These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 ??
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Svenjabi Xiang
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#81 - 2011-10-15 14:59:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Svenjabi Xiang
Herold Oldtimer wrote:


This is the role a stealth recon should have don't you think?



Only if you read far too much into the verbiage of the ship title. In which case, you might consider CovOps as a Covert Ops scout. The only way I'd be in support of removing functionality of intel reporting from the covert ops line (Scout, Bomber, Force, and Battleship) is if they boosted probes within those ships to the point where the functionality was equivalent, and then, what'd be the point, beyond the heavy coding it would likely take to preclude d-scan if you happened to also use a cloak on your ship?

The only thing wrong with the cloak is the perception that the space should belong completely and only to the alliance registered to it. There is no functionality problem with the cloak itself, or ships that use it. If the person operating the cloak is actually active and operating, the strategies for keeping yourself from becoming a victim to it are widely known. If the cloaker is inactive, the only problem is your perception that someone shouldn't be in your environment, i.e. that your space should be safe.

Eve should never be safe.
Herold Oldtimer
State War Academy
Caldari State
#82 - 2011-10-15 16:03:55 UTC
Svenjabi Xiang wrote:
Herold Oldtimer wrote:


This is the role a stealth recon should have don't you think?



Only if you read far too much into the verbiage of the ship title. In which case, you might consider CovOps as a Covert Ops scout. The only way I'd be in support of removing functionality of intel reporting from the covert ops line (Scout, Bomber, Force, and Battleship) is if they boosted probes within those ships to the point where the functionality was equivalent, and then, what'd be the point, beyond the heavy coding it would likely take to preclude d-scan if you happened to also use a cloak on your ship?

The only thing wrong with the cloak is the perception that the space should belong completely and only to the alliance registered to it. There is no functionality problem with the cloak itself, or ships that use it. If the person operating the cloak is actually active and operating, the strategies for keeping yourself from becoming a victim to it are widely known. If the cloaker is inactive, the only problem is your perception that someone shouldn't be in your environment, i.e. that your space should be safe.

Eve should never be safe.


Excactly!

That is what I percieve cov-ops of being. Intel gathering scout ships. or behind-the-line-harass ships.

That is why I think you should be able to get in unnoticed in a cov-ops ship if you do it right. If you decide to get some information on enemy systems then you should, even without being seen. But not in whatever ship you want, that obsolete the cov-ops as that type of role, since all can fit a cloak and be a pain.

You use the Stealth recon to be the intel gatherer. After you have scouted you can deploy the steath bombers.
If an oportunity arises you can get a black ops in, and deploy a cyno, TOTAL MAYHEM! and noone saw it coming!

Full utilization should be given to ships that have steath as a role, not equal to everyone.
Svenjabi Xiang
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#83 - 2011-10-15 19:37:11 UTC
Herold Oldtimer wrote:

Excactly!

That is what I percieve cov-ops of being. Intel gathering scout ships. or behind-the-line-harass ships.

That is why I think you should be able to get in unnoticed in a cov-ops ship if you do it right. If you decide to get some information on enemy systems then you should, even without being seen. But not in whatever ship you want, that obsolete the cov-ops as that type of role, since all can fit a cloak and be a pain.

You use the Stealth recon to be the intel gatherer. After you have scouted you can deploy the steath bombers.
If an oportunity arises you can get a black ops in, and deploy a cyno, TOTAL MAYHEM! and noone saw it coming!

Full utilization should be given to ships that have steath as a role, not equal to everyone.


The only way I'd see this working in the way described is if you also precluded the black ops capable ship from also fitting a regular cyno as there is no point currently to the extra step of bringing forward a BOBS prior to simply deploying the fleet. If that's your intent, you should probably make that clear. I wouldn't be in support of it (for reasons I've given in a thread already on that subject), but at least it'd be an open part of the plan you describe.

As for limitations of non-black ops ships with cloaks, I see them as already having significant impediments in place (very slow, can't warp, long pre-lock waits) that preclude the use of cloaks in most cases already. It takes a plan, and an execution on that plan, to make non-cloaky ships operate properly when they've equipped a cloak. They are only used in this way when there's a strategy that necessitates it, most of which is now un-used given that the scouts can bring either sort of cyno (or both) and bring the fleet where it's needed without the problems of cloaking all the ships. So, in essence, what I'm suggesting is that you have a solution in need of a problem.
Jimmy Dickens
Abstergo Galactic
#84 - 2011-12-09 17:36:10 UTC
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Renan Ruivo wrote:

... however one idea in particular i somewhat liked is that of a T2 probe that, when 100% result is achieved, drops you within 10 to 30km of the cloaked ship. What i like about it is that its ridiculously easy for the cloaked pilot to prevent being detected by just A) warping to a different safespot still cloaked or B) move around a little bit. However, unless the pilot ACTS, he is going to be found. (Even if he is moving/orbiting something). It goes perfectly well with that most of us have been taught that the only 100% safe place in EVE is inside a station, and it can hardly be considered a nerf. It will only add to the game, and make cloak-camping a system that much more fun and rewarding.


Here's where the idea completely fails.

Wormholes.

In wormholes, being undetectable while cloaked is a vital part of the whole. It's necessary, for example, to have your cloaked ship parked for days or even weeks in an enemy system while gathering intel in preparations for an op. If you allow any type of probes (or other means) to be able to detect cloaked ships, you're completely changing the entire wormhole paradigm to the point that it will be almost a requirement to have someone parked somewhere with these probes out constantly scanning the system for the slightest whiff of a cloaked vessel. You would, effectively, nerf the living hell out of the inherent dangers of wormhole living...


Ingvar Angst wrote:

Come up with a solution that doesn't break other aspects of the game (such as wormholes), balances things and creates a bit more of a dynamic approach to things while preserving the fact that null space is intended to be a dangerous place to live.

Cloak detection or auto-decloaking break the wormhole aspect, so you'll need to start somewhere else.


Hi. My Name's Jimmy. I'm a cloaky...

I don't know if there is a major problem with AFK cloaking, but it does seem just a teensy bit unfair that there is no risk to provide a constant implied threat with essentially zero effort (AFK being the least effort possible) - it's the combination of these factors that tips the balance SLIGHTLY in the direction of the cloaky. I don't like the idea of being decloaked any more than the next cloaky - quite frankly, the ships are fragile as hell - especially bombers. I think the general idea is that it should be POSSIBLE... SOMEHOW... to counter and prevent this psychological tactic, not just ignore and prepare - the question is exactly how to make it fair for everyone - possible, but not easy.

I've read many suggestions as I browsed through the forums, and many seem to break something that otherwise works pretty well. I see how some claim it's meta gaming (when you're AFK, you're not playing - by definition, I would say that's "meta"), but I'm also generally a fan of not breaking or nerfing an existing game function (as in lower stats or remove capabilities) -- instead, I am a proponent of providing one option for a counter to a tactic. So, concerning the T2 Probes idea quoted above, that sounds pretty decent at first, except that it breaks a big part of wormholes... How about this for a solution?

T2 probes called something like "Covert Combat Probes" - essentially combat probes but a little weaker, which plays into the next part. These probes - by themselves - are inferior to standard combat probes, which are of course inferior to Sister's Combat Probes. Most of the time, they are simply weaker versions of the standard equivalents (similar to T2 strip miners), but are usable in a pinch. However, there's another part to the equation: some sort of high-CPU-and-Power POS module or SOV upgrade (or a combination of the two) that has an affect system wide to generate subtle signals in a cloaking field that can be faintly detected by these special probes.

A simple POS module would require onlining time and be expensive enough to run so that it would be completely impractical - if even theoretically possible - to run constantly, but COULD be used in a WH. To completely eliminate WH use, make it a strategic sovereignty upgrade (level 3 or so) or make it require one - like "Cloaking Disruption" or "Cloaking Perturbation".

Depending upon what the devs think about this possibility, it could make T1 cloaks easier to detect or even have a significant effect on them (like make them not work?) while allowing the greatly superior covert ops cloaks to still function, but become barely detectable with the specialized equipment. - this would, of course, make BOBS detectable and visible, so its up to the implementers...

This idea would require significant resources and preparation on the part of the system "holder" (SOV Upgrade and/or POS module, PLUS an available T2 prober, PLUS extra fuel usage PLUS onlining time) but still make it POSSIBLE to defend themselves against this tactic. The significant cost of running the system would mean there would have to be someone in local (and probably for a long time) before you even thought of turning the thing on.

Once this module/structure is online, the Covert Combat Probes would be able to detect cloaked ships - but not very accurately. Every warpable signature would only get you on the grid (or maybe somewhere within 20-30(-50??) km) - YOU would have to send a bunch of ships to flush out an AFK cloaker - avoiding such a fleet would be beyond simple for a cloaky sitting at his desk: right click -> warp to 100K (or similar)... or even double click in space. A somewhat reasonable defense for AFK cloakies might even be to simply keep moving (though you could end up moving TOWARDS the fleet...)

Commentary welcome :D

I know most of these are pretty basic, but I hate it when people use acronyms/abbreviations I don't know...
AFK: Away From Keyboard -- WH: Worm Hole -- POS: Player Owned Starbase -- SOV: Sovereignty -- BOBS: Black Ops Battle Ships -- T1/T2: Tech I/II
Ghost of Truth
Mad Dawg Industries
#85 - 2012-01-14 21:18:47 UTC
Its friggin Hilarious how AFk Cloakers are using their Metagaming tactics as an excuse and valid point against nerfing....Roll.

Ok then answer me that.AFk cloaking is ok.I mean, its one lousy frigate, ussualy so what the hell carebears ?Stop Runing to the Pos and stand up and fight goddamit.Have some BCs ready and just bait that son of a biotch.

Hallelujah to that!

But Alas!The afk, unlimited hidden spy has two gamebraking aces to his sleeve:

1)He is there for days, without endagering his ship whatsoever, local channel or naught, he is there to gather intel effortessly, since he doesnt need to even pass thru gates now and then, so after a time, he has a full knowledge of the usual ship types in then defence fleets.I mean, its like somene has rigged your home with cameras, and you cant do NOTHING!. So when EFFORTESLY has gather the whole intel he mneeds he decloaks and when the first lamps for slaughter arrive, he takes out the second ace:

2)Cynocural Fields babies!YEAH Stupid, I am a AFK cloaker and iI dont just have the firepower of a single lousy frigate, NO! I Can have 10, 20 ,30 Covert ops ,T3s using jump portal, the whole gaddamn fleet if i want to transplanted in the middle of your goddamned home, and you know what?I KNOW What ships you are flying, and I move my whole fleet Cloaked in reality WHENEVER I WANT!!Suck up on that Carebears!I am a massive, end game eve player!

P.S.
On a serious note,on e of you sleezy afkers find me a counter to that and i will admit defeat...probably..
Ghost of Truth
Mad Dawg Industries
#86 - 2012-01-14 21:27:19 UTC
Jimmy Dickens wrote:
[quote=Ingvar Angst][quote=Renan Ruivo]

Hi. My Name's Jimmy. I'm a cloaky...

I don't know if there is a major problem with AFK cloaking, but it does seem just a teensy bit unfair that there is no risk to provide a constant implied threat with essentially zero effort (AFK being the least effort possible) - it's the combination of these factors that tips the balance SLIGHTLY in the direction of the cloaky. I don't like the idea of being decloaked any more than the next cloaky - quite frankly, the ships are fragile as hell - especially bombers. I think the general idea is that it should be POSSIBLE... SOMEHOW... to counter and prevent this psychological tactic, not just ignore and prepare - the question is exactly how to make it fair for everyone - possible, but not easy.

I've read many suggestions as I browsed through the forums, and many seem to break something that otherwise works pretty well. I see how some claim it's meta gaming (when you're AFK, you're not playing - by definition, I would say that's "meta"), but I'm also generally a fan of not breaking or nerfing an existing game function (as in lower stats or remove capabilities) -- instead, I am a proponent of providing one option for a counter to a tactic. So, concerning the T2 Probes idea quoted above, that sounds pretty decent at first, except that it breaks a big part of wormholes... How about this for a solution?

T2 probes called something like "Covert Combat Probes" - essentially combat probes but a little weaker, which plays into the next part. These probes - by themselves - are inferior to standard combat probes, which are of course inferior to Sister's Combat Probes. Most of the time, they are simply weaker versions of the standard equivalents (similar to T2 strip miners), but are usable in a pinch. However, there's another part to the equation: some sort of high-CPU-and-Power POS module or SOV upgrade (or a combination of the two) that has an affect system wide to generate subtle signals in a cloaking field that can be faintly detected by these special probes.

A simple POS module would require onlining time and be expensive enough to run so that it would be completely impractical - if even theoretically possible - to run constantly, but COULD be used in a WH. To completely eliminate WH use, make it a strategic sovereignty upgrade (level 3 or so) or make it require one - like "Cloaking Disruption" or "Cloaking Perturbation".

Depending upon what the devs think about this possibility, it could make T1 cloaks easier to detect or even have a significant effect on them (like make them not work?) while allowing the greatly superior covert ops cloaks to still function, but become barely detectable with the specialized equipment. - this would, of course, make BOBS detectable and visible, so its up to the implementers...

This idea would require significant resources and preparation on the part of the system "holder" (SOV Upgrade and/or POS module, PLUS an available T2 prober, PLUS extra fuel usage PLUS onlining time) but still make it POSSIBLE to defend themselves against this tactic. The significant cost of running the system would mean there would have to be someone in local (and probably for a long time) before you even thought of turning the thing on.

Once this module/structure is online, the Covert Combat Probes would be able to detect cloaked ships - but not very accurately. Every warpable signature would only get you on the grid (or maybe somewhere within 20-30(-50??) km) - YOU would have to send a bunch of ships to flush out an AFK cloaker - avoiding such a fleet would be beyond simple for a cloaky sitting at his desk: right click -> warp to 100K (or similar)... or even double click in space. A somewhat reasonable defense for AFK cloakies might even be to simply keep moving (though you could end up moving TOWARDS the fleet...)

Commentary welcome :D

I know most of these are pretty basic, but I hate it when people use acronyms/abbreviations I don't know...
AFK: Away From Keyboard -- WH: Worm Hole -- POS: Player Owned Starbase -- SOV: Sovereignty -- BOBS: Black Ops Battle Ships -- T1/T2: Tech I/II



You sir, are a Decent player and Cloaker. o7. I ,personally ,dont want to break or take away Cloaking Devices.I have Problem With AFKing.If all people where like you, we would eventualy come with a decent solution in the end.But no, when someone mentions Cloakies, everyone is like:ITS LOCALS FAULT!TURN LOCAL OFF SO MIRACUSLY I WLL WANT TRY TO ENDAGER MY SHIP IN GATES, THE ONLY MILLISECOND MY SHIP IS VISIBLE AND VULNARABLE, FOR SOME REASON OR OTHER AND NOT STAY SAFE IN YOUR SYSTEM WHITH YOU EVER KNOWING!!
Ghost of Truth
Mad Dawg Industries
#87 - 2012-01-14 21:35:48 UTC
Also, Fixing the Whole issue is so friggin easy...

Timed Cloak, like after the gates.But if you move Cloak restarts instead of dissapearing.Timer is 1 hour as a suggestion. You get in a system cloaked,you fix your safe spots, and when time is up you just warp to another safe spot, cloaking remains and restes for another hour.You want to be safe but still in system?Log off.You want to gather intel?Play the game, even with alts and just move your ship a bit.You are a trolly that wants AFk Easy Mode?Go fun yourself.....Twisted

No new modules,ships,structures or whatver.Not entirely new mechanics, no nerfing of cloaking modules, nothing.





PROBLEM?SOLVED!
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#88 - 2012-01-14 21:40:11 UTC
Better idea: just disable most forms of intel gathering beyond what's on grid while cloaked.
Ghost of Truth
Mad Dawg Industries
#89 - 2012-01-14 21:45:09 UTC
Svenjabi Xiang wrote:
Herold Oldtimer wrote:


This is the role a stealth recon should have don't you think?



Only if you read far too much into the verbiage of the ship title. In which case, you might consider CovOps as a Covert Ops scout. The only way I'd be in support of removing functionality of intel reporting from the covert ops line (Scout, Bomber, Force, and Battleship) is if they boosted probes within those ships to the point where the functionality was equivalent, and then, what'd be the point, beyond the heavy coding it would likely take to preclude d-scan if you happened to also use a cloak on your ship?

The only thing wrong with the cloak is the perception that the space should belong completely and only to the alliance registered to it. There is no functionality problem with the cloak itself, or ships that use it. If the person operating the cloak is actually active and operating, the strategies for keeping yourself from becoming a victim to it are widely known. If the cloaker is inactive, the only problem is your perception that someone shouldn't be in your environment, i.e. that your space should be safe.

Eve should never be safe.



For some reason, this often repated logic is never rebukked.This is not a thing of perception, Owning rights or game strategy.There are people that play the game (Mine,Rat,PVP)to get benefits (ISk,Braggin Right Etc) and People that dont (afking cloaked, afking botting) and stll get benefits (sudden kills of lonely ships,safe intel ,Isk etc.) .


This seems right to you?
Ghost of Truth
Mad Dawg Industries
#90 - 2012-01-14 21:49:18 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Better idea: just disable most forms of intel gathering beyond what's on grid while cloaked.


That will break the point of being behind enemy lines, hidden and gathering intel.

We DONT want to break or change the cloakie mechanics.

WE DONT have any problem whith cloakies whatsoever,

WE HAVE a problem with Afking.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#91 - 2012-01-14 21:51:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Ghost of Truth wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Better idea: just disable most forms of intel gathering beyond what's on grid while cloaked.


That will break the point of being behind enemy lines, hidden and gathering intel.

We DONT want to break or change the cloakie mechanics.

WE DONT have any problem whith cloakies whatsoever,

WE HAVE a problem with Afking.

If you're sitting cloaked 150k off a gate gathering intel on fleets, or recon'ing structures, how would disabling probes and d-scan while cloaked interfere with that?

Sitting uncloaked in a safe spot in an frigate (!) while you probe is too much risk for you?
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#92 - 2012-01-14 22:00:55 UTC
Remove Local Chat Intel.
Ghost of Truth
Mad Dawg Industries
#93 - 2012-01-14 22:10:46 UTC
Xorv wrote:
Remove Local Chat Intel.



And How will Fix the Effortless Intel Gathering and killing whenever time and day I like?Huh?


Oh no! it wil make it only worse!Becasue not only I wll be Cloaked, unmoving and playing whnever I see an easy target, now NOBODY WILL EVER KNOW!

Yeah with broken Logic!
Ghost of Truth
Mad Dawg Industries
#94 - 2012-01-14 22:13:11 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Ghost of Truth wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Better idea: just disable most forms of intel gathering beyond what's on grid while cloaked.


That will break the point of being behind enemy lines, hidden and gathering intel.

We DONT want to break or change the cloakie mechanics.

WE DONT have any problem whith cloakies whatsoever,

WE HAVE a problem with Afking.

If you're sitting cloaked 150k off a gate gathering intel on fleets, or recon'ing structures, how would disabling probes and d-scan while cloaked interfere with that?

Sitting uncloaked in a safe spot in an frigate (!) while you probe is too much risk for you?



Becasue it will not fix the real issue of the matter.AFKin and being in advantage.I dont have problems with Intel gathering.I have problem with Intel Gathering Effortesly!
Xandralkus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#95 - 2012-01-14 22:17:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Xandralkus
Make it so cloaked people don't show up in local.

I can't wait to see the carnage when a fleet of a few hundred rapid on/off cloakers park in someone's system! Twisted

Or remove local entirely, and make D-scan require capacitor.

Eve UI wouldn't suck if CCP allowed UI addons.
Ghost of Truth
Mad Dawg Industries
#96 - 2012-01-14 22:20:27 UTC
Xandralkus wrote:
Make it so cloaked people don't show up in local.

I can't wait to see the carnage when a fleet of a few hundred rapid on/off cloakers park in someone's system! Twisted

Or remove local entirely, and make D-scan require capacitor.

At least you admit that the REMOVE LOCAL opinion is even more game breaking.....Thats a start...
Xandralkus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#97 - 2012-01-19 05:48:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Xandralkus
Local allows intel to be collected easily and effortlessly. This is a problem.

Local removes much of the risk from nullsec since the inhabitants of a system can be instantly viewed. This is a bigger problem.

Removing local would turn nullsec into D-scan hell.

Removing cloaked ships from local would only make intel gathering even easier, and would allow massive trolling of everyone in-system by switching cloaks on and off.

The 'problem' of an AFK-cloaker suddenly becoming non-AFK, finding you, popping a cyno, and obliterating your fleet in a hotdrop & jumpbridge is not a problem with cloaking mechanics. It is a problem with Cynosural Field Generator mechanics.

Solution:

Redesign Nullsec local so it is impossible to verify the quantity of or identities of people in-system. Intel-gathering is no longer incosequentially easy, and it is no longer possible to tell whether or not there are hostiles in-system.

Have the D-scan feature require capacitor (no significant amount for narrow scans, but max-range scans at 360 degrees should require a substantial chunk of capacitor. This prevents D-scan spam, except for specialized ships designed solely for this purpose. Such powerful active sensors should not be capless.

Redesign cloaking devices to reduce signature radius by 50-80%, depending on the type of cloak. Allow cloaked vessels to remain scannable. Once 100% scan resolution is attained, allow a function to warp the probes to the target - thus bringing them within 2000 meters of it and forcing them to decloak.

Redesign Cynosural Field Generators, changing the cycle time to 1 minute and implementing a charge-up time. As soon as someone begins charging a Cynosural Field, it shows up on the overview. At the end of the cycle, the Cynosural Field is completed, and remains active for one minute until disappearing. In addition, a mass limit per beacon restricts the number of ships that can jump or bridge to the location - usually allowing one or two capitals per beacon, or a small to mid-size subcapital fleet via titan bridging. If the cyno-generating ship is destroyed (even after the cynosural field is established), then the field automatically disengages.

Eve UI wouldn't suck if CCP allowed UI addons.
Nestara Aldent
Citimatics
#98 - 2012-01-19 05:52:14 UTC
How can cloaker gather intel if he's not in front of the keyboard?
How can cloaker light up a cyno if he's not in front of the keyboard?

See, an AFK cloaking is an oxymoron. It doesn't exist at all.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#99 - 2012-01-19 05:54:13 UTC
simple just disable probes, onboard and d-scan while cloaked
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#100 - 2012-01-19 07:32:39 UTC
Whole discussion is pointless, at least with the AFK cloaker whiners. Ultimately these people whining about AFK cloaking will only be satisfied if their PvE farming ships never die to a cloaked ship, or any player ship really.

For those of you that aren't completely ******** take a step away from EVE and look at other MMOs with Stealth, now compare that with EVE. Cloaked ships outside of cynoing in an instant Blob are weak already in this game by comparison.

And for those of you that just love to hate on "invisibility" stealth consider this, with no stealth/invisibility mechanics at all it was a 1000 times more easier to sneak around in Darkfall than it is in most of EVE that has invisibility. You could remove cloaks altogether for all I care if it came with other changes to EVE like no instant Intel, no gate travel, no overview, and terrain you can actually take advantage of..asteroids, planetary atmosphere, and nebula etc.

Let me put it another way, by making a statement.

Predatory PvP where an individual (or group) kills another player(s) engaging in PvE should be a relatively common occurrence in EVE. Further, that no player engaging in PvE that can be considered to generate good income for a non newbie player should be free from the possibility of unwanted PvP

If you disagree with the statement there's really no point in myself or many others having any dialogue with you, because no agreement will be found on the issue of this thread or many others. We in essence want fundamentally different and incompatible games.

PS. Remove Local Chat Intel ;)