These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1001 - 2013-09-12 15:39:47 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
That's great, but most wont. They dock up and that's that. Why? That ship might have a cyno. People always want the upper hand. You prove this claim with what you wrote above. And there is nothing wrong with that, but it makes solving this issue tricky.
That's because a lot of null players are simply grinding isk between ops, and history tells us that most players jumping in are either considerably more equipped or uncatchable. For example If i look and it's a T3, I assume it's cloaky, nullified and move on, because I don't have 4 hours to waste chasing it around. Same if it's a bomber. I can't be bothered to waste all day trying to lure it out. Doesn't mean I won;t take a challenge though. I took on a raptor and a vagabond in my harbinger the other day (somehow I lived). Cloakers are simply too much effort for no payoff, so moving is the preferred option. I'd love that not to be the case.

Teckos Pech wrote:
It is still a buff as you'll almost surely be moving to a system with a lower true sec rating and thus getting less rewards, or a system that is not upgraded. Or a system without a station hence you may drop a POS (i.e. an isk sink, unless one is already there for moon mining or some other reason).
We have a number of systems upgraded to play with, but sure, some people may not have that. It really doesn't make an enormous difference though unless you are hardcore ratting.

Teckos Pech wrote:
No, because it is a core issue you really don't want to separate it. It not only impacts just PvE and things like intel, it could impact things like how sov warfare is conducted as well. It is a big, big issue which is why CCP hasn't touched it. I really think they'd like to change it, but because the implications for game balance are so sweeping they are very hesitant. Which I think it reasonable, BTW. It is a big issue, don't go making some change willy nilly. Hence CCP Explorer's comment about needing solid ideas from the community--i.e. us players. To be quite honest, it would be helpful if CCP were bit more engaged in the discussion as well, but that is their call.
Yes, and since it's a big big issue, it won't get touched for possibly ever. Changing the issues it affects though, decoupling it from those issues would make it have less of an impact and allow some action to be taken, step by step.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1002 - 2013-09-12 15:42:42 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
But we all know the truth: Some people want to remove absolutely all uncertainty and risk to themselves. They want the game to be pre-won for them. They are bad at EVE and should go back to highsec.
And it's exactly this type of idiotic response that make practically everything you say meaningless. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I should run crying to high sec. Also, let's bear in mind you are in favor of an ability that has 0 risk. It's not possible to find a cloaker in a safe unless they want to be found. And I'm the risk averse one because I want to be able to fight anyone that threatens me in my space?
Grow up kiddo.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1003 - 2013-09-12 15:44:37 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
But is not a separate issue. Let me quote Mag's,

"When an AFK cloaker is in your system, what mechanic is he using to interact with you."

Hint: It isn't the cloaking device. The mechanic is precisely the same if I did not have a cloak and entered your system (assuming we weren't blue Smile )

I've already agreed it's a related issue. It however should be looked at separately, since it encompasses more than just cloaking, and is unlikely to be changed.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1004 - 2013-09-12 15:45:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Lucas Kell wrote:


Teckos Pech wrote:
It is still a buff as you'll almost surely be moving to a system with a lower true sec rating and thus getting less rewards, or a system that is not upgraded. Or a system without a station hence you may drop a POS (i.e. an isk sink, unless one is already there for moon mining or some other reason).
We have a number of systems upgraded to play with, but sure, some people may not have that. It really doesn't make an enormous difference though unless you are hardcore ratting.


Yes, but with just 1 guy AFK cloaking in 1 system that means there are fewer systems for everyone to share. Thus, everyone is worse off...even the AFK cloaker because he is engaging in boring gameplay.

Quote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
No, because it is a core issue you really don't want to separate it. It not only impacts just PvE and things like intel, it could impact things like how sov warfare is conducted as well. It is a big, big issue which is why CCP hasn't touched it. I really think they'd like to change it, but because the implications for game balance are so sweeping they are very hesitant. Which I think it reasonable, BTW. It is a big issue, don't go making some change willy nilly. Hence CCP Explorer's comment about needing solid ideas from the community--i.e. us players. To be quite honest, it would be helpful if CCP were bit more engaged in the discussion as well, but that is their call.
Yes, and since it's a big big issue, it won't get touched for possibly ever. Changing the issues it affects though, decoupling it from those issues would make it have less of an impact and allow some action to be taken, step by step.


Yes, it may never be changed because it is too big. But simply saying: nerf cloaks. Means it wont be changed...as in cloaks wont be nerfed either.

As for complicated...Good God man, this is Eve. Nothing is ever done easily and simply if it can be complicated! Haven't you learned this already? Big smile

"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

TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1005 - 2013-09-12 15:51:34 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
But we all know the truth: Some people want to remove absolutely all uncertainty and risk to themselves. They want the game to be pre-won for them. They are bad at EVE and should go back to highsec.
And it's exactly this type of idiotic response that make practically everything you say meaningless. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I should run crying to high sec. Also, let's bear in mind you are in favor of an ability that has 0 risk. It's not possible to find a cloaker in a safe unless they want to be found. And I'm the risk averse one because I want to be able to fight anyone that threatens me in my space?
Grow up kiddo.


There is risk getting into system.
The second I wish to actually *do* something I must put myself at risk
When I do put myself at risk, it is mechanically greater due to the weaknesses baked into the hulls as a trade off for cloaking capabilities
and so on and so forth

Also, let me understand this... you want the ability to fight the afk cloaked player whenever you want. That's fine.

But if they want to sit in system and fight you when THEY want, that's broken and the mechanics should be changed?

So fights should only ever occur on your terms and when you want them, but not the other way around.

Sounds like risk averse hypocrisy to me bro
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1006 - 2013-09-12 15:51:53 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
But we all know the truth: Some people want to remove absolutely all uncertainty and risk to themselves. They want the game to be pre-won for them. They are bad at EVE and should go back to highsec.
And it's exactly this type of idiotic response that make practically everything you say meaningless. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I should run crying to high sec. Also, let's bear in mind you are in favor of an ability that has 0 risk. It's not possible to find a cloaker in a safe unless they want to be found. And I'm the risk averse one because I want to be able to fight anyone that threatens me in my space?
Grow up kiddo.


Well technically, if they are cloaked at a safe they also present zero threat. You can't harm them, they can't harm you. Balanced.

Once they decloak and engage you, then that all changes...for both sides. He can shoot you, you can shoot him. Yes he could bring in friends, but then so could you. Yes your ship might not be good for PvP, but if you see him in local, change your fit, get some friends to rat with you (in a group in the same anomaly/belt/etc.). Yes these are less than ideal, but hey...this is Eve, adapt or die, as the saying goes.

Yes a cloaked ship has the advantage of deciding when to engage...but this kind of thing happens in situations other than in just specific instance. You see it in sov warfare. Do you engage suspecting they might have additional forces on call or not. Both sides have a choice. I can't tell you the number of times I was all worked up, on the titan at 2km, ready to go when the FC/leadership says, "Stand down." Especially after waiting an hour or more....very annoying. But that is part of the sandbox...people have choices, sometimes ones you don't like.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1007 - 2013-09-12 15:56:53 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Yes, it may never be changed because it is too big. But simply saying: nerf cloaks. Means it wont be changed...as in cloaks wont be nerfed either.

Whoa, I never said nerf cloaks. I'm more in favor of a probe to find cloakers, preferably something that takes time to run, and costs to cancel.
I've suggested before a probe that should cost like 50m to buy a set, takes 10 mins to run, and docking, logging off, jumping or cancelling the scan destroys the probes. If the cloaker warps off their current grid during the scan it won't find them. Active cloakers would see the probes on d-scan and warp to another grid. AFK cloakers would get decloaked at the 10 min mark and a warp in provided.
It's by no means a perfect solution, but it gets the idea of the type of change I'd be looking for. I'd want active cloakers to be as unaffected as possible.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1008 - 2013-09-12 16:00:41 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Yes, it may never be changed because it is too big. But simply saying: nerf cloaks. Means it wont be changed...as in cloaks wont be nerfed either.

Whoa, I never said nerf cloaks. I'm more in favor of a probe to find cloakers, preferably something that takes time to run, and costs to cancel.
I've suggested before a probe that should cost like 50m to buy a set, takes 10 mins to run, and docking, logging off, jumping or cancelling the scan destroys the probes. If the cloaker warps off their current grid during the scan it won't find them. Active cloakers would see the probes on d-scan and warp to another grid. AFK cloakers would get decloaked at the 10 min mark and a warp in provided.
It's by no means a perfect solution, but it gets the idea of the type of change I'd be looking for. I'd want active cloakers to be as unaffected as possible.


Probes that allow you to find cloaked ships are a massive nerf to cloaks. They also completely destroy wormhole space.

And why are you asking for them? So you can get easy kills on afk players. Wait a sec, weren't you also against other players being able to get easy kills from you?

What a strange contradictory stance!
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1009 - 2013-09-12 16:01:39 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
There is risk getting into system.
Barely
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
The second I wish to actually *do* something I must put myself at risk
When I do put myself at risk, it is mechanically greater due to the weaknesses baked into the hulls as a trade off for cloaking capabilities
and so on and so forth
But let's face it. You aren't going to decloak unless you find a nice juicy target with no chance of resisting. This means the only risk is a risk you would have to actively chose to take.

TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Also, let me understand this... you want the ability to fight the afk cloaked player whenever you want. That's fine.

But if they want to sit in system and fight you when THEY want, that's broken and the mechanics should be changed?

So fights should only ever occur on your terms and when you want them, but not the other way around.

Sounds like risk averse hypocrisy to me bro
Erm, not quite. I want to be able to separate the AFK cloakers from active cloakers and remove the AFK ones. Active cloakers can proceed to do whatever they want. If you want to actively increase our risk, that's fine, but being able to do it just after downtime then head of to work is not what I would consider fair play. Since we don;t know if or when you will return, we have to assume you are a danger at all time's while you have to do nothing to hold that status. It's as bad as bot mining as far as I'm concerned.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#1010 - 2013-09-12 16:03:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Debora Tsung
Fix afk cloaking.

It's boring you can't do anything while afk cloaking and you do not earn isk while afk cloaking.

I'd like to have some sort of decoy that leaves my presense in local chat for at least 8 hours after I've left the system or logged out.

With that thing I could finally rat, mine or do exploring while being cloaked and afk in a totally different system. And all at the same time!

Also the decoy should post phrases like "Hello :)" or "I can see you ratting in your Golem" or "Oooh, nice carrier! :)" in random time intervals in local chat.

Let's face it, it would be hilarious, everyone would want one they'de be like the secret little companion you always wanted for eve but never got to call your own. They'd be like an animated and chatting version of your favourite exotic dancer.

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

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

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1011 - 2013-09-12 16:04:07 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Probes that allow you to find cloaked ships are a massive nerf to cloaks. They also completely destroy wormhole space.

And why are you asking for them? So you can get easy kills on afk players. Wait a sec, weren't you also against other players being able to get easy kills from you?

What a strange contradictory stance!

Well no, it wouldn't nerf cloaking, it would nerf AFK cloaking. All you have to do in change grid and shazzam, disaster averted. You would need to be on the same grid cloaked for 10 full minutes to be found. Maybe you should read the WHOLE post before responding.
And to be honest, I don't care about the kills. It could just log them out for all I care.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1012 - 2013-09-12 16:07:08 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
I want to be able to separate the AFK cloakers from active cloakers and remove the AFK ones. Active cloakers can proceed to do whatever they want. If you want to actively increase our risk, that's fine, but being able to do it just after downtime then head of to work is not what I would consider fair play. Since we don;t know if or when you will return, we have to assume you are a danger at all time's while you have to do nothing to hold that status. It's as bad as bot mining as far as I'm concerned.

No problem.

Remove the effort free early warning aspect from local, and you then maintain balance.

Either delay reporting of cloaked vessels, or delay reporting of ALL vessels.

The ONLY reason so-called AFK cloaking exists, is to desensitize pilots to their presence, as they cannot expect to simply enter a system and find targets under current conditions.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1013 - 2013-09-12 16:18:03 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
No problem.

Remove the effort free early warning aspect from local, and you then maintain balance.

Either delay reporting of cloaked vessels, or delay reporting of ALL vessels.

The ONLY reason so-called AFK cloaking exists, is to desensitize pilots to their presence, as they cannot expect to simply enter a system and find targets under current conditions.

Well yes, that is a problem. Just because you say "SOLVED" doesn't make it so. Your solution is like firing a nuke to swat a fly. It would have so many issues in itself, that it's impossible to implement in a way that isn't game breaking.
I get the feeling you know this, and simply suggest it because it's an impossible to implement solution to a problem, so you can say "I'm on your side see..." yet halt any actual progress on the issue.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1014 - 2013-09-12 16:41:02 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
No problem.

Remove the effort free early warning aspect from local, and you then maintain balance.

Either delay reporting of cloaked vessels, or delay reporting of ALL vessels.

The ONLY reason so-called AFK cloaking exists, is to desensitize pilots to their presence, as they cannot expect to simply enter a system and find targets under current conditions.

Well yes, that is a problem. Just because you say "SOLVED" doesn't make it so. Your solution is like firing a nuke to swat a fly. It would have so many issues in itself, that it's impossible to implement in a way that isn't game breaking.
I get the feeling you know this, and simply suggest it because it's an impossible to implement solution to a problem, so you can say "I'm on your side see..." yet halt any actual progress on the issue.

Your nuke analogy is arbitrary, and not even remotely an equivalent comparison.

You want the removal of the mechanic used to desensitize pilots to hostile presence.

At what point is this balanced, to offer nothing in exchange?

A one sided change is called a nerf. Do the math.
JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman
#1015 - 2013-09-12 16:55:04 UTC  |  Edited by: JIeoH Mocc
Lucas Kell wrote:
JIeoH Mocc wrote:
That's wrong. stay aligned - warp out - laugh at the droppers. Avoiding the drop is only one of the options, and it's your choice.
Get a gang, get a scout, access the dropped ships - have a fight. It's after all, YOUR system, right?
Is it that hard?
Yes, since the cloaker will only drop his mates on when he's guaranteed a win. You act like the cloaker is some crazy pirate. He's not, 9/10 times the cloaker is just looking for an easy KB inflation against shiny targets. And sure, you can stay aligned, but it takes so much more effort than what we currently do, which is just move to another system. But then we get all the "you're too risk averse" tears. Basically you won;t be happy until we just wait to be hotdropepd every time a cloaker enters system.

JIeoH Mocc wrote:
There you go again, and you said you don't call anyone AFK :(
I didn't say I don't refer to AFK cloakers, I said you can't tell the difference thus I don't label a cloaker in game as AFK or not.

JIeoH Mocc wrote:
A very flawed analogy, since there are so many ways to deal with the "risk" of being camped by a cloaky, rather than just undock and die by it. You could attempt to fire one at my head without permission, and if i survive - you'd get blasted yourself since i don't carry empty guns =)
There's nothing flawed about it. You state that an AFK cloaker can't hurt anyone, which is true. The same as an empty gun can't hurt anyone. But you would still react to me trying to fire a gun at your head the same way, regardless of if it was loaded or not. Since you can;t tell if it's loaded until it's too late, you must treat both guns as if they were loaded. In the same way you must treat any cloaker as active, regardless of if they are active or AFK.


It's flawed because i won't have you pointing any gun at me, it's true. regardless of the effort it would cost me. As well as i won't whine about a cloaker in my system - I'd deal with him in any of the 4-5 ways i know. Whining for mechanics to be changed cause i am too lazy/greedy - is not one of them.

So i don't get your analogy. A cloaker is not something you (well, I) can't deal with - unlike a gun properly pointed at me. If you can't then perhaps you don't belong in null? Andm yea, please either stop with the analogies, or make'em accurate.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1016 - 2013-09-12 17:46:21 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Your nuke analogy is arbitrary, and not even remotely an equivalent comparison.

You want the removal of the mechanic used to desensitize pilots to hostile presence.

At what point is this balanced, to offer nothing in exchange?

A one sided change is called a nerf. Do the math.

It's a common expression, not a random analogy. And it means that your solution is overkill and has collateral damage. You are suggesting a change to the entire game with hundreds of potential complications as a solution to a single problem. Yes it will fix it, but it will also break a lot of other things.
And I didn't say it wasn't a nerf, I said it wasn't a nerf to cloaking in general. Its a nerf targeting AFK cloakers.

JIeoH Mocc wrote:
It's flawed because i won't have you pointing any gun at me, it's true. regardless of the effort it would cost me. As well as i won't whine about a cloaker in my system - I'd deal with him in any of the 4-5 ways i know. Whining for mechanics to be changed cause i am too lazy/greedy - is not one of them.

So i don't get your analogy. A cloaker is not something you (well, I) can't deal with - unlike a gun properly pointed at me. If you can't then perhaps you don't belong in null? Andm yea, please either stop with the analogies, or make'em accurate.

I don't think you understand the analogy.
The loaded gun is an active cloaker.
The empty one is an AFK cloaker.
You are you in a null system.
In this, pointing the guns at you is the cloaker begin in the system. Your choices are:
1. Move - What we currently do, so the "gun is not pointed at you" - Your current choice.
2. Dock up/log off - Hide from the gun
3. Stay in space - Risk being shot by either an empty gun or a loaded one. Sure, you can try to dodge, but you aren't guaranteed success.

The only mechanic I want changed is the ability to remove the "empty gun", so only a loaded gun can be used.
It's really not that hard to understand. You are saying that I shouldn't be reacting to the AFK cloaker (the empty gun), but there's no way of seeing he's AFK (no way of seeing it's empty).

What are your 4-5 ways of dealing with a cloaker? I'm guess "aligning" is one of them, to which I would say, **** that, moving systems is considerably less effort and results in less risk.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1017 - 2013-09-12 18:14:29 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Your nuke analogy is arbitrary, and not even remotely an equivalent comparison.

You want the removal of the mechanic used to desensitize pilots to hostile presence.

At what point is this balanced, to offer nothing in exchange?

A one sided change is called a nerf. Do the math.

It's a common expression, not a random analogy. And it means that your solution is overkill and has collateral damage. You are suggesting a change to the entire game with hundreds of potential complications as a solution to a single problem. Yes it will fix it, but it will also break a lot of other things.
And I didn't say it wasn't a nerf, I said it wasn't a nerf to cloaking in general. Its a nerf targeting AFK cloakers.

Horseradishes.

The use of local chat as intel was never intended, and the only place it will have significant impact with my change is in null itself.
Local remains present, and any uncloaked pilot in open space is listed.

The only change being created is the need for effort, where intel is deemed necessary in a complete form.

If you are implying I wanted to remove local entirely, that's a straw man, as I never endorsed that solution.

Lucas Kell wrote:
JIeoH Mocc wrote:
It's flawed because i won't have you pointing any gun at me, it's true. regardless of the effort it would cost me. As well as i won't whine about a cloaker in my system - I'd deal with him in any of the 4-5 ways i know. Whining for mechanics to be changed cause i am too lazy/greedy - is not one of them.

So i don't get your analogy. A cloaker is not something you (well, I) can't deal with - unlike a gun properly pointed at me. If you can't then perhaps you don't belong in null? Andm yea, please either stop with the analogies, or make'em accurate.

I don't think you understand the analogy.
The loaded gun is an active cloaker.
The empty one is an AFK cloaker.
You are you in a null system.
In this, pointing the guns at you is the cloaker begin in the system. Your choices are:
1. Move - What we currently do, so the "gun is not pointed at you" - Your current choice.
2. Dock up/log off - Hide from the gun
3. Stay in space - Risk being shot by either an empty gun or a loaded one. Sure, you can try to dodge, but you aren't guaranteed success.

The only mechanic I want changed is the ability to remove the "empty gun", so only a loaded gun can be used.
It's really not that hard to understand. You are saying that I shouldn't be reacting to the AFK cloaker (the empty gun), but there's no way of seeing he's AFK (no way of seeing it's empty).

What are your 4-5 ways of dealing with a cloaker? I'm guess "aligning" is one of them, to which I would say, **** that, moving systems is considerably less effort and results in less risk.

Remove the AFK player?

And you are actually missing how this is a nerf? Seriously?

Ok, here is the change you seem to not recognize:
With a so-called AFK cloaker removed automatically, this eliminates the uncertainty factor.
Players will now know that any player listed must have been active within a certain time frame, and thus represent a genuine threat.
The cloaked player will be logged out, and removed from local, after a period of inactivity.
Knowing the player will vanish, and that they are listed due to activity, means that taking a risk and undocking with a hostile listed is always a bad idea.
1 They are known to be active, so the chance they went AFK is reduced to levels not practical to gamble on.
2 They go away now very predictably. Waiting now has a definite and assured payoff. Unless your cloaked pal wants to blow their entire play period on frustrating you, and logs in and out covering your play session, they don't bother any more.

The cloaked player will quickly become aware of how noone is willing to risk activity, when the alternative of waiting has been so greatly enhanced. Cloaked players stop coming due to diminished returns.

Secondary effect: Since the threat from cloaked players is now eliminated, effectively, the risk to null PvE is diminished by a significant amount.
Either NPC threat is jacked up to compensate, (a joke considering those results elsewhere), or the rewards are dropped to compensate. (Like the ice belts now being limited first come only served)

Being a miner with that auto logoff feature sounds awfully boring, especially with rewards dropping.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1018 - 2013-09-12 18:25:26 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
The use of local chat as intel was never intended, and the only place it will have significant impact with my change is in null itself.
Local remains present, and any uncloaked pilot in open space is listed.

The only change being created is the need for effort, where intel is deemed necessary in a complete form.

If you are implying I wanted to remove local entirely, that's a straw man, as I never endorsed that solution.

Intended or not, other mechanics have been built which the removal of even part of local would cause problems. Just because you don't see them doesn't mean they aren't there. For starters blops bomber groups would get a MASSIVE buff since they would be effectively invisible at all times they are not firing. Go look into the millions of other threads addressing "local changes" for other problems. Like I said before, I'm not discussing local removal (or modification) here.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Remove the AFK player?

And you are actually missing how this is a nerf? Seriously?

I'll quote myself, since you appear to have not bothered reading it:
Lucas Kell wrote:
And I didn't say it wasn't a nerf, I said it wasn't a nerf to cloaking in general. Its a nerf targeting AFK cloakers.


Nikk Narrel wrote:
Ok, here is the change you seem to not recognize:
With a so-called AFK cloaker removed automatically, this eliminates the uncertainty factor.
Players will now know that any player listed must have been active within a certain time frame, and thus represent a genuine threat.
The cloaked player will be logged out, and removed from local, after a period of inactivity.
Knowing the player will vanish, and that they are listed due to activity, means that taking a risk and undocking with a hostile listed is always a bad idea.
1 They are known to be active, so the chance they went AFK is reduced to levels not practical to gamble on.
2 They go away now very predictably. Waiting now has a definite and assured payoff. Unless your cloaked pal wants to blow their entire play period on frustrating you, and logs in and out covering your play session, they don't bother any more.

The cloaked player will quickly become aware of how noone is willing to risk activity, when the alternative of waiting has been so greatly enhanced. Cloaked players stop coming due to diminished returns.

Secondary effect: Since the threat from cloaked players is now eliminated, effectively, the risk to null PvE is diminished by a significant amount.
Either NPC threat is jacked up to compensate, (a joke considering those results elsewhere), or the rewards are dropped to compensate. (Like the ice belts now being limited first come only served)

Being a miner with that auto logoff feature sounds awfully boring, especially with rewards dropping.
How is that any different from now? The complaint from cloakers is that everyone logs off, docks up or moves on. Nothing will change, except those of us that are willing to fight a cloaker now actually can. At the moment, I wouldn't bother, because I might spend hours trying to fight someone that's not even at home.
You are saying this as if now everyone hangs out in space, and this would cause everyone to dock.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1019 - 2013-09-12 18:45:35 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
The use of local chat as intel was never intended, and the only place it will have significant impact with my change is in null itself.
Local remains present, and any uncloaked pilot in open space is listed.

The only change being created is the need for effort, where intel is deemed necessary in a complete form.

If you are implying I wanted to remove local entirely, that's a straw man, as I never endorsed that solution.

Intended or not, other mechanics have been built which the removal of even part of local would cause problems. Just because you don't see them doesn't mean they aren't there. For starters blops bomber groups would get a MASSIVE buff since they would be effectively invisible at all times they are not firing. Go look into the millions of other threads addressing "local changes" for other problems. Like I said before, I'm not discussing local removal (or modification) here.

You need to do more research on ideas before criticising them.

Presented hand in hand with the solution I did endorse, is the means to detect and hunt cloaked vessels.
Effort opposes effort, noone gets a free ride.

Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Remove the AFK player?

And you are actually missing how this is a nerf? Seriously?

I'll quote myself, since you appear to have not bothered reading it:
"And I didn't say it wasn't a nerf, I said it wasn't a nerf to cloaking in general. Its a nerf targeting AFK cloakers."

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Ok, here is the change you seem to not recognize:
With a so-called AFK cloaker removed automatically, this eliminates the uncertainty factor.
Players will now know that any player listed must have been active within a certain time frame, and thus represent a genuine threat.
The cloaked player will be logged out, and removed from local, after a period of inactivity.
Knowing the player will vanish, and that they are listed due to activity, means that taking a risk and undocking with a hostile listed is always a bad idea.
1 They are known to be active, so the chance they went AFK is reduced to levels not practical to gamble on.
2 They go away now very predictably. Waiting now has a definite and assured payoff. Unless your cloaked pal wants to blow their entire play period on frustrating you, and logs in and out covering your play session, they don't bother any more.

The cloaked player will quickly become aware of how noone is willing to risk activity, when the alternative of waiting has been so greatly enhanced. Cloaked players stop coming due to diminished returns.

Secondary effect: Since the threat from cloaked players is now eliminated, effectively, the risk to null PvE is diminished by a significant amount.
Either NPC threat is jacked up to compensate, (a joke considering those results elsewhere), or the rewards are dropped to compensate. (Like the ice belts now being limited first come only served)

Being a miner with that auto logoff feature sounds awfully boring, especially with rewards dropping.

How is that any different from now? The complaint from cloakers is that everyone logs off, docks up or moves on. Nothing will change, except those of us that are willing to fight a cloaker now actually can. At the moment, I wouldn't bother, because I might spend hours trying to fight someone that's not even at home.
You are saying this as if now everyone hangs out in space, and this would cause everyone to dock.

How is that different... LOL. Ok, I will go along with this, and explain.

The actual cloaked pilots who ARE a threat, and not just messing with your head, fully intend to do violence with or without additional support.
But, they know that they need the target ships to undock.

Probably like you, they are not willing to commit to a fight they feel they will lose. They want the intended targets, not the substituted PvP ships hoping to kill or drive them away. If they wanted to target consensual opponents, they would have joined one of the marching bands that roams are.
Easily spotted, and just as easily avoided or confronted. (Like a marching band on parade)

But, with local advertising their presence, the target ships stay tucked away safely.
Time passes.
The pilots wanting to rat or mine start to consider, how that cloaked pilot has only certain time zones on his kill board profile.
He is active only in that time frame.... this means he is very likely asleep or at work right now, and it must be safe to operate.
After all, he has no kills listed anywhere near this period in time!

So, they risk it. They rat, they mine, they go nuts. NOTHING happens. Success, the theory seems proven, and they make plans to do it the next night, but full force.
Meanwhile, the cloaked pilot, having left his system online the night before his weekend, is planning also a special party late night on his day off.
He knows a system where he has been passive for a day and a half, ripe for the ambush he has planned....
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1020 - 2013-09-12 19:26:45 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
You need to do more research on ideas before criticising them.

Presented hand in hand with the solution I did endorse, is the means to detect and hunt cloaked vessels.
Effort opposes effort, noone gets a free ride.

Yes, I've read your idea. No matter how many times you try to push it on me though, I still think it's too big a change to implement. So as a whole single change, it's completely irrelevant as far as I am concerned.

Lucas Kell wrote:
How is that different... LOL. Ok, I will go along with this, and explain.

The actual cloaked pilots who ARE a threat, and not just messing with your head, fully intend to do violence with or without additional support.
But, they know that they need the target ships to undock.

Probably like you, they are not willing to commit to a fight they feel they will lose. They want the intended targets, not the substituted PvP ships hoping to kill or drive them away. If they wanted to target consensual opponents, they would have joined one of the marching bands that roams are.
Easily spotted, and just as easily avoided or confronted. (Like a marching band on parade)

But, with local advertising their presence, the target ships stay tucked away safely.
Time passes.
The pilots wanting to rat or mine start to consider, how that cloaked pilot has only certain time zones on his kill board profile.
He is active only in that time frame.... this means he is very likely asleep or at work right now, and it must be safe to operate.
After all, he has no kills listed anywhere near this period in time!

So, they risk it. They rat, they mine, they go nuts. NOTHING happens. Success, the theory seems proven, and they make plans to do it the next night, but full force.
Meanwhile, the cloaked pilot, having left his system online the night before his weekend, is planning also a special party late night on his day off.
He knows a system where he has been passive for a day and a half, ripe for the ambush he has planned....

Yup, they want easy kills and want the cover of AFK pilots to hide behind as a lure. I understand, but the AFK pilot still shouldn't be a lure. If they want to lure our miners, they need to come up with a better way than "be AFK loads, then suddenly don't be AFK". If that's your reason for leaving AFK cloaking in, it's ********. And 99% of the time, with ANY cloaker in system, regardless of how long he's been there, no miners will go out mining.
All you are saying here is "don't take AFK cloakers out, because not only do they cause problems on their own, active cloakers can hide behind them to add more chance of scoring an easy kill".
It's still beside the point though, because as I've said, and as cloakers have actually complained before, all people do is dock up of leave the system. Every time. The few times I've seen a cloaker successfully grab a target it's been an inattentive miner or ratter when the cloaker arrives in system.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.