These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post First post
Author
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2221 - 2013-10-08 14:37:12 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Oh I see. You want to make small fleets able to harass people easily by smashing down the structures in short amounts of time.


Nope, I think my reading ability is just fine Lucas.

You might want to visit your doctor about your apparent memory issues.

We haven't defined anything here. Your assumptions are invalid since obviously how this all works would need to be fleshed out and tested. The idea that it isn't too tough to kill, yet not so easy 4 dudes in rifters can take it down would need to be determined. And when it is shot, like all structures it would send out an alliance wide alert...one that could, like it is now, be linked up to something like jabber. So even people out of game could see what is going on. If relayed coalition wide you could quite possibly get a fleet up to deal with it in short order.

And there is always the possibility of hacking. How that would work, IDK. Presumably a fail would alert the alliance. A success...I don't know, it shouldn't be 100% undetectable, IMO. Maybe careful examination of the data the system supplies would indicate a problem.

Like I said, the entire system would need to be fleshed out and modified and thoroughly tested before being implemented.

"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

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2222 - 2013-10-08 15:29:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Easily sneak up on... Yes, because the fact the intel structure is destroyed would not be an amazing clue that hostiles were active.

Come on, Lucas, having the effort to put it back up, maybe even defend it as needed... this seems too much effort?

Well yeah, easily sneak up. Or any time the structure is down, it would be the same effect as AFK cloaking now, where people are unable to do anything, effectively meaning you can have the same effect as AFK cloaking now without even having to be logged on. Bear in mind not everyone will be able to deploy structures. So some random group blows up a bunch of intel structures, now the region is effectively down until they can be replaced. Sounds truly awful.

This just sounds like more of this "alliances must spend all day every day defending themselves from tiny groups" theory. ITS A GAME, NOT A CAREER. Why should a group that wants to own sov have to keep defensive fleets up 24/7 just to hold it. I know on paper TO YOU it sounds like a great idea, but it would kill off sov null.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Like I said, the entire system would need to be fleshed out and modified and thoroughly tested before being implemented.
Exactly, Like I keep saying, its TOO BIG A CHANGE to simply discuss as part of a simple change such as AFK cloaking. So flesh out the idea before parading it around like a ready to go product.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2223 - 2013-10-08 15:53:00 UTC
Base argument comparison, just so we are on the same page.

I am arguing for keeping the SAME level of effort. I am dropping an absolute on each side of the equation, intel for stealth.
I am putting a need for sustained effort on each, and making it perfectly plain that whoever puts in more effort will have the advantage.

You want the cloaked player to leave. Expecting them to go AFK and either be logged out, or lose their stealth, both result in the cloaked player being removed from the equation. In many cases, with the collateral effects, guerrilla attacks will drop against entrenched forces frequently found in null.

You change EVE to a PvE theme park in null, with the occasional blob fleets to deal with.

Lucas Kell wrote:
This just sounds like more of this "alliances must spend all day every day defending themselves from tiny groups" theory. ITS A GAME, NOT A CAREER. Why should a group that wants to own sov have to keep defensive fleets up 24/7 just to hold it. I know on paper TO YOU it sounds like a great idea, but it would kill off sov null.


If alliances are not playing on a small level, all they have left is consensual roams and PvE.
Your interests would eliminate anything else, effectively.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2224 - 2013-10-08 16:21:13 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Base argument comparison, just so we are on the same page.

I am arguing for keeping the SAME level of effort. I am dropping an absolute on each side of the equation, intel for stealth.
I am putting a need for sustained effort on each, and making it perfectly plain that whoever puts in more effort will have the advantage.

You want the cloaked player to leave. Expecting them to go AFK and either be logged out, or lose their stealth, both result in the cloaked player being removed from the equation. In many cases, with the collateral effects, guerrilla attacks will drop against entrenched forces frequently found in null.

You change EVE to a PvE theme park in null, with the occasional blob fleets to deal with.

Lucas Kell wrote:
This just sounds like more of this "alliances must spend all day every day defending themselves from tiny groups" theory. ITS A GAME, NOT A CAREER. Why should a group that wants to own sov have to keep defensive fleets up 24/7 just to hold it. I know on paper TO YOU it sounds like a great idea, but it would kill off sov null.


If alliances are not playing on a small level, all they have left is consensual roams and PvE.
Your interests would eliminate anything else, effectively.

You're not though. You are only arguing for the same level of effort in a single scenario. Once you get up wot fleet fights, for example, it's not the same effort at all. I just want AFK players moved to deadspace and marked as AFK, not for any effort change, but simply to stop AFK players being able to shut down whole sections of space. You are blowing it up to be me trying to nuke cloaking ability into the ground and get everything free. Honestly, I'm happy with it as it is, since its such a tiny change and I couldn't care less if most of null sits empty, but the end result is that the larger groups take more space to spread out even more. Exaggerate it all you want, but AFK cloakers add nothing to the game and their removal would only add more diversity.

The change you are arguing for would give smaller groups a massive advantage, as like now, they wouldn't rely on local intel, while people in PVE/mining ships would have no chance until it is too late, unless they spend an enormous amount of time and money defending structures that would be targeted by randoms for no reason other than being easy to kill. Again you want changes that benefit a single playstyle. I don't.

You talk like non-consensual PvP doesn't exist in null, which is absolute nonsense. It does exist, and the removal of the AFK ability of cloakers would not affect that even a tiny little bit.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Judith Frozenvoid
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2225 - 2013-10-08 16:30:55 UTC
"AFK players being able to shut down whole sections of space."

AFK players are not "shutting down space". This is in your mind. If they are truly AFK they can do nothing to you.. You are allowing them to have control over you through your fear. CCP should REMOVE them from Local Chat so you don't see them.. then only the active players will "shut down your efforts"

you'll still complain but at least you'll be more honest about your motives.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2226 - 2013-10-08 16:39:52 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
You're not though. You are only arguing for the same level of effort in a single scenario. Once you get up wot fleet fights, for example, it's not the same effort at all. I just want AFK players moved to deadspace and marked as AFK, not for any effort change, but simply to stop AFK players being able to shut down whole sections of space. You are blowing it up to be me trying to nuke cloaking ability into the ground and get everything free. Honestly, I'm happy with it as it is, since its such a tiny change and I couldn't care less if most of null sits empty, but the end result is that the larger groups take more space to spread out even more. Exaggerate it all you want, but AFK cloakers add nothing to the game and their removal would only add more diversity.

The change you are arguing for would give smaller groups a massive advantage, as like now, they wouldn't rely on local intel, while people in PVE/mining ships would have no chance until it is too late, unless they spend an enormous amount of time and money defending structures that would be targeted by randoms for no reason other than being easy to kill. Again you want changes that benefit a single playstyle. I don't.

You talk like non-consensual PvP doesn't exist in null, which is absolute nonsense. It does exist, and the removal of the AFK ability of cloakers would not affect that even a tiny little bit.

Your argument is dancing all over the place, but I will try to address your points.

Fleets, aka blobs, are not affected by local in a meaningful way. They don't know if that cluster of enemies is flying alpha doctrine BS's, or SB's. And assuming they won't know if the enemy fleet is in the same system otherwise, is a joke.

AFK players being moved to deadspace DOES remove them from consideration.
The idea you should be free from uncertainty is ridiculous. This removes uncertainty.

If AFK Cloakers are needed to create uncertainty, then they are contributing a vital asset to the game.
A set of events with an obvious and predictable outcome? That's a movie, not a game. After you see it the first time, you know how it ends.
How many months would you pay to see the same predictable outcome repeated?

As to non consensual PvP existing in null:
A prepared player in home sov can evade a hostile every time.
It doesn't matter if it is a fleet, or a single frigate.
And if it threatens the structures, the pilots can choose to leave the area.

When you can choose not to fight, it became consensual.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2227 - 2013-10-08 17:10:17 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:

The change you are arguing for would give smaller groups a massive advantage, as like now, they wouldn't rely on local intel, while people in PVE/mining ships would have no chance until it is too late, unless they spend an enormous amount of time and money defending structures that would be targeted by randoms for no reason other than being easy to kill. Again you want changes that benefit a single playstyle. I don't.


I just want to respond to the idea that a roaming gang does not use intel. They do. Once they see who is in local they will try, usually with zero success, to try and find anyone in local. If it is a station system, and they see people in local they might go to the undock and try to stir up something. If they see local is empty, they'll move on.

So, yes local is used by roaming gangs. If a roaming gang is in hostile territory then they wont have access to that kind of intel. So the idea that the roaming gang gets a "huge advantage" is not entirely accurate.

"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

Matthew Charbonneaux
0FuqsGiven
#2228 - 2013-10-08 18:11:34 UTC
Maybe the fix is to make a person disappear from local if they have no inputs for 2 hours or some time Roll
Cage Man
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#2229 - 2013-10-08 18:47:58 UTC
What they should do with the new limited cycno jammer is allow it to block even covert cyno's, that will at least make the AFK cloakers work for their hotdrops and its not then an almost guaranteed tackle - cyno - hotdrop - target dies..
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2230 - 2013-10-08 21:25:24 UTC
Cage Man wrote:
What they should do with the new limited cycno jammer is allow it to block even covert cyno's, that will at least make the AFK cloakers work for their hotdrops and its not then an almost guaranteed tackle - cyno - hotdrop - target dies..

At first this sounds good, but think about what the covert cyno actually sends through.

Gimped or overpriced combat ships, which either need to walk home, or send in a billion ISK taxi to return them.

They are probably a more interesting target than whatever they dropped on, when you think about it....
Judith Frozenvoid
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2231 - 2013-10-09 03:02:20 UTC
Cage Man wrote:
What they should do with the new limited cycno jammer is allow it to block even covert cyno's, that will at least make the AFK cloakers work for their hotdrops and its not then an almost guaranteed tackle - cyno - hotdrop - target dies..



Do you hear what you're saying...? You want to make AFK people work for something... The AFK are not at their keyboard. This just illustrates my belief that most people here are not really looking for an "AFK" solution as much as just a nerf to cloaking.
supernova ranger
The End of Eternity
#2232 - 2013-10-09 05:14:36 UTC
Just annoying how an afk cloaker can force players to take action with 0 effort. They ARE attacking because assuming they aren't leaves you vulnerable to the possibility that they are active.

Another mechanic in the game where there is reward for zero effort.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2233 - 2013-10-09 08:56:01 UTC
Judith Frozenvoid wrote:
"AFK players being able to shut down whole sections of space."

AFK players are not "shutting down space". This is in your mind. If they are truly AFK they can do nothing to you.. You are allowing them to have control over you through your fear. CCP should REMOVE them from Local Chat so you don't see them.. then only the active players will "shut down your efforts"

you'll still complain but at least you'll be more honest about your motives.
We've covered this. So many times.
You can't know they are truly AFK can you? Which is my WHOLE point. I don't even want to KILL afk cloakers, I just want them marked afk and warped to deadspace cloaked while AFK.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman
#2234 - 2013-10-09 08:59:29 UTC  |  Edited by: JIeoH Mocc
supernova ranger wrote:
Just annoying how an afk cloaker can force players to take action with 0 effort. They ARE attacking because assuming they aren't leaves you vulnerable to the possibility that they are active.

Another mechanic in the game where there is reward for zero effort.


Oh i see that there was a generations shift while i was gone =)

Pray tell, how exactly another player (and an AFK one, to top that) can force you to do anything?

I'll offer you a way out right away - you're feeling forced to do something because you're, hmm... how do i put this... lazy/greedy/otherwise challenged to consider your options, and feel entitled, for some reason, to things you're not?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2235 - 2013-10-09 08:59:38 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Your argument is dancing all over the place, but I will try to address your points.

Fleets, aka blobs, are not affected by local in a meaningful way. They don't know if that cluster of enemies is flying alpha doctrine BS's, or SB's. And assuming they won't know if the enemy fleet is in the same system otherwise, is a joke.

AFK players being moved to deadspace DOES remove them from consideration.
The idea you should be free from uncertainty is ridiculous. This removes uncertainty.

If AFK Cloakers are needed to create uncertainty, then they are contributing a vital asset to the game.
A set of events with an obvious and predictable outcome? That's a movie, not a game. After you see it the first time, you know how it ends.
How many months would you pay to see the same predictable outcome repeated?

As to non consensual PvP existing in null:
A prepared player in home sov can evade a hostile every time.
It doesn't matter if it is a fleet, or a single frigate.
And if it threatens the structures, the pilots can choose to leave the area.

When you can choose not to fight, it became consensual.
Oh stop talking utter rubbish.
You keep jumping back to the same BS which can all be boiled down to "Read my idea about nuking local it is da best and anything else is just crying". Get over yourself aready, your idea is terrible.
AFK players are AFK and should NOT be able to affect the game. THE END. THAT IS ALL.
Stop trying to make it sound like some massive game changer when it's absolutely nothing except a boost to the diversity. To be honest. Just take away null, take away WH and take away low sec. Since all you want is everything to HAVE to be done in high sec, and everywhere else to just be an arena of PVP, let just remove them and chuck in arenas where you can just jump into pvp from a station console.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2236 - 2013-10-09 09:00:56 UTC
supernova ranger wrote:
Just annoying how an afk cloaker can force players to take action with 0 effort. They ARE attacking because assuming they aren't leaves you vulnerable to the possibility that they are active.

Another mechanic in the game where there is reward for zero effort.

Indeed.
And yet Nikk and Teckos complain to no end about low effort mechanics. Funny how they only care about low effort on the side against them. On their side it is fine.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2237 - 2013-10-09 09:02:32 UTC
JIeoH Mocc wrote:
supernova ranger wrote:
Just annoying how an afk cloaker can force players to take action with 0 effort. They ARE attacking because assuming they aren't leaves you vulnerable to the possibility that they are active.

Another mechanic in the game where there is reward for zero effort.


Oh i see that there was a generations shift while i was gone =)

Pray tell, how exactly another player (and an AFK one, to top that) can force you to do anything?

I'll offer you a way out right away - you're feeling forced to do something because you're, hmm... how do i put this... lazy/greedy/otherwise challenged to consider your options, and feel entitled, for some reason, to things you're not?

Because unless you are a moron, you must treat all players as active. We've covered this. Try reading the thread.
To be honest though... if AFK cloakers do absolutely nothing, like you suggest, then where is the downside of warping them away cloaked and marking them as AFK?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#2238 - 2013-10-09 09:36:55 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:

AFK players are AFK and should NOT be able to affect the game. THE END. THAT IS ALL..

And that's the point.

They are indeed not affecting the game. They are doing nothing. At all.

You are doing all the stuff. You are the one docking up, you are the one switching to another system, you are the one complaining.

And You are the one that claims an afk player is doing something when in fact that is impossible to be true.

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.

Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#2239 - 2013-10-09 10:05:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Debora Tsung
Lucas Kell wrote:

Because unless you are a moron, you must treat all players as active. We've covered this. Try reading the thread.
True, and that's one of the very few reasons why AFK cloaking works. The player who put the passive diversion (a.k.a. AFK cloaker) into your systems relies on you and you alone to do everything for him. And you comply. If he were merely out for some easy kills he would roam your space with some small and fast frigate gang. Works just as well, probably a lot cheaper.

Lucas Kell wrote:
To be honest though... if AFK cloakers do absolutely nothing, like you suggest, then where is the downside of warping them away cloaked and marking them as AFK?
Because that would be an action enforced by an outside 3rd party upon a player that might not be AFK at all just because you feel inconvenienced.

And all the "solutions" provided thus far are all either horribly bad, one sided or would accomplish nothing but to shift the "not-a-problem" into another direction instead of actually solving anything.

Face it, so long as there is not a complete overhaul of the entire mechanic, from resource acquisition to local there won't be any satisfying solution.

Afterthought:

As long as players will be able to disrupt the ressource aquisition of other players there will be complaints about that. And everytime the complaining player will present himself as the hapeless victim of a faulty game mechanic that should be fixed.

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.

Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
#2240 - 2013-10-09 11:40:23 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
This just sounds like more of this "alliances must spend all day every day defending themselves from tiny groups" theory. ITS A GAME, NOT A CAREER. Why should a group that wants to own sov have to keep defensive fleets up 24/7 just to hold it. I know on paper TO YOU it sounds like a great idea, but it would kill off sov null.


If you think that then that "Sov Holding Alliance" doesn't deserve to hold that territory and should be freed from the burden of having to provide "defensive fleets up 24/7 just to hold it."

It's a game and it has consequences...you want to hold a region 24/7 with all the rewards it brings then you have to defend it 24/7 or risk the loss...don't have the man power then sov null isn't for you and best go elsewhere or roam like PL (I believe they hold no sov or didn't).