These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
 

A way to find cloakers
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Noisrevbus
#61 - 2012-12-11 09:04:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
I am going to make some very broad generalisations here (having discussed the details at length before, mainly in the Ships and modules forum).

We can debate the ease of local as an intel tool, the number of actions required by predator and prey or the balance of risk and effort between catching targets in the cat and mouse games between a "cloaking" player, an "industrial" player and the defensive effort of the system holder until the cows come home.

It all boils down to this:

  • The best way to deal with a cloaky player is to kill him when he agresses.
  • If he has bridged support: you have a contingency for that. It is your system, you should have more resources in play.
  • If he had more resources in play than you, he would simply take your infra. Using cloaks signal that he doesn't.
  • Alternatively it signals that something is wrong with the game in that regard: they can't take infra despite superiority?

  • This is generally only considered a problem among groups who had help establishing infra, but can't maintain it.
  • In that sense the dynamics of cloaking is closest to how the game "should be": ownership dictated by presence/use.
  • Ultimately, that means that (AFK-) cloaking is good for the game. It counter-exploits, an exploitation of imbalance.


Not only when it comes to local as in intel tool, but also the more fundamental question of practical system ownership. If you can't deal with a cloaker, you can not maintain your space on your own accord. It means that such cloaking, today, is one of the few counters to pet-keeping (where you rely on others to maintain your space against the groups that wish to compete with you for "your" space). In turn, that means your presense in the first place is attributed to the malbalance of infra and diplomacy, next to the malbalance of intelligence through chat windows.

That experience is, as already noted, closer to the "real EVE" than what you currently enjoy and want to sustain/improve by making cloaking more difficult. Those of you affected by (AFK-) cloakers today have an easier time dealing with unaffiliated elements than you are supposed to have. Dealing with (AFK-) cloakers may be troublesome for you, but in general, defending against that kind of insurrection is far too easy and you have just grown acustomed and complacent.
Sigras
Conglomo
#62 - 2012-12-11 12:37:20 UTC
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:
Sigras wrote:
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:
Sigras wrote:
they perceived some risk before and now they perceive a lot more risk.

Perceived risk doesn't blow up your ship. ACTUAL risk blows up your ship. Thus, game design and balancing should focus on ACTUAL risk, not perceived risk.

If you are perceiving things incorrectly, then you are making a mistake, and you need to learn to stop doing it. That's not an issue for game designers to worry about. It's an issue for you to worry about as you learn to be a better player who perceives things accurately

This is incorrect . . . players' actions are determined by their perception of risk regardless of how much risk actually exists . . .

For example, a regular guy will go ratting even if theres an enemy fleet next door that he doesnt know about because he has the same perceived risk as usual even though his actual risk is much higher.

I understand the confusion though because in a general sense, you are correct, For instance if you play starcraft and you think ravens suck, then some genius guy figures out that ravens are actually totally awesome and everyone switches to ravens because thats the meta, it isnt blizzards problem that everyone just didnt know how to play right.

The problem is that in Eve (unlike starcraft) there are consequences and major setbacks to experimentation. You cant just lose a match and say "oh well time to find another match" you have to absorb each of those losses in ISK value, and instead of being willing to do that, a large portion of eve will just move back to high sec.

There is already a large group of people who believe 0.0 just isnt worth it. There is definitely more isk to be made in high sec, it just requires a lot more work

If you take away the player's reliable intel, even though their actual risk is literally no higher if nobody is in system, they will feel the need to spam the directional scanner every .5 seconds to be sure there really is nobody in system.

There is no confusion, because I never said that players' actions are determined by actual risk. I said that game design should be based on actual risk.

It is then the responsibility of the player, if their perceptions do not match reality, to do a better job of playing the game, so that their perceptions DO match reality better. In your example, one way of doing this would be to have better scouting aroudn his system so that fleets can't be next door without him knowing about it. (OR using the starmap feature that tells you # of people in a system to detect approaching or nearby fleets).

CCP shouldn't coddle clueless people by changing game mechanics for them. They should try harder to not be clueless.

I would agree with you if risk to reward ratio was the only thing that mattered to players . . . but it isnt

The other factor that you're not accounting for is time/effort input to isk output . . . in order to keep the risk to reward ratio the same.

The need to constantly spam the d-scan in order to keep yourself as safe as if you had local, remembering to check and evaluate the d-scan results etc

Yes you have the tools to mitigate the risk almost as well as if you had magic local, but using them requires a lot more effort lowering the effort input to isk output ratio which is also very important.

If you buff cloaks to be removed from local, what corresponding balance and/or counter do you propose to keep the "current symmetry"?
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#63 - 2012-12-11 13:09:40 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:
Sigras wrote:
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:
Sigras wrote:
they perceived some risk before and now they perceive a lot more risk.

Perceived risk doesn't blow up your ship. ACTUAL risk blows up your ship. Thus, game design and balancing should focus on ACTUAL risk, not perceived risk.

If you are perceiving things incorrectly, then you are making a mistake, and you need to learn to stop doing it. That's not an issue for game designers to worry about. It's an issue for you to worry about as you learn to be a better player who perceives things accurately

This is incorrect . . . players' actions are determined by their perception of risk regardless of how much risk actually exists . . .

For example, a regular guy will go ratting even if theres an enemy fleet next door that he doesnt know about because he has the same perceived risk as usual even though his actual risk is much higher.

I understand the confusion though because in a general sense, you are correct, For instance if you play starcraft and you think ravens suck, then some genius guy figures out that ravens are actually totally awesome and everyone switches to ravens because thats the meta, it isnt blizzards problem that everyone just didnt know how to play right.

The problem is that in Eve (unlike starcraft) there are consequences and major setbacks to experimentation. You cant just lose a match and say "oh well time to find another match" you have to absorb each of those losses in ISK value, and instead of being willing to do that, a large portion of eve will just move back to high sec.

There is already a large group of people who believe 0.0 just isnt worth it. There is definitely more isk to be made in high sec, it just requires a lot more work

If you take away the player's reliable intel, even though their actual risk is literally no higher if nobody is in system, they will feel the need to spam the directional scanner every .5 seconds to be sure there really is nobody in system.

There is no confusion, because I never said that players' actions are determined by actual risk. I said that game design should be based on actual risk.

It is then the responsibility of the player, if their perceptions do not match reality, to do a better job of playing the game, so that their perceptions DO match reality better. In your example, one way of doing this would be to have better scouting aroudn his system so that fleets can't be next door without him knowing about it. (OR using the starmap feature that tells you # of people in a system to detect approaching or nearby fleets).

CCP shouldn't coddle clueless people by changing game mechanics for them. They should try harder to not be clueless.

I would agree with you if risk to reward ratio was the only thing that mattered to players . . . but it isnt

The other factor that you're not accounting for is time/effort input to isk output . . . in order to keep the risk to reward ratio the same.

The need to constantly spam the d-scan in order to keep yourself as safe as if you had local, remembering to check and evaluate the d-scan results etc

Yes you have the tools to mitigate the risk almost as well as if you had magic local, but using them requires a lot more effort lowering the effort input to isk output ratio which is also very important.

If you buff cloaks to be removed from local, what corresponding balance and/or counter do you propose to keep the "current symmetry"?


The fact that you would no longer be able to use your mere presence in local to devalue your enemy's intel and potentially influence their actions (and all their delicious tears) would make it balanced
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#64 - 2012-12-11 14:26:56 UTC
Sigras wrote:
If you buff cloaks to be removed from local, what corresponding balance and/or counter do you propose to keep the "current symmetry"?

I will get to the point.

It is widely anticipated that any change to local which stopped free cloaking awareness would also include a means to hunt cloaked ships.

The only reason such a system cannot predate changes to current intel, is that it would trivialize cloaking. The trade off for being hunted is, at minimum, not being known present without some kind of significant effort.

And at that point, the craft that actually does the hunting needs to be balanced against the cloaked vessels, or else it will be one sided.
There are plenty of ideas HOW to hunt a cloaked vessel already. Keeping it simple is probably best.
The proper combination of skills / specialized ship hull / modules should let the hunting pilot see the cloaked vessel, and subsequently paint them with a target painter like module, thereby allowing other players to see and lock onto the craft.

Differences between the hunted and hunter in skill and equipment quality would determine the time to lock and engage the target painter module, creating demand for the best available on both sides.
This time to lock would be expected to affect whether the cloaked pilot could evade a successful hunt.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#65 - 2012-12-11 16:48:36 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Sigras wrote:
If you buff cloaks to be removed from local, what corresponding balance and/or counter do you propose to keep the "current symmetry"?

I will get to the point.

It is widely anticipated that any change to local which stopped free cloaking awareness would also include a means to hunt cloaked ships.

The only reason such a system cannot predate changes to current intel, is that it would trivialize cloaking. The trade off for being hunted is, at minimum, not being known present without some kind of significant effort.

And at that point, the craft that actually does the hunting needs to be balanced against the cloaked vessels, or else it will be one sided.
There are plenty of ideas HOW to hunt a cloaked vessel already. Keeping it simple is probably best.
The proper combination of skills / specialized ship hull / modules should let the hunting pilot see the cloaked vessel, and subsequently paint them with a target painter like module, thereby allowing other players to see and lock onto the craft.

Differences between the hunted and hunter in skill and equipment quality would determine the time to lock and engage the target painter module, creating demand for the best available on both sides.
This time to lock would be expected to affect whether the cloaked pilot could evade a successful hunt.


While I agree with Nikk on the "cloakers" vs Local debate, we have different ideas on how to solve it.
I would replace local with an Intel System

The biggest Issue I see with nikk's general idea on cloakers is it makes them too powerful. To return to his detective example:

Imagine you are a police officer trying to get surveillance on a Suspect:

As stated, the current situation is like monitoring the suspect as a uniformed police officer in a squad car (with sirens blazing).

Nikk's view.... detectives secretly tap the suspects phone, spycam their residence, and bug their clothing...
--- Last I checked, nikk wanted the ability to enter a system and remain there with the residence completely oblivious to his cloaked presence. This allows him to monitor their activities in their "natural state" but I feel it's too invasive and too potent. Providing someone with the ability to "hunt" cloaked vessels is pointless when you don't know there is a cloaked vessel... To carry on the example, having the ability to sweep for bugs is not helpful when a bug can be instantly & secretly installed in your study while you're conducting a bad guy meeting.

In My View.... the detectives should watch as anonymous citizens. That neighbor taking out the trash, that waiter delivering your food, that date accompanying a guest to your party, etc... Essentially, the Suspect knows there are "other" people around, but doesn't immediately know if they are hostile or not. I believe, when you can't identify people immediately (especially when they are blue), that many players will generally grow complacent to the random stranger coming through, and those are the "targets" that should be hunted and caught, while the constantly vigilant player should be very hard to catch..
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#66 - 2012-12-11 17:36:31 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
While I agree with Nikk on the "cloakers" vs Local debate, we have different ideas on how to solve it.
I would replace local with an Intel System

The biggest Issue I see with nikk's general idea on cloakers is it makes them too powerful. To return to his detective example:

Imagine you are a police officer trying to get surveillance on a Suspect:

As stated, the current situation is like monitoring the suspect as a uniformed police officer in a squad car (with sirens blazing).

Nikk's view.... detectives secretly tap the suspects phone, spycam their residence, and bug their clothing...
--- Last I checked, nikk wanted the ability to enter a system and remain there with the residence completely oblivious to his cloaked presence. This allows him to monitor their activities in their "natural state" but I feel it's too invasive and too potent. Providing someone with the ability to "hunt" cloaked vessels is pointless when you don't know there is a cloaked vessel... To carry on the example, having the ability to sweep for bugs is not helpful when a bug can be instantly & secretly installed in your study while you're conducting a bad guy meeting.

In My View.... the detectives should watch as anonymous citizens. That neighbor taking out the trash, that waiter delivering your food, that date accompanying a guest to your party, etc... Essentially, the Suspect knows there are "other" people around, but doesn't immediately know if they are hostile or not. I believe, when you can't identify people immediately (especially when they are blue), that many players will generally grow complacent to the random stranger coming through, and those are the "targets" that should be hunted and caught, while the constantly vigilant player should be very hard to catch..

Oh, I have a whole other thread about intel systems.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=112964&find=unread

My system doesn't detail any means to hunt cloaked vessels, but it does include specifics about how you can become aware of a cloaked presence.
The means to hunt cloaked vessels I listed above is a stand alone, that can be included with my larger intel system, or possibly someone elses.

I do not agree that pilots should have an automatic head count that keeps track of active pilots in a system. Like any intel, I think it needs to take effort to learn about.
Such a head count would become an anti fleet warning system, since players would know when to expect friendly fleets, and immediately get safe if a population spike appeared that they did not expect.
I believe the likely result of this would push hot dropping to stay as a favored tactic to avoid warning targets ahead of time.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Sigras
Conglomo
#67 - 2012-12-11 18:19:30 UTC
so . . . you guys admit that cloaking is a risk free, effortless way of disrupting your enemies and youre actually ok with that?

I love the double standard that comes from people who say "nothing should be risk free HTFU" then turn around and say "you cant add risk to my disruption strategy"

also, no comments on the effort to isk ratio?
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#68 - 2012-12-11 18:28:20 UTC
Sigras wrote:
so . . . you guys admit that cloaking is a risk free, effortless way of disrupting your enemies and youre actually ok with that?

I love the double standard that comes from people who say "nothing should be risk free HTFU" then turn around and say "you cant add risk to my disruption strategy"

also, no comments on the effort to isk ratio?

Risk free? In the current environment cloaking has little value to speak of. Sounds like risk equals reward here.
Any disruption of enemies says more about their lack of preparation than any deliberate tactic meeting success.
To claim otherwise is disingenuous, and implies the cloaked pilot can control their minds directly.

Also, what effort do you refer to? I see no effort being made beyond the effort already rewarded in high security space.
Undock, mine / rat / mission, get under cover if threatened.

Show me superior effort to justify null sec's superior rewards.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
AFK Cloaker
Matari Exodus
#69 - 2012-12-11 18:33:07 UTC
.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#70 - 2012-12-11 18:40:16 UTC
Sigras wrote:
If you buff cloaks to be removed from local, what corresponding balance and/or counter do you propose to keep the "current symmetry"?

Being in local is the core reason behind afk cloaking. So removal would hardly be a buff, more like a neutral fix.
If local were removed then there would be no reason to afk cloak.
Without local more Intel gathering ships would be destroyed as they would have more need to warp around to find ships.
I understand that there is d-scan and ship scanners (which need probes) and if local is removed these would need adjusted too.

All cloaking devices should greatly reduce the range of d-scan so that if they want accurate information they would need to use combat probes.
This in conjunction with wormhole style local could be a suitable middle ground.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
BoBoZoBo
MGroup9
#71 - 2012-12-11 19:01:35 UTC  |  Edited by: BoBoZoBo
So you spent a week brainstorming a strategy... and your strategy is to ask CCP for a new mechanic because you are scared of someone you say can attack you when they are not at their keyboard?

How DO YOU KNOW they are AFK as opposed to patient?
HOW DO YOU KNOW? Yes I understand they annoy, but ... HOW DO YOU KNOW?

And are they still AFK when they attack?
How did they know where you were if they were AFK?

How about spending some more time brainstorming and maybe even asking your buddies who deal with cloakies successfully?

HINT: it is possible to draw them out and kill them.

Primary Test Subject • SmackTalker Elite
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#72 - 2012-12-11 21:37:52 UTC
When he uncloaks to do something shoot him, otherwise be aligned and warp out.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#73 - 2012-12-11 21:52:12 UTC
Sigras wrote:
so . . . you guys admit that cloaking is a risk free, effortless way of disrupting your enemies and youre actually ok with that?

I love the double standard that comes from people who say "nothing should be risk free HTFU" then turn around and say "you cant add risk to my disruption strategy"

also, no comments on the effort to isk ratio?


Sigras you keep posting the same mindless bloody drivel over and over, and refuse to read or respond to the arguments anyone makes

sod off mate, head back to highsec where you belong, you terrible little bear
Sigras
Conglomo
#74 - 2012-12-12 05:40:14 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Sigras wrote:
so . . . you guys admit that cloaking is a risk free, effortless way of disrupting your enemies and youre actually ok with that?

I love the double standard that comes from people who say "nothing should be risk free HTFU" then turn around and say "you cant add risk to my disruption strategy"

Risk free? In the current environment cloaking has little value to speak of. Sounds like risk equals reward here.
Any disruption of enemies says more about their lack of preparation than any deliberate tactic meeting success.
To claim otherwise is disingenuous, and implies the cloaked pilot can control their minds directly.

So the four posts above you about the provided intel and disruption of enemy PvE = 0 rewards?

A cloaked ship (AFK or not) is a threat of force that is completely unanswerable, its the same reason that the US got pissed off at the Soviet Union for putting missile silos in Cuba, it was a threat of force.

Now normally I would have no problem with this, except this threat of force is both anonymous (out of corp alts) and uncounterable (we cant even find you to fight you)

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Also, what effort do you refer to? I see no effort being made beyond the effort already rewarded in high security space.
Undock, mine / rat / mission, get under cover if threatened.

Show me superior effort to justify null sec's superior rewards.

(Risk + Effort) : Reward

Right Now
0.0 has more risk because anyone can shoot at you, so the rewards are higher.

If you remove cloakers from local
The risk goes from
"i probably have about 45 seconds from seeing someone enter local to when they can reasonably find me and warp scramble me"
to
"there could be a cloaker 22 km from me who in the space of 1.3 seconds could decloak, pop a cyno, lock me, warp disrupt me, and call in 200 of his best friends"

1.3 < 45

The risk can be completely mitigated by whatever cloaking countermeasure is put in, but then the effort in running and paying attention to the cloaking countermeasure (whatever it is) goes way up, so either way, the ratio gets worse for the ratters.
Sigras
Conglomo
#75 - 2012-12-12 05:47:38 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Sigras wrote:
If you buff cloaks to be removed from local, what corresponding balance and/or counter do you propose to keep the "current symmetry"?

Being in local is the core reason behind afk cloaking. So removal would hardly be a buff, more like a neutral fix.
If local were removed then there would be no reason to afk cloak.

I completely agree, it would be a big nerf or completely remove AFK cloaking

Active cloaking on the other hand would have just received the biggest buff ever as you could now use your ship scanner + directional scanner to scan down ships from 100% safety and from complete ignorance, you could then decloak, open a cyno warp disrupt them and blow them up before they even had a chance to warp out.

Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Without local more Intel gathering ships would be destroyed as they would have more need to warp around to find ships.
I understand that there is d-scan and ship scanners (which need probes) and if local is removed these would need adjusted too.

All cloaking devices should greatly reduce the range of d-scan so that if they want accurate information they would need to use combat probes.
This in conjunction with wormhole style local could be a suitable middle ground.

I would maybe agree with cloakers being able to avoid local if they couldnt see local either, couldnt use the D scan, couldnt use the ship scanner and couldnt use probes.

This would keep the current "symmetry"

Its my opinion that people have no idea how strong the D-scan is, they greatly underestimate it; ive found anchored cans in deep safe spots with just the d scan, ive found people in anomalies and triangulated the location of unscannable ships just by using the d-scan; its incredible how much stuff you can do if you know how far a given thing is from you and in what general direction.
Sigras
Conglomo
#76 - 2012-12-12 06:04:09 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Sigras wrote:
so . . . you guys admit that cloaking is a risk free, effortless way of disrupting your enemies and youre actually ok with that?

I love the double standard that comes from people who say "nothing should be risk free HTFU" then turn around and say "you cant add risk to my disruption strategy"

also, no comments on the effort to isk ratio?


Sigras you keep posting the same mindless bloody drivel over and over, and refuse to read or respond to the arguments anyone makes

sod off mate, head back to highsec where you belong, you terrible little bear

I have yet to see a cohesive argument as to why cloaking is the one thing that is allowed to be risk free in eve . . . Im of the opinion that they should even make stations in 0.0 destructible because nobody should be safe in 0.0 anywhere ever.

It is my opinion that you should never be ok to leave your computer when you're logged in out in 0.0 There should always be that little nagging thing in the back of your head that, no-matter how remote the possibility, something could go terribly wrong and I could lose my stuff.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#77 - 2012-12-12 12:14:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Sigras wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Sigras you keep posting the same mindless bloody drivel over and over, and refuse to read or respond to the arguments anyone makes

sod off mate, head back to highsec where you belong, you terrible little bear

I have yet to see a cohesive argument as to why cloaking is the one thing that is allowed to be risk free in eve . . . Im of the opinion that they should even make stations in 0.0 destructible because nobody should be safe in 0.0 anywhere ever.

It is my opinion that you should never be ok to leave your computer when you're logged in out in 0.0 There should always be that little nagging thing in the back of your head that, no-matter how remote the possibility, something could go terribly wrong and I could lose my stuff.

  1. Cloaking is not risk free, no matter how many times you state it as fact.

  2. Anyone should be allowed to go AFK, no matter what they do. Many of this games core features run whilst we are AFK and if I pay for my account, it's not your call to dictate how I play.

  3. There are no rewards for AFKing, but you hope that others will lose ISK. This is not a guarantee, unlike locals instant intel.

  4. You can AFK without a cloak and cause the same psychological effects. Pointing to the fact, that cloaks are not the problem.

  5. Whilst you are AFK and or cloaked, you cannot stop them mining, using gates, undocking, docking, activating modules etc. etc. The only one stopping you in those situation, is you.

  6. Whilst AFK the only mechanic used to interact with others, is local.

  7. There is actually more physical effort with AFKing, than checking local to see if an enemy is there.

  8. People with cloaks get evicted all the time from null sec, you only need check kill mails to see this fact.

  9. Cloaks have counters, decloaking and not being able to cloak within 2500m of a object and whilst locked. You can also shoot them, when they can shoot you. They also have rather large drawbacks.


You have yet to provide any argument as to why cloaks need to change, other than I want.
I can see cloaks are already balanced and in fact the balance remains firmly on the side of locals, not the cloak user. Even if it's marginal.

If you wish to claim space, then you also take on the responsibility of defending that space. People have been able to do this quite well since 2004, when cloaks were introduced. I find it strange that you are seemingly unable to. So I must conclude, you are the problem.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#78 - 2012-12-12 15:00:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Nikk Narrel
>>>>Risk free? In the current environment cloaking has little value to speak of. Sounds like risk equals reward here.
Any disruption of enemies says more about their lack of preparation than any deliberate tactic meeting success.
To claim otherwise is disingenuous, and implies the cloaked pilot can control their minds directly.
Sigras wrote:
So the four posts above you about the provided intel and disruption of enemy PvE = 0 rewards?

A cloaked ship (AFK or not) is a threat of force that is completely unanswerable, its the same reason that the US got pissed off at the Soviet Union for putting missile silos in Cuba, it was a threat of force.

Now normally I would have no problem with this, except this threat of force is both anonymous (out of corp alts) and uncounterable (we cant even find you to fight you)

Your presumption regarding threat of force requires the AFK cloaking pilot to actually be equipped and prepared. It disregards any possibility that the danger exists in the mind of the PvE pilot alone.

It also takes Schrödinger's cat to another level entirely. By analogy, the item not being observed is now either alive, dead, or transformed into a rabid saber toothed tiger. Someone who believes the third to be true should probably not open the box.

As to it being unanswerable, indeed! You will not answer any challenge by avoiding it that way.


>>>>Also, what effort do you refer to? I see no effort being made beyond the effort already rewarded in high security space.
Undock, mine / rat / mission, get under cover if threatened.

Show me superior effort to justify null sec's superior rewards.
Sigras wrote:
(Risk + Effort) : Reward

Right Now
0.0 has more risk because anyone can shoot at you, so the rewards are higher.

If you remove cloakers from local
The risk goes from
"i probably have about 45 seconds from seeing someone enter local to when they can reasonably find me and warp scramble me"
to
"there could be a cloaker 22 km from me who in the space of 1.3 seconds could decloak, pop a cyno, lock me, warp disrupt me, and call in 200 of his best friends"

1.3 < 45

The risk can be completely mitigated by whatever cloaking countermeasure is put in, but then the effort in running and paying attention to the cloaking countermeasure (whatever it is) goes way up, so either way, the ratio gets worse for the ratters.

You consider yourself entitled to always having enough time to avoid hostile interaction.

I got your counter to AFK Cloakers... use Concord.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#79 - 2012-12-12 15:22:07 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Cloaked spying is only without risk and effective if you have local chat intel.

Without local chat intel you need to scan and actually fly to various sites to see who's doing what, always with at least a small chance of bouncing too close to a ship or something else in space and getting decloaked.

This risk is only present now for cloaked ship operators when entering and leaving a system, and when actually looking for a target if they are planning on PvP or a hotdrop. They can sit in a system all day noting who comes and goes without risk thanks to that perfect intel channel.

Even without local, cloaked spying is risk free. Or i guess i should say risk free unless youre an idiot.

currently you can use your directional scanner and ship scanner to find out pretty much what anyone is doing at any time without even being on grid . . . Gasp! using the directional scanner for things other than spamming to see if someone is coming at you?!

seriously, all the distances are given to you by the ship scanner and the overview, beyond that, all you have to know is that 1 AU = 149,597,871 km and your directional scanner does the rest . . . you can tell who is where even from a non-covert-ops cloaked ship! its childs play.

At the very least, they need to disallow use of your directional scan or ship scanner or preferably both while cloaked.

I'd bet real money that you've never actually tried doing this. In fact, given what you say about distance information, I'd bet you aren't in the habit of using dscan at all for anything.

That, and as noted by Nick, they know you are there anyway.

There is no way to actually *be* in a system without tripping the intrusion alarms. This makes any intel you acquire suspect at best, and actually doing anything beyond being a fly on the wall is quite risky.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Crimeo Khamsi
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#80 - 2012-12-12 17:59:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Crimeo Khamsi
Quote:
Yes you have the tools to mitigate the risk almost as well as if you had magic local, but using them requires a lot more effort lowering the effort input to isk output ratio which is also very important.

If you buff cloaks to be removed from local, what corresponding balance and/or counter do you propose to keep the "current symmetry"?


None.

Because there is no "current symmetry" to keep. What currently exists is a massive asymmetry that favors large alliances and thus creates a positive feedback loop that snowballs until they control everything and the game is no fun.

Changes such as the removal of local are a step toward correcting the current ASYMMETRY so that in the future, it might be more symmetrical, with more roughly equal power abilities from small/medium and large alliances. (Guerilla warfare is a historically well-established phenomenon that limits the powers of large, overextended alliances in real life over small, local alliances, and removing local without any other changes would encourage exactly that sort of warfare.)