These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3061 - 2013-11-24 04:56:46 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

I'm...suggesting....a nerf to cloaking.....

WTF Andy, are you starting your weekend a bit early or something, considering how you've spent page after page arguing the exact opposite.....

You have advocated two main ideas: Nerf local so that not only stealth bombers but any pve ganker can catch pve targets by surprise much easier and nerf cloakies so that they can be found and decloaked much easier with a simple module for scanning, seeing, locking, and decloaking upon lock. Regular, non-cloaky ships are left with a huge buff (easy pve ganks) and no nerf. Seems pretty obvious to me.


Except the non-cloaking ships are still visible via dscan and probes as well as overview, assuming the cloaky is cloaked when he first warps in and is not decloaked by something.

And that isn't quite how I'd put it, but that is the idea in a rather misleading way.

A better way of putting it would be to remove the cause of AFK cloaking. And to make sure that cloaky ships do not gain an unfair advantage they are no longer totally invisible at all times--i.e. probes could detect and possibly a module as Nikk describes.

You on the other hand simply want to nerf cloaks in all applications of cloaking devices.

"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
#3062 - 2013-11-24 04:59:15 UTC
General Xenophon wrote:


I appreciate the desire to keep out the 'nerf x' crowd, or 'make the game easier crowd', there's plenty of that in other games thanks, and unless it's mechanically sound, it would be nice not to have it here please. Mechanical improvements that make the game better -but not strictly 'easier'- are great, just 'dumbing down' the game, is not.

To your post, actually you can see a red or neutral in the system in local, but cannot scan them down. This just addresses the AFK cloaking, without changing cloaking directly. It also adds an new pvp element and risk for those who wish to engage in the scanning or counter scanning. It's also entirely possible that those in the area aren't able to scan down cloakers as they might not have the requisite probes.

Right now cloaking is just a hunter sitting in a booth with a sniper rifle, waiting for a little critter to go by. That's all well and good if you like this sort of 'challenge' level as a 'hunter', and maybe after a while the bunnies catch on, but what if the prey you stalked could also stalk you? What if instead you were hunting a ferocious space alien? It immediately makes the hunter more legit and the risk is higher because hey, it might just shoot its larvae down your throat which then later bursts out your chest. That's a bad hunting trip imho, but you wanted a challenge! But what if you're also a Space Marine and this sh** just got real and that bad*** space alien just fell into YOUR trap? Teach that creature to spray it's acidic blood all over your Marine buddie.

Current probes do NOT let you scan down a cloaked ship if it remains cloaked. Period. This new system would allow for risk to scanners AND to cloakers (scanners need numbers -at least 3-, the right probes, and are stationary targets while scanning, which can be interrupted, there's a lot of risk here. Cloakers need to deploy counter measures and be active to do so or they need to kill one of the scanners to break the chain), it's not heavily one sided in that regard and certainly needs suggestions to tweak it's effectiveness. It's not just a 'I don't want risk button' but rather a 'can the cat catch the mouse or is that mouse really a trap?' which isn't less risk and could in fact be more. It also doesn't nerf or lower the ability of cloaks to be effective, you just have to be smart enough to be a good hunter. That thing called... skill?


Nerfing cloaks while doing nothing to local gives a considerable buff to PvE activities and is quite possibly unbalancing. So either make the case that such a change is not going to unbalance the game, or suggest a counter balance to the reduced risk PvE pilots would benefit from due to your suggested change.

"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
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3063 - 2013-11-24 07:12:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Teckos Pech wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

I'm...suggesting....a nerf to cloaking.....

WTF Andy, are you starting your weekend a bit early or something, considering how you've spent page after page arguing the exact opposite.....

You have advocated two main ideas: Nerf local so that not only stealth bombers but any pve ganker can catch pve targets by surprise much easier and nerf cloakies so that they can be found and decloaked much easier with a simple module for scanning, seeing, locking, and decloaking upon lock. Regular, non-cloaky ships are left with a huge buff (easy pve ganks) and no nerf. Seems pretty obvious to me.


Except the non-cloaking ships are still visible via dscan and probes as well as overview, assuming the cloaky is cloaked when he first warps in and is not decloaked by something.

And that isn't quite how I'd put it, but that is the idea in a rather misleading way.

A better way of putting it would be to remove the cause of AFK cloaking. And to make sure that cloaky ships do not gain an unfair advantage they are no longer totally invisible at all times--i.e. probes could detect and possibly a module as Nikk describes.

You on the other hand simply want to nerf cloaks in all applications of cloaking devices.

Teckos, what is wrong with the way I put it? I think that it is an extremely concise and objective summation of your position. Non-cloaking ships were already visible on dscan before, so the net effect of your local/cloak scan combo is a buff to all non-cloaky. There is nothing misleading about how I summed it up. Would you care to identify exactly how someone could be mislead by my summation about your real position on this subject? You just don't like it because it makes you look like you want to buff non-cloaky roaming pvp and nerf all cloakies, except to say that the loss of local somehow makes up for getting decloaked within seconds up to 100km away (think passive Signal Amps in the lows). If you don't like the way that sounds, then please, by all means, feel free to change your position.

And on the accusation of wanting to nerf cloaks, that is the last thing I would do because I love cloaks more than most mechanics. What I really want to nerf is the cloak-cyno-point trio-combo for the hotdrop blue-ball ganks against solo ships or small gangs. I want to nerf solo afk cloaky camping. The harshest measure I have advocated thus far is having to click on your client once every 30 minutes, with the provision to require a manual re-cloak after the cloak has been active for 30 minutes by using a cycle timer (just like most other modules have). I think that a single click or keypress every 30 minutes is far less work than active gameplay which would routinely satisfy those conditions without any thought or notice.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3064 - 2013-11-24 08:02:25 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

I'm...suggesting....a nerf to cloaking.....

WTF Andy, are you starting your weekend a bit early or something, considering how you've spent page after page arguing the exact opposite.....

You have advocated two main ideas: Nerf local so that not only stealth bombers but any pve ganker can catch pve targets by surprise much easier and nerf cloakies so that they can be found and decloaked much easier with a simple module for scanning, seeing, locking, and decloaking upon lock. Regular, non-cloaky ships are left with a huge buff (easy pve ganks) and no nerf. Seems pretty obvious to me.


Except the non-cloaking ships are still visible via dscan and probes as well as overview, assuming the cloaky is cloaked when he first warps in and is not decloaked by something.

And that isn't quite how I'd put it, but that is the idea in a rather misleading way.

A better way of putting it would be to remove the cause of AFK cloaking. And to make sure that cloaky ships do not gain an unfair advantage they are no longer totally invisible at all times--i.e. probes could detect and possibly a module as Nikk describes.

You on the other hand simply want to nerf cloaks in all applications of cloaking devices.

Teckos, what is wrong with the way I put it? I think that it is an extremely concise and objective summation of your position. Non-cloaking ships were already visible on dscan before, so the net effect of your local/cloak scan combo is a buff to all non-cloaky. There is nothing misleading about how I summed it up. Would you care to identify exactly how someone could be mislead by my summation about your real position on this subject? You just don't like it because it makes you look like you want to buff non-cloaky roaming pvp and nerf all cloakies, except to say that the loss of local somehow makes up for getting decloaked within seconds up to 100km away (think passive Signal Amps in the lows). If you don't like the way that sounds, then please, by all means, feel free to change your position.

And on the accusation of wanting to nerf cloaks, that is the last thing I would do because I love cloaks more than most mechanics. What I really want to nerf is the cloak-cyno-point trio-combo for the hotdrop blue-ball ganks against solo ships or small gangs. I want to nerf solo afk cloaky camping. The harshest measure I have advocated thus far is having to click on your client once every 30 minutes, with the provision to require a manual re-cloak after the cloak has been active for 30 minutes by using a cycle timer (just like most other modules have). I think that a single click or keypress every 30 minutes is far less work than active gameplay which would routinely satisfy those conditions without any thought or notice.


Look, Andy we know you like to try and make it seem that local is not the reason why people AFK cloak and thereby justify your horrible ideas (e.g. the stealth bomber as the sniper that can't snipe). That is why your description was misleading.

How exactly does AFK cloaking work? Because of the cloaking device? Only in part. The other part (and the most important part) is that local infallibly reports that there is a hostile there (whether they are cloaked or not). No local...no AFK cloaking.

And spare us the denials about nerfing cloaks. All your ideas have been nerfs to cloaks. Not nerfs to AFK cloaking, but using cloaks in a variety of settings. I've given several examples and I'm sure if we talked to other players they might come up with other examples where a 30 minute timer would nerf their play too. And the examples I gave were of active play, not AFK play. So, we get that you really want to nerf active players who use cloaks.

"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
#3065 - 2013-11-24 18:02:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
This post is to clean up some ideas, terms and definitions here....

AFK: Away From the Keyboard--i.e. a player who is not at his keyboard and not (largely) aware of what is going on in game.

Cloaking devices: Modules that are fit to ships, when fit they prevent all other modules from functioning. The prototype cloak and even the improved cloaking device and faction cloaks all heavily nerf the ships sub-warp speed and prevent ships from warping. The covert ops type cloaking device allows normal sub-warp speed and warping.

Risk: The potential of loss (an undesirable outcome, however not necessarily so) resulting from a given action, activity and/or inaction, foreseen or unforeseen. The notion implies that a choice having an influence on the outcome sometimes exists (or existed).

Risk of a single adverse incident can be expressed as:

(Probability of the adverse event)*Loss.

Uncertainty: It applies to predictions of future events, to physical measurements that are already made, or to the unknown. Uncertainty arises in partially observable and/or stochastic environments, as well as due to ignorance and/or indolence.

Based on the above we can safely conclude that an pilot that is AFK and who ship is cloaked at a safe spot presents no risk to a pilot who would like to PvE in the same system.

However, since the pilot who wants to engage in PvE does not have complete knowledge (i.e. he cannot know if the pilot is really AFK, was AFK but no longer is, is simply pretending to be AFK, etc.) the level of uncertainty has increased. This increase in uncertainty is often translated, by PvE pilots, as a commensurate increase in risk as well.

So when we get right down to it, the issue of AFK cloaking is nothing more than a discussion of uncertainty. One side wants to lower that uncertainty, the other side does not.

"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
#3066 - 2013-11-24 18:13:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Some thing else to consider:

The following suggestions for AFK cloaking, are to varying degrees, nerfs to cloaks in general:

Cloaking timer (i.e. the module cycles and needs to be reactivated at the end of the cycle).
Cloaking fuel.
Heat damage.
Various additions to the lore that cause cloaks to drop over time.
POS decloaking array.
Cloak detection probes.
Modules that decloak like the POS module.

All of these suggestions impact ALL cloaks. As such they are aimed not just at the AFK cloaker, but any pilot that uses a cloaked ship (yes, even that guy who is doing ninja exploration). Hostile comes into system and hits the POS decloaking module and now the exploration guy (who by the way is not AFK in case it slipped your notice) is decloaked and must take the appropriate action.

In the name of reducing uncertainty for the guy ratting in a **** fit carrier (pro-tip fitting 5 drone damage augmentor IIs in the lows is giving you only a tiny boost to damage output at the expense of either tank or ability to warp if warp disrupted) stikes me as a very dubious proposition. These special snowflakes really don't deserve a reduction in uncertainty due to a change in the game's mechanics.

"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
General Xenophon
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3067 - 2013-11-24 18:43:29 UTC  |  Edited by: General Xenophon
Teckos Pech wrote:
Some thing else to consider:

The following suggestions for AFK cloaking, are to varying degrees, nerfs to cloaks in general:

Cloaking timer (i.e. the module cycles and needs to be reactivated at the end of the cycle).
Cloaking fuel.
Heat damage.
Various additions to the lore that cause cloaks to drop over time.
POS decloaking array.
Cloak detection probes.
Modules that decloak like the POS module.

All of these suggestions impact ALL cloaks. As such they are aimed not just at the AFK cloaker, but any pilot that uses a cloaked ship (yes, even that guy who is doing ninja exploration). Hostile comes into system and hits the POS decloaking module and now the exploration guy (who by the way is not AFK in case it slipped your notice) is decloaked and must take the appropriate action.

In the name of reducing uncertainty for the guy ratting in a **** fit carrier (pro-tip fitting 5 drone damage augmentor IIs in the lows is giving you only a tiny boost to damage output at the expense of either tank or ability to warp if warp disrupted) stikes me as a very dubious proposition. These special snowflakes really don't deserve a reduction in uncertainty due to a change in the game's mechanics.


So what ARE the reasonable ideas so far?

Or is the point of this thread for you to derail every idea that comes through on cloaking or to just have people be 'honest' (in your view) that they want 'less risk' or a 'nerf' to cloaking (which -it seems- you are opposed to)?
General Xenophon
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3068 - 2013-11-24 19:21:09 UTC  |  Edited by: General Xenophon
Teckos Pech wrote:
General Xenophon wrote:


I appreciate the desire to keep out the 'nerf x' crowd, or 'make the game easier crowd', there's plenty of that in other games thanks, and unless it's mechanically sound, it would be nice not to have it here please. Mechanical improvements that make the game better -but not strictly 'easier'- are great, just 'dumbing down' the game, is not.

To your post, actually you can see a red or neutral in the system in local, but cannot scan them down. This just addresses the AFK cloaking, without changing cloaking directly. It also adds an new pvp element and risk for those who wish to engage in the scanning or counter scanning. It's also entirely possible that those in the area aren't able to scan down cloakers as they might not have the requisite probes.

Right now cloaking is just a hunter sitting in a booth with a sniper rifle, waiting for a little critter to go by. That's all well and good if you like this sort of 'challenge' level as a 'hunter', and maybe after a while the bunnies catch on, but what if the prey you stalked could also stalk you? What if instead you were hunting a ferocious space alien? It immediately makes the hunter more legit and the risk is higher because hey, it might just shoot its larvae down your throat which then later bursts out your chest. That's a bad hunting trip imho, but you wanted a challenge! But what if you're also a Space Marine and this sh** just got real and that bad*** space alien just fell into YOUR trap? Teach that creature to spray it's acidic blood all over your Marine buddie.

Current probes do NOT let you scan down a cloaked ship if it remains cloaked. Period. This new system would allow for risk to scanners AND to cloakers (scanners need numbers -at least 3-, the right probes, and are stationary targets while scanning, which can be interrupted, there's a lot of risk here. Cloakers need to deploy counter measures and be active to do so or they need to kill one of the scanners to break the chain), it's not heavily one sided in that regard and certainly needs suggestions to tweak it's effectiveness. It's not just a 'I don't want risk button' but rather a 'can the cat catch the mouse or is that mouse really a trap?' which isn't less risk and could in fact be more. It also doesn't nerf or lower the ability of cloaks to be effective, you just have to be smart enough to be a good hunter. That thing called... skill?


Nerfing cloaks while doing nothing to local gives a considerable buff to PvE activities and is quite possibly unbalancing. So either make the case that such a change is not going to unbalance the game, or suggest a counter balance to the reduced risk PvE pilots would benefit from due to your suggested change.


I've already done this. This is also not intended to be a nerf. Cloakers can remain cloaked by deploying the countermeasures, but it would require work just like a Submarine must work to stay hidden. If you are suggesting that ANY change to cloaking or local is therefore a nerf, and nerfing shouldn't happen, then this thread and discussion as a whole is entirely pointless.

I do not see any constructive ideas on how to improve the idea or why it actually doesn't increase risk for both scanners and cloakers. I'm open to suggestions on how to improve the current cloaking mechanic without breaking it.
Jenna Hamalia
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#3069 - 2013-11-24 19:52:09 UTC
General Xenophon wrote:

It is just that simple. Such a suggestion is also dubious when it comes to game balance since it removes current risk and replaces it with nothing.


And what risk does an AFK cloaker in enemy territory face? I can sit cloaked 24/7 and not even be at the computer and know I am 100% safe. If I'm truly honest about it, I have to ask why I'm able to sit with zero risk in enemy space? Cloak or not, I shouldn't be immune from repercussions.

I see us talking a lot about how there needs to be risk to the residents of the sectors we AFK cloak in, but I have yet to see anyone be honest and admit we don't face any risk ourselves by setting up cloak camp in enemy territory. I know I'll probably **** off other cloakers by saying it, but we should have some type of risk when we're sitting around cloaked in enemy space. People keep talking about "balance" but it is a seriously dishonest discussion when there is no balance to begin with.
General Xenophon
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3070 - 2013-11-24 22:10:45 UTC
Jenna Hamalia wrote:
General Xenophon wrote:

It is just that simple. Such a suggestion is also dubious when it comes to game balance since it removes current risk and replaces it with nothing.


And what risk does an AFK cloaker in enemy territory face? I can sit cloaked 24/7 and not even be at the computer and know I am 100% safe. If I'm truly honest about it, I have to ask why I'm able to sit with zero risk in enemy space? Cloak or not, I shouldn't be immune from repercussions.

I see us talking a lot about how there needs to be risk to the residents of the sectors we AFK cloak in, but I have yet to see anyone be honest and admit we don't face any risk ourselves by setting up cloak camp in enemy territory. I know I'll probably **** off other cloakers by saying it, but we should have some type of risk when we're sitting around cloaked in enemy space. People keep talking about "balance" but it is a seriously dishonest discussion when there is no balance to begin with.



Your quote is wrong, I did not say this. This is the thread owner.
Jenna Hamalia
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#3071 - 2013-11-24 22:15:43 UTC
General Xenophon wrote:
Jenna Hamalia wrote:
General Xenophon wrote:

It is just that simple. Such a suggestion is also dubious when it comes to game balance since it removes current risk and replaces it with nothing.


And what risk does an AFK cloaker in enemy territory face? I can sit cloaked 24/7 and not even be at the computer and know I am 100% safe. If I'm truly honest about it, I have to ask why I'm able to sit with zero risk in enemy space? Cloak or not, I shouldn't be immune from repercussions.

I see us talking a lot about how there needs to be risk to the residents of the sectors we AFK cloak in, but I have yet to see anyone be honest and admit we don't face any risk ourselves by setting up cloak camp in enemy territory. I know I'll probably **** off other cloakers by saying it, but we should have some type of risk when we're sitting around cloaked in enemy space. People keep talking about "balance" but it is a seriously dishonest discussion when there is no balance to begin with.



Your quote is wrong, I did not say this. This is the thread owner.


My bad... Edited that wrong. Sorry Oops
General Xenophon
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3072 - 2013-11-24 22:25:00 UTC  |  Edited by: General Xenophon
Jenna Hamalia wrote:
General Xenophon wrote:
Jenna Hamalia wrote:
General Xenophon wrote:

It is just that simple. Such a suggestion is also dubious when it comes to game balance since it removes current risk and replaces it with nothing.


And what risk does an AFK cloaker in enemy territory face? I can sit cloaked 24/7 and not even be at the computer and know I am 100% safe. If I'm truly honest about it, I have to ask why I'm able to sit with zero risk in enemy space? Cloak or not, I shouldn't be immune from repercussions.

I see us talking a lot about how there needs to be risk to the residents of the sectors we AFK cloak in, but I have yet to see anyone be honest and admit we don't face any risk ourselves by setting up cloak camp in enemy territory. I know I'll probably **** off other cloakers by saying it, but we should have some type of risk when we're sitting around cloaked in enemy space. People keep talking about "balance" but it is a seriously dishonest discussion when there is no balance to begin with.



Your quote is wrong, I did not say this. This is the thread owner.


My bad... Edited that wrong. Sorry Oops


No problem.

Also, I agree with what you're saying.

Anyone saying 'no afk person has ever killed someone' is a total non-argument. It is irrelevant. If they are afk, their presence has time and time again caused people to cease activity. This is the specific point of this activity, kills are a bonus. It is used as a strategy to deny an enemy resources or logistics and has no real counter. Period. This is a fact to Eve and anyone who says others is choosing to ignore it and pick facts as they please.

There is no counter to a cloaked ship in a system as no current probes are able to find a cloaked ship. This is where scanning with special probes, and counter measures for a cloaked ship, provide a more balanced way to handling this system while not taking the risk out the process for either party.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3073 - 2013-11-25 04:51:00 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:

Look, Andy we know you like to try and make it seem that local is not the reason why people AFK cloak and thereby justify your horrible ideas (e.g. the stealth bomber as the sniper that can't snipe). That is why your description was misleading.

How exactly does AFK cloaking work? Because of the cloaking device? Only in part. The other part (and the most important part) is that local infallibly reports that there is a hostile there (whether they are cloaked or not). No local...no AFK cloaking.

And spare us the denials about nerfing cloaks. All your ideas have been nerfs to cloaks. Not nerfs to AFK cloaking, but using cloaks in a variety of settings. I've given several examples and I'm sure if we talked to other players they might come up with other examples where a 30 minute timer would nerf their play too. And the examples I gave were of active play, not AFK play. So, we get that you really want to nerf active players who use cloaks.


I could actually care less why any player does what they do. Their motives justify nothing. It doesn't even matter that the stealth bomber's sniping disruptor holds the target until the blob lands, points, and pops the target. So, there is NO misleading. Plus, I never mentioned anything in your first paragraph in my summation, so you'll have to do better than that to paint my digest of your view as anything but the exact truth of what you have said.

AFK cloaking does NOT work because no one can ever say if anyone is AFK and so no one can wisely afford to treat any player as if they are AFK. Local is irrelevant, because if there were no local, then an area could not be confirmed to be secured or sufficiently secured .. unless, like wh space, we make all known space void of cynos and bridges. Waiting for you to endorse the perma-cyno-jam throughout all known space. [hearing crickets, I think]

So you are naive to say "No local...no AFK cloaking" It goes without saying that the term "AFK" is meaningless unless there is a video camera recording if there is in fact anyone actually near the keyboard. So your statement more accurately and merely reads "No local..." Remember, an ostrich may put its head in the sand to not see the predator lurking nearby, but the predator is still there (afk or not, probably not) even the dirt prevents the ostrich from seeing it.
Your statement really should be revised to say "No local...no pve"

My 30 minute auto-log timer does not nerf only cloaks, but affects all non-scripted, afk behavior. I always hesitate to target any nerf at cloaks only. I would certainly stop far short of a cloak targeting decloaking module. Requiring the reactivation of the cloak every 30 minutes less work than recalling probes every 60 minutes and then launching and re-configuring their formation. Neither mechanic could be called a nerf; module cycle times are a natural mechanic in Eve and 30 minutes is longer than most cycle timers. My ideas are quite reasonable, follow existing mechanics, and have minimal impact on the game. I am wondering how anyone could consider my ideas a nerf, especially after hearing how cloaks can be scanned, targeted and decloaked while cloaked out to 100km away. Only a real afk would even notice my auto-log, and then he would have one less process wasting away his CPU cycles.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3074 - 2013-11-25 04:56:49 UTC
General Xenophon wrote:

There is no counter to a cloaked ship in a system as no current probes are able to find a cloaked ship. This is where scanning with special probes, and counter measures for a cloaked ship, provide a more balanced way to handling this system while not taking the risk out the process for either party.

Prevent a cyno from being fitted to a cloaked ship and we could certainly adapt quite quickly and easily to the presence of the solo cloaky frigate. Or delay cyno activation until 60 seconds after cloak has dropped. Point is, if it is just him and me, he will wish he brought friends with him through the gates and he will remember how squishy frigates are.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3075 - 2013-11-25 05:27:00 UTC
General Xenophon wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Some thing else to consider:

The following suggestions for AFK cloaking, are to varying degrees, nerfs to cloaks in general:

Cloaking timer (i.e. the module cycles and needs to be reactivated at the end of the cycle).
Cloaking fuel.
Heat damage.
Various additions to the lore that cause cloaks to drop over time.
POS decloaking array.
Cloak detection probes.
Modules that decloak like the POS module.

All of these suggestions impact ALL cloaks. As such they are aimed not just at the AFK cloaker, but any pilot that uses a cloaked ship (yes, even that guy who is doing ninja exploration). Hostile comes into system and hits the POS decloaking module and now the exploration guy (who by the way is not AFK in case it slipped your notice) is decloaked and must take the appropriate action.

In the name of reducing uncertainty for the guy ratting in a **** fit carrier (pro-tip fitting 5 drone damage augmentor IIs in the lows is giving you only a tiny boost to damage output at the expense of either tank or ability to warp if warp disrupted) stikes me as a very dubious proposition. These special snowflakes really don't deserve a reduction in uncertainty due to a change in the game's mechanics.


So what ARE the reasonable ideas so far?

Or is the point of this thread for you to derail every idea that comes through on cloaking or to just have people be 'honest' (in your view) that they want 'less risk' or a 'nerf' to cloaking (which -it seems- you are opposed to)?


That is part of the, derailing threads. Because all threads so far have been bad ideas. Why do I say this, because all of these ideas have been proposed at least once in the last 6 years. And how many have the Devs implemented here...let me count...zero plus....hmmm...yeah zero.

Having people be honest would be nice, and it is less uncertainty, not less risk that the anti-cloaking side of the discussion is seeking.

As for a good idea....well given the way local and the client works I think there is no good idea that works on just cloaks.

"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
#3076 - 2013-11-25 05:30:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Jenna Hamalia wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

It is just that simple. Such a suggestion is also dubious when it comes to game balance since it removes current risk and replaces it with nothing.


And what risk does an AFK cloaker in enemy territory face? I can sit cloaked 24/7 and not even be at the computer and know I am 100% safe. If I'm truly honest about it, I have to ask why I'm able to sit with zero risk in enemy space? Cloak or not, I shouldn't be immune from repercussions.

I see us talking a lot about how there needs to be risk to the residents of the sectors we AFK cloak in, but I have yet to see anyone be honest and admit we don't face any risk ourselves by setting up cloak camp in enemy territory. I know I'll probably **** off other cloakers by saying it, but we should have some type of risk when we're sitting around cloaked in enemy space. People keep talking about "balance" but it is a seriously dishonest discussion when there is no balance to begin with.


And AFK player presents no risk to others...so why should they have to face risk? If I am AFK in station am I threat to anyone? Is there any risk I'll undock and shoot your ship?

So, why should a cloaked at a safe, AFK player, face any risk when they pose exactly zero risk to anyone else.

What you are complaining about is increased uncertainty. You don't really know what that player is doing and you assume the worst and let that guide your own in game actions.

So, no risk for sitting cloaked in enemy space. Now, if you are going to start attacking other players, why you can't do that while either AFK or cloaked.

Really, I don't see the problem.

"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
#3077 - 2013-11-25 05:37:41 UTC
General Xenophon wrote:


Anyone saying 'no afk person has ever killed someone' is a total non-argument. It is irrelevant. If they are afk, their presence has time and time again caused people to cease activity. This is the specific point of this activity, kills are a bonus. It is used as a strategy to deny an enemy resources or logistics and has no real counter. Period. This is a fact to Eve and anyone who says others is choosing to ignore it and pick facts as they please.


That "ceasing activity" is totally on you. That is your choice. Note that risk carries with it the notion that there are at least 2 or more actions you can choose from. If you choose to reduce the risk to zero by not undocking and/or logging off that is your choice. Not the choice of the AFK cloaker. At least have the balls to admit that for crying out loud. You also could have moved over a system. Jump cloned into empire. Or get some alliance/corp buddies and start doing your PvE in a group with PvP fit ships, so in case the hostiles engage you can more effectively fight back. You have choices, that you don't avail yourself to them then come crying here on the forums is just going to elicit posts of mockery and derision.

Quote:
There is no counter to a cloaked ship in a system as no current probes are able to find a cloaked ship. This is where scanning with special probes, and counter measures for a cloaked ship, provide a more balanced way to handling this system while not taking the risk out the process for either party.


There maybe no direct counter in that you can't scan them down, but there are counters. See the above paragraph for some examples.

And your use of the word balanced is complete bravo sierra. You want to reduce your uncertainty and in a way that not only will impact AFK cloakers but people who use cloaks and cloaking ships in an active manner. That is not balance, that is called lobbying for your own special interests. In economics we call it rent seeking--the pursuit of unearned economic profits. It is pretty much everywhere and anywhere a bad thing.

"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
#3078 - 2013-11-25 05:44:37 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

Look, Andy we know you like to try and make it seem that local is not the reason why people AFK cloak and thereby justify your horrible ideas (e.g. the stealth bomber as the sniper that can't snipe). That is why your description was misleading.

How exactly does AFK cloaking work? Because of the cloaking device? Only in part. The other part (and the most important part) is that local infallibly reports that there is a hostile there (whether they are cloaked or not). No local...no AFK cloaking.

And spare us the denials about nerfing cloaks. All your ideas have been nerfs to cloaks. Not nerfs to AFK cloaking, but using cloaks in a variety of settings. I've given several examples and I'm sure if we talked to other players they might come up with other examples where a 30 minute timer would nerf their play too. And the examples I gave were of active play, not AFK play. So, we get that you really want to nerf active players who use cloaks.


I could actually care less why any player does what they do. Their motives justify nothing. It doesn't even matter that the stealth bomber's sniping disruptor holds the target until the blob lands, points, and pops the target. So, there is NO misleading. Plus, I never mentioned anything in your first paragraph in my summation, so you'll have to do better than that to paint my digest of your view as anything but the exact truth of what you have said.

AFK cloaking does NOT work because no one can ever say if anyone is AFK and so no one can wisely afford to treat any player as if they are AFK. Local is irrelevant, because if there were no local, then an area could not be confirmed to be secured or sufficiently secured .. unless, like wh space, we make all known space void of cynos and bridges. Waiting for you to endorse the perma-cyno-jam throughout all known space. [hearing crickets, I think]

So you are naive to say "No local...no AFK cloaking" It goes without saying that the term "AFK" is meaningless unless there is a video camera recording if there is in fact anyone actually near the keyboard. So your statement more accurately and merely reads "No local..." Remember, an ostrich may put its head in the sand to not see the predator lurking nearby, but the predator is still there (afk or not, probably not) even the dirt prevents the ostrich from seeing it.
Your statement really should be revised to say "No local...no pve"

My 30 minute auto-log timer does not nerf only cloaks, but affects all non-scripted, afk behavior. I always hesitate to target any nerf at cloaks only. I would certainly stop far short of a cloak targeting decloaking module. Requiring the reactivation of the cloak every 30 minutes less work than recalling probes every 60 minutes and then launching and re-configuring their formation. Neither mechanic could be called a nerf; module cycle times are a natural mechanic in Eve and 30 minutes is longer than most cycle timers. My ideas are quite reasonable, follow existing mechanics, and have minimal impact on the game. I am wondering how anyone could consider my ideas a nerf, especially after hearing how cloaks can be scanned, targeted and decloaked while cloaked out to 100km away. Only a real afk would even notice my auto-log, and then he would have one less process wasting away his CPU cycles.


Blah blah blah. So many words to deny the obvious.

Why does AFK cloaking "work" and why do some pilots "do it"? Because local tells everyone that would want to rat there: "Hey, there is a guy here who probably has bad intentions and if you let him he'll blow up your stuff."

Take that away and AFK goes away. What will it be replaced by? Active cloakers who'll be using the lack of local to kill people. The guy who logs in and leaves his alts in various systems cloaked while running errands, going to work, etc. will become pointless because it wont have any effect because the locals who want to PvE wont see him there and dock up.

You know this, you just can't admit it.

As for your 30 minute log off time, you are not being completely honest there. You have already said that people in station would not be affected. I'm assuming if you are AFK at a POS it wont impact you either. So please, we know what you really want to do is nerf cloaks in general.

Can't you at least be honest.

Oh, and yeah module cycles are very common in Eve, but almost all modules auto-cycle. I don't have to keep turning on my hardeners or my sebo now do I?

"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.
#3079 - 2013-11-25 11:34:51 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
This post is to clean up some ideas, terms and definitions here....

AFK: Away From the Keyboard--i.e. a player who is not at his keyboard and not (largely) aware of what is going on in game.

Cloaking devices: Modules that are fit to ships, when fit they prevent all other modules from functioning. The prototype cloak and even the improved cloaking device and faction cloaks all heavily nerf the ships sub-warp speed and prevent ships from warping. The covert ops type cloaking device allows normal sub-warp speed and warping.

Risk: The potential of loss (an undesirable outcome, however not necessarily so) resulting from a given action, activity and/or inaction, foreseen or unforeseen. The notion implies that a choice having an influence on the outcome sometimes exists (or existed).

Risk of a single adverse incident can be expressed as:

(Probability of the adverse event)*Loss.

Uncertainty: It applies to predictions of future events, to physical measurements that are already made, or to the unknown. Uncertainty arises in partially observable and/or stochastic environments, as well as due to ignorance and/or indolence.

Based on the above we can safely conclude that an pilot that is AFK and who ship is cloaked at a safe spot presents no risk to a pilot who would like to PvE in the same system.

However, since the pilot who wants to engage in PvE does not have complete knowledge (i.e. he cannot know if the pilot is really AFK, was AFK but no longer is, is simply pretending to be AFK, etc.) the level of uncertainty has increased. This increase in uncertainty is often translated, by PvE pilots, as a commensurate increase in risk as well.

So when we get right down to it, the issue of AFK cloaking is nothing more than a discussion of uncertainty. One side wants to lower that uncertainty, the other side does not.
Sigh...
No matter how many times you repeat this, it will never be any less wrong.
The element you miss is threat, which bridges the gap between uncertainty and risk. Threat needs to be assessed and treated in the same way as risk, and is what is provided by an AFK player. The discussion is, "should an AFK player be allowed to exert threat?".

And no, removing AFK element does NOT remove uncertainty. If it did, then you are saying that no active cloaker has ever chosen to not attack. What we want is for people to actually PLAY THE GAME to be allowed to provide 24/7 threat. What you want is to keep the ability to AFK cloak, as well as destroy local so active cloakers are more powerful too.

Teckos Pech wrote:

The following suggestions for AFK cloaking, are to varying degrees, nerfs to cloaks in general:

Cloaking timer (i.e. the module cycles and needs to be reactivated at the end of the cycle).
Cloaking fuel.
Heat damage.
Various additions to the lore that cause cloaks to drop over time.
POS decloaking array.
Cloak detection probes.
Modules that decloak like the POS module.

All of these suggestions impact ALL cloaks.

I like how you simply dismiss the fact that there has been an idea repeatedly raised which is not on this list and does NOT only affect cloakers.
That is the AFK timer. After a certain time of being afk, all afk players in space (not just cloakers) are warped to deadspace and marked with an icon in local. Their own local list ceases to update. This means they cannot be found but also cannot act. It's the equivalent of logging them off without logging them off (so chat windows can remain, things continue to log, etc).

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3080 - 2013-11-25 11:43:32 UTC
By the way guys, you won't get anywhere with Teckos. As far as he is concerned he is utterly right, in every way, and nothing will change that. He will attack you, you methods of arguments and your reasons for arguing your side, regardless of how reasonable you are. He seems to think that he is somehow more important than the rest of us, considering the vast majority is on the side of removing AFK cloaking, as shown by the sheer volume of threads against it.

Luckily for us though, CCP have already acknowledged the issue at Vegas, so I imagine after they are done butchering spammers and margin trade scammers they will be moving into this area.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.