These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1381 - 2013-09-17 15:13:35 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Well firstly, lets make sure you get this. that 1% is NOT AFK cloaking. It's bouncing off a rock, looking away for the wrong 10 seconds, or getting the dreaded warp bug. I avoid mining in systems with cloakers, so they are a 0% threat to me already. The reason i dislike them is they kill off systems in null for days at a time for no effort.


Which makes your statements even more sickening. You're saying that the 1% chance you have of getting caught is a result of getting stuck on a rock, or not looking at the screen, or other little odd bugs. You realise that discounting things like that, you're saying you have 100% chance at escaping. No matter how much time or effort the other pilot puts in, no matter how smart they are or how skilled, you have 100% chance at success unless you encounter a bug.

Do you not understand how that is not balanced, how that is extremely broken?

And if you have this 100% safety, why are you calling for changes that make it even more difficult for the other person? You've already admitted that you have perfect safety thanks to local.

You have now shown, quite clearly, that you want the hunter to have 0 chance to catch you. You want perfect safety at all times, and the only time you want to be engaged in pvp is when you choose to.

If you don't realise why that is a colossal misunderstanding of how this game works there is simply no hope

No, I don't see how that's imbalanced, as you ALSO have a 100% chance to survive, since you can't be found. Unless you encounter a bug, you can't be found, and can't be killed. You can say "oh but I have to travel, that's unsafe" but at the same time, if I traveled, I'd also not be safe, in fact I'd be more at risk since I can't covops cloak my miner. All of this, yet I'm the one misunderstanding?

The only changes I want are to stop AFK people lowering some null systems population on purpose and without effort. They know what effect it has, and that's why the do it.


The difference is, you are saying you have 100% safety while accomplishing something: While gaining bounties from ratting, or minerals from mining, or whatever. While cloaked I gain nothing. If you want to relinquish your rewards while you have this perfect safety, then I support that. Whats that, you don't?

Well then that is imbalanced, bro.
JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman
#1382 - 2013-09-17 15:19:16 UTC  |  Edited by: JIeoH Mocc
Lucas Kell wrote:


And it's great how you don;t care about this group, and you don;t care about that group, but that's why you are biased towards your own playstyle only. You're happy for changes that make you life easier, and **** anyone else basically.


In the years I played EvE, I've spent about a week in total cloaky camping someone. The majority of that time i spent chatting with the guys i camped in local. I prefer another sort of action, and nothing discussed here will affect me personally (too much anyway).
You jumping to these conclusions due to yourself being victimized to the extreme.
I don't afk cloak camp (or any other camp) - but just like you admitted the ratio between profit and risk in nullsec is absurdly high.
And cloaky camp is one of the few ways to adjust that ration in some focal spot of space.
Removing local will adjust that ratio everywhere, and I like generic solutions so just though i'd mention that.
I only say i don't care bout these and these because you think that saying "a renter can't move to another system, so let's remove afk cloaking" is a valid argument regarding game mechanis, and it's simply not so.
The question of feudal society with lords and serfs is a different story, game mechanics aside.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1383 - 2013-09-17 15:20:02 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
No, I clearly stated he's either a liar, or inexperienced.


There you go again insulting others. I don't mind if it is me cause I admit I can be a bit of a**hole. But Nikk is usually very temperate in his posts.

"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
#1384 - 2013-09-17 15:20:17 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
I find it astonishing that lucas is claiming Nikk must be a "liar" because he stated he doesn't use blingy, minmaxed, overly expensive ships when he is in dangerous areas of space with little or no backup.

The fact that the concept of compromise, trading efficiency for safety, is so alien to lucas, or at least so unacceptable that he screams everyone is lying about it when someone says they do it is truly astounding.
No, I clearly stated he's either a liar, or inexperienced. I guess the one thing I missed out is the chance that he legitimately likes watching mining lasers cycle. If you are null mining in a venture, you may as well either mine in high sec in safety, or rat in null and buy the minerals, since both of those things result in a higher yield. It's not about being blingy, or minmaxxed, you can mine in a cheap retriever and mine more than a venture.

Your max fitting philosophy is also the reason you mine zero when a hostile is present, or near enough to your area for you to dock up.

As I showed the venture can mine close to 90% of the same output, you must be saying you only dock up less than 10% of the time for threats.
You are either well protected, or lucky, but it does suggest a new question:

If you're this safe, why are you here complaining about cloaked ships? Clearly they have little effect on you.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1385 - 2013-09-17 15:21:05 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
1. So, you are expecting either a scout or to have sensors covering the entrance for you. Maybe even your own D scan.
You just qualified for having already left the target area, which was stated previously as a result. Effort = results.
I really don;t get what you are trying to say here? Left what target area? All I was pointing out is a single covops pilot not showing on local can navigate through null a LOT easier than a fleet of guys.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
2. TiDi?? You are expecting a fleet of several hundred to attack your mining or ratting ship? Are you PvE'ing in a supercap here??
30 can easily trigger tidi. I'm not talking 10%, but any time the tidi ring pops up, you know there's something going on. And you should see the fleets BL drop on ratters.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
3. Of course it can be from a few jumps away. Specifically, in the first system with low enough population not to be a threat, so they can gate out in an unknown direction.
Again, lost me here. So you are agreeing, yes a cyno fleet can bypass the gates, thus not showing to scouts and intel right?

Nikk Narrel wrote:
4. Not being on grid, they are not a threat till they warp to you. Unless you are pointed by a second ship, you can leave.
(You popped the pointing / cyno ship already in this example)
The chances of you killing a cyno before anyone lands on you is almost nil. If they are prepped, at least half of the fleet will land on you, and if they are set up right, they will be more than capable of holding you for the time it takes to warp in the rest. It takes a couple of seconds for a fleet to drop in (unless they are a 200+ and smash the tidi), so unless you were incredibly quick, the fleet is on you anyway.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1386 - 2013-09-17 15:23:02 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Well firstly, lets make sure you get this. that 1% is NOT AFK cloaking. It's bouncing off a rock, looking away for the wrong 10 seconds, or getting the dreaded warp bug. I avoid mining in systems with cloakers, so they are a 0% threat to me already. The reason i dislike them is they kill off systems in null for days at a time for no effort.


Which makes your statements even more sickening. You're saying that the 1% chance you have of getting caught is a result of getting stuck on a rock, or not looking at the screen, or other little odd bugs. You realise that discounting things like that, you're saying you have 100% chance at escaping. No matter how much time or effort the other pilot puts in, no matter how smart they are or how skilled, you have 100% chance at success unless you encounter a bug.

Do you not understand how that is not balanced, how that is extremely broken?


I have made this point since the beginning. Unless the PvE pilot is unlucky or inattentive they will almost surely escape. This then results in AFK cloaking as a way to try and circumvent that high degree of safety.

"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
#1387 - 2013-09-17 15:23:16 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
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.
Again you say this like it's just that simple. Like changing local with have n adverse affects, and it's just a case of following your sig and away we go. It's not that simple. Honestly I don't think it's even possible to do it without it being game breaking. There's too many systems that work fine as it currently stands, but that would be entirely over or under powered should they make your changes to local.
The problem is you see everything from your blinkered perspective, rather than actually seeing what it's like from all side and coming to a rational decision. Honestly if the choice was your idea or no change, I'd chose no change in a heartbeat. At least as it is at the moment it works.


CCP has changed many aspects of the game over the years, some quite complex with far reaching implications. Would it be tough? Sure. Is it impossible? Only if nobody tries.

And if you really want to leave local alone, then it needs a counter...AFK cloaking.
lol, fine if that;s the counter, we'll keep it.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1388 - 2013-09-17 15:24:29 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
No, they can all be killed. But you are asking for it to be easier to kill already defenseless ships. And that makes you a coward. A PvP carebear. Let's see more of your tears about how miners can evade you too easily.


What!?!?!?! Not a sociopath for killing defenseless people!?!?!?!

Well I guess that is something. Roll

Here is a hint, why not stop making statements about the person playing the game such as coward, since you don't know them in real life and you only know the persona they have adopted in game. That is, that guy who likes to play the dirt bag scammer in game...could be a guy you get along with wonderfully in real life and would trust implicitly. We all adopt persona's in this game for fun...because it is a game...just a game.

Lighten up a bit. Before you stroke out.

Sheesh.

They want to kill ships with no guns. What do you expect me to do? Hand them the PvPer of the year award? lol.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1389 - 2013-09-17 15:27:57 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Did you not read this post?

It shows I am thinking about this problem. I discuss both benefits and losses. Granted it is hugely simplified, but FFS this is a discussion form and not some academic paper where I can start getting into upper-hemi continuous functions, quasi concave utility functions and trotting out Fatou's Lemma. Nor do I have the data necessary to do a thorough analysis on how to change things and the implications.

Once again, you are wrong. I have not advocated simply removing local. I want local to be a chat channel with intel being a separate mechanic.
Yes, I did in fact read that. And I disagree. YOu state it like the loss of local would be a benefit to an industrialist. It wouldn't It would be yet another way to get killed for an already diminished income. IT was bad enough that the gravs got changed so any pirate can jump in system then warp straight to a grav, no probes needed. Now you advocate us not even seeing him until he's already on grid with us. In no way shape or form is that a benefit. It would simply move more industrialists to an already packed high sec.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1390 - 2013-09-17 15:31:03 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
The difference is, you are saying you have 100% safety while accomplishing something: While gaining bounties from ratting, or minerals from mining, or whatever. While cloaked I gain nothing. If you want to relinquish your rewards while you have this perfect safety, then I support that. Whats that, you don't?

Well then that is imbalanced, bro.
You are still doing something though. You are planning your attack, positioning your ship, making tactical bookmarks. Combat is about both planning and execution. If you were using a standard cloak, so to do anything you had to decloak, that would be even. But as a covops, you can fly around me unnoticed, setting up everything you need to execute with maximum chance of success.
PvP is not an isk generating activity, so you can't simply compare the two on that metric.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1391 - 2013-09-17 15:34:26 UTC
JIeoH Mocc wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:


And it's great how you don;t care about this group, and you don;t care about that group, but that's why you are biased towards your own playstyle only. You're happy for changes that make you life easier, and **** anyone else basically.


In the years I played EvE, I've spent about a week in total cloaky camping someone. The majority of that time i spent chatting with the guys i camped in local. I prefer another sort of action, and nothing discussed here will affect me personally (too much anyway).
You jumping to these conclusions due to yourself being victimized to the extreme.
I don't afk cloak camp (or any other camp) - but just like you admitted the ratio between profit and risk in nullsec is absurdly high.
And cloaky camp is one of the few ways to adjust that ration in some focal spot of space.
Removing local will adjust that ratio everywhere, and I like generic solutions so just though i'd mention that.
I only say i don't care bout these and these because you think that saying "a renter can't move to another system, so let's remove afk cloaking" is a valid argument regarding game mechanis, and it's simply not so.
The question of feudal society with lords and serfs is a different story, game mechanics aside.
I don't think I'm being victimised. And I think you vastly overestimate the income from PVE/industry in null sec. Again I'll point out tat all I'm saying is people should play the game if they want to damage null. They don't, they just log on and sod off. It's a pointless activity solely based around abusing cloak mechanics to passively push people out of null sec systems by introducing risk, and takes no effort to do. I won't make any more isk/hour if it changes. The only difference to me will be the colour of my sun.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman
#1392 - 2013-09-17 15:35:29 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:

They want to kill ships with no guns. What do you expect me to do? Hand them the PvPer of the year award? lol.

You miss the point on this one with such admirable persistence.
I want to kill any ship. Or every ship. Doesn't matter. I just see no reason to avoid killing ships that are easy kills.
I wouldn't camp your system (though at times i think it'll bring tons of lulz, but i am too lazy for that), but i if bump into you in some belt/anomaly - I'll try to kill you. Why shouldn't I? Others may as well enjoy camping you, and that's also all right, if they like it - why shouldn't they kill your barge if you allow it?
That sort of role play has its place in EvE like in every other game - but it is what it is - a role play. A ship with no guns is a valid target as any, and should have no special defences beyond ship stats and pilot skill.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1393 - 2013-09-17 15:36:17 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
No, I clearly stated he's either a liar, or inexperienced.


There you go again insulting others. I don't mind if it is me cause I admit I can be a bit of a**hole. But Nikk is usually very temperate in his posts.
It's not an insult. It's my honest opinion. One of those two must be true, or he wouldn;t be suggesting inefficient mining, since inefficient null mining is an enormous waste of time. It takes 10 days to train a high sec alt with higher isk/hour than a venture, or you can solo rat for about 4x a solo venture income. So unless he really likes watching mining lasers tick round, one of those two must be the case.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman
#1394 - 2013-09-17 15:38:44 UTC  |  Edited by: JIeoH Mocc
Lucas Kell wrote:

I don't think I'm being victimised. And I think you vastly overestimate the income from PVE/industry in null sec. Again I'll point out tat all I'm saying is people should play the game if they want to damage null. They don't, they just log on and sod off. It's a pointless activity solely based around abusing cloak mechanics to passively push people out of null sec systems by introducing risk, and takes no effort to do. I won't make any more isk/hour if it changes. The only difference to me will be the colour of my sun.


Any income with 99% safety will derive an absurd profit/risk ratio. Doesn't matter what it is. Unless you're loosing ISK there (wouldn;t surprise me actually, due to your lack of will to take any kind of initiative)
Having an account for cloaky camping is the same (if not more) efforts than you put into your own security, so after you finally (and frankly) outlined your own efforts towards being safe - i don't think you can complain about someone else having it too easy, eh?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1395 - 2013-09-17 15:38:52 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
I find it astonishing that lucas is claiming Nikk must be a "liar" because he stated he doesn't use blingy, minmaxed, overly expensive ships when he is in dangerous areas of space with little or no backup.

The fact that the concept of compromise, trading efficiency for safety, is so alien to lucas, or at least so unacceptable that he screams everyone is lying about it when someone says they do it is truly astounding.
No, I clearly stated he's either a liar, or inexperienced. I guess the one thing I missed out is the chance that he legitimately likes watching mining lasers cycle. If you are null mining in a venture, you may as well either mine in high sec in safety, or rat in null and buy the minerals, since both of those things result in a higher yield. It's not about being blingy, or minmaxxed, you can mine in a cheap retriever and mine more than a venture.

Your max fitting philosophy is also the reason you mine zero when a hostile is present, or near enough to your area for you to dock up.

As I showed the venture can mine close to 90% of the same output, you must be saying you only dock up less than 10% of the time for threats.
You are either well protected, or lucky, but it does suggest a new question:

If you're this safe, why are you here complaining about cloaked ships? Clearly they have little effect on you.

I don't mine zero, I move, and only if he's in system. It takes a couple of minutes, if that. I don't let a cloaker affect my income.
The reason I'm here is I think that AFK cloakers affect the population spread of null systems pointlessly, and with no effort. There's no gain from doing it, it's simply a way to damage the game, by making null seem even more empty.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1396 - 2013-09-17 15:40:59 UTC
JIeoH Mocc wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:

They want to kill ships with no guns. What do you expect me to do? Hand them the PvPer of the year award? lol.

You miss the point on this one with such admirable persistence.
I want to kill any ship. Or every ship. Doesn't matter. I just see no reason to avoid killing ships that are easy kills.
I wouldn't camp your system (though at times i think it'll bring tons of lulz, but i am too lazy for that), but i if bump into you in some belt/anomaly - I'll try to kill you. Why shouldn't I? Others may as well enjoy camping you, and that's also all right, if they like it - why shouldn't they kill your barge if you allow it?
That sort of role play has its place in EvE like in every other game - but it is what it is - a role play. A ship with no guns is a valid target as any, and should have no special defences beyond ship stats and pilot skill.
That's fine, and you can feel free to kill what you want. But why should it be made easier for you to do so?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman
#1397 - 2013-09-17 15:42:21 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
JIeoH Mocc wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:

They want to kill ships with no guns. What do you expect me to do? Hand them the PvPer of the year award? lol.

You miss the point on this one with such admirable persistence.
I want to kill any ship. Or every ship. Doesn't matter. I just see no reason to avoid killing ships that are easy kills.
I wouldn't camp your system (though at times i think it'll bring tons of lulz, but i am too lazy for that), but i if bump into you in some belt/anomaly - I'll try to kill you. Why shouldn't I? Others may as well enjoy camping you, and that's also all right, if they like it - why shouldn't they kill your barge if you allow it?
That sort of role play has its place in EvE like in every other game - but it is what it is - a role play. A ship with no guns is a valid target as any, and should have no special defences beyond ship stats and pilot skill.
That's fine, and you can feel free to kill what you want. But why should it be made easier for you to do so?


I don't want it easier... You're the one whining about making AFK cloaking impossible, no?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1398 - 2013-09-17 15:45:10 UTC
JIeoH Mocc wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:

I don't think I'm being victimised. And I think you vastly overestimate the income from PVE/industry in null sec. Again I'll point out tat all I'm saying is people should play the game if they want to damage null. They don't, they just log on and sod off. It's a pointless activity solely based around abusing cloak mechanics to passively push people out of null sec systems by introducing risk, and takes no effort to do. I won't make any more isk/hour if it changes. The only difference to me will be the colour of my sun.


Any income with 99% safety will derive an absurd profit/risk ratio. Doesn't matter what it is. Unless you're loosing ISK there (wouldn;t surprise me actually, due to your lack of will to take any kind of initiative)
Having an account for cloaky camping is the same (if not more) efforts than you put into your own security, so after you finally (and frankly) outlined your own efforts towards being safe - i don't think you can complain about someone else having it too easy, eh?
I have more safety than that in high sec, and I don't even have to look at my PC to maintain that safety in high sec. In null I can't look away for 10 seconds, since that's all it takes to get jumped.
It's also 100% safe to do in station trading. It's 100% safe to do in station manufacture, shipping with a collateralised third party. It's 100% safe to make scam contracts and spam them in Jita. So those are all more absurd, so let's attack them first.
If null mining is so easy and absurdly profitable, why are so many people moving away from it? Why is PvE now the isk maker of choice?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1399 - 2013-09-17 15:45:54 UTC
JIeoH Mocc wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
JIeoH Mocc wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:

They want to kill ships with no guns. What do you expect me to do? Hand them the PvPer of the year award? lol.

You miss the point on this one with such admirable persistence.
I want to kill any ship. Or every ship. Doesn't matter. I just see no reason to avoid killing ships that are easy kills.
I wouldn't camp your system (though at times i think it'll bring tons of lulz, but i am too lazy for that), but i if bump into you in some belt/anomaly - I'll try to kill you. Why shouldn't I? Others may as well enjoy camping you, and that's also all right, if they like it - why shouldn't they kill your barge if you allow it?
That sort of role play has its place in EvE like in every other game - but it is what it is - a role play. A ship with no guns is a valid target as any, and should have no special defences beyond ship stats and pilot skill.
That's fine, and you can feel free to kill what you want. But why should it be made easier for you to do so?


I don't want it easier... You're the one whining about making AFK cloaking impossible, no?
I wouldn't call it whining, I'd call it arguing the case. And you are siding with the guys that want local removed... so...

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1400 - 2013-09-17 15:57:52 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
No, I clearly stated he's either a liar, or inexperienced.


There you go again insulting others. I don't mind if it is me cause I admit I can be a bit of a**hole. But Nikk is usually very temperate in his posts.
It's not an insult. It's my honest opinion. One of those two must be true, or he wouldn;t be suggesting inefficient mining, since inefficient null mining is an enormous waste of time. It takes 10 days to train a high sec alt with higher isk/hour than a venture, or you can solo rat for about 4x a solo venture income. So unless he really likes watching mining lasers tick round, one of those two must be the case.

Inefficient mining... I see. That is quite a revealing answer.

Ok, I have evaluated your views, and while they may be fine for you, they will impact the game quite negatively if followed through with.

You are advocating in favor of an all or nothing style of play.
Be it ratting in carriers, mining in max fitted exhumers, or PvP when you are in the mood, you want to play your way with no obstacles.
Obstacles do not belong in your game, and the need to adapt belongs to those who are playing the wrong way.

Specifics:
You feel entitled to automated intel advising you about hostile presence. You want that hostile presence to leave rather than be AFK beyond a certain point, as you have no intention of modifying your play to adapt to their presence.
If you are to be threatened, it must be by a blob reinforcing your structures, and being probably confronted by an equal blob.
You do not tolerate guerilla style tactics, such as camping. Blob or GTFO.

I assume you would reword this to be more flattering, but I suspect I have the details correct.
Would you care to suggest ways this can be made more accurate?