These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

A possible solution to AFK cloaky alts

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
The Apostle
Doomheim
#521 - 2011-10-14 11:42:21 UTC
Elisha Starkiller wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:



You do realize Dscan cant detect a ship that is cloaked right? How is that relevant to the topic?


if they are cloaked they are not a problem, when they uncloak you can see them on the D-Scan, when they uncloak next to you fight back??? .

none of this thread is relevant as there is no problem..............


This topic has already been deemed as a "non-issue" by the experts. However, your comments have been noted and forwarded to the appropriate authorities.

Thank you for posting and we look forward to seeing more of your insightful commentary in the near future.

[i]Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo![/i]
Kitty McKitty
In Praise Of Shadows
#522 - 2011-10-14 11:44:33 UTC
Elisha Starkiller wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:



You do realize Dscan cant detect a ship that is cloaked right? How is that relevant to the topic?


if they are cloaked they are not a problem, when they uncloak you can see them on the D-Scan, when they uncloak next to you fight back??? .

none of this thread is relevant as there is no problem..............





This. Watch d-scan and even if something pops up right next to you, they have a decloak timer before they can lock you. Fly something that can gtfo in such an event. I had a loki decloak right next to me recently and since I was paying attention and not being an incompetent ninny, I simply burned away and GTFO.

Adapt or cry. Looks like most people just want to cry and have CCP fix it for them just like mummy and daddy do IRL.

♥ Haviing your portrait painted here helps INTAKI Disabled Children ♥
Elisha Starkiller
EU Industrials
#523 - 2011-10-14 11:47:34 UTC
The Apostle wrote:

This topic has already been deemed as a "non-issue" by the experts. However, your comments have been noted and forwarded to the appropriate authorities.

Thank you for posting and we look forward to seeing more of your insightful commentary in the near future.



SWEEEEEET :D
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#524 - 2011-10-14 12:07:34 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:


Read a few pages back about the AFK cloaker in WH sites. AFK cloaking is not just a nullsec issue so the remove local stuff is off topic.

This topic needs to focus on the various ideas published that can reasonably deal with the issue of the risk free incentive to walk away from the keyboard while not swinging a heavy nerfbat that would cause active cloakers to randomly decloak or manage a fuel bay in hostile territory.


Nerf local. You no longer have a box with a random neut or red sitting there scaring you into a station/pos, covert ops get to be covert and the 0.0 bots stop working. 3 things fixed with one stone.




No you will just suddenly find the enemy uncloaking in perfect range of you for a free gank or hotdrop with no warning.

Still claim removing local will fix AFK cloaking?

Lets focus on serious solutions please and not off topic stuff about nullsec.


Yes, if you do it right, as I've suggested many times in this thread and apparently must again. So, here we go...

1. When a ship cloaks, it gets removed from local. The other ships in the system cannot see it, but they can see each other and all non-cloaked ships as they do now.

2. When a ship cloaks, it loses access to local. Now it cannot use local as an intel-gathering tool, and, just like in wormholes, the cloaked vessel would need to actively gather intel through use of probes, dscan, or simply flying somewhere and looking.

3. When a ship uncloaks, there's a delay in being able to lite off a cyno of, say, 15 to 30 seconds. This prevents the imbalance of the invisible pilot being able to hot drop a fleet on someone's head.

* Possible exception to 3... allow Black Ops ships to be able to lite a cyno with no delay after decloaking. They could use a little love.

So, here you go. Cloaks act as true cloaks and are balanced by requiring the active gathering of intel and minimizing (or removing) the instant hot-drop risk a totally unknown vessel would pose. Intel for a covops vessel becomes an active endeavour instead of simply scrolling through local. The "afk cloak" issue goes completely away and null space still retains the risk of null space. Finally, and most important to me personally, by not breaking cloaks you're not breaking a very important aspect of wormhole life that requires cloaks to indeed be able to remain unknown, unseen and undetectable.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#525 - 2011-10-14 12:08:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
The topic states "A possible solution to AFK cloaky alts"
…and the question is: what is the problem with AFK cloaking that needs to be solved? Why are the proposed solutions to this (supposed) problem not adequate?
Quote:
We are discussing solutions here.
…which is completely pointless if you can't specify what the problem is.
Quote:
Removing local will cause far more problems than solutions.
…and yet, it 100% solves the problem of AFK cloaking.
Quote:
Removing local = highly buffed AFK cloaking not solves it.
How are they buffed? They're not doing anything. Remove local and what happens? They're still not doing anything.
Karim alRashid
Starboard.
#526 - 2011-10-14 12:13:59 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet,

Would you, please, define the precise semantics of the phrase "free gank"?

What do you mean by "free"? "free" as in "freedom" or "free" as in "free beer"?

You create the impression that you oppose "free ganks". What is exactly the thing you oppose - the freedom to gank or you maintain that ganks must incur costs?

Pain is weakness leaving the body http://www.youtube.com/user/AlRashidKarim/videos
Zendon Taredi
Tier Four Technologies
#527 - 2011-10-14 12:20:47 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
Morganta wrote:
the argument that nobody should be 100% safe is complete crap

Can you please repeat that?

I'd like it preseved for posterity when I discuss that we need x, y and z and it's blown to hell and back.....

because NO-ONE in Eve should be 100% safe....


well, the docked-up guys are safe. but anybody flying in eve is always exposed to some risk. hopefully we will get daggers and pistols for incarna.
Kitty McKitty
In Praise Of Shadows
#528 - 2011-10-14 12:34:34 UTC
Ganks out for the lads.

♥ Haviing your portrait painted here helps INTAKI Disabled Children ♥
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#529 - 2011-10-14 12:43:18 UTC
27 pages still contain few reasonable posts....
Some say "Eve players are amateur"? Then maybe invite them here? Lol

In short terms:
"Show me KM from AFK cloaker" - lol! Show me one player got dead or poor or sick because of a some botting program itself Cool Then bots are not bad, yea? The same logic. Stupid logic. Too bad to see some people (who are looks reasonable in other threads) repeat this crap again and again....
Well. I really hope this is just some trolling here.... Lol

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Rhinanna
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#530 - 2011-10-14 13:25:04 UTC
Quote:
market traders have no risk of ship loss while plying their trade
corp scammers have no risk of being podded while cleaning out a corp hangar
someone sitting on the undock who does not agress is in space and in absolutely no danger unless he's a complete bufoon


Market traders risk the money they put in the market, thats still risk.
Corp scammers have the risk of having their character black-listed so no corp will take them in.
Someone sitting on undock not agressing isn't earning anything, zero risk, zero reward..... seems fair!

None of your points have ANY merit at all really......

Quote:
http://www.fatal-ascension.com/killboard/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=48204

What's that? A carebear ship defending itself? Gee thought that wasn't possible. Now kindly explain why AFK cloakies are a problem again? Seems to me your argument (as usual) boils down to "AFK cloakies are a problem for me"


Yes because ONE guy getting caught means anything at all...... For all anyone knows his computer crashed or he played like a complete noob. Also if he had cyno'ed in a fleet instead of using a bomb launcher, I doubt the dramiel would of killed much at all!.

Quote:
…and the question is: what is the problem with AFK cloaking that needs to be solved? Why are the proposed solutions to this (supposed) problem not adequate?


Problem 1: Risk vs Reward broken for Null-sec sanctum runners - Basically makes the system worthless with an AFK cloaker in since the risk now outweights the rewards, and running L4s in hi-sec becomes more profitable when inevitable ship losses are taken into account.

Problem 2: Risk vs Reward broken for cloaker - Any decent cloaker has practically zero risk, and can cyno in a massive fleet with very little risk on any target.

Problem 3: Effort Vs Reward broken - A afk cloaker can effectively deny a whole system to his enemy while sleeping.....

Problem 4: Nothing should be totally safe, cloaking is about as close as it gets apart from docking up and not doing anything but the potential rewards (Note the Nyx kill mentioned above) are massive.

Discussing removing local is pointless without some knowledge of the scanner system that would replace it. Until we have an idea about that we simply don't have the information to know what affects ANY change we would have. Removing local without some decent scanner system to replace it would just be dumb. I know I'm not willing to hammer a button every 3 seconds whenever I'm in space and I'm sure a lot of other people aren't as well!

-The sword is only as sharp as the one who wields it! Other names: Drenzul (WoT, WoW, Lineage 2, WarH, BloodBowl, BSG, SC2 and lots more) 
Morganta
The Greater Goon
#531 - 2011-10-14 13:29:22 UTC
Rhinanna wrote:
Quote:
market traders have no risk of ship loss while plying their trade
corp scammers have no risk of being podded while cleaning out a corp hangar
someone sitting on the undock who does not agress is in space and in absolutely no danger unless he's a complete bufoon



Someone sitting on undock not agressing isn't earning anything, zero risk, zero reward..... seems fair!

None of your points have ANY merit at all really......



no? someone cloaked and afk in space isn't earning anything either, zero risk, zero reward

I'd say my point has lots of merit
Morganta
The Greater Goon
#532 - 2011-10-14 13:30:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Morganta
JESUS CHRIST IN A CHICKEN BASKET CCP
FIX THESE DAMN FORUMS, PLEASE REMOVE QUOTE FROM OUR OWN BLOODY POSTS SO WE DON'T QUOTE POST WHEN TRYING TO ******* EDIT
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#533 - 2011-10-14 13:52:13 UTC
Rhinanna wrote:
Discussing removing local is pointless without some knowledge of the scanner system that would replace it. Until we have an idea about that we simply don't have the information to know what affects ANY change we would have. Removing local without some decent scanner system to replace it would just be dumb. I know I'm not willing to hammer a button every 3 seconds whenever I'm in space and I'm sure a lot of other people aren't as well!


I partially agree... removing local shouldn't be done. Not cold turkey, maybe not ever. Local by itself is a useful part of the lesser systems. However, removing cloaked vessels from local with some balancing features added...

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#534 - 2011-10-14 13:57:04 UTC
Rhinanna wrote:
Discussing removing local is pointless without some knowledge of the scanner system that would replace it. Until we have an idea about that we simply don't have the information to know what affects ANY change we would have. Removing local without some decent scanner system to replace it would just be dumb. I know I'm not willing to hammer a button every 3 seconds whenever I'm in space and I'm sure a lot of other people aren't as well!
No one with any idea of balance expects you too have to mash every 3 seconds either. But as and until local in it's current form is changed, cloaking should not be touched in any way, it is balanced to the current situation.

You list problems but the only problem I see, is that you and many of your ilk are way too reliant upon local and it's 100%, risk free, instant intel. As soon as you allow someone's attempts to subvert it to work upon yourselves, you run crying for a nerf to cloaking. When really it's local that's the root cause of this. No one who is AFK, denies you anything. It's is your choice, that makes denial a reality.

So, far from talking about local change being pointless, it is in fact cloaking nerf talk that is. This whole thread tbqh.
Local is set to change and intel is going to have to be worked at to be gained. No more on a plate instant intel with any luck.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#535 - 2011-10-14 14:01:50 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Rhinanna wrote:
Discussing removing local is pointless without some knowledge of the scanner system that would replace it. Until we have an idea about that we simply don't have the information to know what affects ANY change we would have. Removing local without some decent scanner system to replace it would just be dumb. I know I'm not willing to hammer a button every 3 seconds whenever I'm in space and I'm sure a lot of other people aren't as well!
No one with any idea of balance expects you too have to mash every 3 seconds either. But as and until local in it's current form is changed, cloaking should not be touched in any way, it is balanced to the current situation.

You list problems but the only problem I see, is that you and many of your ilk are way too reliant upon local and it's 100%, risk free, instant intel. As soon as you allow someone's attempts to subvert it to work upon yourselves, you run crying for a nerf to cloaking. When really it's local that's the root cause of this. No one who is AFK, denies you anything. It's is your choice, that makes denial a reality.

So, far from talking about local change being pointless, it is in fact cloaking nerf talk that is. This whole thread tbqh.
Local is set to change and intel is going to have to be worked at to be gained. No more on a plate instant intel with any luck.


Requiring any *active* method of getting intel through an in-game tool (i.e. dscan) would only benefit bots.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Karim alRashid
Starboard.
#536 - 2011-10-14 14:09:13 UTC
Rhinanna wrote:

Problem 1: Risk vs Reward broken for Null-sec sanctum runners - Basically makes the system worthless with an AFK cloaker in since the risk now outweights the rewards, and running L4s in hi-sec becomes more profitable when inevitable ship losses are taken into account.


An AFK cloaker does not receive any rewards. Also an AFK cloaker does not increase any risks. Therefore you Problem 1 is invalid, because it is derives from false premises.

Quote:

Problem 2: Risk vs Reward broken for cloaker - Any decent cloaker has practically zero risk, and can cyno in a massive fleet with very little risk on any target.

Incorrect. A cloaked ship cannot open a cyno. When a cyno is opened the cyno ship is uncloaked and unmovable and can be killed very easy. The cyno itself appears on the overview. Since the incoming fleet appears at the location of the cyno, a response fleet can react immediately and decimate the cynoed in fleet. Therefore your problem 2 does not describe EVE "reality" and as such is invalid.

Quote:

Problem 3: Effort Vs Reward broken - A afk cloaker can effectively deny a whole system to his enemy while sleeping.....

A restatement of Problem 1 is invalid just like Problem 1 is invalid.

Quote:

Problem 4: Nothing should be totally safe, cloaking is about as close as it gets apart from docking up and not doing anything but the potential rewards (Note the Nyx kill mentioned above) are massive.

Cloaking by itself, AFK or not, does not grant any rewards. Hence your problem 4 is invalid, because it derives from invalid premises.

Pain is weakness leaving the body http://www.youtube.com/user/AlRashidKarim/videos
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#537 - 2011-10-14 16:02:16 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Quote:


Yes, if you do it right, as I've suggested many times in this thread and apparently must again. So, here we go...

1. When a ship cloaks, it gets removed from local. The other ships in the system cannot see it, but they can see each other and all non-cloaked ships as they do now.

2. When a ship cloaks, it loses access to local. Now it cannot use local as an intel-gathering tool, and, just like in wormholes, the cloaked vessel would need to actively gather intel through use of probes, dscan, or simply flying somewhere and looking.

3. When a ship uncloaks, there's a delay in being able to lite off a cyno of, say, 15 to 30 seconds. This prevents the imbalance of the invisible pilot being able to hot drop a fleet on someone's head.

* Possible exception to 3... allow Black Ops ships to be able to lite a cyno with no delay after decloaking. They could use a little love.

So, here you go. Cloaks act as true cloaks and are balanced by requiring the active gathering of intel and minimizing (or removing) the instant hot-drop risk a totally unknown vessel would pose. Intel for a covops vessel becomes an active endeavour instead of simply scrolling through local. The "afk cloak" issue goes completely away and null space still retains the risk of null space. Finally, and most important to me personally, by not breaking cloaks you're not breaking a very important aspect of wormhole life that requires cloaks to indeed be able to remain unknown, unseen and undetectable.

Have to say I do like this idea.
Lexmana
#538 - 2011-10-14 16:10:44 UTC
AFK cloaking is a lot like poker but without risk. Going AFK while cloaking is like bluffing (I will attack/cyno on you) but if you call the bluff (start ratting) you are the only one that put something at risk (your ship and your pod). The cloaker will only put something at risk when he isn't bluffing (i.e. not AFK).
Rhinanna
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#539 - 2011-10-14 16:59:53 UTC
Quote:
An AFK cloaker does not receive any rewards. Also an AFK cloaker does not increase any risks. Therefore you Problem 1 is invalid, because it is derives from false premises.


This would only be correct if you KNOW he is AFK, which is kinda the point. He can sit there for 12 hours. He may only be at the computer for 2 of them, but you have no idea WHICH two and during those two hours he massively increases the risk. He wouldn't be there if he didn't!

Quote:
no? someone cloaked and afk in space isn't earning anything either, zero risk, zero reward

I'd say my point has lots of merit


You must be seriously ******** if you don't think that he is earning:
Intel
Position
Resource Denial

There are many thing you can earn that aren't ISK, it doesn't matter if its ISK, or Intel or hurting the enemy, its still something you are achieving.

These are all EXTREMELY valuable things, which have earned Super-cap kills (worth billions of ISK) in the past. If you didn't get anything from cloaking, No-one would do it would they! Seriously, I don't see how someone can not see this without been really really stupid or just deliberately trolling of course.

Quote:
Incorrect. A cloaked ship cannot open a cyno. When a cyno is opened the cyno ship is uncloaked and unmovable and can be killed very easy. The cyno itself appears on the overview. Since the incoming fleet appears at the location of the cyno, a response fleet can react immediately and decimate the cynoed in fleet. Therefore your problem 2 does not describe EVE "reality" and as such is invalid.


So your solution is to have a massive cap fleet sitting on hold ready to counter ONE AFK CLOAKER..... please tell me how that is in any way balanced?

I also like the time-delay cyno + no local idea, so long as

1: When cloaked the cloaker has reduced D-scan range (or he may as well have local with very very little effort) Say 1-2 AU, so he has to manually investigate planets.

2: Limit probe strength or increase probe time or something similar.

Removing local for a cloaked ship also not on local alone isn't much of a punishment when Local is more a defensive intel tool, probes and D-scan are the offensive scanning tools.

-The sword is only as sharp as the one who wields it! Other names: Drenzul (WoT, WoW, Lineage 2, WarH, BloodBowl, BSG, SC2 and lots more) 
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#540 - 2011-10-14 17:23:30 UTC
Rhinanna wrote:


So your solution is to have a massive cap fleet sitting on hold ready to counter ONE AFK CLOAKER..... please tell me how that is in any way balanced?



Over the span of two days I killed 3 bombers and sent another 4 running on fire using a single raven. The system after that was mine to do with as I pleased.