These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#1441 - 2013-09-18 09:30:38 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
The AFK cloaky is NO ISSUE IF it can NOT FIT A CYNO at the same time as its cloak. In wormhole space, the fitting of a cyno on any ship is pointless because cynos are not allowed and thus there is no issue with the AFK cloaky. In fact, there is an expectation in the wormhole that there are probably several hostile cloakies and the residents would behave just the same if those cloakies appeared in local (they can actually appear by chatting).
The only problem with this is it breaks the whole idea of black ops. Covert ships fit covert cynos, then can black ops can bridge other covert ships to it.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1442 - 2013-09-18 09:39:45 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Edit: Cleared up to be more friendly.

Lucas, that is not what I am claiming at all. I have never claimed you "should have to die", I have literally stated the opposite multiple times: you should have the ability to escape, definitely. But the other party must have the ability to succeed sometimes too, otherwise it's imbalanced.

It helps no one when you construct an argument I didn't make and then refute that argument. You're essentially only arguing against yourself, and not against what I, or others, are actually saying.
But as it currently has they do have the opportunity to succeed, and they do succeed, hence kills on the killboard.
What you want is a way for you to be able to do everything right, and be rewarded with a kill, regardless of if I do everything right or not. If that's not what you want, then what are you arguing for, since I would remain 99% safe, since I would continue to do everything right, since my only objective is not to die. If you had a method of guaranteeing a kill with no counter, you'd simply do that every time, rendering me unable to avoid death.
Thus, the only reason I can see for you arguing is that you want to guarantee a kill, thus guarantee me a death, so yes, I would "have to die".

I hope this makes some kind of sense.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman
#1443 - 2013-09-18 09:55:39 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:

Use your magic ISD powers to convince the devs to respond!


But they have responded, saying (though vaguely) that it won't be looked into in the near future, no?
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1444 - 2013-09-18 10:01:07 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Edit: Cleared up to be more friendly.

Lucas, that is not what I am claiming at all. I have never claimed you "should have to die", I have literally stated the opposite multiple times: you should have the ability to escape, definitely. But the other party must have the ability to succeed sometimes too, otherwise it's imbalanced.

It helps no one when you construct an argument I didn't make and then refute that argument. You're essentially only arguing against yourself, and not against what I, or others, are actually saying.
But as it currently has they do have the opportunity to succeed, and they do succeed, hence kills on the killboard.
What you want is a way for you to be able to do everything right, and be rewarded with a kill, regardless of if I do everything right or not. If that's not what you want, then what are you arguing for, since I would remain 99% safe, since I would continue to do everything right, since my only objective is not to die. If you had a method of guaranteeing a kill with no counter, you'd simply do that every time, rendering me unable to avoid death.
Thus, the only reason I can see for you arguing is that you want to guarantee a kill, thus guarantee me a death, so yes, I would "have to die".

I hope this makes some kind of sense.


You have said yourself that if you do "everything right" - i.e. paying attention, being aligned, etc and hitting the button when local changes - that you are guaranteed to escape (barring bugs or oddities in the physics engine causing you to get stuck).

I am also not asking to be guaranteed a kill if I do everything right, I am merely asking that if I do everything right I be granted a chance at success, by your own admission I currently have no such chance.

Additionally, there seems to be a bit of an inconsistency here - you're saying that if you, as the local of the system, do everything right you SHOULD be guaranteed success (where success on your side is escaping), while on my side, as a hunter, if I do everything right I SHOULD NOT be guaranteed success (which to me would be catching you) - even though that's not what I'm asking for, it's still a rather glaring inconsistency.

I believe that NEITHER of us should be guaranteed our respective successes when we do everything right. There must, for both of us, be the chance of losing some of the time, as well as the chance of succeeding. If either side has such a guaranteed result then there is no risk and no counter to that side, and that is imbalanced.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1445 - 2013-09-18 10:34:29 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
You have said yourself that if you do "everything right" - i.e. paying attention, being aligned, etc and hitting the button when local changes - that you are guaranteed to escape (barring bugs or oddities in the physics engine causing you to get stuck).

I am also not asking to be guaranteed a kill if I do everything right, I am merely asking that if I do everything right I be granted a chance at success, by your own admission I currently have no such chance.
How can you be given any more chance at success with out opening a gap that guarantees it. If I do everything right, and still get killed, then whatever method you used, you can simply repeat. Nothing I do, except staying docked would help. And you currently have a chance at success, you simply don't have a great chance at success against someone who does everything right to try to avoid you.

TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Additionally, there seems to be a bit of an inconsistency here - you're saying that if you, as the local of the system, do everything right you SHOULD be guaranteed success (where success on your side is escaping), while on my side, as a hunter, if I do everything right I SHOULD NOT be guaranteed success (which to me would be catching you) - even though that's not what I'm asking for, it's still a rather glaring inconsistency.

I believe that NEITHER of us should be guaranteed our respective successes when we do everything right. There must, for both of us, be the chance of losing some of the time, as well as the chance of succeeding. If either side has such a guaranteed result then there is no risk and no counter to that side, and that is imbalanced.
But it can't be both ways. You can't guarantee you can get some kills without guaranteeing you can always get kills. Unless they put some random timer on warp alignment or something, if you figure out a way that works, you can use it every time, while I would know that if you do that, it's unstoppable. If it's stoppable, I'll still be able to make myself safe every time. If I can't then that means I have no chance. If I do everything perfectly, and still die, then the only chance I had to live was if you did something wrong, exactly what you are complaining about from my side. It's simply not possible to have it both ways, and sadly for you, evasion generally trumps attack, especially when I'm already poised to escape, since if attack beat evasion, evasion would be pointless.

Also, I'm only safe while I'm performing that one task. I have to take other precautions the then ship the minerals. The job doesn't end in the belt. They've already made it harder and tightened up timing by making gravs automatically show up. If I'm not incredibly quick on the warp, an interceptor will have me. An interceptor will arrive on grid before I leave grid if they warp straight to the grav.
And if you have no chance, then how come people die daily in null?

I honestly can't understand why my ability to escape while mining is an issue, while so many other tasks have no risk and a higher reward.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1446 - 2013-09-18 10:35:13 UTC
JIeoH Mocc wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:

Use your magic ISD powers to convince the devs to respond!


But they have responded, saying (though vaguely) that it won't be looked into in the near future, no?
I haven't seen that response.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1447 - 2013-09-18 11:11:56 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
How can you be given any more chance at success with out opening a gap that guarantees it. If I do everything right, and still get killed, then whatever method you used, you can simply repeat. Nothing I do, except staying docked would help. And you currently have a chance at success, you simply don't have a great chance at success against someone who does everything right to try to avoid you.


I do not agree that allowing the possibility to exist results in it being guaranteed. I believe if intel gathering were sufficiently reworked (this is a big task, and I wouldn't be quite sure how to approach it) such that it isn't done merely through looking at a chat list and being told instantly and accurately, then it would become a matter of skill for both sides - both the hunter and the resident would then have to work at gaining the intel they need, for the hunter this would be determining if targets exist, and then how to find them, and for the resident it would be determining if a threat exists and how to avoid them. In an ideal situation like that, it would be skill at intel gathering (there is no skill required on the hunter or residents part currently - you just look at local) and diligence that determine the outcome. The amount of effort and diligence currently required is virtually none, and as a result one side has a clear advantage, and a guaranteed outcome.

I think maybe wormhole mechanics - and by this I mean how wormholes themselves spawn, and not local or cynos - can demonstrate what I mean. So as you know, outgoing wormholes stay open a set period of time, then close and a new outgoing one is randomly created. Both sides of the wormhole must put in the effort in order to take advantage of this.

On the side where the wormhole originated from, you must pay attention to when the wormhole spawned in order to determine how long its got left, and when the next one will appear. If you (or corpmates) don't pay close attention to, or don't put in the effort of scanning your new outgoing wormhole, you obviously won't know exactly when it opened, where it goes, or if it's been used by anything (though obviously you can get a rough idea if there were a huge amount of use that crippled the mass, but scouts, a small fleet of T3s, etc would be undetectable). This obviously puts you at a disadvantage if the other side is paying closer attention and putting in more effort, and your chance of running afoul of it increase.

Likewise, if you're on the incoming end, you must pay attention to your system in order to notice when new wormholes open up into your system - you already know your outgoing one, but these other ones spawn randomly so you must be diligent. If you're not, you end up at a disadvantage the same as the other person - not knowing when, where, or what. As a result, it is player effort and skill that swing the balance - perhaps not by a great deal, but at least by some - one way or another. When it comes to local in nullsec, this doesn't happen. The mechanics are too absolute and require no effort by either side, which is why one side or the other is "guaranteed" something.

Lucas Kell wrote:
But it can't be both ways. You can't guarantee you can get some kills without guaranteeing you can always get kills. Unless they put some random timer on warp alignment or something, if you figure out a way that works, you can use it every time, while I would know that if you do that, it's unstoppable. If it's stoppable, I'll still be able to make myself safe every time. If I can't then that means I have no chance. If I do everything perfectly, and still die, then the only chance I had to live was if you did something wrong, exactly what you are complaining about from my side. It's simply not possible to have it both ways, and sadly for you, evasion generally trumps attack, especially when I'm already poised to escape, since if attack beat evasion, evasion would be pointless.

Also, I'm only safe while I'm performing that one task. I have to take other precautions the then ship the minerals. The job doesn't end in the belt. They've already made it harder and tightened up timing by making gravs automatically show up. If I'm not incredibly quick on the warp, an interceptor will have me. An interceptor will arrive on grid before I leave grid if they warp straight to the grav.
And if you have no chance, then how come people die daily in null?

I honestly can't understand why my ability to escape while mining is an issue, while so many other tasks have no risk and a higher reward.


Saying "if you have no chance, then how come people die" is a fallacy, because we're discussing one very specific avenue of PVP, so take the result from all the OTHER avenues for PVP in null combined and using that result as if it is the result of this one very specific avenue doesn't work.

Your ability to escape is an issue if you are both gaining resources while being exposed to zero risk. There are no other activities which are afforded that level of safety let alone that level of safety AND that level of reward
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1448 - 2013-09-18 11:34:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
I do not agree that allowing the possibility to exist results in it being guaranteed. I believe if intel gathering were sufficiently reworked (this is a big task, and I wouldn't be quite sure how to approach it) such that it isn't done merely through looking at a chat list and being told instantly and accurately, then it would become a matter of skill for both sides - both the hunter and the resident would then have to work at gaining the intel they need, for the hunter this would be determining if targets exist, and then how to find them, and for the resident it would be determining if a threat exists and how to avoid them. In an ideal situation like that, it would be skill at intel gathering (there is no skill required on the hunter or residents part currently - you just look at local) and diligence that determine the outcome. The amount of effort and diligence currently required is virtually none, and as a result one side has a clear advantage, and a guaranteed outcome.
But if both side do their job perfectly, who wins?
In this scenario, there will always be a winner and a loser. Currently If we both do our jobs properly, I win. If there's any failure in intel, timing, or activity on my side, you win. Under the new system, how will that be any different? Under the new system, if it favors the defender, then if we both learn our roles perfectly, I will win every time. If it favors the attacker, and we both learn our roles perfectly you will win every time. Without an element of randomness, which CCP doesn't generally implement as a hard rule, as it breaks the sandbox, you can never get to a stage where both parties will perform their jobs perfectly and get a different result each time. One will always win over the other.

TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Saying "if you have no chance, then how come people die" is a fallacy, because we're discussing one very specific avenue of PVP, so take the result from all the OTHER avenues for PVP in null combined and using that result as if it is the result of this one very specific avenue doesn't work.
But I know people do die while mining to incoming attacks. This shows there must be a level of risk, although as is the nature of EVE, that risk is introduced by the differing levels of skill and effort by the individuals.

TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Your ability to escape is an issue if you are both gaining resources while being exposed to zero risk. There are no other activities which are afforded that level of safety let alone that level of safety AND that level of reward
Trading, Scamming, Manufacture, BPO Research, L4s missions. Done right, these are all risk free and provide more income than I get from mining, and with considerably less effort. On an L4, if you know what you are doing, you can safely set your drones on something then go grab a drink. The others can all be done while dual boxing or going away, with no risk introduced, and using a freighting corp like red frog, can protect all of your assets with collateral. If I want to grab a drink, I have to halt my entire operation.

Let's also add, that while my ship is at a very low risk, if I'm heavy mining, chances are I'm jet canning with a dedicated hauler. Should a combatant arrive, those cans can be shot, losing me all income from that load, resulting in a period of 0 yield. I then have to either let that happen, or put a combat ship at risk to try to protect them. None of those other activities even have a material risk in that sense.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman
#1449 - 2013-09-18 11:36:07 UTC  |  Edited by: JIeoH Mocc
Lucas Kell wrote:
JIeoH Mocc wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:

Use your magic ISD powers to convince the devs to respond!


But they have responded, saying (though vaguely) that it won't be looked into in the near future, no?
I haven't seen that response.


Funny thing that, I was sure that the response I've seen to the gazillion of identical topics about AFK cloaking in the Russian subforums was translated from English to Russian but after reading it again just now - could it possibly be that it never reached the English speaking parts?

I'll link the post and translate the relevant part, if I may (the first quote is of some ISD guy who said he couldn't comment, but he did summon the CCP dude who said the following:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1885267#post1885267

CCP Ytterbium (via correspondence with CCP Droog that's been allowed to be published)

"We are aware of the fact the part of the players are not satisfied with the applications of cloaking systems, but there are not going to be changes in the short run - if only because any countermeasures require thorough balancing (to avoid jumping from the pan into the fire)."


Not sure it's the idiom that was originally used, but it'll suffice.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1450 - 2013-09-18 12:07:57 UTC  |  Edited by: TheGunslinger42
Lucas Kell wrote:
But if both side do their job perfectly, who wins?
In this scenario, there will always be a winner and a loser. Currently If we both do our jobs properly, I win. If there's any failure in intel, timing, or activity on my side, you win. Under the new system, how will that be any different? Under the new system, if it favors the defender, then if we both learn our roles perfectly, I will win every time. If it favors the attacker, and we both learn our roles perfectly you will win every time. Without an element of randomness, which CCP doesn't generally implement as a hard rule, as it breaks the sandbox, you can never get to a stage where both parties will perform their jobs perfectly and get a different result each time. One will always win over the other.


In the ideal situation, there would be no "perfect" way to do the jobs we're talking about. Another example would be scanning: the best practices for probe placements, etc are known, but there is no "perfect" scanning strategy that guarantees you win. Someone else may just be faster at doing it, or may have some other insight (via numerous other inputs) at this particular moment (within this example it could be "he's near planet V") which improves their ability.

That's a big part of my complaint against the current model - the fact that there is a very limited set of "perfect" steps that can be done is in and of itself a problem. To bring it back to local and intel, perhaps relying on your corp or alliances intel channels would be more heavily required (they obviously already exist and are used, but currently you can operate fairly securely even without them as a result of local) - this way there's more variation, and it's based entirely on the players. Asking in an intel channel at a time when the majority of your alliance are asleep results in less intel. Or even some mechanic for gathering intel that, like probing, is something that some players are speedier or more skilled at doing than others.

You'd have a solid set of steps that you should follow, but the results of those steps would vary based on a host of things, from your skill and effort, to that of your corp/alliance, and whatever other things, the results wouldn't be as "absolute" as currently, and therefor the methods wouldn't be "perfect". I don't want pure randomness, but I want it to be less perfect and more hazy, more dependent on a bunch of varying factors rather than the instant, single binary result of local saying SOMEONE HERE or NO ONE HERE

- going for lunch, will probably respond to the other points about the L4 missions, etc you mentioned later
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1451 - 2013-09-18 12:12:47 UTC
JIeoH Mocc wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
JIeoH Mocc wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:

Use your magic ISD powers to convince the devs to respond!


But they have responded, saying (though vaguely) that it won't be looked into in the near future, no?
I haven't seen that response.


Funny thing that, I was sure that the response I've seen to the gazillion of identical topics about AFK cloaking in the Russian subforums was translated from English to Russian but after reading it again just now - could it possibly be that it never reached the English speaking parts?

I'll link the post and translate the relevant part, if I may (the first quote is of some ISD guy who said he couldn't comment, but he did summon the CCP dude who said the following:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1885267#post1885267

CCP Ytterbium (via correspondence with CCP Droog that's been allowed to be published)

"We are aware of the fact the part of the players are not satisfied with the applications of cloaking systems, but there are not going to be changes in the short run - if only because any countermeasures require thorough balancing (to avoid jumping from the pen into the fire)."


Not sure it's the idiom that was originally used, but it'll suffice.
Thanks, that's very much appreciated, and sheds some light on their side of the matter. That should be quoted and linked into the original post for clarity. Any chance of that Teckos?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1452 - 2013-09-18 12:32:35 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
In the ideal situation, there would be no "perfect" way to do the jobs we're talking about. Another example would be scanning: the best practices for probe placements, etc are known, but there is no "perfect" scanning strategy that guarantees you win. Someone else may just be faster at doing it, or may have some other insight (via numerous other inputs) at this particular moment (within this example it could be "he's near planet V") which improves their ability.
There will always be a perfect way of dealing with any given scenario. Saying he's ear planet V gives a different scenario to a scan without intel. Since EVE is a sandbox, and they don't put in any real elements of random, the EVE population has always and will always work out the best way to deal with each situation. You can boil everything down to math and work out the perfect response to any given scenario. Without changing the fundamentals of EVE, that will never change. Given any new situation, we will still be able to work out the perfect way of detecting a player and escaping, the only thing changing being the number of hoops we have to jump through to get there.

TheGunslinger42 wrote:
You'd have a solid set of steps that you should follow, but the results of those steps would vary based on a host of things, from your skill and effort, to that of your corp/alliance, and whatever other things, the results wouldn't be as "absolute" as currently, and therefor the methods wouldn't be "perfect". I don't want pure randomness, but I want it to be less perfect and more hazy, more dependent on a bunch of varying factors rather than the instant, single binary result of local saying SOMEONE HERE or NO ONE HERE
Say they added this though, and a probe or scanner. Beside me having to log another alt to do the scanning, how would it differ from now? If I can still detect the moment you enter local though scanning, I can still respond in the same way, it's just my method of getting to that result means I need to dual log. Essentially the only people you would be punishing would be solo account players, but then if they are in a corp, as soon as a cloakers is detected, the call would go out on comms, and everyone would be aware in more or less the same time as the current local.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1453 - 2013-09-18 13:15:36 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
There will always be a perfect way of dealing with any given scenario. Saying he's ear planet V gives a different scenario to a scan without intel. Since EVE is a sandbox, and they don't put in any real elements of random, the EVE population has always and will always work out the best way to deal with each situation. You can boil everything down to math and work out the perfect response to any given scenario. Without changing the fundamentals of EVE, that will never change. Given any new situation, we will still be able to work out the perfect way of detecting a player and escaping, the only thing changing being the number of hoops we have to jump through to get there.


I suppose you can look at the variations as being separate situations, with their own distinct "correct" reactions, but even we approach it from that point of view, I still don't like the current system - there aren't enough different situations with the current model of local. For both the hunter and the residents, local tells you immediately and with no variation whether there is someone or not. I'd prefer the means with which you gain that knowledge to be more varied than it currently is, and more open to variations based on the players themselves. Once you gain that intel, there may be a specific, ideal way that you respond to match your goals, but the process of gaining the intel to allow you to react that way should in my opinion be reworked to allow more dynamic play, and more driven by players than local is.

Lucas Kell wrote:
Say they added this though, and a probe or scanner. Beside me having to log another alt to do the scanning, how would it differ from now? If I can still detect the moment you enter local though scanning, I can still respond in the same way, it's just my method of getting to that result means I need to dual log. Essentially the only people you would be punishing would be solo account players, but then if they are in a corp, as soon as a cloakers is detected, the call would go out on comms, and everyone would be aware in more or less the same time as the current local.


I didn't necessarily mean that probes and scanners be the new methods used to gain intel - in fact I'd say that was a bad idea - I was only using the probing mechanics as an example of a situation in which player effort (how often they probe) and player skill (how well they understand it and how fast they can do it) can alter the outcome or chances for each side, which is something sorely lacking in the current mechanics. As I've said before, it doesn't matter how much effort or skill a hunter has, they cannot increase their chances against a local who puts in minimal effort. And I don't think that is good design.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1454 - 2013-09-18 13:23:20 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
I didn't necessarily mean that probes and scanners be the new methods used to gain intel - in fact I'd say that was a bad idea - I was only using the probing mechanics as an example of a situation in which player effort (how often they probe) and player skill (how well they understand it and how fast they can do it) can alter the outcome or chances for each side, which is something sorely lacking in the current mechanics. As I've said before, it doesn't matter how much effort or skill a hunter has, they cannot increase their chances against a local who puts in minimal effort. And I don't think that is good design.
Well firstly, a "local" does not put in minimal effort. As I've said time and again, in order to live you have to be well on the ball, and 100% active, and even then, chances are you lose your current ore load. Minimal effort is target rock, activate lasers, watch TV. Those people die. All the time.
And without probes it still would be the same problem. Any mechanic they put in will be swiftly mastered to give a warning when an enemy jumps in, and everyone will scatter, the same as now. Unless a system is put in where there is some kind of delay in seeing the ship, which would guarantee death of the miner since the cloaker would be on him before he could escape, the miner will always figure out a way to be safe. Essentially the only way around it is when you jump into system, we both get a popup to select rock, paper or scissors, and the loser explodes.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1455 - 2013-09-18 13:27:16 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Lucas, you are representing the non-pve-ganking-fixated group quite well. The problem with many of these people in this thread is that they are so fixated on the high value pve targets, that they will afk cloak a system which they believe has such targets in them for extremely long periods of time with the belief that they are entitled to their kills. Little do they realize that most of the pve players are either doing research on them or moving on to another system or staying in station doing the odds and ends that they put off for such times.

And when I put forth the idea to prevent the cloak and the cyno from being fit at the same time, there was a hush each time, because the separation of the two modules actually resolves everything. Without the cyno, their solo stealth bomber cannot clear out an entire system by itself. As the solo stealth bomber decloaks and points its first victim, a group of pve ships quickly appear pop it in a second as the insignificant threat that it is. They whine about it being too hard to solo gank a battleship or group of them with their frigate, and laughter fills the room as people realize that there was a hope of a single solo frigate taking down a group of battleships. It is the CYNO which messes up the cloaky issue, because SOLO non-cloaky FRIGATES can be scanned down and dispatched relatively easily. But the pve-ganking-fixated group knows this and tries their best to ignore how integral the cyno is to this issue.

I'll say this one more time so please pay attention to the following summation:

The AFK cloaky is NO ISSUE IF it can NOT FIT A CYNO at the same time as its cloak. In wormhole space, the fitting of a cyno on any ship is pointless because cynos are not allowed and thus there is no issue with the AFK cloaky. In fact, there is an expectation in the wormhole that there are probably several hostile cloakies and the residents would behave just the same if those cloakies appeared in local (they can actually appear by chatting).

I'm sorry Andy, but this simply is not backed by the facts in game.

Point one, you should easily be able to verify I have no ganking kills registered. I do not "AFK Cloak"
I am a null miner, in point of fact.

I object to the low effort competition I see marching about, who barely seem competent to operate out of high sec, and yet find null much easier due to it's lesser risk once in a sov environment.

I object to the all or nothing mentality. Fitting a ship in expectation of hostile encounters should be the norm, and yet we see fits in null that would be suicide ganked in high sec, as they are not meeting the real criteria: Don't fly what you can't afford to lose. Ratting carriers should never be seen outside of a blue sov doughnut, and min maxxed exhumers either.

I object to the bar being lowered on my options. The expectation that we must dock up or risk attracting hostiles returning, because everyone else is doing this, feels backwards.
I am in null, and being a miner who is effectively being told not to play because a fight MIGHT happen? I could have stayed in high sec and seen more action than that, just where exactly IS the dangerous area?
This is not specific to my corp or alliance either. When the bar is lowered, it is based off of statistics on this level. 10 miners being sidelined so 50 can operate with less interference is nice on a spreadsheet, but it blows stale air in game.
It bizarrely became a good strategy somehow to NOT PLAY when this happens.

And efficiency... great Amarr.... efficiency?!?! THIS IS A GAME. NOT A SECOND JOB.
Your task, and you are paying to do this, is to have FUN, not make someone else more efficient by sacrificing your time and or money, try to remember why you wanted to play!
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1456 - 2013-09-18 13:38:39 UTC
Azrael Dinn wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Seriously, these tools are lowering the bar on game play. Will the next incursion be featuring Orcs too?


Space Marines / Grey Knights!!!

oh wait... wrong game P

While we are talking about this 99% safety also I want to say that even without local if I can manage my gameplay so that I can be 99% times in safety then why can't I be. They are my actions that allow me to be safe and like other said it's your job to counter them and realy gets to me is that I cannot do anything about your cloaked ship while you are cloaked and that is what raely bugs me in all of this.

Don't get me wrong I don't mind loosing ships in battle and I know there is the risk of loosing my ship when I'm in space but I still see this the way that if I'm not cloaked / hiding you just can't get to me unless I realy realy horrible mess up.

I would never object to you being safe.

I object to you, or anyone quite honestly, getting an advantage due to an effortless aspect. And then turning around and complaining when the tables are turned on you.

If local did not warn you about the appearance of a hostile, and you learned about it through your own effort and resourcefulness, then I doubt any would complain. But it does do this for you.

If local did not advertise the presence of cloaked ships perfectly, again for no effort, it would make sense and be balanced to be able to detect them. But it does do this as well.

For every detail that local provides intel on, it forces one more aspect of non-play automation. And in a part of the game that would otherwise define the best players.

I don't see many other PvE pilots complaining about having an unfair advantage. But I AM.
But I have enlightened self interest on my side, and I definitely have an angle that meets my own goals.
I believe I am one of these better players, who would prosper in a more effort driven version of null. I represent high quality of play, accepting that my lifestyle does not permit me high quantity of play.

In other words, I want to make more effort in the time I have, since I cannot expand the time I have. I want that trade off.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1457 - 2013-09-18 13:42:12 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I object to the low effort competition I see marching about, who barely seem competent to operate out of high sec, and yet find null much easier due to it's lesser risk once in a sov environment.

I object to the all or nothing mentality. Fitting a ship in expectation of hostile encounters should be the norm, and yet we see fits in null that would be suicide ganked in high sec, as they are not meeting the real criteria: Don't fly what you can't afford to lose. Ratting carriers should never be seen outside of a blue sov doughnut, and min maxxed exhumers either.
I can afford to lose a LOT of hulks. As well as mining I run high sec industry and inter-hub trading. I can afford to mine in a triaged carrier. And I live in a big blue doughnut, I'm CFC. Yet still you tell me I should be exposed to monumental amounts of risk. I also run my same mining fits in high sec gank free by the way. No that they would be hard to gank, I just avoid being ganked.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
I object to the bar being lowered on my options. The expectation that we must dock up or risk attracting hostiles returning, because everyone else is doing this, feels backwards.
I am in null, and being a miner who is effectively being told not to play because a fight MIGHT happen? I could have stayed in high sec and seen more action than that, just where exactly IS the dangerous area?
That not the bar being lowered, that's where the bar started. If a PvPer is looking for easy kills, and he finds easy kills, chances are he will return to that location again. A miner with low or no combat skills is guaranteed to die in combat with a skilled PvPer, even in a PvP ship, and will simply encourage the PvPer to return. No local changes would change this. If anything, local changes would make this worse, since they would find it harder to find targets at a glance in null, so they would return to places they know they can get kills more often.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
And efficiency... great Amarr.... efficiency?!?! THIS IS A GAME. NOT A SECOND JOB.
Your task, and you are paying to do this, is to have FUN, not make someone else more efficient by sacrificing your time and or money, try to remember why you wanted to play!
I have fun by doing things that require vast amounts of isk (and vast amounts of tritanium and pyerite). Shipping it all is not feasible, so mining is the option. To maximise my fun, I must minimise the amount of time I have to spend mining to meet my targets. Like if I were playing a console game and a particular level bored me, I'd learn to blitz my way through it rather than playing it the same way as the rest. Final Fantasy 8's training area for example, bores the hell out of me. So I don;t hang about.


The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1458 - 2013-09-18 14:01:03 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I object to you, or anyone quite honestly, getting an advantage due to an effortless aspect. And then turning around and complaining when the tables are turned on you.

If local did not warn you about the appearance of a hostile, and you learned about it through your own effort and resourcefulness, then I doubt any would complain. But it does do this for you.

If local did not advertise the presence of cloaked ships perfectly, again for no effort, it would make sense and be balanced to be able to detect them. But it does do this as well.

For every detail that local provides intel on, it forces one more aspect of non-play automation. And in a part of the game that would otherwise define the best players.

I don't see many other PvE pilots complaining about having an unfair advantage. But I AM.
But I have enlightened self interest on my side, and I definitely have an angle that meets my own goals.
I believe I am one of these better players, who would prosper in a more effort driven version of null. I represent high quality of play, accepting that my lifestyle does not permit me high quantity of play.

In other words, I want to make more effort in the time I have, since I cannot expand the time I have. I want that trade off.
As long as there was an alternate form of intel We could use to determine when a player was gracing us with their presence, I don't think many miners would care if it was in the local window or not. It would have to be able to be done at the same time as mining or PVE, because if it wasn't it would punish any players that can't dual log. Miners would continue to determine when they were potentially unsafe and dock up.
It's every other aspect you seem to ignore though. How it would affect fleet fights to not be able to see a blackops group. How it would affect logistics not to see them (freighters take about 2 jumps worth of time to align). It would basically make black ops and covert ops the best ships in the game for PvP, since they would be at a distinct advantage that the other players have to put in all this extra effort to detect them, while all other PvP ships just show up on d-scan as usual.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1459 - 2013-09-18 14:17:11 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
As long as there was an alternate form of intel We could use to determine when a player was gracing us with their presence, I don't think many miners would care if it was in the local window or not. It would have to be able to be done at the same time as mining or PVE, because if it wasn't it would punish any players that can't dual log. Miners would continue to determine when they were potentially unsafe and dock up.


The overview upgrade thread I suggested included this. It did not, as you questioned, create a need for a specialty ship.
(The function ONLY alerted to a cloaked presence, not being functional in any manner to actually hunt a cloaked ship)
An exhumer or ratting ship could do this. Obviously, a ship with boosters or better sensor strength would have greater range, but that is a trade off.

Lucas Kell wrote:
It's every other aspect you seem to ignore though. How it would affect fleet fights to not be able to see a blackops group. How it would affect logistics not to see them (freighters take about 2 jumps worth of time to align). It would basically make black ops and covert ops the best ships in the game for PvP, since they would be at a distinct advantage that the other players have to put in all this extra effort to detect them, while all other PvP ships just show up on d-scan as usual.


Think about what you just said, about not being able to see a black ops group.

Did the devs fail to balance these ships, in exchange for their cloaking ability?
Perhaps they would require further balance, if player effort were needed to see them. It is possible they were balanced with being outed constantly by local as a considered detail.
For a fleet, just like having boosters, having competent scouts watching for cloaked vessels should be a given.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1460 - 2013-09-18 14:26:01 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
As it is more mining is done in high sec that anywhere else, and that number is ever increasing. A couple more bumps to null sec mining and/ore the mineral index and it will be shockingly inefficient and not worth bothering for most.

I isolated this on purpose.

Most do not recognize this, only referring to it obliquely by saying how L4s in high are better profit.

Now, here is the shocker.

Risk and reward are tied together, and if one is low, the other will follow.

So how come L4s done right have 0 risk, and a massive reward, and that's fine, yet if I do everything right to reduce my risk to a minimal level, you think I should be punished by reducing my reward further or heavily increasing my risk? It's double standards.

How do they have zero risk, if done right?

Are you flying a ship that is not practical to suicide gank?

Are you alert and watching for war targets, who can shoot you freely?
Are you in a corp that can be war decced?

These all take effort, even if you take them for granted.

Noone is asking more than you do in high sec already. You just translate for the differences in space.
You are in a player corp, you have your defense as needed from them instead of concord.

Instead of a ship less vulnerable to suicide gankers, you make a ship less vulnerable to general hostiles.

You accept the presence of non blue ships in high sec, in all probability. And this, despite the fact they can open up on you with a gank at any time.