These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#4021 - 2013-12-17 14:46:32 UTC
NightmareX wrote:
Just to make sure everyone is aware of this. Someone says the local is the problem to afk cloaking. I'm 110% sure that's not the problem at all actually, because if that had been true it would be as much problem in high sec as it is in low sec and 0.0 space.

Your opinion is noted.

Do you understand the difference between high sec and null, regarding how local can be used as intel under NBSI policy?

Your entire argument seems based on a narrow view, which does not recognize this, apparently.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4022 - 2013-12-17 15:05:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Why change?

Because the current mechanic is OP--i.e. broken.
I disagree. I see nothing OP about it, and it affects everyone equally. A change which boosts cloakers will make them OP. And like you've said, it will probably be much the same + effort (i.e. button clicking) meaning if it's OP now, it will still be OP.
Seriously, if after the change we can all still do what we do now, but we have to click a few buttons how is that even remomtely less "OP" than it is now?


You don't see it as OP, but CCP does.

Edit:

I don't know what changes, if any, CCP has for this issue, but if you have to open a window and periodically refresh it that is a significant increase in effort, from near zero to not near zero. If we say the current mechanic has an effort level of (arbitrary number pulled from my posterior) of 1 and the new method has effort level of 2, you have increased the effort requirement by 100%...yet, the new mechanic is still low effort.

See how that works, what we are talking about are relative changes. The new mechanic could still be low on the "effort index" but could represent a significant increase in effort.

Also, if the new mechanic is not beyond attack by hostile parties that would also entail effort similar to the effort in maintaining one's sov, POS systems, etc. Maybe it has an isk component (the more you spend the better the system, maybe effort and isk are inversely related...no individual alliances can choose the level of coverage or effort*).

And maybe CCP is going to automate/improve some aspects of d-scanning. Like I said, d-scan has been pretty horrible. Improvements there could be really helpful. In other threads, people have put forward ideas on improving d-scan related to possible up-coming changes.** Some better filtering on d-scan could be hugely helpful.

Maybe the upcoming changes will be localized to low sec or NPC null or both to provide to test any proposed changes, thus the impact to null could be minimized and low...well for low sec even if bad how much worse could it make low sec (joking). And if it is horrible, revert it back to the old system.

*Those are just some possibilities. Again, I don't know what, if anything, CCP has planned.

**Let me also add, I'm not saying "improve d-scan then remove local" I'm just pointing out that such a change COULD be PART of the whatever CCP has planned.

Note: Caps for emphasis for Lucas, IIRC he has his browser settings such that he can't see bold, italics, etc.

"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
#4023 - 2013-12-17 15:08:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Andy Landen wrote:


When you bridge for the gang, time is of the essence, but when you bridge to a safe pos, time really isn't a factor.


And right there.

What change are you advocating that would make this an actual issue. Sure a death star would provide some coverage, but again I have to wonder about your experience on this. A fleet of properly fit ships with logistics can tank a death star. You should know this as apparently you fly logistics when in big fleets.

So sitting there for 30 seconds then getting bubbled and shot at makes the side cynoing in more vulnerable.

And lets be clear, you changes to cynos are about ratting and ganking ratters. You said so yourself,

"We are talking about ganks."--Andy Landen

Edit:
And I love your assumptions:

1. There is always going to be a death star in system to provide cover.
2. There are dictor/hictor pilots who already in system who will provide defensive bubbles.
3. Said defensive bubbles will always work.

Just like BLOPs FCs can always find more pilots via single ping thus ensuring the BLOPs gang always has sufficient DPS to take down anything they encounter.

Problem is, assumptions like this rarely pan out.

We can always assume away problems with wishful thinking in the short term, but as a long term solution it isn't very good, IMO.

"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

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#4024 - 2013-12-17 15:20:28 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Why change?

Because the current mechanic is OP--i.e. broken.
I disagree. I see nothing OP about it, and it affects everyone equally. A change which boosts cloakers will make them OP. And like you've said, it will probably be much the same + effort (i.e. button clicking) meaning if it's OP now, it will still be OP.
Seriously, if after the change we can all still do what we do now, but we have to click a few buttons how is that even remomtely less "OP" than it is now?


You don't see it as OP, but CCP does.

Specifically, you would introduce to the system the flaws and frailties of a human being.

If the player does everything perfectly, then yes, they still get the same intel as before, but with more details in exchange for the risk of not doing everything perfectly. They would get availability of details on cloaked ships.

It is OP if the server does it for you automatically.

It is gameplay if you do it for yourself.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4025 - 2013-12-17 15:48:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Why change?

Because the current mechanic is OP--i.e. broken.
I disagree. I see nothing OP about it, and it affects everyone equally. A change which boosts cloakers will make them OP. And like you've said, it will probably be much the same + effort (i.e. button clicking) meaning if it's OP now, it will still be OP.
Seriously, if after the change we can all still do what we do now, but we have to click a few buttons how is that even remomtely less "OP" than it is now?


You don't see it as OP, but CCP does.

Specifically, you would introduce to the system the flaws and frailties of a human being.

If the player does everything perfectly, then yes, they still get the same intel as before, but with more details in exchange for the risk of not doing everything perfectly. They would get availability of details on cloaked ships.

It is OP if the server does it for you automatically.

It is gameplay if you do it for yourself.


I am not opposed to some automation though. Depends on what is being automated and how. For example, if d-scan has an option for a 10 second auto re-fresh...fine. Alot can happen in that 10 seconds, if you are in a situation where you are relying on just that.*

Or if the new mechanic automatically records who is going where in Sov space, for example, but to get that information you have to do something, and refresh it...still allows for some error (you forget to refresh), I'm fine with that.

Right now, the mechanic requires extremely low effort--starring at w window. A window every experienced null player is going to have separated out from all other windows so it can be seen at all times. Simply having to refresh that window would be, IMO, an increase in effort. Of course, having lots of players spamming refresh might entail its own problems, so maybe that wont work. But the point is, provide some level of effort, not something huge and horrible, to learning who is in space with you.

To be clear, I am not advocating that things be changed where a player has to take his turn on "gate duty" parking a cloaked ship near a gate and typing stuff into an intel channel to warn those ratting away a system or 2 over. That would suck. That would be a bad change.

*Note, I am not saying that should be the only thing pilots in null should rely on. It is an example of how things could be automated and still not provide the same level of information as the current mechanic.

"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
#4026 - 2013-12-17 16:31:01 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
I don't know what changes, if any, CCP has for this issue, but if you have to open a window and periodically refresh it that is a significant increase in effort, from near zero to not near zero. If we say the current mechanic has an effort level of (arbitrary number pulled from my posterior) of 1 and the new method has effort level of 2, you have increased the effort requirement by 100%...yet, the new mechanic is still low effort.
But this is the point. You claim it has a near zero effort. I disagree. How is starting at a box, constantly, looking away for no longer than 10 seconds classed as zero effort? Basically you class it as no effort if it requires no clicking, but that's a load of rubbish. If I had to click a scan button every X seconds, I'd consider that at most a 1% increase in effort, since the main thing being done is the constant monitoring. The click is nothing.
So basically you yourself have an objection to clicking once every 30 minutes, yet you think PVE players in null should have to click near constantly? Am I getting that right? That's double standards mate.
Basically you have a stick up your ass because you think that null PVE players have it "too easy" while you AFK mine, which is blatantly the easiest isk making task going, and for some reason we are in the wrong?
I tell you what, I'm fine with having to click every X seconds. It's nothing to me, I'll be staring at the screen anyway. But you also should have to. So no more AFK mining, to mine you should have to click constantly too. Sound fair?

Teckos Pech wrote:
Also, if the new mechanic is not beyond attack by hostile parties that would also entail effort similar to the effort in maintaining one's sov, POS systems, etc. Maybe it has an isk component (the more you spend the better the system, maybe effort and isk are inversely related...no individual alliances can choose the level of coverage or effort*).
If the new mechanic is like sov, it means blobs gain a huge advantage. I'd consider that a step in the wrong direction for EVE since we blobs already have it pretty easy.

Teckos Pech wrote:
And maybe CCP is going to automate/improve some aspects of d-scanning. Like I said, d-scan has been pretty horrible. Improvements there could be really helpful. In other threads, people have put forward ideas on improving d-scan related to possible up-coming changes.** Some better filtering on d-scan could be hugely helpful.
This would require cloakers to show on d-scan or declawing cloakers to stop them overtaking all other PVP ships as a gank ship.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Maybe the upcoming changes will be localized to low sec or NPC null or both to provide to test any proposed changes, thus the impact to null could be minimized and low...well for low sec even if bad how much worse could it make low sec (joking). And if it is horrible, revert it back to the old system.

*Those are just some possibilities. Again, I don't know what, if anything, CCP has planned.

**Let me also add, I'm not saying "improve d-scan then remove local" I'm just pointing out that such a change COULD be PART of the whatever CCP has planned.

Note: Caps for emphasis for Lucas, IIRC he has his browser settings such that he can't see bold, italics, etc.
We can but hope. The real issue though is that until it is deployed to sov, it won;t be tested out in a live sov environment. By the time it is, if it all goes wrong it'll be way too late to undo the damage.

And indeed :p Me and my silly browser. Looks normal when I'm at home, just not when I'm remote.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#4027 - 2013-12-17 16:44:42 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Why change?

Because the current mechanic is OP--i.e. broken.
I disagree. I see nothing OP about it, and it affects everyone equally. A change which boosts cloakers will make them OP. And like you've said, it will probably be much the same + effort (i.e. button clicking) meaning if it's OP now, it will still be OP.
Seriously, if after the change we can all still do what we do now, but we have to click a few buttons how is that even remomtely less "OP" than it is now?


You don't see it as OP, but CCP does.

Specifically, you would introduce to the system the flaws and frailties of a human being.

If the player does everything perfectly, then yes, they still get the same intel as before, but with more details in exchange for the risk of not doing everything perfectly. They would get availability of details on cloaked ships.
No, you wouldn't. No more flaws would be introduced than there already are. See you really do think that a change is going to suddenly mean you our out ganking nubs left right and center. It won't happen bud. Most PVE players will simply start clicking their scan button or playing their moronic minigame and nothing will change. The few that are too stupid to adapt will die a couple of times then leave. All that will be accomplished is a slightly deader null and some lame time and isk sink to deal with intel. So you'll have to go on failing at PvP I'm afraid.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
It is OP if the server does it for you automatically.

It is gameplay if you do it for yourself.
Bull, utter bull. You clearly don't understand what OP actually means.
There are so many "automatic"* things in this game, so if they are OP just for being "automatic" then they should all go.
So the overview, automatic gun cycling, auto-reload. autopilot, contact watchlists, scan probe formations, scan probes returning on warp/jump/dock, drones auto selecting new targets, POS guns, bill payments, the list goes on an on.

Basically you have your little rage ft because your cloakers aren't as cloaked as you;d like. That's literally all this is. You can continue to stamp your feet and scream "waah, automatic", but so many other automatic things you literally don't give a **** about. It's just because you can't gank people with enormous amounts of ease.

*Note the quotes around automatic. This is because local simply displays a list. That is ALL it does on it's own. You keep stating it like local aligns you and docks you up or something. It' doesn't. You have to react to it. It's no more "automatic" than the overview is. If someone arrives on grid, they instantly appear on the overview. You must choose to react, as you do for local chat too.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4028 - 2013-12-17 16:46:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Lucas Kell wrote:
But this is the point. You claim it has a near zero effort. I disagree. How is starting at a box, constantly, looking away for no longer than 10 seconds classed as zero effort?


It requires only slightly more effort than AFK cloaking. If AFK cloaking is zero effort, or so your side keeps insisting, then the current mechanic is near zero.

Pretty simple...or would you like to change the classification of AFK cloaking as "no effort"?

Quote:
So basically you yourself have an objection to clicking once every 30 minutes, yet you think PVE players in null should have to click near constantly? Am I getting that right? That's double standards mate.
Basically you have a stick up your ass because you think that null PVE players have it "too easy" while you AFK mine, which is blatantly the easiest isk making task going, and for some reason we are in the wrong?


If one is going to opt for the enhanced security of high sec then yeah, they should not have to put forth the same effort as those do in null. We see this practically every where in null vs. high sec. Stations in high sec are ubiquitous, in null they are rare and most are the result of considerable effort...vast effort in fact. All the stuff that goes in the egg had to be made, shipped to null, and the egg deployed. If you want the moon minerals you have to put up a POS, fuel it, and empty is and so forth. Effort...lots of effort. Want to make your space better you ship IHUBs out to null, get the appropriate upgrades, work the system, etc. Effort. Same with the markets. Most markets are well stocked all the time in high sec. You wont have to go far to get what you need and doing so is very safe. In null, you could have to actually leave the region to get what you need, or bring it in yourself via either a JB network in something like a transport ship or a JF. Again, considering the effort you expend, and the effort of the people who maintain jump bridges, cyno beacons, the towers, the people doing the PI to keep the towers fueled, etc. Huge amounts of effort when you think about it.

High sec has none of that, it is low effort and has enhanced security (e.g. Concord).

So yeah, I think intel should be the same in null.

That is, one thing (high sec) is not like the other (null sec). If you don't want to work for your intel (assuming local does indeed change), then high sec-----> that away.

Quote:
If the new mechanic is like sov, it means blobs gain a huge advantage. I'd consider that a step in the wrong direction for EVE since we blobs already have it pretty easy.


Blobs already have a huge advantage and this will do nothing either way. Trying to fix blobs by keeping local is just silly.

Quote:
This would require cloakers to show on d-scan or declawing cloakers to stop them overtaking all other PVP ships as a gank ship.


That is one possibility. It depends on ALL the changes CCP may make. If d-scan does not report cloaked ships, but they become detectable via probes as an example.

Edit: Regarding stations and their frequency in high vs. null:

Sing Laison high sec (i.e. excluding low sec) has 204.

To get approximately the same number in null you'd have to include the following regions (including NPC stations):

Deklein,
Fade,
Pure Blind,
Cloud Ring,
Fountain,
Delve.

Even an NPC region like Syndicate will have 120 stations or about 60% of what you find in high sec.

"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
#4029 - 2013-12-17 17:10:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Teckos Pech wrote:
It requires only slightly more effort than AFK cloaking. If AFK cloaking is zero effort, or so your side keeps insisting, then the current mechanic is near zero.

Pretty simple...or would you like to change the classification of AFK cloaking as "no effort"?
Again, I disagree. I think staring at something non-stop is a lot of effort. You have to be alert and prepared to take action should something happen. CCTV operators in fact get paid to do this, so it's enough effort to be an actual job. AFK cloaking does not even require you to be awake. Please explain to me how sleeping is in anyway comparable with the job of a CCTV operator.

Teckos Pech wrote:
If one is going to opt for the enhanced security of high sec then yeah, they should not have to put forth the same effort as those do in null. We see this practically every where in null vs. high sec. Stations in high sec are ubiquitous, in null they are rare and most are the result of considerable effort...vast effort in fact. All the stuff that goes in the egg had to be made, shipped to null, and the egg deployed. If you want the moon minerals you have to put up a POS, fuel it, and empty is and so forth. Effort...lots of effort. Want to make your space better you ship IHUBs out to null, get the appropriate upgrades, work the system, etc. Effort. Same with the markets. Most markets are well stocked all the time in high sec. You wont have to go far to get what you need and doing so is very safe. In null, you could have to actually leave the region to get what you need, or bring it in yourself via either a JB network in something like a transport ship or a JF. Again, considering the effort you expend, and the effort of the people who maintain jump bridges, cyno beacons, the towers, the people doing the PI to keep the towers fueled, etc. Huge amounts of effort when you think about it.
So yes, you do have double standards. One click every 30 minutes is too much to ask of you, but the rest of us must have to move heaven and earth for the opportunity to avoid being ganked by you.

And exactly. Moving to null ALREADY has a lot of effort. You want to increase that while not affecting your precious AFK mining. And somehow you want to label this as "balance"?

Teckos Pech wrote:
That is, one thing (high sec) is not like the other (null sec). If you don't want to work for your intel (assuming local does indeed change), then high sec-----> that away.
Yes. High sec is that way. I'd rather not lose even more people to high sec then... ******* pleb. Am I talking to myself? That's literally my whole point. You want to alienate MORE people from null, by forcing them into having more effort than the already constant fighting and maintaining of structures and systems that we already have. Just because you are some grunt that turns up for a few ops then spends the rest of his time in high sec does not mean that nullsec maintains itself. You act like we are all sitting around picking our asses most of the time like you are. Not the case mate. Holding sov is not isk and effort free. Maybe if you spent less time AFK mining in high sec and more time supporting your alliance you'd know this.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Blobs already have a huge advantage and this will do nothing either way. Trying to fix blobs by keeping local is just silly.
Oh so if local gets tied to sov, that's NOT a boost to blobs? How exactly is having all the intel while your enemy has no intel not a massive buff? I'm not saying keep local to fix blobs, I'm just saying tying it to sov makes it easier for blobs.

Teckos Pech wrote:
That is one possibility. It depends on ALL the changes CCP may make. If d-scan does not report cloaked ships, but they become detectable via probes as an example.
But probes wont be enough. Most ships wont have probes, so would be vulnerable, meaning you need a support ship, meaning it's pointless to PVE in null, since 2x high sec > 1x null sec.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4030 - 2013-12-17 17:40:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Lucas Kell wrote:


Teckos Pech wrote:
That is one possibility. It depends on ALL the changes CCP may make. If d-scan does not report cloaked ships, but they become detectable via probes as an example.
But probes wont be enough. Most ships wont have probes, so would be vulnerable, meaning you need a support ship, meaning it's pointless to PVE in null, since 2x high sec > 1x null sec.


Who says the attacker will have no intel. Again, you are making an assumption that favors the outcome you desire. Maybe that will be the case, maybe not. If the defender only having intel is unbalanced, then balancing it out would be allowing attackers the ability to gather intel.

Example: Andy's idea of a mobile intel structure. Anchor it and it reports intel back to your side.

What you do Lucas is make unwarranted assumptions:

"Oh it is going to work this way and make blobbing worse!!"

Why must it work the way you assume?

"If cloaked ships don't show on d-scan, cloaked ships are OP!"

Why must d-scan be the only mechanic for detecting cloaked ships. Andy's idea of having various structures designated as "intel structures" and reporting information would also allow you to learn that information. And the new mechanic might give you enhanced information in some situations--e.g. maybe it will report ship type. I don't know.

"With increased effort people will flee to null en masse."

Depends on the amount of increased effort doesn't it? And why can't people adapt? Yes, maybe the old play style wont work or work as well, but does that necessarily mean the new play style is going to be less rewarding? And if risk does go up, there is nothing stipping CCP from boosting the rewards from living in null. Maybe that is part of their plan. I don't know, and you don't know.

The assumptions you make always are of the same nature: I'll assume X because then X will let me argue "Don't change local."

That's not horrible. After all, if we just removed people from showing in local (i.e. like WH space) and simply modified d-scan could be a bad way to go. But assuming that is the only change that is coming and saying that local should not change, even if there are other things that could be done is just not constructive.

"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
#4031 - 2013-12-17 18:13:24 UTC
Idea for improving d-scan by Batelle.

Taken from here.

Quote:
I kind of think an automatically updating d-scan on a 5s interval would be pretty cool, with all the results going on your sensor overlay using the ISIS icons for ship hull type, and perhaps additionally colors for the race (sensor str type).

This would be balanced by several mechanics... ships would have a 'scanner strength' value that would function similarly to scanner probe strength. This could be a new attribute or a derived one based on scan resolution and possibly other things. Based on your ships scanner strength, the distance to the target, and the target's size (sig res, and sensor str), the game calculates a value from 1-100 that determines how much your scanner can tell about the ship. The higher result, the more information is revealed.

1-10 : You see a blip on your overlay for the target being a ship, offset by some significant deviation.
10-40: You see the race and hull size of the target, less devation in its location
40-70: exact ship type and the name on the ship, no deviation in its location in space (not warpable though)
70-90: the corp/alliance that own the ship are now viewable, along with some standings-based FoF coloration or icon.
90-100: pilot's name viewable.

specialized craft, t2 ships in general, smaller ships, would all get bonuses to their scanner strength, bigger ships would be more easily identifiable, and the scanner's range would be from 50au to 250au, with distance playing heavily into the results of the formula.

Also, ships would get a unique sig every session change, meaning that if you identify certain information about a ship is retained once ID'd.

I know this is a pretty radical idea, but I'm just trying to envision something that would work, and fulfill the potential of the sensor overlay, while eliminating dscan clicking, eliminating the 100% accurate information of the d-scan within 14.5 au, and still making intel gathering a reasonable thing to do. Also gotta make sure this new system doesn't step too hard on the toes of combat probes (probably through some buff to the functionality of combat probes). Would also need to make the solar system map more accessible. Right now half the time i click the map button it takes me to star map.


Interesting discussion, IMO.

One suggestion is that gate fire shows up on d-scan so even a cloaked ship would not have perfect stealth. Also, as a nerf to cloaked ships, active-scan is not allowed, only passive scanning which limits the information the cloaked pilot gets.

Also a discussion of how to possibly include probes, and hacking gates/stations to get jump/docking logs.

"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
#4032 - 2013-12-17 21:32:15 UTC
Quote:
Let's say you couldn't target anything for the next 60s (to be liberal) after bridging into the system. Let's say that your FC already knew about objectives within the system and exercised a little forethought to get a pos in there and up beforehand. Knowing the alliance's off hours, he did it during those hours. At the same time, he also brought in the cyno ship and some mobile bubbles. Those ships and supplies logged off in the pos, of course.


Lets assume away all the problems and everything works just fine.

You sound like Doc Brown.

Quote:
Dr. Emmett Brown: Don't worry. As long as you hit that wire with the connecting hook at precisely 88 miles per hour, the instant the lightning strikes the tower... everything will be fine.


Well, so long as your FC gets a POS in the system before hand (and the enemy lets him) and leaves the anchored bubbles and we can get a cyno ship in there, and we light the cyno close to the POS and you immediately burn into the POS shields...why everything should be fine. Roll

The idea of:

Quick the enemy is hitting a critical [insert something important here] we are going to drop on them!

Nope. Now you land and can't warp. Your tackle can't work. They have 30 seconds to bugger off once the cyno goes up.

"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

Ecoskii
Penal Servitude
Tribes of Poitot
#4033 - 2013-12-18 00:00:47 UTC
Please keep all replies limited to fixing this assinine mechanic. Off-topic ideas and suggestions should be posted off this thread so they have a chance of being reviewed. This will mean CCP can continue confidently to ignore this and the 2,000+ other pages of posts on AFK Cloaking. On what planet does a developer have to sit to be able to ignore this extent and duration of debate without a single contibution, view or change?
chrisss0r
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4034 - 2013-12-18 09:16:52 UTC
To be honest I don't get why this discussion keeps going.

All recent changes CCP performed (warp speed changes for tacklers, bubble immunity for interceptors, easier probing mechanics, blops buff) were aimed at making the Carebear life harder while they are at the same time making highsec safer.

Given these changes why do you think they are even thinking about changing the cloaking mechanics?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#4035 - 2013-12-18 11:35:28 UTC
chrisss0r wrote:
To be honest I don't get why this discussion keeps going.

All recent changes CCP performed (warp speed changes for tacklers, bubble immunity for interceptors, easier probing mechanics, blops buff) were aimed at making the Carebear life harder while they are at the same time making highsec safer.

Given these changes why do you think they are even thinking about changing the cloaking mechanics?
They aren't, they are looking at changing local though, which some people here think is the same thing.

And I'm in agreement that they are makign carebear lives harder, and probably should continue to do so. Which is why I have a believe that they should deal with AFK players (note NOT specifically cloakers). AFK players are huge carebears. AFK miners, AFK ratters and AFK cloakers all have the same things in common. they all put themselves in risk-free situations and they achieve goals while not being at their PC. An AFK miner coming back to his PC once ever half hour to quickly dump or then retarget his rock is the lowest form of carebear IMHO, and they should be pushed to be more active. Making changes that specifically target null players is only going to ahiceve the opposite, it's going to push more people back to high sec for an easy time AFK mining for eternity.

Cloaking mechanics should be left as is. If someone wants to actively camp people out, they should be able to, that's their choice. If they want to **** off to work or to bed though, they shouldn't expect to just stay in place achieveing the same goal.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#4036 - 2013-12-18 15:17:56 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
chrisss0r wrote:
To be honest I don't get why this discussion keeps going.

All recent changes CCP performed (warp speed changes for tacklers, bubble immunity for interceptors, easier probing mechanics, blops buff) were aimed at making the Carebear life harder while they are at the same time making highsec safer.

Given these changes why do you think they are even thinking about changing the cloaking mechanics?
They aren't, they are looking at changing local though, which some people here think is the same thing.

And I'm in agreement that they are makign carebear lives harder, and probably should continue to do so. Which is why I have a believe that they should deal with AFK players (note NOT specifically cloakers). AFK players are huge carebears. AFK miners, AFK ratters and AFK cloakers all have the same things in common. they all put themselves in risk-free situations and they achieve goals while not being at their PC. An AFK miner coming back to his PC once ever half hour to quickly dump or then retarget his rock is the lowest form of carebear IMHO, and they should be pushed to be more active. Making changes that specifically target null players is only going to ahiceve the opposite, it's going to push more people back to high sec for an easy time AFK mining for eternity.

Cloaking mechanics should be left as is. If someone wants to actively camp people out, they should be able to, that's their choice. If they want to **** off to work or to bed though, they shouldn't expect to just stay in place achieveing the same goal.

Ok, let's draw a line in the sand.

We will call it required effort, as a defining point of good vs bad, in this context.

The required effort to mine, is to set your mining gear up, and activate it. If this means sitting in a barge with lasers targeted on a piece of rock, so be it.
Your character will mine, as intended, until the hold is filled. The lasers will cut off automatically, indicating this is something CCP expects to happen unmonitored.
You need to make an effort to unload this ore, and transport it to the next stage for sales.

Because this is a direct form of income acquisition, your ship is exposed in space. Because your ship is exposed in space, it can be attacked.
Possibility 1: Your effort requirement here is zero. It is quite possible your ship is not a desirable target, in that it would cost more to destroy than it returned to an attacker. Unless someone sees a worthwhile benefit to destroying your ship, you are safe.
Possibility 2: In the event your ship IS at risk, because it benefits someone by seeing it as wreckage, then your required effort is whatever it takes to survive, as dictated by circumstances.

The required effort to cloak a ship, is to set your gear up, and activate it. If this means sitting in a remote location, or on a perch for observation for extended periods, so be it.
Your character will remain in position, listed in local, indefinitely. Local is a free service for everyone that way, like a "Greg's list" from purgatory.
If you are observing, then you must remain constantly present with your eyeballs locked onto the screen, or risk missing something important by being AFK at the wrong moment.

This is not a direct form of income acquisition, so there is no requirement for exposure to create risk.
Your effort threshold consists of maintaining vigilance, and not shutting down your equipment.

In the event a player fails to maintain vigilance, they are at risk of missing opportunities to attack hostile targets of opportunity, and generally being considered more of a non-threat as time goes on.
Thank goodness they can count on a devoted following, who faithfully refuse to violate the unwritten agreement that they will not PvE so long as the cloaked player is willing to sacrifice their time as well... leading by selfless example.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4037 - 2013-12-18 15:19:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Lucas Kell wrote:
chrisss0r wrote:
To be honest I don't get why this discussion keeps going.

All recent changes CCP performed (warp speed changes for tacklers, bubble immunity for interceptors, easier probing mechanics, blops buff) were aimed at making the Carebear life harder while they are at the same time making highsec safer.

Given these changes why do you think they are even thinking about changing the cloaking mechanics?
They aren't, they are looking at changing local though, which some people here think is the same thing.

And I'm in agreement that they are makign carebear lives harder, and probably should continue to do so. Which is why I have a believe that they should deal with AFK players (note NOT specifically cloakers). AFK players are huge carebears. AFK miners, AFK ratters and AFK cloakers all have the same things in common. they all put themselves in risk-free situations and they achieve goals while not being at their PC. An AFK miner coming back to his PC once ever half hour to quickly dump or then retarget his rock is the lowest form of carebear IMHO, and they should be pushed to be more active. Making changes that specifically target null players is only going to ahiceve the opposite, it's going to push more people back to high sec for an easy time AFK mining for eternity.

Cloaking mechanics should be left as is. If someone wants to actively camp people out, they should be able to, that's their choice. If they want to **** off to work or to bed though, they shouldn't expect to just stay in place achieveing the same goal.


As chrisss0r noted you apparently think it is a big deal....or else why keep participating? Or why write this?

Oh and Lucas...another faulty assumption on your part: that I want PvE players to die more. I don't, at least not necessarily. Ideally, I'd like to change mechanics so that does not happen, but even if it does result in more PvE deaths increasing null sec benefits to compensate would be one route to go to keep people doing PvE in null sec, and it would not necessarily have to be inflationary as some have suggested if done correctly (i.e. the increased benefits are due to increased real economic goods flowing into the game economy which also puts more isk in the PvE players wallet).

I know, that kind of ruins your narrative for the last 175 pages, but oh well.

"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
#4038 - 2013-12-18 15:34:40 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:


This [AFK cloaking] is not a direct form of income acquisition, so there is no requirement for exposure to create risk.


And important point on why AFK cloakers have remained "invulnerable to attack" for so long and why CCP has not done much to curb it...that and the powerful nature of local as an intel tool. Remove AFK cloaking and it has no counter.

"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

WaffleDamage
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#4039 - 2013-12-18 18:14:48 UTC
its typical for those ccps, that the wouldnt solve player relatetd balancing/game mechanic problems ,like afk cloaking, over all those years...

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#4040 - 2013-12-19 19:29:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
Null PvErs are ratters. They just happen to do their ratting in anoms instead of belts.

By your own definition, you are scum of the earth and should purposely be given a penalty.

This whole thread has turned into middle-school slapfights, macho posturing and ad hominem nonsense. I think you all need to take three days in your respective corners and think about what you've done.

And think up some new arguments. These old ones smell a bit rancid.