These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#3161 - 2013-11-26 00:14:42 UTC
General Xenophon wrote:
Quote:
An effort to be reasonable is always appreciated, but let's not stretch the truth, or use misleading terms along the way.

My two points above, which you kindly re-labeled as possibility, were phrased in such a way as to actually be false.
They can, however, represent views which have some degree of popularity.

Point one:
"PvE pilots have no choice but to get safe and stay docked up during the time a hostile is in system."
This is not true, but many players feel this way. If it were true, you would be unable to actually undock under those conditions.
To many players, I fully grant, it is a BAD IDEA to undock with a hostile in system, but that is a completely different condition from having no choice.
Many players actually choose to take risks, and even go so far as to attempt to trick hostile pilots with an ambush of their own.
Choice exists, therefore to say there is no choice with evidence to the contrary, is at best an opinion.

Point two:
"Cloaked pilots all have cyno generators, and 200 pilot fleets on 30 second standby to hot drop with."
This statement is patently ridiculous. While the possibility may exist, we all know that in many cases the cloaked pilot really is AFK, which means noone is on standby at all.
Treating this condition as anything but an opinion is disingenuous, and misleading.
That being said, players are free to make whatever assumptions make them happy. Some of them even go so far as to role-play, and pretend that they really are the characters they control.
There is no wrong way to play the game, excepting what is specified in the EULA.
If you want to treat all pilots as dangerous and possibly backed up by such overwhelming numbers, that is your call, but let's not treat it as being more than an unfounded assumption.

Honesty helps a discussion more than anything else.


Semantics. To me it read as, this only happens in the sphere of Opinion, which is not true. It's a documented occurrence and I know you've lived in 0.0 long enough to know this. It is not an Opinion, it is a possibility, but I think in essence we were trying to say the same thing.

The 2nd point is also documented throughout Eve and this is a possible action which may occur, not an opinion unless by opinion you strictly mean that is the only option available to a cloaker in the system. Many cloakers do not use the cyno idea or this tactic is not available to them due to their alliance size / online players / location etc. So I think what you mean to say is that these are possibilities, but do not mean they will happen ALL of the time. Opinion is, strictly speaking the wrong implication to anyone who has lived in 0.0 in a large or renter alliance for more than a few weeks because they understand or have seen these tactics used.


No. I'm going to be harder on you than Nikk. Not ALL cloaked ships have cynos. Sure some do, but some don't. The statement: "All cloaked ships have cynos..." is opinion. A dubious one at that.

Now, saying, "That ship might have a cyno, and thus is a larger threat than just a single ship." That is much more reasonable. Is it fact? No, but it is a reasonable belief for one to hold.

See the difference? One assumes the worst possibly event and assigns a probability of 1 to it...in effect claiming it is fact. The second does not. The first is demonstrably false (I have a cloaked ship in my hangar right now that has no cyno). The second is, again, a reasonable belief.

The second part of the statment, "...and has a fleet of 200 pilots waiting to stream through!" is also not fact, it is purely opinion and a dubious one at that.

Restating it as, "...and he might have a fleet on standby and could be jumping through!" Another reasonable belief. And again the first implies certainty. Andy and Lucas act as if this is the case all the time. That the probability is 1....that it is indeed fact.

Noting it does happen and claiming it must always happen are two totally different claims. One is reasonable the other is incoherent.

"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
#3162 - 2013-11-26 00:16:06 UTC  |  Edited by: General Xenophon
Teckos Pech wrote:
General Xenophon wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Jenna Hamalia wrote:
Why do we continue to divert from the key problem here?

Using a cloak, someone can sit unwelcome in a system with zero risk to their vessel with zero effort on their part. There needs to be some way for a corporation to enforce the sovereignty of their systems and that is missing.


And they present zero risk so long as they use that cloak.

The problem is the perception of increased uncertainty and the attendant risk that hostile usually provides...but it is only a problem for those who let it influence them into effectively giving control over the system in question to the cloaker.

We have seen it here. Both Andy and Lucas have made the case:

The PvE pilot must assume that that the AFK cloaker is in fact not AFK. That they are present at their keyboard and can attack at any moment. Andy has also stated that it is not unreasonable to assume that such a pilot also has a cyno fitted and fleet on stand by...at all times.

In other words, Andy and Lucas, and I doubt they are alone, assume the most risk averse position possible. That's fine...that is their choice. Let me repeat that, that is their choice. But it is not their only choice.



Another non-argument. Saying they are without threat until they drop cloak and attack and or jump in friends is the same as saying someone with a gun to your head is no danger until they pull the trigger. The threat is there and there is no response available to counter it. Stop nitpicking and offer some reasonable constructive criticism.


What if it is a gun with a trigger lock on it? Is the threat still as large?

Yes, the guy cloaked in system represents an increase in uncertainty and that can also mean an increase in risk. And there are viable responses...one is simply docking up/logging off...but that is...your choice.


Someone watches too many spy films.. (which by the way, IS AWESOME! Can't get enough! :D)

Maybe it's just me, but if there's a gun to my head I'm less likely to care if the safety is on, and more about whether I am going to live and get out of the situation, or take the gun away and deal with the person doing it in a non-lethal way.

Eve mechanics offer no real counter to a cloaked pilot, so safety or not, the gun is there and there's nothing quite truly realistic one can do to get it pointed in another direction, short of the a fore mentioned non-solutions.
General Xenophon
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3163 - 2013-11-26 00:21:21 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
General Xenophon wrote:
Quote:
An effort to be reasonable is always appreciated, but let's not stretch the truth, or use misleading terms along the way.

My two points above, which you kindly re-labeled as possibility, were phrased in such a way as to actually be false.
They can, however, represent views which have some degree of popularity.

Point one:
"PvE pilots have no choice but to get safe and stay docked up during the time a hostile is in system."
This is not true, but many players feel this way. If it were true, you would be unable to actually undock under those conditions.
To many players, I fully grant, it is a BAD IDEA to undock with a hostile in system, but that is a completely different condition from having no choice.
Many players actually choose to take risks, and even go so far as to attempt to trick hostile pilots with an ambush of their own.
Choice exists, therefore to say there is no choice with evidence to the contrary, is at best an opinion.

Point two:
"Cloaked pilots all have cyno generators, and 200 pilot fleets on 30 second standby to hot drop with."
This statement is patently ridiculous. While the possibility may exist, we all know that in many cases the cloaked pilot really is AFK, which means noone is on standby at all.
Treating this condition as anything but an opinion is disingenuous, and misleading.
That being said, players are free to make whatever assumptions make them happy. Some of them even go so far as to role-play, and pretend that they really are the characters they control.
There is no wrong way to play the game, excepting what is specified in the EULA.
If you want to treat all pilots as dangerous and possibly backed up by such overwhelming numbers, that is your call, but let's not treat it as being more than an unfounded assumption.

Honesty helps a discussion more than anything else.


Semantics. To me it read as, this only happens in the sphere of Opinion, which is not true. It's a documented occurrence and I know you've lived in 0.0 long enough to know this. It is not an Opinion, it is a possibility, but I think in essence we were trying to say the same thing.

The 2nd point is also documented throughout Eve and this is a possible action which may occur, not an opinion unless by opinion you strictly mean that is the only option available to a cloaker in the system. Many cloakers do not use the cyno idea or this tactic is not available to them due to their alliance size / online players / location etc. So I think what you mean to say is that these are possibilities, but do not mean they will happen ALL of the time. Opinion is, strictly speaking the wrong implication to anyone who has lived in 0.0 in a large or renter alliance for more than a few weeks because they understand or have seen these tactics used.


No. I'm going to be harder on you than Nikk. Not ALL cloaked ships have cynos. Sure some do, but some don't. The statement: "All cloaked ships have cynos..." is opinion. A dubious one at that.

Now, saying, "That ship might have a cyno, and thus is a larger threat than just a single ship." That is much more reasonable. Is it fact? No, but it is a reasonable belief for one to hold.

See the difference? One assumes the worst possibly event and assigns a probability of 1 to it...in effect claiming it is fact. The second does not. The first is demonstrably false (I have a cloaked ship in my hangar right now that has no cyno). The second is, again, a reasonable belief.

The second part of the statment, "...and has a fleet of 200 pilots waiting to stream through!" is also not fact, it is purely opinion and a dubious one at that.

Restating it as, "...and he might have a fleet on standby and could be jumping through!" Another reasonable belief. And again the first implies certainty. Andy and Lucas act as if this is the case all the time. That the probability is 1....that it is indeed fact.

Noting it does happen and claiming it must always happen are two totally different claims. One is reasonable the other is incoherent.


I think we can agree it was just semantics. Nick was just illustrating a point that you can't KNOW what a cloak has with them with 100% certainty, so the argument can't be made that you know they will bring in 200 friends or what. This just helps clear up the deceptive perspective views that all cloakers are one thing and one thing alone as it's not quite true in all situations.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3164 - 2013-11-26 00:23:30 UTC
General Xenophon wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
General Xenophon wrote:
Quote:
An effort to be reasonable is always appreciated, but let's not stretch the truth, or use misleading terms along the way.

My two points above, which you kindly re-labeled as possibility, were phrased in such a way as to actually be false.
They can, however, represent views which have some degree of popularity.

Point one:
"PvE pilots have no choice but to get safe and stay docked up during the time a hostile is in system."
This is not true, but many players feel this way. If it were true, you would be unable to actually undock under those conditions.
To many players, I fully grant, it is a BAD IDEA to undock with a hostile in system, but that is a completely different condition from having no choice.
Many players actually choose to take risks, and even go so far as to attempt to trick hostile pilots with an ambush of their own.
Choice exists, therefore to say there is no choice with evidence to the contrary, is at best an opinion.

Point two:
"Cloaked pilots all have cyno generators, and 200 pilot fleets on 30 second standby to hot drop with."
This statement is patently ridiculous. While the possibility may exist, we all know that in many cases the cloaked pilot really is AFK, which means noone is on standby at all.
Treating this condition as anything but an opinion is disingenuous, and misleading.
That being said, players are free to make whatever assumptions make them happy. Some of them even go so far as to role-play, and pretend that they really are the characters they control.
There is no wrong way to play the game, excepting what is specified in the EULA.
If you want to treat all pilots as dangerous and possibly backed up by such overwhelming numbers, that is your call, but let's not treat it as being more than an unfounded assumption.

Honesty helps a discussion more than anything else.


Semantics. To me it read as, this only happens in the sphere of Opinion, which is not true. It's a documented occurrence and I know you've lived in 0.0 long enough to know this. It is not an Opinion, it is a possibility, but I think in essence we were trying to say the same thing.

The 2nd point is also documented throughout Eve and this is a possible action which may occur, not an opinion unless by opinion you strictly mean that is the only option available to a cloaker in the system. Many cloakers do not use the cyno idea or this tactic is not available to them due to their alliance size / online players / location etc. So I think what you mean to say is that these are possibilities, but do not mean they will happen ALL of the time. Opinion is, strictly speaking the wrong implication to anyone who has lived in 0.0 for more than a few weeks.

Which is exactly why there were two versions of each, one stating a popular opinion in some circles, the other relating actual facts.

It is perfectly fine to take precautions, against the possibility that someone might have a genuine ability to attack or bring in allies, but it becomes misleading to suggest this is an absolute, or even that it happens more often than can be demonstrated.

Convincing someone that something happens more often than it does is misleading, because game changing decisions are made from expectations which are perception based.

Missed opportunities are the flip side of being overly cautious. Let's not inspire missed opportunities to happen any more than they already do.


Again, semantics. Presenting possibilities, ie something which MIGHT happen (or may NOT) as 'Opinions' instead, is not valid and implies these things are a matter of perspective, which they are not. These things happen, this is not a matter of opinion.

How frequently they happen is the what you are trying to say, as this more than anything color's people's perspective when it comes to making games changes. Since we don't want people to over-react and break the game, I appreciate your thoughtfulness in this area in trying to present a rational and objective view. I am often unable to do this as well myself and I appreciate you trying to do so. Thank you.


Uhhmm no. Probabilities in this case are a matter of perspective. Yes these things happen (people docking up, cloaking ships having cynos) but they don't always happen. So it is up to each player to assign probabilities to these events.

Lets go with the cyno issue. You could say, "He has a cyno fit," i.e. it is something that has a probability of 1. Another could say, "He may have a cyno fit," and mentally give it a 0.5 probability. Both are valid probabilities, the only thing is the first one is what is called a dogmatic (prior) probability. No amount of evidence will get that person to change his mind. To him, it is fact. It is a dubious position, really. Sure he may reduce his risk to losing a ship to a cyno, but it is still a dogmatic probability assessment. I'd even go so far as to say that a dogmatic probability assessment, in general, is likely irrational.

"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
#3165 - 2013-11-26 00:26:41 UTC  |  Edited by: General Xenophon
Quote:

Sigh....

Regarding counters:

Counters do not have to be hard counters--i.e. blowing the guy up or something like that. They can be soft as well. If you have an AFK cloaker show up, start ratting as a group in PvP fit ships. No single cloaker will even try to engage so long as your are reasonably smart about it (i.e. if one of your group is 125 KM off and out of range of your guns, but close enough so you can warp to him; then he might be picked off...maybe). Now you are utilizing your system, getting resources and denying the cloaker kills should he happen back to his keyboard while you are active. You have essentially countered him.

Look at when he is active. His KB can tell you this (assuming he has one) and if he is active when you are in bed...well, lucky for you.


This does not address the issue of cloaking. This is a non-solution. Irrelevant.
Quote:

Moving over a system can not only allow you to continue to acquire resources (i.e. a counter to part of what the AFK cloaker may be after) it can also give you more information...or at least go someways towards reducing uncertainty. If you move over a system and start PvEing and the cloaker does not follow...he is probably AFK.

Find other ways to utilize/acquire resources in your system(s). I routinely undock alts when a hostile is in system. I then stop my ship, align out to a POS, warp to the POS, then align out to a safe, and if possible cloak for a bit, then align to the out gate or whatever else I need to do (i.e. not ratting or mining). I have never lost a ship doing this. Could I someday? Yeah, but so far the risk appears to be minimal even when there is a hostile in system.


Completely situational and dependent on how much space is owned and where it is. People level indices of systems and cloakers target these specifically with impunity. Non-solution.

Quote:
Regarding Anti-AFK Suggestions:

Earlier in this thread I offered the following advice to the Anti-AFK crowd: come up with a solution that presents not even the whiff of a nerf to the active player. The active player is not the intended target and anything that nerf's his game play is Bad™. There is only one problem with this...its really, really hard. Every idea on the front page either nerfs cloaks in a pretty obvious way, or for quite a few players means extra hoops to jump through (e.g. an alt scout in another system would need to be kept "active" even though the player is at his keyboard....I can imainge alot of PvE pilots whining about this once their scout alts start getting logged off).


So provide any example, at all, which you would not consider to be a nerf to cloaking.

Quote:
And as for reading people's posts. Scroll back. I gave an example where I used my cloak for more than 30 minutes straight once and would have died if Andy's earlier suggestion of the cloak just shutting off and needing a manual restart were in effect. I had to fly around a very large gate camp (there were hundreds of people in that system, it had just been the site of a big extraction effort by a number of titans and fleets). Andy pompously implied I was a liar because it was highly doubtful I would have to fly through 720km of bubbles. In reality I spent as little time flying through the bubbles because I FLEW AROUND THEM....manually and at sub-warp speed in an Arazu. I was going for the thinnest/weakest point in the bubbles/camp to get out of the system and get back to our main stagging area. All this was clear from what I had written. And yet, there is Andy stamping his foot demanding I read his post where it implies I suddenly accept that simply removing local is too much, and that my earlier suggestions were going to leave NPC null without any kind of intel infrastructure even though I had addressed that point.

Now, if Andy wants to re-wrire and re-post I'd be glad to read it.


You've read one post. Congratulations! No sarcasm intended at all, I do truly appreciate this and I SHOULD AND WILL SAY, THANK YOU(!) for staying with this enormously long thread for so long! That takes an exceptional amount of dedication and time and I'm sure you've had to READ many many many posts by now which would wear anyone out! Now continue this positive and thoughtful nature when responding to other ideas which you have not read fully or adequately. Please also call me on this when and if I don't read something fully.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3166 - 2013-11-26 00:28:49 UTC
General Xenophon wrote:


I think we can agree it was just semantics. Nick was just illustrating a point that you can't KNOW what a cloak has with them with 100% certainty, so the argument can't be made that you know they will bring in 200 friends or what. This just helps clear up the deceptive perspective views that all cloakers are one thing and one thing alone as it's not quite true in all situations.


Okay, yes. We seem to be in some agreement on this issue then...I think.

I'd also like to point out, I don't assume things have a probability of 1 without a really, really, really good reason. You can assume the probability is very, very, very close to 1, but that is different than holding a dogmatic view point IMO.

Here is how you can tell the view point that "all cloaked ships have a cyno fit" and then behave accordingly...flip it.

"Cloaked ships never, ever fit a cyno." Clearly we can all agree that latter view point is incoherent. We'd all look at a person making such a statement as being a bit daft.

Well it is the polar opposite of "every cloaked ship has a cyno"...after all the range we are talking about is [0,1]. If assuming something that we really can't be sure of must happen with probability 0 is crazy...then so is its exact opposite.

"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
#3167 - 2013-11-26 00:30:23 UTC  |  Edited by: General Xenophon
Teckos Pech wrote:
General Xenophon wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
General Xenophon wrote:
Quote:
An effort to be reasonable is always appreciated, but let's not stretch the truth, or use misleading terms along the way.

My two points above, which you kindly re-labeled as possibility, were phrased in such a way as to actually be false.
They can, however, represent views which have some degree of popularity.

Point one:
"PvE pilots have no choice but to get safe and stay docked up during the time a hostile is in system."
This is not true, but many players feel this way. If it were true, you would be unable to actually undock under those conditions.
To many players, I fully grant, it is a BAD IDEA to undock with a hostile in system, but that is a completely different condition from having no choice.
Many players actually choose to take risks, and even go so far as to attempt to trick hostile pilots with an ambush of their own.
Choice exists, therefore to say there is no choice with evidence to the contrary, is at best an opinion.

Point two:
"Cloaked pilots all have cyno generators, and 200 pilot fleets on 30 second standby to hot drop with."
This statement is patently ridiculous. While the possibility may exist, we all know that in many cases the cloaked pilot really is AFK, which means noone is on standby at all.
Treating this condition as anything but an opinion is disingenuous, and misleading.
That being said, players are free to make whatever assumptions make them happy. Some of them even go so far as to role-play, and pretend that they really are the characters they control.
There is no wrong way to play the game, excepting what is specified in the EULA.
If you want to treat all pilots as dangerous and possibly backed up by such overwhelming numbers, that is your call, but let's not treat it as being more than an unfounded assumption.

Honesty helps a discussion more than anything else.


Semantics. To me it read as, this only happens in the sphere of Opinion, which is not true. It's a documented occurrence and I know you've lived in 0.0 long enough to know this. It is not an Opinion, it is a possibility, but I think in essence we were trying to say the same thing.

The 2nd point is also documented throughout Eve and this is a possible action which may occur, not an opinion unless by opinion you strictly mean that is the only option available to a cloaker in the system. Many cloakers do not use the cyno idea or this tactic is not available to them due to their alliance size / online players / location etc. So I think what you mean to say is that these are possibilities, but do not mean they will happen ALL of the time. Opinion is, strictly speaking the wrong implication to anyone who has lived in 0.0 for more than a few weeks.

Which is exactly why there were two versions of each, one stating a popular opinion in some circles, the other relating actual facts.

It is perfectly fine to take precautions, against the possibility that someone might have a genuine ability to attack or bring in allies, but it becomes misleading to suggest this is an absolute, or even that it happens more often than can be demonstrated.

Convincing someone that something happens more often than it does is misleading, because game changing decisions are made from expectations which are perception based.

Missed opportunities are the flip side of being overly cautious. Let's not inspire missed opportunities to happen any more than they already do.


Again, semantics. Presenting possibilities, ie something which MIGHT happen (or may NOT) as 'Opinions' instead, is not valid and implies these things are a matter of perspective, which they are not. These things happen, this is not a matter of opinion.

How frequently they happen is the what you are trying to say, as this more than anything color's people's perspective when it comes to making games changes. Since we don't want people to over-react and break the game, I appreciate your thoughtfulness in this area in trying to present a rational and objective view. I am often unable to do this as well myself and I appreciate you trying to do so. Thank you.


Uhhmm no. Probabilities in this case are a matter of perspective. Yes these things happen (people docking up, cloaking ships having cynos) but they don't always happen. So it is up to each player to assign probabilities to these events.

Lets go with the cyno issue. You could say, "He has a cyno fit," i.e. it is something that has a probability of 1. Another could say, "He may have a cyno fit," and mentally give it a 0.5 probability. Both are valid probabilities, the only thing is the first one is what is called a dogmatic (prior) probability. No amount of evidence will get that person to change his mind. To him, it is fact. It is a dubious position, really. Sure he may reduce his risk to losing a ship to a cyno, but it is still a dogmatic probability assessment. I'd even go so far as to say that a dogmatic probability assessment, in general, is likely irrational.


I'm not talking about probability, I'm talking about things that happen. I do not claim to have a spreadsheet on how often these things happen or don't happen. The fact is they do, but just because they happen is not the whole perspective and certainly doesn't make them a matter of opinion. I can't control what other people think and try not to as I'd likely only confuse myself trying to word everything perfectly and never being able to do so (I will admit you and Nick are far better at wording than I).

We also don't want the empire kiddos to come in waving their nerf bats and chanting "Burn the op-items! All hail the nerf-poc-alypse!" Heaven help us if they nerf Supercarriers AGAIN because someone died in low sec in their badger... (humor intended!)
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3168 - 2013-11-26 00:37:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
General Xenophon wrote:


This does not address the issue of cloaking. This is a non-solution. Irrelevant.


Sure it does. It is a soft counter. You are rendering the AFK cloaking pointless. As you note below one reason it is done is to adversely impact various indices of a system. If you keep them up, you've countered them. Just as warp core stabs can be a counter to a low sec gate camp.

General Xenophon wrote:


Completely situational and dependent on how much space is owned and where it is. People level indices of systems and cloakers target these specifically with impunity. Non-solution.


Not at all, the point is to keep the AFK cloaker from denying your resources, if you still acquire those resources you win.

General Xenophon wrote:

So provide any example, at all, which you would not consider to be a nerf to cloaking.


My solution was to decouple intel and local, and replace it with an intel system that had to be put in place by the players (in sov space, NPC sov would have to be handled somewhat differently). It was designed to remove AFK cloaking by removing the reason for AFK cloaking....appearing in local. Also a number of nerfs to the cloaking mechanic as found on the front page. And technically it was not "my solution" I pointed to somebody elses suggestions.

General Xenophon wrote:

You've read one post. Congratulations! Now continue this positive and thoughtful nature when responding to other ideas which you have not read fully or adequately.


Edit: Removed the response here since you intended no sarcasm.

"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
#3169 - 2013-11-26 00:41:27 UTC
General Xenophon wrote:


I'm not talking about probability, I'm talking about things that happen. I do not claim to have a spreadsheet on how often these things happen or don't happen. The fact is they do, but just because they happen is not the whole perspective and certainly doesn't make them a matter of opinion. I can't control what other people think and try not to as I'd likely only confuse myself trying to word everything perfectly and never being able to do so (I will admit you and Nick are far better at wording than I).

We also don't want the empire kiddos to come in waving their nerf bats and chanting "Burn the op-items! All hail the nerf-poc-alypse!" Heaven help us if they nerf Supercarriers AGAIN because someone died in low sec in their badger... (humor intended!)


Yes you are talking about probabilities. If you don't know something, then it will have to be put into terms of probabilities, probably subjective probabilities, but still probabilities none-the-less. And the fact that some things happen...sometimes, and sometimes they don't, does not mean we aren't talking about probabilities.

My point is quite valid about assuming a cloaked ship has a cyno. It is an incoherent belief. Once we realize that, we are moving a bit closer towards hopefully finding a suitable solution. Catering to those who hold incoherent beliefs wont help.

"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
Jenna Hamalia
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#3170 - 2013-11-26 00:49:19 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Jenna Hamalia wrote:
Why do we continue to divert from the key problem here?

Using a cloak, someone can sit unwelcome in a system with zero risk to their vessel with zero effort on their part. There needs to be some way for a corporation to enforce the sovereignty of their systems and that is missing.


And they present zero risk so long as they use that cloak


So you are perfectly fine with me sitting in your front yard and cloud watching? I'm no threat as long as I'm just cloud watching, so you obviously are fine with that and won't call the cops. You're such a wonderfully nice (and stupidly naive person). Roll
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3171 - 2013-11-26 01:32:06 UTC
The moment you assume the afk cloaky has no cyno is the moment you get "caught with your pants down," and rest assured, I will be laughing hard at you. The CYNO is the ONLY reason that I would EVER CARE about a SOLO FRIGATE, much less a cloaky one. Remove the cyno and this thread just became a non-issue. Camp all you want little guy. What are you going to do, tickle me with your torps?

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Skerra
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3172 - 2013-11-26 01:46:27 UTC
He never replied to my idea about slow heat damage after 4hrs and how it could keep running for 12hrs at which point it would burn out giving the local population a chance to do something. people call this a nerf but its only a nerf if your not active for an entire day. you can still perform all actions without penalty up till 4hrs and even then you still have 8hrs additional hours to hold your cloak. the only people who really become penalized are the ones who set it and forget it.
General Xenophon
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3173 - 2013-11-26 01:53:05 UTC  |  Edited by: General Xenophon
Quote:
Sure it does. It is a soft counter. You are rendering the AFK cloaking pointless. As you note below one reason it is done is to adversely impact various indices of a system. If you keep them up, you've countered them. Just as warp core stabs can be a counter to a low sec gate camp.


Simply put, no. It's not a counter to afk cloaking and depends entirely on the situation (situations can and do change) and it's not a solution to the issue. Warp core stabs are likely not a solution for running anoms or mining for the number to use would be impractical. Also, indices remain at their level by activity of those in the system, so without the required activity -due to the hostile in local- the indices drop, causing the value of the system to plummet. You cannot keep the indices up with wishful thinking and zero effort and simply lemming-it-up into a gang to just do it anyway is a quick way to a short mining / ratting / plex op, and again, doesn't address the issue which this entire 159+ page thread is trying to cover.

Quote:

Not at all, the point is to keep the AFK cloaker from denying your resources, if you still acquire those resources you win.


I think maybe you've missed what I said, or I've misspoke. When your prize system or systems are entered by a ship you cannot find, see, or decloak, there is no counter and renders this argument nearly impossible. You can move to another system, depending on the situation, the number of pilots you have to cram into that new system, how many cloakers there are, and whether the cloaker/s move to another system and then stay there. It doesn't always happen but I've seen cloakers move from system to system on a irregular enough basis just to keep the area from being utilized. It also depends how much space you have and not all alliances have enough space to player ratio to really make this 'workable' for their sov costs and regular maintenance which is required with game mechanics -yes boohoo, but it means this isn't a solution for afk cloaking by just 'managing resources'.

Most if not all, of the 'soft counters' you speak of are entirely situational or based off a pilot making a mistake but do NOT address the core issue of nearly impossible to find cloakers by any current game mechanic bar bumping into them or smartbombing next to them (which in terms of probability -NOW I am talking and intentionally so about probability- is a unique and Black Swan random event you nearly cannot account for it or least of all, call it a 'solution' to afk cloaking).

My challenge to an alliance with the numbers like Goonswarm, would be to swarm a system and smartbomb the crap out of it and see how many times they find the cloaked ship of a skilled cloaker in that system (it has to be a challenge, not a trollol blow up the stealthed ship off the station at 100km).


Quote:
My solution was to decouple intel and local, and replace it with an intel system that had to be put in place by the players (in sov space, NPC sov would have to be handled somewhat differently). It was designed to remove AFK cloaking by removing the reason for AFK cloaking....appearing in local. Also a number of nerfs to the cloaking mechanic as found on the front page. And technically it was not "my solution" I pointed to somebody elses suggestions.


This sounds interesting! Thanks for the idea! I'm not certain I understand what THE solution is other than fancy-speak for 'remove local chat'. Is there a full link in this or somewhere I can read more about this so I sound less like a dithering idiot?

Quote:

Edit: Removed the response here since you intended no sarcasm.


Thanks :) I wrote it out first but realized it was not quite explained enough to be devoid of that unhelpful sarcasm that crops up from me now and then.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3174 - 2013-11-26 01:58:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Teckos Pech wrote:

And as for reading people's posts. Scroll back. I gave an example where I used my cloak for more than 30 minutes straight once and would have died if Andy's earlier suggestion of the cloak just shutting off and needing a manual restart were in effect. I had to fly around a very large gate camp (there were hundreds of people in that system, it had just been the site of a big extraction effort by a number of titans and fleets). Andy pompously implied I was a liar because it was highly doubtful I would have to fly through 720km of bubbles. In reality I spent as little time flying through the bubbles because I FLEW AROUND THEM....manually and at sub-warp speed in an Arazu. I was going for the thinnest/weakest point in the bubbles/camp to get out of the system and get back to our main stagging area. All this was clear from what I had written. And yet, there is Andy stamping his foot demanding I read his post where it implies I suddenly accept that simply removing local is too much, and that my earlier suggestions were going to leave NPC null without any kind of intel infrastructure even though I had addressed that point.

Now, if Andy wants to re-wrire and re-post I'd be glad to read it.

Your example in the Arazu is indeed impressive, though bookmarks on grid would have enabled you to get a breather under the 30 minute cycle timer idea in that particularly stressful and a highly unique (and dangerous) situation. [And I never doubted your claim. I just noted that it would have been a LOT of flying cloaked.] And players with scouts would have to give the smallest attention to them .. what good is a scout that is ignored anyhow?

I spent good effort writing what I did only for you to say, "read it? meh. No thanks." I, on the other hand do read your posts and always respond after reading them. If you read them but it was just so long ago, I would dig it up and repost, so that the details could be discussed with clarity and accuracy. But this is a case intentionally not reading them. I will of course not repost for those who decline the first opportunity. If "pompous" means feeling so much more important than everyone else that their ideas are not even worth reading, it would be wise for you to not use that word. Go back and actually read what I wrote, because it is deep stuff and absolutely essential to this discussion .. and I want to know your feedback on it. Indeed, I am sure that many of us are all interested in your response.

But if it is too much effort for you to promote the specific details of your ideas, then by all means then we will all be happy to cease consideration of your ideas upon your request. I, on the other hand, actually feel that your ideas merit serious consideration of the details for implementation. Tell us or don't. I am happy either way.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
General Xenophon
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3175 - 2013-11-26 02:00:15 UTC  |  Edited by: General Xenophon
Teckos Pech wrote:
General Xenophon wrote:


I'm not talking about probability, I'm talking about things that happen. I do not claim to have a spreadsheet on how often these things happen or don't happen. The fact is they do, but just because they happen is not the whole perspective and certainly doesn't make them a matter of opinion. I can't control what other people think and try not to as I'd likely only confuse myself trying to word everything perfectly and never being able to do so (I will admit you and Nick are far better at wording than I).

We also don't want the empire kiddos to come in waving their nerf bats and chanting "Burn the op-items! All hail the nerf-poc-alypse!" Heaven help us if they nerf Supercarriers AGAIN because someone died in low sec in their badger... (humor intended!)


Yes you are talking about probabilities. If you don't know something, then it will have to be put into terms of probabilities, probably subjective probabilities, but still probabilities none-the-less. And the fact that some things happen...sometimes, and sometimes they don't, does not mean we aren't talking about probabilities.

My point is quite valid about assuming a cloaked ship has a cyno. It is an incoherent belief. Once we realize that, we are moving a bit closer towards hopefully finding a suitable solution. Catering to those who hold incoherent beliefs wont help.


No, I'm not. I'm fairly certain I am aware of what I'm writing as I'm the one writing it.

You may refer to it as probability, but I'm not. It happens, it's an event in Eve. I am NOT claiming to say how frequently it happens in any degree, just that it happens, so no, I'm not talking about probability. I've been pretty consistent in saying cynos on ships don't happen all the time. It is A tactic, but not the ONLY tactic, and is certainly NOT used all the time. It is one of many and illustrates the unknown and very present danger of an immune to detection, cloaked ship. I think someone already said this but if someone treats a cloaked ship without any degree of threat, then one is likely to be taken out by it and that is quite justly deserved (so long as it's not a blue, obviously).

I'm really done arguing about wording on this. Nothing changes that this happens in Eve and is a fact. The actual numbers of times anything happens is in the data CCP has and I do not claim to know this.
General Xenophon
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3176 - 2013-11-26 02:22:10 UTC  |  Edited by: General Xenophon
Andy Landen wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

And as for reading people's posts. Scroll back. I gave an example where I used my cloak for more than 30 minutes straight once and would have died if Andy's earlier suggestion of the cloak just shutting off and needing a manual restart were in effect. I had to fly around a very large gate camp (there were hundreds of people in that system, it had just been the site of a big extraction effort by a number of titans and fleets). Andy pompously implied I was a liar because it was highly doubtful I would have to fly through 720km of bubbles. In reality I spent as little time flying through the bubbles because I FLEW AROUND THEM....manually and at sub-warp speed in an Arazu. I was going for the thinnest/weakest point in the bubbles/camp to get out of the system and get back to our main stagging area. All this was clear from what I had written. And yet, there is Andy stamping his foot demanding I read his post where it implies I suddenly accept that simply removing local is too much, and that my earlier suggestions were going to leave NPC null without any kind of intel infrastructure even though I had addressed that point.

Now, if Andy wants to re-wrire and re-post I'd be glad to read it.

Your example in the Arazu is indeed impressive, though bookmarks on grid would have enabled you to get a breather under the 30 minute cycle timer idea in that particularly stressful and a highly unique (and dangerous) situation. [And I never doubted your claim. I just noted that it would have been a LOT of flying cloaked.] And players with scouts would have to give the smallest attention to them .. what good is a scout that is ignored anyhow?

I spent good effort writing what I did only for you to say, "read it? meh. No thanks." I, on the other hand do read your posts and always respond after reading them. If you read them but it was just so long ago, I would dig it up and repost, so that the details could be discussed with clarity and accuracy. But this is a case intentionally not reading them. I will of course not repost for those who decline the first opportunity. If "pompous" means feeling so much more important than everyone else that their ideas are not even worth reading, it would be wise for you to not use that word. Go back and actually read what I wrote, because it is deep stuff and absolutely essential to this discussion .. and I want to know your feedback on it. Indeed, I am sure that many of us are all interested in your response.

But if it is too much effort for you to promote the specific details of your ideas, then by all means then we will all be happy to cease consideration of your ideas upon your request. I, on the other hand, actually feel that your ideas merit serious consideration of the details for implementation. Tell us or don't. I am happy either way.


Well all I have to say here is case in point on that observation. Thank you Andy for clarifying if you felt your post was actually read and understood. The thing is, many of us are trying to work together on a solution but this really does mean trying to work together. This isn't the one-man/woman sideshow for shooting down ideas. I think to be fair, the OP is also trying, just in his own way.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#3177 - 2013-11-26 03:33:11 UTC
General Xenophon wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Which is exactly why there were two versions of each, one stating a popular opinion in some circles, the other relating actual facts.

It is perfectly fine to take precautions, against the possibility that someone might have a genuine ability to attack or bring in allies, but it becomes misleading to suggest this is an absolute, or even that it happens more often than can be demonstrated.

Convincing someone that something happens more often than it does is misleading, because game changing decisions are made from expectations which are perception based.

Missed opportunities are the flip side of being overly cautious. Let's not inspire missed opportunities to happen any more than they already do.


Again, semantics. Presenting possibilities, ie something which MIGHT happen (or may NOT) as 'Opinions' instead, is not valid and implies these things are a matter of perspective, which they are not. These things happen, this is not a matter of opinion.

How frequently they happen is the what you are trying to say, as this more than anything color's people's perspective when it comes to making games changes. Since we don't want people to over-react and break the game, I appreciate your thoughtfulness in this area in trying to present a rational and objective view. I am often unable to do this as well myself and I appreciate you trying to do so. Thank you.

My point is the expectation of possible outcomes, framed in the expectation of a greater probability than we have reason to expect, is misleading.

While risk is worth considering, it is counter productive to over react.

As I have heard from older generations: Don't make mountains out of molehills.

Being prepared for risk does not require a pessimistic expectation of doom.

Big smile

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
General Xenophon
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3178 - 2013-11-26 03:44:32 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
General Xenophon wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Which is exactly why there were two versions of each, one stating a popular opinion in some circles, the other relating actual facts.

It is perfectly fine to take precautions, against the possibility that someone might have a genuine ability to attack or bring in allies, but it becomes misleading to suggest this is an absolute, or even that it happens more often than can be demonstrated.

Convincing someone that something happens more often than it does is misleading, because game changing decisions are made from expectations which are perception based.

Missed opportunities are the flip side of being overly cautious. Let's not inspire missed opportunities to happen any more than they already do.


Again, semantics. Presenting possibilities, ie something which MIGHT happen (or may NOT) as 'Opinions' instead, is not valid and implies these things are a matter of perspective, which they are not. These things happen, this is not a matter of opinion.

How frequently they happen is the what you are trying to say, as this more than anything color's people's perspective when it comes to making games changes. Since we don't want people to over-react and break the game, I appreciate your thoughtfulness in this area in trying to present a rational and objective view. I am often unable to do this as well myself and I appreciate you trying to do so. Thank you.

My point is the expectation of possible outcomes, framed in the expectation of a greater probability than we have reason to expect, is misleading.

While risk is worth considering, it is counter productive to over react.

As I have heard from older generations: Don't make mountains out of molehills.

Being prepared for risk does not require a pessimistic expectation of doom.

Big smile



Very true :) Although most cloakers I invite to mine with me only bring pvp ships and the mining never ends well :*(
Mag's
Azn Empire
#3179 - 2013-11-26 03:57:40 UTC
Jenna Hamalia wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Jenna Hamalia wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Jenna Hamalia wrote:
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 people use this argument, but fail to apply it to both sides equally.


OK, that doesn't even make sense. The *ONLY* risk in the current setup is to the other side.
You argument was that someone AFK and cloaked, can sit 24/7 and not even be at their computer and know they are safe. I'm simply suggesting if that is the case, then apply that same logic to both sides equally.

What about that doesn't make sense?


Yes, I sit cloaked in enemy space, I gank a few helpless miners to scare them into base and then AFK with no fear I'm going to be killed. Same as they do to my corp... Obviously both sides can AFK cloaked safely in enemy space... Two wrongs don't make a right though. Both sides should be able to evict unwelcome guests (cloaked or otherwise) from their corporate space with some given amount of effort.
You still missed the point, so I guess I'll have to spell it out.

For you to use that argument, you need to apply it to both sides equally. This means you cannot claim to be the only one 100% safe while AFK cloaked, as at that same time they are 100% safe from you.

(At this point you'll mention that others may enter the system and this is true, but your argument was in regards to you being AFK cloaked 24/7 and 100% safe.)

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
#3180 - 2013-11-26 04:37:49 UTC
General Xenophon wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
My point is the expectation of possible outcomes, framed in the expectation of a greater probability than we have reason to expect, is misleading.

While risk is worth considering, it is counter productive to over react.

As I have heard from older generations: Don't make mountains out of molehills.

Being prepared for risk does not require a pessimistic expectation of doom.

Big smile



Very true :) Although most cloakers I invite to mine with me only bring pvp ships and the mining never ends well :*(

There is a chain of events that must take place, in order for a hostile to convert your ship into a kill mail.

If you can break this chain, at any point, the process is stopped.

The second stage defense, when you know they are already in the system but are planning your counter around first appearance on grid.
Staying aligned when ratting, fitting a cloak, and stabs. If you have scouted a safe, they won't know where to look in time when you warp off.

Mining, I have an often mocked venture fit that delivers about 90% of mackinaw yield. (The others seem to feel exhumer or don't bother, but the skills to get a venture to work this well are usually more intensive than a comparable hulk fit)

Big smile

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...