These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#7961 - 2016-12-05 21:40:14 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


Why?


Most of the capital content is them being dropped on another capital. Dropping on stuff is the entire point of black ops even existing.

You just killed a lot of pvp, again.


Is that the best defence you have against wanting a more strategic game rather than theme park battles


This isn't possible under your plan.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#7962 - 2016-12-05 22:06:48 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


Why?


Most of the capital content is them being dropped on another capital. Dropping on stuff is the entire point of black ops even existing.

You just killed a lot of pvp, again.


Is that the best defence you have against wanting a more strategic game rather than theme park battles


This isn't possible under your plan.


First of all well played, very good kills.

Well if we have a system of some sort of cyno array instead of a ship then it is still possible, but harder, but with cap ships going to Citadels only you would be right, getting the balance right is tricky.

I would perhaps have an array system that requires tackle to get on the enemy and the array placed to enable the cyno to be lit. Perhaps allowing multiple ones to be put down so that you can get in system.

I have noticed by the way that people have cynoed into adjacent systems and then gone through gates to get to a target.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#7963 - 2016-12-05 22:39:51 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Do people get ganked by AFK gankers?

EDIT: As yu know ganks have a short time period and need rapid DPS, and you have that fleet coming in to save you if they do not have the fire power. Mining in hisec in a Skiff or a Procurer is in reality the same as ratting in 0.0 with a well tanked ship with a fleet ready to come in.

Ganking has a part to play in Eve, there question is really all about balance and consequences and that should be discussed in another thread. From my point of view the ganking of mining ships has the right balance, people can have less yield and more tank and that works well.


No, but people don't get killed by AFK cloakers. Link me a killmail of a single person who has died to someone AFK with an active cloak.

You did just tell me that there's a way to counter AFK cloakers, ie. the ratting equivelant of using a well tanked procurer. Now the question is, why are ratters in null not in fleets ready to come save them 24/7? Arguing that AFK cloaking needs a nerf is like arguing that we need to buff the yield of mining ships because people don't want to use procurers.

It is absolutely about balance. ATM in null you can have your alt standing by in a ship ready to counter gank (I've done this many, many times sitting cloaked 300k off my ratting ship in a cloaky PvP T3 in case anyone jumps me) or you can risk it and go for maximum ISK. Risk and reward. Cloaking is balanced as it is today.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#7964 - 2016-12-05 22:45:57 UTC
It wouldn't be possible under your plan. The trap was sprung on their own jump beacon and the system it happened in is their capital staging system so not only would you have to get a citadel into the very heart of imperium space but it would also have to survive in the main system of one of the largest super capital fleets in EVE with no support.

We effectively pulled a pearl harbour sneek attack, your plans mean seek attacks like today's would not be possible.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#7965 - 2016-12-06 06:48:52 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Do people get ganked by AFK gankers?

EDIT: As yu know ganks have a short time period and need rapid DPS, and you have that fleet coming in to save you if they do not have the fire power. Mining in hisec in a Skiff or a Procurer is in reality the same as ratting in 0.0 with a well tanked ship with a fleet ready to come in.

Ganking has a part to play in Eve, there question is really all about balance and consequences and that should be discussed in another thread. From my point of view the ganking of mining ships has the right balance, people can have less yield and more tank and that works well.


No, but people don't get killed by AFK cloakers. Link me a killmail of a single person who has died to someone AFK with an active cloak.

You did just tell me that there's a way to counter AFK cloakers, ie. the ratting equivelant of using a well tanked procurer. Now the question is, why are ratters in null not in fleets ready to come save them 24/7? Arguing that AFK cloaking needs a nerf is like arguing that we need to buff the yield of mining ships because people don't want to use procurers.

It is absolutely about balance. ATM in null you can have your alt standing by in a ship ready to counter gank (I've done this many, many times sitting cloaked 300k off my ratting ship in a cloaky PvP T3 in case anyone jumps me) or you can risk it and go for maximum ISK. Risk and reward. Cloaking is balanced as it is today.


It is not about being killed by AFK gankers, it was the threat from AFK gankers and there is none and you can counter it by ship choice and module selection. The clue was above in that the gankes are carrying out a criminal act and will be blasted by CONCORD, furthermore the gankers can only use what they have in system, as in no hot drop, so even though there are people hanging around in Osmon you can mine if you take the right choice in ship and modules as there is not that unknown blap by overwhelming force waiting to come in like what happened to the Goons last night. So for the player the risk is something they can ascertain and control and they will therefore not be rewarded by playing another game while hoping for the ganker to get bored and go elsewhere which is their only option with AFK cloaky camping.

Let me refer to the hot drop that baltec1 detailed, is there really a counter against that?

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#7966 - 2016-12-06 07:16:51 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
It wouldn't be possible under your plan. The trap was sprung on their own jump beacon and the system it happened in is their capital staging system so not only would you have to get a citadel into the very heart of imperium space but it would also have to survive in the main system of one of the largest super capital fleets in EVE with no support.

We effectively pulled a pearl harbour sneek attack, your plans mean seek attacks like today's would not be possible.


Looking at the BR I noticed that you used a mass of Sabres from Hard Knocks Citizens and a mass of interceptors to take advantage of the removal of the immunity of supers and titans to points. You also had the choice to use heavy warp scramblers and disrupters on your dreads which you did not do.

The simple thing is that you had to get tackle first which you did, the issue of course is that with my proposal to end hot drops by making it so that caps could only jump to citadels that would no longer be possible. But if it required an Array to be put up and operated then this would still be possible, but the delay would be such that the person tackled could have a chance to strip away the tackle, your drop looks like it would have worked with the added time as you would have just had to make sure you had more sabres.

It is all a question of balance and the instant drop has been made easier with changes to super titan immunity and of course those new heavy points.

So if we go the arrary route what you did would still be possible but it would require more organisation and something that is not as easy for that lone cloaky camper, after all I keep getting told that Eve is a team work game!

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#7967 - 2016-12-06 08:08:12 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
Any change you do to benefit the smaller corps/alliance, will benefit the larger ones more.


Do not use that pathetic Malcannis quote please, it is stupid as hell and is used by ignorant people to make a point when they can't explain it themselves.


But it is also true though. If something is going to benefit a "new player" it will, generally speaking, also benefit older players.


So you want to work with sweeping generalisations, feel free.

The problem is that there are pro's and cons to everything, differing levels of advantages, etc. I just find it a simple retort that people just throw out because they can't answer the point made. It is just like calling something silly without explaining why! Cough cough Teckos... Big smile


No, you just don't get the point of Malcanis' Law. The law does not say you should not do something, but if you are going to an argument "this will benefit this segment of the player base" the problem is it generally will benefit other elements of the player base too. So the argument we'll do it for [insert subset of players here] and things will be good are not really good arguments. You should be basing changes on what is good for the game in general, not what is good for this special interest group or that special interest group.

"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
#7968 - 2016-12-06 08:10:35 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Do people get ganked by AFK gankers?

EDIT: As yu know ganks have a short time period and need rapid DPS, and you have that fleet coming in to save you if they do not have the fire power. Mining in hisec in a Skiff or a Procurer is in reality the same as ratting in 0.0 with a well tanked ship with a fleet ready to come in.

Ganking has a part to play in Eve, there question is really all about balance and consequences and that should be discussed in another thread. From my point of view the ganking of mining ships has the right balance, people can have less yield and more tank and that works well.


No, but people don't get killed by AFK cloakers.


Sure they do because Brokk-Sperghul/Dracvlad have defined AFK cloakers as also ATK cloakers. It makes things so much easier when you just toss logic and critical thinking out the window and just go with whatever Bravo Sierra one can come up with.

"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
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#7969 - 2016-12-06 08:36:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Teckos Pech wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
Any change you do to benefit the smaller corps/alliance, will benefit the larger ones more.


Do not use that pathetic Malcannis quote please, it is stupid as hell and is used by ignorant people to make a point when they can't explain it themselves.


But it is also true though. If something is going to benefit a "new player" it will, generally speaking, also benefit older players.


So you want to work with sweeping generalisations, feel free.

The problem is that there are pro's and cons to everything, differing levels of advantages, etc. I just find it a simple retort that people just throw out because they can't answer the point made. It is just like calling something silly without explaining why! Cough cough Teckos... Big smile


No, you just don't get the point of Malcanis' Law. The law does not say you should not do something, but if you are going to an argument "this will benefit this segment of the player base" the problem is it generally will benefit other elements of the player base too. So the argument we'll do it for [insert subset of players here] and things will be good are not really good arguments. You should be basing changes on what is good for the game in general, not what is good for this special interest group or that special interest group.


My suggested changes are focused on what is good for the game in general, also there is a big difference between AFK and ATK, so due to using Bravo Sierra yet again to try to look smart and the simple fact that exchanging pixels with you is a waste of time, you are now blocked.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#7970 - 2016-12-06 10:10:00 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Dracvlad wrote:


Looking at the BR I noticed that you used a mass of Sabres from Hard Knocks Citizens and a mass of interceptors to take advantage of the removal of the immunity of supers and titans to points. You also had the choice to use heavy warp scramblers and disrupters on your dreads which you did not do.

The simple thing is that you had to get tackle first which you did, the issue of course is that with my proposal to end hot drops by making it so that caps could only jump to citadels that would no longer be possible. But if it required an Array to be put up and operated then this would still be possible, but the delay would be such that the person tackled could have a chance to strip away the tackle, your drop looks like it would have worked with the added time as you would have just had to make sure you had more sabres.

It is all a question of balance and the instant drop has been made easier with changes to super titan immunity and of course those new heavy points.

So if we go the arrary route what you did would still be possible but it would require more organisation and something that is not as easy for that lone cloaky camper, after all I keep getting told that Eve is a team work game!



No it would not. We would have to drop a stationary structure right next to 2 titans a rev and several supers. It would be dead before it even onlined but thats only if we could deploy it there, structures cannot be deployed within 50 km of stargates or stations, or within 40 km of a player owned starbase. Add on the loss of AFK cloaking with the retention of showing up in local the second you enter system and its impossible to pull off.

This is just a taste of the content you are removing with this plan of yours.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#7971 - 2016-12-06 10:23:19 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


Looking at the BR I noticed that you used a mass of Sabres from Hard Knocks Citizens and a mass of interceptors to take advantage of the removal of the immunity of supers and titans to points. You also had the choice to use heavy warp scramblers and disrupters on your dreads which you did not do.

The simple thing is that you had to get tackle first which you did, the issue of course is that with my proposal to end hot drops by making it so that caps could only jump to citadels that would no longer be possible. But if it required an Array to be put up and operated then this would still be possible, but the delay would be such that the person tackled could have a chance to strip away the tackle, your drop looks like it would have worked with the added time as you would have just had to make sure you had more sabres.

It is all a question of balance and the instant drop has been made easier with changes to super titan immunity and of course those new heavy points.

So if we go the arrary route what you did would still be possible but it would require more organisation and something that is not as easy for that lone cloaky camper, after all I keep getting told that Eve is a team work game!



No it would not. We would have to drop a stationary structure right next to 2 titans a rev and several supers. It would be dead before it even onlined but thats only if we could deploy it there, structures cannot be deployed within 50 km of stargates or stations, or within 40 km of a player owned starbase. Add on the loss of AFK cloaking with the retention of showing up in local the second you enter system and its impossible to pull off.

This is just a taste of the content you are removing with this plan of yours.


Why would you plonk it right next to them, you would put one down next to them, but another further back to warp in on them, as I said I have seen people jump to cynos in next door systems to warp through gates to get on people. So come again...

You caught those Caps on a beacon, did you not? Did you really need an AFK cloaky to do this?

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#7972 - 2016-12-06 10:47:17 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Dracvlad wrote:


Why would you plonk it right next to them


To bubble them? To have your max DPS dreads in range? To be in neut range?


Dracvlad wrote:

, you would put one down next to them, but another further back to warp in on them, as I said I have seen people jump to cynos in next door systems to warp through gates to get on people. So come again...


And watch your targets warp out as most of that catch were aligned out, seconds count. Equally having to align down and warp in capitals takes a long time which would have resulted in several of those kills not happening at the end.

Dracvlad wrote:

You caught those Caps on a beacon, did you not? Did you really need an AFK cloaky to do this?


Yes, they were the ones with the cyno and this Operation has taken weeks to pull off.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#7973 - 2016-12-06 10:56:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


Why would you plonk it right next to them


To bubble them? To have your max DPS dreads in range? To be in neut range?


Dracvlad wrote:

, you would put one down next to them, but another further back to warp in on them, as I said I have seen people jump to cynos in next door systems to warp through gates to get on people. So come again...


And watch your targets warp out as most of that catch were aligned out, seconds count. Equally having to align down and warp in capitals takes a long time which would have resulted in several of those kills not happening at the end.

Dracvlad wrote:

You caught those Caps on a beacon, did you not? Did you really need an AFK cloaky to do this?


Yes, they were the ones with the cyno and this Operation has taken weeks to pull off.


So the instant cyno is over powered.

Goons have the power to fight off most people around them, an AFK cloaky is not the same to them as a small alliance in provi.

So did you cyno those Sabres in?

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#7974 - 2016-12-06 12:30:50 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:


So the instant cyno is over powered.


No, it provides the same power to each side and is often the only way to kill something. You are never going to kill a mining op of rorquals deep in enemy space any other way. Lets not forget that the goons dropped their hammer on a dread to start with.

Dracvlad wrote:

Goons have the power to fight off most people around them, an AFK cloaky is not the same to them as a small alliance in provi.


Which is why we need the AFK tactic while local gives them instant intel on enemy movement.

Dracvlad wrote:

So did you cyno those Sabres in?


Yes, though we also had a few in system for deploying drag bubbles in pre planned positions to delay the response fleet, again, another thing your plan makes impossible. The ones that arrive via bridge are essential because they are the ones that get the tackle on the target.

There is so much you have no idea about in this game that your ideas would destroy, this is simply highlighting your lack of knowledge in how things operate. This is why people say you are anti pvp, all of your ideas harm pvp in some way.
Xcom
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7975 - 2016-12-06 12:33:50 UTC
After CCP adds OA.

If the OA structure gives local to everyone. Less then 24h and all active systems within sovren space of alliances have one. Cloaky ships are probed down if they are stupid enough to stick around. Rest of eve suffers from the local alteration.

If OA only works for the alliance that have placed there own. 24h and every system in alliance space with one of the OA structures onlined and working directly in favor of alliance members. Attacks of all kinds including roaming pvp is dead as they are spoted while they cant spot anyone in system. Rest of eve turns into a s**t fest with 100s of OA structures floating around in empire and low.

Seams OA is not an easy fix to cloaking after all. Its probably easier to fix cloaking instead of introducing more complicated features. Fixing a broken mechanic with another untested one.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7976 - 2016-12-06 12:35:04 UTC
The trap would not have worked if afk cloaky campers had been hanging around.

The cynos of course got into system and logged.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#7977 - 2016-12-06 12:37:15 UTC
Xcom wrote:
After CCP adds OA.

If the OA structure gives local to everyone. Less then 24h and all active systems within sovren space of alliances have one. Cloaky ships are probed down if they are stupid enough to stick around. Rest of eve suffers from the local alteration.

If OA only works for the alliance that have placed there own. 24h and every system in alliance space with one of the OA structures onlined and working directly in favor of alliance members. Attacks of all kinds including roaming pvp is dead as they are spoted while they cant spot anyone in system. Rest of eve turns into a s**t fest with 100s of OA structures floating around in empire and low.

Seams OA is not an easy fix to cloaking after all. Its probably easier to fix cloaking instead of introducing more complicated features. Fixing a broken mechanic with another untested one.


And again if you get rid of AFK claoking it means we lose the only counter to local.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#7978 - 2016-12-06 12:38:55 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
The trap would not have worked if afk cloaky campers had been hanging around.

The cynos of course got into system and logged.


Wrong again.

Goons main staging system always has AFK cloakers in it.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7979 - 2016-12-06 12:40:09 UTC
Xcom
Yah, its the "first there must be world peace, then we can possibly consider changes to cloaks" stonewalling argument.

The easiest way of fixing afk cloaky camping is to fix afk cloaky camping.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#7980 - 2016-12-06 12:43:05 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Xcom
Yah, its the "first there must be world peace, then we can possibly consider changes to cloaks" stonewalling argument.

The easiest way of fixing afk cloaky camping is to fix afk cloaky camping.


And wind up with 100% unavoidable 100% accurate free instant intel that makes people uncatchable.