used against another player that should be as safe as a cloaked ship. The way it is now is broken, not putting those functions at risk.

I will argue that any ship doing anything at all that affects another player in any way other than market transactions should not be as safe as a cloak currently makes it. Doesn't matter if that effect is imaginary, psychological, direct damage, ewar, or simply making the dust particles on the other guys screen swirl in a manner they find displeasing. Nothing and no one should be doing anything at all to anyone else or the environment with that level of safety backed by actual game mechanics.

The supposed 'safety' of ratters in null is bogus. It's an effect of choosing a place with no one else in it, and simply showing up breaks their 'safety'. The safety of cloaks is actually backed by mechanics that do not depend on the other guy not caring enough to come get you.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#5214 - 2016-01-09 15:16:14 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

I will argue that any ship doing anything at all that affects another player in any way other than market transactions should not be as safe as a cloak currently makes it.


It doesn't effect the other player at all.

Their blatant, disgusting risk aversion might effect them, but then that's only because local allows them to determine the presence of the other player.


Quote:

Doesn't matter if that effect is imaginary, psychological


It matters very much, since those two things aren't real, nor should your cowardice be permitted to dictate game balance in even the slightest way.

"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
#5215 - 2016-01-09 15:26:55 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

I will argue that any ship doing anything at all that affects another player in any way other than market transactions should not be as safe as a cloak currently makes it.


It doesn't effect the other player at all.

Their blatant, disgusting risk aversion might effect them, but then that's only because local allows them to determine the presence of the other player.


Quote:

Doesn't matter if that effect is imaginary, psychological


It matters very much, since those two things aren't real, nor should your cowardice be permitted to dictate game balance in even the slightest way.


Seriously, still trolling? Be nice if you could just stop one day.

You are completely wrong in any case. Ask Morrigan for the exhaustive list of things that cloaked ships do that will be broken by making them vulnerable. All of that stuff should be at risk. It's not just a null ratter issue. It's an entire game issue. Nothing at all of any use what ever should be possible while cloaked. Your screen should go dark, all windows but chat unresponsive. If you are going to be able to use it as a portable station usable at anytime, then that's how useful you should be.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#5216 - 2016-01-09 15:32:47 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Seriously, still trolling?


That's my line.

Quote:

You are completely wrong in any case.


See the above.


Quote:

It's not just a null ratter issue. It's an entire game issue.


No it's not. People rat in other areas all the time without issues from cloaked ships. Even numbers of other nullsec players.

This isn't a nullsec issue so much as it is a carebear issue. But that's your typical M.O. anyway, constantly asking for more safety for the people who already have too much in the first place.


Quote:

Nothing at all of any use what ever should be possible while cloaked. Your screen should go dark, all windows but chat unresponsive.


This is so petulant and childish that it's genuinely funny.

No, you should not be locked out of the game entire while cloaked, because it is intended to be able to play while cloaked. They are intended to provide an advantage via an attack of opportunity to the player using it.

I know you want them to be brokenly useless because you hate how they are working as intended, but what you want doesn't matter, and never will.

"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
#5217 - 2016-01-09 15:51:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
Nah, Troll


It was successfully argued that they are intended to be as safe as in a station. Which is fine.... then make them limit a ship in the same way. Either safety or usefulness needs to go. I argued for the safety so they would stay useful. However, others argued for the safety to stay, so usefulness should go.

It's also not just ratting. It's not that they threaten ratters.

It's that they are out there, doing stuff, while at no risk. You should not be doing stuff at no risk.

What is hilarious is that this is the exact argument you would be making in your own trollish way if it was someone *you* wanted to shoot doing something under a cloak. You don't understand anything about balance, just childish trolling.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#5218 - 2016-01-09 16:00:35 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

What is hilarious is that this is the exact argument you would be making in your own trollish way if it was someone *you* wanted to shoot doing something under a cloak.


No, I'm a real player, so I'd actually do something about it instead of crusading for CCP to nerf it. Or hey, since sometimes the right answer is to ignore it, I might even do nothing, rather than crying for CCP to do my job for me.

Besides, you can't actually do anything besides move under a cloak anyway. It's not like they're actually obtaining any tangible, real benefit from it, as opposed to the ratter who very much is.

Risk vs reward after all. The one who actually has a greater than zero benefit should have vastly more risk than the person who is not generating income or assets into the game world.

Quote:

You don't understand anything about balance, just childish trolling.


Such projection. Roll

"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.
Xcom
US Space Force
Black Rose.
#5219 - 2016-01-09 16:03:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Xcom
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
They are intended to provide an advantage via an attack of opportunity to the player using it.

This is the issue, this right here. Benefit without risk. Just because your not generating income doesn't mean you shouldn't be impacted by risk.

Your doing something far worse then generating income. Intel is the most valuable commodity in battle.

"If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles." - Sun Tzu
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#5220 - 2016-01-09 16:06:01 UTC
Xcom wrote:

This is the issue, this right here. Benefit without risk.


What a dishonest argument. Risk is not the only tradeoff that exists in this game, and this is especially true of cloaking devices and covert ops ships.

Cry more that it's working as intended.

"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.