These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#8121 - 2016-12-10 07:55:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Xcom
He is proposing an impossible precondition. Its a variant of "You can pry afk cloaky camping out of my cold, dead hands".

NRA tactics for the win :-).

============

Also, ship losses by space type:

Hightsec - Most ship losses.
Low/nullsec
Wormhole space - Least ship losses.

Wormhole space no doubt needs a OA to help boost population levels in that space.

Fix local where it actually is broken and where nobody lives.

===========

Looks like CCP is more worried about deflation, than inflation. Bounties are increasing come next update.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Xcom
Eclipse Strike Unit
Jump On Contact..
#8122 - 2016-12-10 12:16:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Xcom
Teckos Pech wrote:
Xcom wrote:
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Xcom wrote:
The problem with local is how integrated it has become. I think CCP admittedly said it was an unintended feature that slipped into the game and now gets abused. Sadly by now it will alienate so many players that its removal will be a major major decision that will need some balls, sadly what CCP devs lack. I just want something minor like AFK camping to at least be removed. But apparently even that is resisted as it seams everything is entangled and every alteration is resisted by so many players. This game is old, it needs devs with some gusto to step in and start to shift mechanics around to stir the pot a little.

I guess threads like this one really puts the fear into the devs, probably less constructive when so many rage posts are clogged into one giant thread. I try and play the game as is but from time to time you really get riled up and frustrated that decisions are made at a snails pace and end up back here.


We're coming full circle. I think we need to make local in sov null tied to a structure that can be destroyed. If I destroy or disable it, local stops existing, but you can't scan down cloaked ships either. Everything outside of sov null stays as it is today.

That beign said, you're right. Most players who live in sov null are so risk averse they would be terrified about not having local. Null is as safe as HS anymore....the only actually challenging parts of the game any more are LS and WHs.

Although I agree local needs altered I also believe that most features shouldn't be solidified in a thread of changes. Making local changes your also forced to look into D-scanner and other areas of the game simultaneously. The end result is a massive rewrite of the game core. That given its pointless arguing where to even start. That is why I think that cloaks should be isolated and fixed on there own and hopefully we might see local also changed before or at least soon after.

It really is pointless arguing what feature needs looked at first though. Its not like forum posts determine CCPs priority development. Thats why I do find local discussions pointless in a cloak thread, even if its connected it doesn't need to overshadow cloaking discussions.


I don't think there will need to be a huge issue with the code. Making local delayed should not be that hard. The code for the OA will be new code...again not that hard. It is not like somebody is asking for a rewrite of the POS code (my understanding that code is a complete mess and messing with it would be very bad).

Its more then just new code from what I understand. Either each proposal is taken into consideration with the marketing team and blocked if it reduces population count or accepted if its impact will show more towards favouring growth. Or they are just very careful adding new content and watching statistics to make sure the player base adapts before moving to new mechanics. I have seen in a few smaller MMOs where larger rewrites alienated the player base to mass quit.

Edit: @Jerghul I do understand the concerns the anti change to AFK cloaking crowd is trying to tell us. That null doesn't need more hand holding mechanics. Removal of cloak camping does that in all honesty and is a valid argument. I just disagree with there stagnated local needs fixed before cloaks ideology as cloak camping really is disgusting to the point its removal should be imminent.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#8123 - 2016-12-10 14:11:17 UTC
Xcom
Null-sec and wormhole space actually do need more handholding. Particularly after the introduction of alpha clones. Wormhole space more than null-sec. Which is my primary argument. Wormholes really, really need the OA.

Afk cloaky camping does nothing besides supress activity. And should be removed because nullsec is not the place for afk anything. This is just a matter of principle.

Cynos are incidentally a prime example of handholding. Imagine being able to stage with absolute no risk and hit targets that have been fully vetted.

People complaining about handholding are just worried about having to actually jump gates to find targets. Too dangerous. They might lose ships.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#8124 - 2016-12-10 14:19:00 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Xcom
Null-sec and wormhole space actually do need more handholding. Particularly after the introduction of alpha clones. Wormhole space more than null-sec. Which is my primary argument. Wormholes really, really need the OA.

Afk cloaky camping does nothing besides supress activity. And should be removed because nullsec is not the place for afk anything. This is just a matter of principle.

Cynos are incidentally a prime example of handholding. Imagine being able to stage with absolute no risk and hit targets that have been fully vetted.

People complaining about handholding are just worried about having to actually jump gates to find targets. Too dangerous. They might lose ships.


Okay, I'll bite. What does a person who has not lived in w-space know what wormholes need? If you go by statistics alone, Every space besides highsec needs a buff so that the player-amounts would be equal. CCP has said they are happy with what wormhole-space has become. Sure there are some issues, but overall they find it to be a interesting and different place to live and play the game.

Also, what the hell does wormhole-space "balance" have anything to do with a nullsec specific issue of AFK-cloaking?

Wormholer for life.
Xcom
Eclipse Strike Unit
Jump On Contact..
#8125 - 2016-12-10 14:35:58 UTC
I find it stupid that the title of this thread is even called AFK cloaking TM. Its impossible to prove if anyone is AFK or not behind there PC. It should be renamed to Cloaking. You could say that cloaks are safe enough to AFK with but its not possible assuming that as a given. It just generates pointless argumentative loops.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#8126 - 2016-12-10 15:27:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Xcom
Just consider it shorthand for afk-like behavior. Defined as no player input over extended periods of time. CCP can track stuff like that. I can put it another way though:

If null-sec is safe enough to afk something, then it should be safe enough to afk everything.

I vastly prefer unsafe for afk anything myself.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#8127 - 2016-12-10 17:43:01 UTC
Xcom wrote:

Its more then just new code from what I understand. Either each proposal is taken into consideration with the marketing team and blocked if it reduces population count or accepted if its impact will show more towards favouring growth. Or they are just very careful adding new content and watching statistics to make sure the player base adapts before moving to new mechanics. I have seen in a few smaller MMOs where larger rewrites alienated the player base to mass quit.

Edit: @Jerghul I do understand the concerns the anti change to AFK cloaking crowd is trying to tell us. That null doesn't need more hand holding mechanics. Removal of cloak camping does that in all honesty and is a valid argument. I just disagree with there stagnated local needs fixed before cloaks ideology as cloak camping really is disgusting to the point its removal should be imminent.


Have you read the old OA thread? I recommend it. There were lots of positive comments. Granted that could be a biased sample, then there the possibility that the OA has some nice features local does not have. For example a network option where you can get intel from surrounding systems, not just the one you are in.

That is the OA might provide more intel or allow the people setting it up to mess with things like D-scan maybe even probes depending on how your fit it. That is it is better than local...but it is also vulnerable.

"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
#8128 - 2016-12-10 17:44:27 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Xcom
Null-sec and wormhole space actually do need more handholding. Particularly after the introduction of alpha clones. Wormhole space more than null-sec. Which is my primary argument. Wormholes really, really need the OA.

Afk cloaky camping does nothing besides supress activity. And should be removed because nullsec is not the place for afk anything. This is just a matter of principle.

Cynos are incidentally a prime example of handholding. Imagine being able to stage with absolute no risk and hit targets that have been fully vetted.

People complaining about handholding are just worried about having to actually jump gates to find targets. Too dangerous. They might lose ships.


There you have it folks...an admission of more hand holding.

Yes, lets coddle the new players so they get bored and quit.

"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
Zockhandra
Canadian Bacon.
Honorable Third Party
#8129 - 2016-12-13 13:22:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Zockhandra
AFK campingdoes not 'supress' activity.

The campers are not stopping you from going outside,
they arent stopping you from ratting or forming a counter drop....
Only you are preventing yourself from doing anything.


You cant blame/punish them for you being too lazy/cowardly (insert other term here) to go outside and actually risk something.

Because this whole argument essentially boils down to risk vs reward. More than 700 pages of discussing come down to the question:

"Are YOU willing to go outside when there is someone around who MIGHT kill you?"

Its not a question of it being unbalanced,
Its a question of people who have no idea what they are doing, other than having the mentality of
"oh my space is super safe in Null!"
Then crying when they get killed.

Without afk campers, there would be no major fleet movements or decent ways of acquiring Intel through means other than spies.....

Unless all the bears out there prefer having Awoxers in their ranks as opposed to cloak-revealing.


Cloaking is here to stay, If you are scared of a 4 month old character in local you shouldn't be ratting with all the other bears in null-sec. And you certainly shouldn't be complaining when you eventually (because it will happen eventually) die.

Shield are red, Armor is too, i slapped my heavy neut, all over you. Fingers crossed, broken shattered and burned, across from the bubble and into your hull.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#8130 - 2016-12-13 14:07:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Zockhandra wrote:
AFK campingdoes not 'supress' activity.

The campers are not stopping you from going outside,
they arent stopping you from ratting or forming a counter drop....
Only you are preventing yourself from doing anything.


You cant blame/punish them for you being too lazy/cowardly (insert other term here) to go outside and actually risk something.

Because this whole argument essentially boils down to risk vs reward. More than 700 pages of discussing come down to the question:

"Are YOU willing to go outside when there is someone around who MIGHT kill you?"

Its not a question of it being unbalanced,
Its a question of people who have no idea what they are doing, other than having the mentality of
"oh my space is super safe in Null!"
Then crying when they get killed.

Without afk campers, there would be no major fleet movements or decent ways of acquiring Intel through means other than spies.....

Unless all the bears out there prefer having Awoxers in their ranks as opposed to cloak-revealing.


Cloaking is here to stay, If you are scared of a 4 month old character in local you shouldn't be ratting with all the other bears in null-sec. And you certainly shouldn't be complaining when you eventually (because it will happen eventually) die.


Yawn, another HTFU rant, how quaint...

Waits for another burst of lying from baltec1. he said the attack on the Goons was due to AFK cloaking camping when it was a bait dread you silly wombat, that is the point of all of this, PL did a great trap there, just go and read the excellent EN24 report on this where they logged off the Sabres, not AFK cloaky camped them. It was a bait dread it was a bait dread, it was a bait dread, got that baltec1?

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
#8131 - 2016-12-13 14:14:28 UTC
I love how the Drac/Jer (the same person) is trying desperately to control this thread by "blocking" people and refusing to acknowledge any argument that proves him wrong.

I'm still waiting patiently for someone to explain how anyone AFK can hurt someone.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#8132 - 2016-12-13 20:27:02 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
I love how the Drac/Jer (the same person) is trying desperately to control this thread by "blocking" people and refusing to acknowledge any argument that proves him wrong.

I'm still waiting patiently for someone to explain how anyone AFK can hurt someone.


On the plus side, at this rate soon he'll have just about everyone blocked and won't be posting anymore.

"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
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#8133 - 2016-12-13 23:32:01 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
On the plus side, at this rate soon he'll have just about everyone blocked and won't be posting anymore.


Then he will have won because "no one is arguing with him"

I love the tactic. I have a 4 year old niece who does something similar
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#8134 - 2016-12-14 01:21:27 UTC
Dravclad
He is sort of misunderstanding the fundamental argument: AFK cloaky campers need to HTFU and at the very least be ATK.

Waaah. We need to be safe.

Lulz.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#8135 - 2016-12-14 04:59:51 UTC
The fundamental question is: is it wrong to rat safely in your own space?

The tricky part is to give PvP'ers something to shoot at which the sov owner should defend right now -- not tomorrow, not after a timer or when stront's been consumed but right the very instant a fleet comes flying through.

Since citadels have vulnerability windows, it'd be nice to be able to provoke a response within that timeframe so that a standing fleet kinda HAS to show up or you lose XXX. That way, one might get PvP with "the standing fleet" - which is desirable; because quite frankly, catching ratters is meh.

The problem is I don't know what that X would be. Open for discussion ... Perhaps a Bounty Office? Shoot it down, get a wad of cash and nobody earns a thing in that system till tomorrow? That should get your crowd to respond... in proper PvP ships. Nothing easier than blowing up an AFKtar or a Covetor but seriously ... is that even called PvP nowadays?

If there were a way to get fights from the locals -- small gang targets with immediate effect, rather than entosis today and get CTA'ed by tomorrow -- one could get PvP to his heart's content and there would be no argument at all to insist on keeping AFK cloaking. For what reason? Everybody's gotta earn a little ISK; such is the reward of owning the space one would think?

Major problem is that now, once everybody docks up, you're left with nothing to shoot. Which gets tedious. Out of sheer boredom we shotgun and maybe catch an easy gank but those don't give satisfaction. To get into a real fight, there needs to be a real objective to fight over -- and that, is something sorely lacking. Hence why the PvE'ers became the butt of the joke.

Give us a real target, and the classic HTFU argument "we can't get kills otherwise" evaporates. And with it, AFK cloaking.

Potential fixes detailed throughout the tread.

Slightly off topic, I know- but it's yet another angle from which to approach the subject. Yes? No? Our complaint box is now open ;-)
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#8136 - 2016-12-14 05:33:24 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
The fundamental question is: is it wrong to rat safely in your own space?

The tricky part is to give PvP'ers something to shoot at which the sov owner should defend right now -- not tomorrow, not after a timer or when stront's been consumed but right the very instant a fleet comes flying through.

Since citadels have vulnerability windows, it'd be nice to be able to provoke a response within that timeframe so that a standing fleet kinda HAS to show up or you lose XXX. That way, one might get PvP with "the standing fleet" - which is desirable; because quite frankly, catching ratters is meh.

[snip]


WTFIWWY?

That has been my arguement for the OA all along.

I would have the OA be vulnerable all the time. It can only be destroyed during its vulnerability window, but all other times it can be disabled with a successful hack.

So your choices are:

1. Saddle up and go fight the a--holes off.
2. Let it get hacked and be blind and who knows what is going on different systems.

Given the nature of most NS dwellers it seems to me that they surely won't rat until the intel system is back up and running. Some players will be willing to undock and do it, but some...nope they'll just turtle up....probably until they can get their stuff back to HS and just run missions.

"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
#8137 - 2016-12-14 11:09:44 UTC
Brokk
Detaching the discussion from a desire to tax ratters can be benefitial, so thank you for suggesting we try it.

What is actually needed is easily accessible real time information so that Pvpers have easy access to what vulnerability windows are currently active in a given sector of space.

There are always things people should defend in their peak activity periods. The problem is information access.

Camping systems will always generate pvp responses if the campers are vulnerable and the information is available. But again, this would depend on easily accessible real time information so defenders can find hostile pvpers on their turf. The home turf advantage in numbers holds true for smaller adhoc operations. The issue is mostly just difficulty in meeting up.

For null-sec, the fix is more local and more perfect, real time information available over greater distances.

For lesser local such as OAs, see wormhole space where it is appropriate and where the demographics really need a helping hand anyway.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Xcom
Eclipse Strike Unit
Jump On Contact..
#8138 - 2016-12-14 11:28:58 UTC
I agree with Brokks post. There needs to be incentive to pvp in null and we are done with the null sec part of the cloaking dilemma. Null is 1 / 4th the cloaking problem so by fixing OA we are done with that. But what happens to the rest of eve. Should cloaking stay the way they are?
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#8139 - 2016-12-14 11:57:27 UTC
Xcom wrote:
I agree with Brokks post. There needs to be incentive to pvp in null and we are done with the null sec part of the cloaking dilemma. Null is 1 / 4th the cloaking problem so by fixing OA we are done with that. But what happens to the rest of eve. Should cloaking stay the way they are?


Well I do have an issue with it in NPC 0.0 too, though all one has to do is run missions and you can laugh at them...

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
#8140 - 2016-12-14 14:58:02 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
The fundamental question is: is it wrong to rat safely in your own space?

The tricky part is to give PvP'ers something to shoot at which the sov owner should defend right now -- not tomorrow, not after a timer or when stront's been consumed but right the very instant a fleet comes flying through.

Since citadels have vulnerability windows, it'd be nice to be able to provoke a response within that timeframe so that a standing fleet kinda HAS to show up or you lose XXX. That way, one might get PvP with "the standing fleet" - which is desirable; because quite frankly, catching ratters is meh.

The problem is I don't know what that X would be. Open for discussion ... Perhaps a Bounty Office? Shoot it down, get a wad of cash and nobody earns a thing in that system till tomorrow? That should get your crowd to respond... in proper PvP ships. Nothing easier than blowing up an AFKtar or a Covetor but seriously ... is that even called PvP nowadays?

If there were a way to get fights from the locals -- small gang targets with immediate effect, rather than entosis today and get CTA'ed by tomorrow -- one could get PvP to his heart's content and there would be no argument at all to insist on keeping AFK cloaking. For what reason? Everybody's gotta earn a little ISK; such is the reward of owning the space one would think?

Major problem is that now, once everybody docks up, you're left with nothing to shoot. Which gets tedious. Out of sheer boredom we shotgun and maybe catch an easy gank but those don't give satisfaction. To get into a real fight, there needs to be a real objective to fight over -- and that, is something sorely lacking. Hence why the PvE'ers became the butt of the joke.

Give us a real target, and the classic HTFU argument "we can't get kills otherwise" evaporates. And with it, AFK cloaking.

Potential fixes detailed throughout the tread.

Slightly off topic, I know- but it's yet another angle from which to approach the subject. Yes? No? Our complaint box is now open ;-)


It's wrong to assume you can rat safely anywhere in null.

Citadels shouldn't have vulnerability windows, you should be able to shoot them any time, and they should drop all loot when they explode. That would create content. Null is entirely too safe for its residents at the moment.