These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#1281 - 2013-09-16 19:28:24 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:

I salute your comment, Andy. I credit you with good intentions too.

A group traveling, be it roam or fleet sized, exponentially increases the probability that they will be spotted.
One competent gate scout taking notice of activations, can easily tell a good guess at how many are involved.
(Overlapping arrivals can be tricky)

This is where the BLOPs was intended to operate, dropping scouts and leapfrogging deeper and deeper, so a blitzkrieg could do a hard burn to the destination in the hopes of keeping the warning to a minimum.

These cloaked ships, outside of limited scenarios, are not cost effective attacking ships, but they can support the real fighters as they come in.
In the hands of a pro, they would never be seen in system, as they would avoid all direct contact.

Oh, the possibilities.

To be honest, the group need not travel together and only converge when a target is found or caught. Intel may show 1 ship per system in a constellation, but if they are all 1 jump out of the target system, the threat may seem much smaller than it really is, but the intel available to the group is much larger than just for one solo ship.

Good news: CCP is looking at improving the BLOPS BS.

Remember though that possibilities only exist if the reward justifies the cost of the risk. That means that players will only risk as much as can be earned in the same amount of time that it can be lost, plus something to make the time spent worthwhile. A zero net gain is a waste of time and a net loss is certainly not going to continue for long due to diminishing resources, if at all.

You make good points, but if they are relying on a convergent strategy, then even if only a few are detected inbound it can raise flags. Especially if they are obviously not from the same direction, but headed in towards a common area.

Again, I agree that keeping the time to react minimized can lower the effectiveness of a response.
I have a curiosity over what could be sitting in a target system drawing in this quick strike this way. I like the idea, but I am so used to the blob all strategy for everything, I want to encourage more interesting tactics.
Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1282 - 2013-09-16 19:31:16 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
What we've said is that WH space has SEVERAL DIFFERENCES.


Yes there are differences. WH residents deal with far greater overall risk without local, yet we manage.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1283 - 2013-09-16 19:57:33 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:


The issue is not whether he is touching buttons, it is whether he can project an "infinite" cyno threat in a timely manner against you. No matter how you package the perspective on this issue, 3 minutes of pve WILL NEVER be worth 3-10 hours required to buy the ship and implants and med clone upgrades. NEVER.


Wow, and you have the audacity to call me a liar. Yes, I too can activate a cyno in game without hitting a button, and that cyno will project infinite...something. IDK, but an infinite something.

Fear me and my tiny cyno frig!!!!!

Roll

TBPH, it wasn't that audacious to suggest that you might lie for hidden agendas and personal gain; welcome to Eve.


Oh...okay, so you are a liar too and you just want a perfectly safe null. Roll

Keep posting whatever you want, but it appears The Gunslinger was 100% correct about you. You just proved it.

With this kind of mentality you can ascribe any position to any person here. It is a truly dishonest discussion technique. Good for you Andy.

"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.
#1284 - 2013-09-16 20:53:45 UTC
JIeoH Mocc wrote:
I would be much obliged if you didn't lie regarding what I've said.
I never said it is OK to use whatever automation device, I just said it's pretty easy to do in this case.

You don't seem to be too against the idea. You even seem to be giving out ideas freely on how you'd do it.

JIeoH Mocc wrote:
Thus you propose a controversial "fix" which is easily overridden without detection possibility, by design.
You can't compare the sequences required of bots that are being detected (so why there still are bots, eh?) to the simple non conditional press of a key.
You see, i now completely understand that there's absolutely no use in explaining you where you err. The problem is deep within your mentality, and i don't think this can remedied on a forum.
But the truth is that not only you are heading the wrong way, you also propose lousy solutions =)
No matter how many metrics there are, or these mystic "ways to prove" something - no one will be able to do that. It's simply a lousy fix that will result in the fact that when you see a cloaky in local - you'll do the exact same thing you do now, dock and whine on the forums. Only this time he'll be ACTIVE for sure. Or will he?
There's nothing "mystic" about it. It's literally the basics of MMO cheat detection. And I proposed a single solution to the AFK issue, and even that just as a food for thought suggestion. You refuse to accept anyone else's opinions, probably because you are only here to troll. Well this is Features & Ideas. If you don't have any ideas, and are clearly clueless about a lot of things, what are you here for? Purely to launch personal attacks at me.
Go back to your bridge.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1285 - 2013-09-16 20:56:47 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:

See that part I have underlined?

That, 1,000 times that.

Good news.

You have no risk from players who are not playing.
Whether they are AFK cloaked, docked, or POS'd up, even logged out.
If they touch no buttons, you have zero risk.

But, you don't deserve to know who is what.

Or if you do, it must be completely universal, which would not be such a great thing.

Here is your solution, then:
Before the Pilot's name, a timer indicating the last click or keypress in the game client they use.
Docked, in a POS, mining, ratting, cloaked, you name it.

You could see who was most active just by watching how often the counter reset itself.
Again you talk a load of crap. If there is no risk, then why do AFK cloakers do it. If it has no effect, why would they do it?
We've covered this a thousand times or more. And regardless of what is said you're response boils down to: I am right, you are wrong, see my sig for my idea cos I'm amazing"
We'll you're not. I honestly question if you even play EVE how clueless you seem to be about mechanics.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1286 - 2013-09-16 20:59:37 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Without local: Opening a cyno near a hostile ship is not advised. The hostile can fire on the cyno ship, or alert other vessels close enough to respond quickly. Incoming vessels by jumping or bridging will be loading the system while being fired on by prepared vessels.
Summary, you brought a mobile gate to the ones most motivated to camp it.

With local: The cyno pilot has at a glance complete intel on all ships present. No ambush using ships already in system can surprise the pilot due to this, so he can avoid risky situations. Also, the tactical advantage of delaying the warning local gives due to a population spike of PvP ships can be delayed to the last possible moment.
Summary, you have the gate ready, and local tells you when it is safest to use it.
L O L
Yeah, because with local, you can't fire on a cyno ship. With local, your mates can't JB in or log in in station. Moron.

Without local, cynos would be immensely more powerful, as it's unlikely that every system would be covered with a force able to withstand the drop. WE don;t generally sit around in 40 man fleets hoping for a bit of home defense.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1287 - 2013-09-16 21:06:11 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I can mine in an AB equipped ship that clocks out over 1,000 m/s, with a 4 second align time if they weren't close enough with that bubble.
And it has +2 warp stability if they try to point me.
And it is not easy to target, being quite small.

I just don't see them doing it. Especially not for a boat that fitted is below 50 million ISK to replace.
By inconveniencing myself like that, my yield drops from 1,094 per minute in a Mack., to 940 in the Venture.
(Bistot ore, other categories vary)
If you mine in a venture you may as well mine in high sec.
And if you are only getting 1094/m in a mack, you are doing something wrong. Even with no boosts you should be getting at least 1300/minute.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1288 - 2013-09-16 21:09:01 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:

See that part I have underlined?

That, 1,000 times that.

Good news.

You have no risk from players who are not playing.
Whether they are AFK cloaked, docked, or POS'd up, even logged out.
If they touch no buttons, you have zero risk.

But, you don't deserve to know who is what.

Or if you do, it must be completely universal, which would not be such a great thing.

Here is your solution, then:
Before the Pilot's name, a timer indicating the last click or keypress in the game client they use.
Docked, in a POS, mining, ratting, cloaked, you name it.

You could see who was most active just by watching how often the counter reset itself.
Again you talk a load of crap. If there is no risk, then why do AFK cloakers do it. If it has no effect, why would they do it?
We've covered this a thousand times or more. And regardless of what is said you're response boils down to: I am right, you are wrong, see my sig for my idea cos I'm amazing"
We'll you're not. I honestly question if you even play EVE how clueless you seem to be about mechanics.

This has not been accepted by you in the past, but hope springs eternal.

AFK Cloaker tactics are used for one of two reasons.
1. To mess with your head. If you call their bluff, nothing happens at all. It is dubious if they even have a cyno fitted, but if they feel it works well enough, the scarecrow is meant to drive the birds from the field.

2. To desensitize pilots. Seeing the name in local for ten minutes, and the all-or-nothing style PvE player won't undock.
After 1 hour, they are still not likely to consider it.
But after 12 hours, many are willing to gamble that a hidden pilot could not possibly be active for that long, and at best they may be checking back periodically. It is human nature to assume common grounds, so if the PvE pilot was logged in consistently to notice this, and has been AFK much of the time, then the hidden pilot too must be AFK.
Expecting them to return 18 to 20 hours after they first appeared makes sense to many, so on the night side of this equation it is probably safe.
Now, if the hidden pilot checks on the crop at an odd hour, they may find a harvest ready.

They do it because it works against idiots, who insist on all-or-nothing fits.
It keeps them docked up in some cases, and on kill mails for others.
And really, isn't that what a null miner wants? Fewer competing miners sucking up the good ore.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1289 - 2013-09-16 21:09:48 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I can mine in an AB equipped ship that clocks out over 1,000 m/s, with a 4 second align time if they weren't close enough with that bubble.
And it has +2 warp stability if they try to point me.
And it is not easy to target, being quite small.

I just don't see them doing it. Especially not for a boat that fitted is below 50 million ISK to replace.
By inconveniencing myself like that, my yield drops from 1,094 per minute in a Mack., to 940 in the Venture.
(Bistot ore, other categories vary)
If you mine in a venture you may as well mine in high sec.
And if you are only getting 1094/m in a mack, you are doing something wrong. Even with no boosts you should be getting at least 1300/minute.

Your min max fits are why you fear attack.

Try mixing a bit of defense in there.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1290 - 2013-09-16 21:41:04 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I can mine in an AB equipped ship that clocks out over 1,000 m/s, with a 4 second align time if they weren't close enough with that bubble.
And it has +2 warp stability if they try to point me.
And it is not easy to target, being quite small.

I just don't see them doing it. Especially not for a boat that fitted is below 50 million ISK to replace.
By inconveniencing myself like that, my yield drops from 1,094 per minute in a Mack., to 940 in the Venture.
(Bistot ore, other categories vary)
If you mine in a venture you may as well mine in high sec.
And if you are only getting 1094/m in a mack, you are doing something wrong. Even with no boosts you should be getting at least 1300/minute.

Your min max fits are why you fear attack.

Try mixing a bit of defense in there.

I can tank any rats in null. No matter what fit I have, an exhumer can't tank PvP, and it's moronic to try. Evasion is the best tactic.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1291 - 2013-09-16 22:06:51 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I can mine in an AB equipped ship that clocks out over 1,000 m/s, with a 4 second align time if they weren't close enough with that bubble.
And it has +2 warp stability if they try to point me.
And it is not easy to target, being quite small.

I just don't see them doing it. Especially not for a boat that fitted is below 50 million ISK to replace.
By inconveniencing myself like that, my yield drops from 1,094 per minute in a Mack., to 940 in the Venture.
(Bistot ore, other categories vary)
If you mine in a venture you may as well mine in high sec.
And if you are only getting 1094/m in a mack, you are doing something wrong. Even with no boosts you should be getting at least 1300/minute.

Your min max fits are why you fear attack.

Try mixing a bit of defense in there.

I can tank any rats in null. No matter what fit I have, an exhumer can't tank PvP, and it's moronic to try. Evasion is the best tactic.

Why are you flying an exhumer without support?

At best, a tanked up exhumer only gives defenders time to reach you, which is great if you are near PvP ships staging or have Concord defending...

You are rolling dice without protection. You know that.

I think you can do better than all or nothing style. You love making a point, why don't you try it differently?
Run the Venture, invite buddies to rat fest so you don't have those bothering you.

It is not maximum efficiency, but neither is it docked up wishing it was in the field.
You may enjoy it.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1292 - 2013-09-16 22:11:31 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:

TBPH, it wasn't that audacious to suggest that you might lie for hidden agendas and personal gain; welcome to Eve.


Oh...okay, so you are a liar too and you just want a perfectly safe null. Roll

Keep posting whatever you want, but it appears The Gunslinger was 100% correct about you. You just proved it.

With this kind of mentality you can ascribe any position to any person here. It is a truly dishonest discussion technique. Good for you Andy.

I don't launch personal attacks, I just expose ideas. You said that you support Idea A (pve). You said that you support Idea B (removing local). Idea B brings an end to Idea A (unless you are prepared to put an end to all cynos). You recognized that and suggested that I was calling you a liar. I responded, "maybe," it's not the first time Eve players lied to get their way. Simple as that.

Now back to finding solutions for BOTH sides of this issue: the pro-pve side and the anti-pve/anti-local side. Take a look at my previous suggestions. Give honest, objective feedback about THE IDEAS.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1293 - 2013-09-16 22:22:02 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:

TBPH, it wasn't that audacious to suggest that you might lie for hidden agendas and personal gain; welcome to Eve.


Oh...okay, so you are a liar too and you just want a perfectly safe null. Roll

Keep posting whatever you want, but it appears The Gunslinger was 100% correct about you. You just proved it.

With this kind of mentality you can ascribe any position to any person here. It is a truly dishonest discussion technique. Good for you Andy.

I don't launch personal attacks, I just expose ideas. You said that you support Idea A (pve). You said that you support Idea B (removing local). Idea B brings an end to Idea A (unless you are prepared to put an end to all cynos). You recognized that and suggested that I was calling you a liar. I responded, "maybe," it's not the first time Eve players lied to get their way. Simple as that.

Now back to finding solutions for BOTH sides of this issue: the pro-pve side and the anti-pve/anti-local side. Take a look at my previous suggestions. Give honest, objective feedback about THE IDEAS.



Andy,

I have never advocated simply removing local. Never. There are no posts anywhere where I have advocated that. I have advocated not using local for intel so long as there is an alternative mechanic. I advocate for this position because I think simply removing local would likely be too much to maintain even current PvE levels. I've posted this in this thread several times.

So, congratulations you've exposed your own ignorance, your own bias, and wallowed in making inaccurate statements about my views.

Well done.

"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
#1294 - 2013-09-16 22:31:33 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:

TBPH, it wasn't that audacious to suggest that you might lie for hidden agendas and personal gain; welcome to Eve.


Oh...okay, so you are a liar too and you just want a perfectly safe null. Roll

Keep posting whatever you want, but it appears The Gunslinger was 100% correct about you. You just proved it.

With this kind of mentality you can ascribe any position to any person here. It is a truly dishonest discussion technique. Good for you Andy.

I don't launch personal attacks, I just expose ideas. You said that you support Idea A (pve). You said that you support Idea B (removing local). Idea B brings an end to Idea A (unless you are prepared to put an end to all cynos). You recognized that and suggested that I was calling you a liar. I responded, "maybe," it's not the first time Eve players lied to get their way. Simple as that.

Now back to finding solutions for BOTH sides of this issue: the pro-pve side and the anti-pve/anti-local side. Take a look at my previous suggestions. Give honest, objective feedback about THE IDEAS.

Local is not PvE's friend or savior.

It is exactly what enables the hostiles to find targets, and to camp systems. It dumbs down play all around, since hostiles lack the support needed to have intel regarding target presence.
Unless all hunters want to get really good at scanning, they need local.

As a miner, I have this nice intel channel. I can scan too.
If I make a better effort than a hostile, he can not get me.

That intel channel would be an amazing asset, if local were not constantly balancing it out by telling the hostile what system I'm in.

Answer this, please: How will a hostile find you in your sov space, if they don't have local tipping them off?
Azrael Dinn
Imperial Mechanics
#1295 - 2013-09-17 05:21:12 UTC
I can't even keep up with this anymore too much posts coming in every single day P

At least the topic stays in the first page. Sticky would still be realy realy nice.

And break cloaks CCP. Please

After centuries of debating and justifying... Break Cloaks tm

Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1296 - 2013-09-17 05:46:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Nikk Narrel wrote:

Answer this, please: How will a hostile find you in your sov space, if they don't have local tipping them off?

You could start with the in-game universe system statistics reporting tool keying on "npc's killed", followed by "players in space". No more rocket science than roaming a large group in smaller numbers to mask your true size. For a small fee, I could teach y'all how to pvp. It isn't really that hard to catch stuff, even if you ignore the easy cyno "I win" button.

Teckos Pech, here is an exact quote from you in response to my "removing local hurts pve" post:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Depends, IMO. Sitting on a titan or on a blops for too long and soon you'll show up on the galaxy map. Checking to see if that orange/red dot is within bridge range, if so, you might have a problem. Time to release the scouts.

I have expressly stated I want PvE in null. In fact, I want more of it. So stop insinuating I am a liar. It just makes you look like a petty brat.


Immediately following my claim that removing local puts a stop to pve activities, you then claim that I am calling you a liar. You clearly said that you want more pve, and that my discussion about the harm of removing local on pve somehow amounts to me calling you a liar; Never mentioned your name in that post, btw. How is a reasonable person supposed to interpret this?

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 

JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman
#1297 - 2013-09-17 05:51:28 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
JIeoH Mocc wrote:
I would be much obliged if you didn't lie regarding what I've said.
I never said it is OK to use whatever automation device, I just said it's pretty easy to do in this case.

You don't seem to be too against the idea. You even seem to be giving out ideas freely on how you'd do it.

JIeoH Mocc wrote:
Thus you propose a controversial "fix" which is easily overridden without detection possibility, by design.
You can't compare the sequences required of bots that are being detected (so why there still are bots, eh?) to the simple non conditional press of a key.
You see, i now completely understand that there's absolutely no use in explaining you where you err. The problem is deep within your mentality, and i don't think this can remedied on a forum.
But the truth is that not only you are heading the wrong way, you also propose lousy solutions =)
No matter how many metrics there are, or these mystic "ways to prove" something - no one will be able to do that. It's simply a lousy fix that will result in the fact that when you see a cloaky in local - you'll do the exact same thing you do now, dock and whine on the forums. Only this time he'll be ACTIVE for sure. Or will he?
There's nothing "mystic" about it. It's literally the basics of MMO cheat detection. And I proposed a single solution to the AFK issue, and even that just as a food for thought suggestion. You refuse to accept anyone else's opinions, probably because you are only here to troll. Well this is Features & Ideas. If you don't have any ideas, and are clearly clueless about a lot of things, what are you here for? Purely to launch personal attacks at me.
Go back to your bridge.

No, i don't refuse to accept anyone elses ideas, i refuse to take yours. I just see no point in convincing you anymore, since you're mostly disregarding any key point that was proposed.
You proposed a really bad solution, that will improve nothing. On the contrary - it will make things worse for you, not me - since i don't minf afk cloakies in the first place.
Since it's 'Features and Ideas' we're here to discuss even the most stupid ideas, which is what i am doing right now, why not?
I'd like you to outline, in general points, how do you propose to detect a key press that perfectly mimics a key press performed by a player. From the top of my head, without reading on the issue, i can think of 2 characteristics defining a key being pressed on the keyboard. I'd like to hear how you intend to make sure, that if a cloak timer is introduced - it's going to be pressed by a player, and not by a simple cheap gadget.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1298 - 2013-09-17 06:47:34 UTC
Azrael Dinn wrote:


At least the topic stays in the first page. Sticky would still be realy realy nice.



That much we can agree on. P

"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

Vas Eldryn
#1299 - 2013-09-17 07:06:34 UTC
simple question Teckos.... would it be better for more industry pilots to be in null or less?
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1300 - 2013-09-17 07:41:54 UTC
Vas Eldryn wrote:
simple question Teckos.... would it be better for more industry pilots to be in null or less?


More, but making it safer isn't the only route. I know it is long, but in this thread I've consistently argued for more PvE in null in general.

Andy has pointed to the 3-10 hours of ratting ship value (lets say 500 million isk). I don't think such ships should be protected from PvP, and especially not by changes in game mechanics. At the same time I don't think such players should lose such a ship every 3-10 minutes as Andy suggests. The expected benefits for the PvE pilot should exceed the expected losses. That is, doing PvE in null should be worth while, otherwise nobody would do it.

I have argued that at the very least the current expected benefits to expected losses ratio should be preserved, but that does not mean we have to keep both the expected benefits or expected losses the same.

The thing is catching a ratter in null is not easy. They make a considerable amount of effort to minimize risk, as I have noted before. They have gotten so good at it, that yes, one result is AFK cloaking. But AFK cloaking is a symptom not the cause. Cynos are not the cause either. Cynos are used because of the same cause. The use of local as an intel tool and other precautions.

So change what is causing all these things. Change local and how intel is gathered. It is a big thing and tricky. Still if it can be done right it could make the game more interesting. And maybe give a bump to null sec PvE. After all, I want all those miners and ratters to be able to buy a new ship if their current one goes boom from time-to-time.

"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