These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#7061 - 2016-10-19 22:28:34 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Baltec
Your view is symptomatic perhaps of the extreme risk adversion afk cloaky campers share as a common trait. Something is broken unless 100% certain?

If the t1 frigate was actually caught on dscan range and someone thought "yay, a t1 frigate. I better probe it down", then the ship would also have to arrange for speed capability able to catch up with the speed tanked frigate (ships warp to the were the frigate was, not where it is when they exit warp). In what paranoid universe is that a likely sequence of events?

And even if we were to enter that incredble universe for a moment....then all the t1 frigate pilot has to do is try again the next day. He only needs to get out of dscan range to never be found again (barring completely ludicrous series of events).



They wouldn't need to see it on D-scan to start probing.

And you can't really speed tank a t1 frigate and remain difficult to probe down.

"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
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7062 - 2016-10-20 07:58:29 UTC
Ratpack
Randomly probbing deep space? Now Sonya's watching paint dry wormhole existence seems exciting compared to how you must think the game should be played.

I am really starting to get the selection bias in this thread. These discussions must be incredibly stimulating to players who habitually afk cloaky camp. So you guys are here...and non-afk cloaky campers are playing Eve.

Its not a bad idea, or any idea at all. Its just an example of what you can do with a t-1 frigate "to counter local" without a cloak.

Not that I was ever suggesting no cloaks. I just want cloaks with a 5 hour charge capacity.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#7063 - 2016-10-20 09:07:54 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Ratpack
Randomly probbing deep space? Now Sonya's watching paint dry wormhole existence seems exciting compared to how you must think the game should be played.

I am really starting to get the selection bias in this thread. These discussions must be incredibly stimulating to players who habitually afk cloaky camp. So you guys are here...and non-afk cloaky campers are playing Eve.

Its not a bad idea, or any idea at all. Its just an example of what you can do with a t-1 frigate "to counter local" without a cloak.

Not that I was ever suggesting no cloaks. I just want cloaks with a 5 hour charge capacity.


By your own reasoning, since AFK-cloaking is not done in highsec, it is not a problem and doesn't need to be changed at all. Thanks for clearing that up for us and ending this near 400-page whine-fest.

Wormholer for life.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7064 - 2016-10-20 09:26:04 UTC
Ratpack
You are in error, my dear friend.

Someone claimed afk-cloaky camping was a counter to local. I disproved that claim by looking at local in high sec.

Afk cloaky camping may be a counter to something, but it is not a counter to the existence of local.

I suggested a better formulation of the problem baltek thought afk cloaky camping resolved. I am still waiting on that.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#7065 - 2016-10-20 09:49:18 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Jerghul wrote:
Ratpack
Randomly probbing deep space? Now Sonya's watching paint dry wormhole existence seems exciting compared to how you must think the game should be played.


Its not random, you can see them in local.

Jerghul wrote:
Ratpack
You are in error, my dear friend.

Someone claimed afk-cloaky camping was a counter to local. I disproved that claim by looking at local in high sec.


And you have repeatedly been told that AFK cloaking doesn't work in highsec because local cant be used for intel like it can in null.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7066 - 2016-10-20 10:55:50 UTC
Baltec
The assumption is always that single reds in system are afk cloaky campers. So, yes, you would be randomly probing down something on the off-chance the cloak was not there. This is not an activity non-afk cloaky campers are willing to engage in. This because: Get a life, bro.

You have repeatedly been told that afk cloaky camping is not a counter to local as it does not counter local in a universal way.

It may be a counter to something else. I urge you to try and clearly formulate what problem you think afk cloaky camping resolves.

This aint rocket science, dear friend.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#7067 - 2016-10-20 11:45:37 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Baltec
The assumption is always that single reds in system are afk cloaky campers. So, yes, you would be randomly probing down something on the off-chance the cloak was not there. This is not an activity non-afk cloaky campers are willing to engage in. This because: Get a life, bro.

You have repeatedly been told that afk cloaky camping is not a counter to local as it does not counter local in a universal way.

It may be a counter to something else. I urge you to try and clearly formulate what problem you think afk cloaky camping resolves.

This aint rocket science, dear friend.


By that same logic, as nobody is AFK-cloaking anywhere except in nullsec, it's not a problem that needs to be fixed.

Wormholer for life.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7068 - 2016-10-20 13:21:44 UTC
Ratpack
You are wrong, my dear friend. A problem anywhere in space needs to be mitigated eventually.


Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7069 - 2016-10-20 13:35:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
I will restate my line of reasoning.

The primary function of null-sec is to provide arenas for pvp content.
Pvp content is very expensive, so players have pve content options that are better than in high-sec
Afk cloaky camping is problematic because it decreases pvp and pve content

However

Afk cloaky camping does under certain specific circumstances limit income generation in a desirable way.
afk "anything" has played an important role in keeping server player numbers stabilized. This is however no longer needed.

It follows

That afk cloaky camping effects should be mitigated on a least intrusive measure principle.

Conclusion
Align cloaking modules with command bursts and introduce a 5 hour charge capacity limit (cloaks must be reloaded every 5 hours).

This in my view is sufficient to allow human error as a premier content provider to function much better in null-sec.

========

Its not exactly rocket science, my dear friends.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#7070 - 2016-10-20 13:53:51 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
I will restate my line of reasoning.

The primary function of null-sec is to provide arenas for pvp content.
Pvp content is very expensive, so players have pve content options that are better than in high-sec
Afk cloaky camping is problematic because it decreases pvp and pve content

However

Afk cloaky camping does under certain specific circumstances limit income generation in a desirable way.
afk "anything" has played an important role in keeping server player numbers stabilized. This is however no longer needed.

It follows

That afk cloaky camping effects should be mitigated on a least intrusive measure principle.

Conclusion
Align cloaking modules with command bursts and introduce a 5 hour charge capacity limit (cloaks must be reloaded every 5 hours).

This in my view is sufficient to allow human error as a premier content provider to function much better in null-sec.

========

Its not exactly rocket science, my dear friends.


You're right about one thing. It's not rocket science. The primary function of null is NOT pvp arenas. It is to own and control your corp and alliance's space.

It's also been categorically proven AFK cloaking does not prevent people from undocking, unless we are talking about the lazy and risk averse. And the lazy and risk averse should not be in null in the first place. Everything is working as intended as is. /thread?
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#7071 - 2016-10-20 14:11:37 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
I will restate my line of reasoning.The primary function of null-sec is to provide arenas for pvp content.


It's a sandbox. No region is 'for' PvP more than any other.

Jerghul wrote:
Pvp content is very expensive, so players have pve content options that are better than in high-sec


Depends. Many null alliances have very cheap SP/ISK doctrines that are very effective - it does not need to be expensive.

Secondly, High-Sec has better ISK making options than null. One account can make nearly 200m/hr doing incursions in perfect safety, where the people most affected by camping were probably not doing all that much better than 80m/hr in a VNI or Ishtar.

Jerghul wrote:
Afk cloaky camping is problematic because it decreases pvp and pve content


It increases PvP Content, just not in ways people ill-suited to nullsec want. Some alliances have been killed purely by AFK cloaking, some alliances have spooked all the campers away for fear of a substantial counter-drop.

If you aren't willing to defend your space, null-sec is not for you. Just do incursions and go get your PvP fix in lowsec.

Cloaking is as broken as local. Fix one, you do not need the other.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7072 - 2016-10-20 15:37:42 UTC
Vic
In those terms, Eve is actually 4 distinct sandboxes with characteristics set by variations in game mechanics. You may gladly hold the opinion that null-sec is not a sandbox designed primarily with pvp in mind. Everyone has the right to an opinion after all.

PvP is generally far more expensive that non-PvP. Because pvp tends to cause more losses than non-pvp. There are exceptions. Afk cloaky campers are one of those exceptions (the ability to control variables excessively gives afk cloaky camping derived combat great similarity to pve).

Sansha Incursions take place in high, low and null sec.

Afk cloaky camping decreases pvp by decreasing available content for other pvp styles to exploit. Ships docked are not vulnerable to pvp. People have to be in space for human error to come into play. The content value of bi-weekly single ship kills pales compared to the loss of content derived from ships staying docked.

My issue is being rooster-blocked by afk cloaky camping. It weakens content available to small gang roams excessively.

Changes to local in null-sec flounder on my "least intrusive" criteria. The most instrusive change imaginable game can be fun to play I suppose, but it is not my kettle of fish.

Sonya
afk cloaky camping does keep people from undocking. Which is a problem for other pvp playing styles like small gang roams.



Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#7073 - 2016-10-20 16:57:12 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Baltec
The assumption is always that single reds in system are afk cloaky campers.


No, the assumption is that the red is hostile and probes get launched when they enter local or soon after. This tactic of yours didn't work even when we had super deep safes.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#7074 - 2016-10-20 17:08:12 UTC
Jerghul wrote:


PvP is generally far more expensive that non-PvP. Because pvp tends to cause more losses than non-pvp. There are exceptions. Afk cloaky campers are one of those exceptions (the ability to control variables excessively gives afk cloaky camping derived combat great similarity to pve).


Ever taken on a drake in a solo bomber? How about blowing up a vindicator with a svipul gang next door? Once again you show you have no idea what you are talking about.

Jerghul wrote:


Afk cloaky camping decreases pvp by decreasing available content for other pvp styles to exploit.


How many times are you going to peddle this lie? You have been told, time afte time now that the only reason you have an AFK cloaker in said system is because you cannot catch anything in there any other way. There is nothing for your roaming gang to catch in the first place.
Jerghul wrote:



[quote=Jerghul]

Sonya
afk cloaky camping does keep people from undocking. Which is a problem for other pvp playing styles like small gang roams.





Small gangs cant catch anything in these systems, which is why people AFK cloak in them. No pvp is lost.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7075 - 2016-10-20 18:10:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
baltec
That is untrue. The assumption is that single reds that remain in system not in direct proximity to gates are cloaked. Probing rarely if ever takes place in response to single reds or neuts. Because: Get a life, bro. Watching paint dry approaches to the game have 0 universal appeal.

Ever realize that losing ships in PvP is more expensive than not losing ships in PvP?

Human error assures that ships will get caught in systems small gang roams pass through if ships are actually undocked. The major issue small gang roams face is being rooster-blocked by afk cloaky campers that turn target rich environments into a target poor environments.

Don't rooster-block, bro. We can't catch stuff when afk cloaky camping keeps them docked.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#7076 - 2016-10-20 18:31:29 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Sonya
afk cloaky camping does keep people from undocking. Which is a problem for other pvp playing styles like small gang roams.


What mechanics of a cloak disable the undock button in stations for others in the same system?
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7077 - 2016-10-20 18:46:12 UTC
Sonya
Ratter thinking processes is not my concern beyond noting they do not undock until becoming habituated to the presence of an afk cloak camper. This habituation period can be measured more appropriately in weeks than days and has to be repeated after a single kill event at the convenience of the afk cloaky camper.

This is a huge problem for small gang roams. Our targets are docked because of afk cloaky camping.

Afk cloaky camping in effect keeps ratters far safer than the combination of local and alliance intel ever could.

It removes the possibility of human error. We can't catch docked ships under any circumstance, sis.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#7078 - 2016-10-20 18:56:36 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Sonya
Ratter thinking processes is not my concern beyond noting they do not undock until becoming habituated to the presence of an afk cloak camper. This habituation period can be measured more appropriately in weeks than days and has to be repeated after a single kill event at the convenience of the afk cloaky camper.

This is a huge problem for small gang roams. Our targets are docked because of afk cloaky camping.

Afk cloaky camping in effect keeps ratters far safer than the combination of local and alliance intel ever could.

It removes the possibility of human error. We can't catch docked ships under any circumstance, sis.


Your targets aren't docked due to AFK-cloaker. They are docked because their intel-channel/local give away your fleet before you even load into the system. Your chance of catching anything with that fleet is pretty much the same as a AFK-cloaker has. Neither are eating the others targets. Get back to the thread when you have your next idea, what is it, number 6?7? They just seem to go from bad to worse

Wormholer for life.
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#7079 - 2016-10-20 19:03:41 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Sonya
Ratter thinking processes is not my concern beyond noting they do not undock until becoming habituated to the presence of an afk cloak camper. This habituation period can be measured more appropriately in weeks than days and has to be repeated after a single kill event at the convenience of the afk cloaky camper.

This is a huge problem for small gang roams. Our targets are docked because of afk cloaky camping.

Afk cloaky camping in effect keeps ratters far safer than the combination of local and alliance intel ever could.

It removes the possibility of human error. We can't catch docked ships under any circumstance, sis.


So get rid of local and your problem is solved. I guarantee 100% your ratting targets will be on grid when you land
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7080 - 2016-10-20 19:15:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Ratpack
Human error, my dear friend.

I am fine with 97% of potential targets docking up because 97 of 100 ratters are paying attention. I am not fine with 100% of them being docked because of afk cloaky campers.

Sonya
That suggestion fails to meet my "least intrusive" principle.

You really should create a thread to discuss getting rid of local in null sec though. Or revive a dead thread on the topic at the bottom of this forum somewhere.

Good luck with that project.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1