These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#7441 - 2016-11-10 21:53:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Sonya Corvinus
Jerghul wrote:
Discussions are by definition dynamic. Do try to keep up.


1/10, troll harder. You can do it, I believe in you

Back to cloaking.

As has been stated multiple times, there is no issue. Local gives 100% risk free intel where no one paying attention can ever get caught in sov null. There needs to be a counter to that.

Hot drops, there are counters to those as well. nullbears just need to be in fleets, on comms, and organized, most of which are not.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#7442 - 2016-11-10 21:57:00 UTC
Leena Turos wrote:


Not to eliminate BLOPS, BLOPS is fun, but when you have had a camper in almost every system you have sov over for 2 weeks or longer, making your gameplay almost pointless. It gets to point of why should i bother to play anymore if i can't fun doing the things I like doing? there is no penalty applied to camper. all the penality is on those actively trying to have fun in a game that is meant to be fun... without fun whats the point? So maybe not a deployable structure or at least no where near a gate but something needs to give balance here.


That does not necessitate a decloaking structure you have described. I agree it is not very interesting game play, but at the same time there are tactics and strategies that can be used to at least partially offset this kind of thing currently in game.

Also, most people here feel that if we remove local, replace it with a structure in game that fits modules so you can get most of local back, but depending on how it is fit you will still lose out on some aspects of local....then AFK cloaking will no longer be such a problem, especially if at that point we put in a way to find cloaked ships that linger too long in a given spot.

This way active BLOPSing is still viable. Active cloaking is still viable. And AFK goes away. And the intel structure that replaces local can be attacked essentially blinding a corp/alliance that chooses to simply turtle up. And the fitting options could create all sort of interesting options.

"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
#7443 - 2016-11-10 22:13:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Which is a silly idea on a number of levels.

It renders afk cloaky camping redundant in systems without the device, without giving the perception of security players need to be independently active in null-sec.

It does nothing to curtail afk cloaky camping in systems with the device

It further cements real time information as being organization based, not individual pilot based.

It further cements the non-viability of organizations operating in peak time times instead of 24/7

It does not actually remove local as a source of information, it simply introduces barriers before it functions.

It is an incredibly complex and intrusive way of limiting afk cloaky camping and could be dismissed on that grounds alone.


The elegant and least intrusive alternative is simply giving cloaking modules a charge requirement (effectively a 5 hour timer).

But lets run with the hideously complex alliance catering approarch instead. Its just so full of win.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Leena Turos
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#7444 - 2016-11-10 22:25:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Leena Turos
Teckos Pech wrote:
Leena Turos wrote:


Not to eliminate BLOPS, BLOPS is fun, but when you have had a camper in almost every system you have sov over for 2 weeks or longer, making your gameplay almost pointless. It gets to point of why should i bother to play anymore if i can't fun doing the things I like doing? there is no penalty applied to camper. all the penality is on those actively trying to have fun in a game that is meant to be fun... without fun whats the point? So maybe not a deployable structure or at least no where near a gate but something needs to give balance here.


That does not necessitate a decloaking structure you have described. I agree it is not very interesting game play, but at the same time there are tactics and strategies that can be used to at least partially offset this kind of thing currently in game.

Also, most people here feel that if we remove local, replace it with a structure in game that fits modules so you can get most of local back, but depending on how it is fit you will still lose out on some aspects of local....then AFK cloaking will no longer be such a problem, especially if at that point we put in a way to find cloaked ships that linger too long in a given spot.

This way active BLOPSing is still viable. Active cloaking is still viable. And AFK goes away. And the intel structure that replaces local can be attacked essentially blinding a corp/alliance that chooses to simply turtle up. And the fitting options could create all sort of interesting options.


I did see something in a dev blog about survillance towers, 1 alone is useless but if you set up a network of them in key systems maybe that lingering cloaky won't be such a problem. CCP is on the road of having structure fittings there could be a very expenisive fitting setup to pinpoint enemy cloakers using multiple surveliance towers.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7445 - 2016-11-10 22:45:34 UTC
Surveillance towers in the sense you mean would destory afk cloaky camping. Which in my mind is overkill.

He is thinking more along the lines of sov holders paying for something that gives cloaks a timer in specific systems.

But that something can only come after real time information has been hideously nerfed in null sec.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Leena Turos
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#7446 - 2016-11-10 22:57:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Leena Turos
Jerghul wrote:
Surveillance towers in the sense you mean would destory afk cloaky camping. Which in my mind is overkill.


Very little in eve should be AFK. Look at what CCP did to mining bots. Space is dangerous and that danger should be ever present. Why should AFK cloakers be exempt from that danger? it takes so little training to get in a covert ops with a single covert ops cloak. the towers would only work if they stayed in one place for too long. If they were warping about the system the towers would not be able to pinpoint them.
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#7447 - 2016-11-10 23:00:34 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Which is a silly idea on a number of levels.

It renders afk cloaky camping redundant in systems without the device, without giving the perception of security players need to be independently active in null-sec.

It does nothing to curtail afk cloaky camping in systems with the device

It further cements real time information as being organization based, not individual pilot based.

It further cements the non-viability of organizations operating in peak time times instead of 24/7

It does not actually remove local as a source of information, it simply introduces barriers before it functions.

It is an incredibly complex and intrusive way of limiting afk cloaky camping and could be dismissed on that grounds alone.


The elegant and least intrusive alternative is simply giving cloaking modules a charge requirement (effectively a 5 hour timer).

But lets run with the hideously complex alliance catering approarch instead. Its just so full of win.


If you live in null, you are supposed to work together. It's not for solo-pilots. Intel should be a group-effort, not given to every pilot just because.

There is no easy or least intrusive way to fix AFK-cloaking as you need to fix local as well to keep things balanced.

Wormholer for life.
Leena Turos
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#7448 - 2016-11-10 23:08:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Leena Turos
"If you live in null, you are supposed to work together. It's not for solo-pilots. Intel should be a group-effort, not given to every pilot just because." - Wonder Prian

Totally agree with you Wander Prian teamwork is essential part of success in eve for corp/alliance/coalition however when it comes to AFK cloakers no amount of teamwork is going let you find them when they not actively looking to hunt... so the only real way i have found of engaging them is for them to drop you and then you counter drop them and they may or may not counter counter drop and so on and so forth. Where as all this waiting around can be avoided with a timed cloak or a fuel source for the cloak to stay active.
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#7449 - 2016-11-10 23:12:20 UTC
Leena Turos wrote:
"If you live in null, you are supposed to work together. It's not for solo-pilots. Intel should be a group-effort, not given to every pilot just because." - Wonder Prian

Totally agree with you Wander Prian teamwork is essential part of success in eve for corp/alliance/coalition however when it comes to AFK cloakers no amount of teamwork is going let you find them when they not actively looking to hunt... so the only real way i have found of engaging them is for them to drop you and then you counter drop them and they may or may not counter counter drop and so on and so forth. Where as all this waiting around can be avoided with a timed cloak or a fuel source for the cloak to stay active.


You could bait them, rat in groups with PVP-fits, check intel on their kills to find out when they are most active, etc etc.

Wormholer for life.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7450 - 2016-11-10 23:19:43 UTC
In null-sec, players should work together in a team effort for mutually supportive actions that are HTFU, non-null bears and don't need crutches like information monopolies or afk cloaky campers to keep their group intact.

See what I did there?

Did I miss any buzzwords?

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#7451 - 2016-11-10 23:45:27 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
In null-sec, players should work together in a team effort for mutually supportive actions that are HTFU, non-null bears and don't need crutches like information monopolies or afk cloaky campers to keep their group intact.

See what I did there?

Did I miss any buzzwords?



So in your mind, you should be able to play alone in nullsec and be completely safe without any help or cost?

Wormholer for life.
Proteus of Olympos
Rocket Surgeons LLC
#7452 - 2016-11-11 00:08:55 UTC
Being unwilling to read through 373 pages of content...

Would it be a solution to make covert ships hidden from D-scans, but have the cloak cycle with a following cooldown?

Say you can cloak up for 15-30 minutes, with a following 15-30 minute cooldown where you aren't cloaked. It'd remove the overpowered nature of cloaking, since you can actually be hunted in covert ships while still not losing the advantage of the cloak (not being detectable on grid). And it'd completely remove the chance of cloaky AFK campers.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7453 - 2016-11-11 00:32:05 UTC
In my mind, null-sec should be a collaborative experience with few mechanical barriers giving corporations, alliances, and coalitions automatic monopolies.

Groups should be the sum of individual efforts. Not the whim of corporate overlords.

I am speaking in a normative sense "what should be". Not what is.

Proteus
The suggestion you outlined kills the "afk" part of afk cloaky camping. Its a legitimate goal, and it certainly has been mentioned.

My feeling is that limited afk cloaky camping is ok, and it would contribute to providing content in null-sec.

So I am running with a 5 hour timer and a very short cooldown (whatever time it takes to reload charges into the cloaking module)

It is based on the least intrusive nerf I could devise. The end outcome will almost certainly be a lot harsher.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#7454 - 2016-11-11 04:47:35 UTC
Leena Turos wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Leena Turos wrote:


Not to eliminate BLOPS, BLOPS is fun, but when you have had a camper in almost every system you have sov over for 2 weeks or longer, making your gameplay almost pointless. It gets to point of why should i bother to play anymore if i can't fun doing the things I like doing? there is no penalty applied to camper. all the penality is on those actively trying to have fun in a game that is meant to be fun... without fun whats the point? So maybe not a deployable structure or at least no where near a gate but something needs to give balance here.


That does not necessitate a decloaking structure you have described. I agree it is not very interesting game play, but at the same time there are tactics and strategies that can be used to at least partially offset this kind of thing currently in game.

Also, most people here feel that if we remove local, replace it with a structure in game that fits modules so you can get most of local back, but depending on how it is fit you will still lose out on some aspects of local....then AFK cloaking will no longer be such a problem, especially if at that point we put in a way to find cloaked ships that linger too long in a given spot.

This way active BLOPSing is still viable. Active cloaking is still viable. And AFK goes away. And the intel structure that replaces local can be attacked essentially blinding a corp/alliance that chooses to simply turtle up. And the fitting options could create all sort of interesting options.


I did see something in a dev blog about survillance towers, 1 alone is useless but if you set up a network of them in key systems maybe that lingering cloaky won't be such a problem. CCP is on the road of having structure fittings there could be a very expenisive fitting setup to pinpoint enemy cloakers using multiple surveliance towers.


I do not have any details, but I think a networked intel system would be good. At the same time make that intel system somewhat vulnerable so that ships have to be in space to either defend it or repair it.

And if it gives some weight to the sov holder I'm fine with that too--i.e. if I am in your space I don't benefit from your intel infrastructure. If I have to use D-scan and probes, fine. After all it is not my space. At the same time if you are lazy and not paying attention I should have a good chance of catching you. And failing that if I can run around and wreak havoc with your intel network while you are docked up...fine too.

"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
#7455 - 2016-11-11 04:48:24 UTC
Proteus of Olympos wrote:
Being unwilling to read through 373 pages of content...

Would it be a solution to make covert ships hidden from D-scans, but have the cloak cycle with a following cooldown?

Say you can cloak up for 15-30 minutes, with a following 15-30 minute cooldown where you aren't cloaked. It'd remove the overpowered nature of cloaking, since you can actually be hunted in covert ships while still not losing the advantage of the cloak (not being detectable on grid). And it'd completely remove the chance of cloaky AFK campers.


No.

"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
Iain Cariaba
#7456 - 2016-11-11 05:22:59 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
I do not have any details, but I think a networked intel system would be good. At the same time make that intel system somewhat vulnerable so that ships have to be in space to either defend it or repair it.

And if it gives some weight to the sov holder I'm fine with that too--i.e. if I am in your space I don't benefit from your intel infrastructure. If I have to use D-scan and probes, fine. After all it is not my space. At the same time if you are lazy and not paying attention I should have a good chance of catching you. And failing that if I can run around and wreak havoc with your intel network while you are docked up...fine too.

Pulled from the initial citadels devblog section on Observatory Arrays.

Quote:
Service module possibilities: Being able to increase, decrease or block Star Map filters in the solar systems they’re deployed, act as solar system wide D-scan blockers, disrupt ship intelligence in the solar system, take over player tracking capabilities from NPC agents or be able to affect or pinpoint cloak users. We are considering basing their effectiveness through a network coverage (like cell phones) so that a single one may not be that useful, but maintaining a bunch of them in space could give a significant advantage.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7457 - 2016-11-11 06:04:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Yah, confirmed.

He wants to keep local, except put in a whole bunch of barriers and smack it down firmly as something that organizations control exclusively.

The worst of all possible worlds.

To quote the man in his musings to someone else: "no".

Iain
He does not want that at all. Can you imagine? Pay isk for complete information control over any system you have. I could support that btw.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Iain Cariaba
#7458 - 2016-11-11 08:00:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Iain Cariaba
Jerghul wrote:
Iain
He does not want that at all. Can you imagine? Pay isk for complete information control over any system you have. I could support that btw.

I was providing citation for Teckos' comment. Smile

Edit: Oops, thought I was in a different thread. Shocked
Proteus of Olympos
Rocket Surgeons LLC
#7459 - 2016-11-11 12:00:48 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Proteus of Olympos wrote:
Being unwilling to read through 373 pages of content...

Would it be a solution to make covert ships hidden from D-scans, but have the cloak cycle with a following cooldown?

Say you can cloak up for 15-30 minutes, with a following 15-30 minute cooldown where you aren't cloaked. It'd remove the overpowered nature of cloaking, since you can actually be hunted in covert ships while still not losing the advantage of the cloak (not being detectable on grid). And it'd completely remove the chance of cloaky AFK campers.


No.


That's not very constructive of you. You may as well not have written anything at all.
So please explain; why do you say no?
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#7460 - 2016-11-11 12:25:23 UTC
Proteus of Olympos wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Proteus of Olympos wrote:
Being unwilling to read through 373 pages of content...

Would it be a solution to make covert ships hidden from D-scans, but have the cloak cycle with a following cooldown?

Say you can cloak up for 15-30 minutes, with a following 15-30 minute cooldown where you aren't cloaked. It'd remove the overpowered nature of cloaking, since you can actually be hunted in covert ships while still not losing the advantage of the cloak (not being detectable on grid). And it'd completely remove the chance of cloaky AFK campers.


No.


That's not very constructive of you. You may as well not have written anything at all.
So please explain; why do you say no?


Because it nerfs active cloak use unnecessarely. Cloaks themselves are fine. The problem is a minor usage-case in sov-null.

Wormholer for life.