These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#1461 - 2013-09-18 14:36:03 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
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.
No, they are balanced well enough. But if they took away the ability to see a local spike, they could merrily go jumping from system to system, with minimal risk of being seen. The scout would just need to ensure the system was empty when they jump in, and the chances of someone coming in and scanning them out are minimal. They can then jump straight into innermost systems with no forward warning, and the only way to counter them would be to stage scout in every system constantly scanning. It would give them more power, which I don't think they need. You would still need specialist equipment or a specialist hull to find cloaked ship, vastly overpowering covops against other types of PvP ship, which would require only d-scan.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1462 - 2013-09-18 14:42:35 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
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.

Right, and looking out for neuts is not taking effort? That's just automatic right, I get a bleep bleep noise and my ship starts aligning?
If you have war targets, you look for them on local, same as me looking for neuts. If you are at war, you avoid systems where your war targets are reported, same as me in null. Anti ganking is as simple as avoiding gankers. If someone jumps on grid with you, jump off. Same as in null I could get attacked by a blue.
For trading and industry, you never need to leave a station. You can put red frog contracts in to get your stuff moved, and put more collateral than they are worth, so if they get ganked, you actually make money, 100% risk free.
The difference being high sec income is VASTLY higher than null. How can you seriously look at what a high sec player does and say it has as much effort to avoid risk when it's clearly bull. At the most, a L4 player has the same amount of risk to mitigate, but often less, since if they are playing it right, they will be in a ship that would take too much effort to gank for the payout (note, if you are in a 60b isk raven you are NOT doing it right).

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1463 - 2013-09-18 14:43:13 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
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.
No, they are balanced well enough. But if they took away the ability to see a local spike, they could merrily go jumping from system to system, with minimal risk of being seen. The scout would just need to ensure the system was empty when they jump in, and the chances of someone coming in and scanning them out are minimal. They can then jump straight into innermost systems with no forward warning, and the only way to counter them would be to stage scout in every system constantly scanning. It would give them more power, which I don't think they need. You would still need specialist equipment or a specialist hull to find cloaked ship, vastly overpowering covops against other types of PvP ship, which would require only d-scan.

Overpowering?

The black ops, and their associated craft, require BOTH the module AND the hull.

My link below, describing how to spot them, ONLY requires the module.
True, hunting them is more difficult, as they have gone the additional effort of using the hull to be in this class, but expecting to use less effort with the same degree of success is the very definition of imbalance.

Quite literally, it replaces the cloaking module with the one used to spot the cloak. All other requirements to see cloaks is identical to the ones needed to BE cloaked.
Mirror image, as an exact duplicate, is the ultimate balance in this context.
Same price, same effort, equal balance.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1464 - 2013-09-18 14:45:27 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
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.

Right, and looking out for neuts is not taking effort? That's just automatic right, I get a bleep bleep noise and my ship starts aligning?
If you have war targets, you look for them on local, same as me looking for neuts. If you are at war, you avoid systems where your war targets are reported, same as me in null. Anti ganking is as simple as avoiding gankers. If someone jumps on grid with you, jump off. Same as in null I could get attacked by a blue.
For trading and industry, you never need to leave a station. You can put red frog contracts in to get your stuff moved, and put more collateral than they are worth, so if they get ganked, you actually make money, 100% risk free.
The difference being high sec income is VASTLY higher than null. How can you seriously look at what a high sec player does and say it has as much effort to avoid risk when it's clearly bull. At the most, a L4 player has the same amount of risk to mitigate, but often less, since if they are playing it right, they will be in a ship that would take too much effort to gank for the payout (note, if you are in a 60b isk raven you are NOT doing it right).

But instead of a cloaked ship in high sec, you could have an out of corp alt, possibly a disposable one if a point is involved.
Then, your war target can land on you, and pop you.
(The point is expected to get popped, but it only needs to last until the real hostile shows, and he has permission to do anything)
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1465 - 2013-09-18 14:48:14 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Overpowering?

The black ops, and their associated craft, require BOTH the module AND the hull.

My link below, describing how to spot them, ONLY requires the module.
True, hunting them is more difficult, as they have gone the additional effort of using the hull to be in this class, but expecting to use less effort with the same degree of success is the very definition of imbalance.

Quite literally, it replaces the cloaking module with the one used to spot the cloak. All other requirements to see cloaks is identical to the ones needed to BE cloaked.
Mirror image, as an exact duplicate, is the ultimate balance in this context.
Same price, same effort, equal balance.

I'm not talking about hunting them. What I'm saying is why would you chose to use a non-covops ship in null to hunt null players. A regular ship would show on d-scan, so would be visible to everyone.
A T3 with a covops cloak on the other hand would only be visible to someone using the hunting module. So a T3 would be more likely to catch a target, as not everyone will sacrifice a high slot to pop a hunting module on there.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1466 - 2013-09-18 14:49:27 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.


The way I see it is as an ecosystem. Not enough prey, the hunters starve (i.e. leave the game--not a good outcome). Too easy to catch prey, then the prey are wiped out...and then the hunters starve (even worse for the game). So there needs to be a balance...and equilibrium. Game balance is about finding that equilibrium. If the game mechanics are such that you can avoid being killed 99% of the time then that might be too high...and be bad for the game.

Of course, being killed can be offset by providing better benefits to being in null and playing as prey (please, keep in mind I play the prey too, while this is my PvP main, I have several PvE alts and yes, they are in null for the most part). With the higher benefits you can absorb that loss and still make "progress" such as accumulating is, buying other in game items to engage in other aspects of the game and so forth. And prey does not have to just be PvE, but even other PvPers.

"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
#1467 - 2013-09-18 14:54:45 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
But instead of a cloaked ship in high sec, you could have an out of corp alt, possibly a disposable one if a point is involved.
Then, your war target can land on you, and pop you.
(The point is expected to get popped, but it only needs to last until the real hostile shows, and he has permission to do anything)
Except most missions would always warp people to the warp in, not to the player they warped to. So if you've done it right, you've moved away from the warp in, so now he needs to get to you, before you align out while the point is being concorded. If a war target thinks he can jump into the system, warp to the warp in, then MWD over to you before the point is concorded/blown up by you and you've warped out, he's overestimated his ability. You will have aligned out while being pointed, it would take him at least 20 seconds to jump, and warp to the warp in, would then take a varying amount of time to slowboat to you. As soon as the point is gone, you're already aligned at full speed, and you are away.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1468 - 2013-09-18 15:18:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
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?


Pretty much, and not without solid ideas from the community on how to decouple intel and local. At least that is CCP Explorer's public statements.

I'll repost this, it has a number of suggestions:

http://interstellarprivateer.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/unbreaking-local/

Quote:
For example:

*NEW* System IFF Beacon As with RL aircraft identification, a transponder (already in lore in your pod) talks to a local “Identify Friend or Foe” (IFF) beacon to allow compilation of local pilots. Today, this is combined with Local Chat. I propose that we simply split them, and add some feature changes to the beacon. The beacon itself will be an actual object but with different properties and capabilities dependent on geography.

[snip]

Sovereign Nullsec: New or augmented capability to build a beacon and upgrade as part of sovereignty mechanics. If a nullsec alliance wants a beacon, they can build it. Default is counter only, like NPC nul. Capability level and info provided tied to system sovereignty, costs and upgrade mechanics. Destructible. EDIT: Changed “empty” space to match NPC null edits above. Mynna wrote a great piece on TheMittani.com with some suggestions on this one in particular. As I mentioned in the comments there, I have left this intentionally vague for the sov null folks, CCP and CSM to fill in. That said my vision of it would be that the sov holder would get some advantage, but it would not be overwhelming – e.g. sov could be upgraded and the beacon would act like Highsec for sov party and blues, but like Lowsec for everyone else. Mynna also suggested that the EHP for this beacon be set to make it a viable small gang target. I love that idea.

--Note: Rhavas struck out some stuff from earlier drafts, I simply deleted it here since there is no strike out option.


With enough of an upgrade you'd have very good intel and the exact mechanics are vague. For example maybe you can't put it in the same system as a cyno jammer. Maybe it is pretty expensive--i.e. trying to do it for all your systems you alliance controls may be cost prohibitive. It might even be hackable...hack it so it gives false intel or no intel.

Note that the mechanics here could be such that with the highest level of upgrades you'd get the same intel as in high sec...go read that to see what its like...in fact, read the whole thing.

I'm really not trying to be a jerk here. I'm not after shooting fish in a barrel. Maybe that 99% is too high right now for the "ecosystem" I noted in an earlier post. But that doesn't mean we have to plummet to 75% or 50%. It could take just a very minor tweak and drop us down to 98% coupled with a suitable bump in benefits for PvEing in null (for the individual pilot that is). So yeah, over some period of time you'll double your losses, but you'll have more than enough income so that you wont be worse off in the end. Here, let me give an example:

Suppose that 99% is for 100 "ship hours" of game play (this is just for the sake of explication, ok, don't jump down my throat for some made up numbers to illustrate a point, they are not meant to taken as gospel or anything like that). That is after 100 hours of using that ship "type" you expect to lose 1 of that ship type. Now, you'll lose 2. So your expected losses per 100 hours also doubles. But what I'm saying is that the benefits of being in null are increased so that not only will you be no worse off from the case of losing 1 ship, but you'll be even slightly better off. In economics we call this concept compensating variation.

Notice what that says. The consumer starts out with utility (welfare--i.e. "happiness, well being, etc.") of U1. Then something happens and knocks them down to U2 (i.e. U1 > U2). That is the consumer is made worse off. In economics it could be a price increase which means you will buy less of the good that had the price increase. The compensating variation is the amount of income that would have to be given to the consumer to allow him to return to the original level of utility, U1. In this case I'd argue for not only enough extra isk from PvEing in null to get you back to the original level of satisfaction, but maybe a bit more (and note, I'm not saying you have to do more PvE...it is still the same number of hours--i.e. the isk/hour would increase).

In short, you'd be no worse off. Well unless you simply can't abide the idea of being ganked at all. If that is the case, well...that is a problem given the nature of this game.

Disclaimer (via edit): In an attempt to make some peace here....

1. I see AFK cloaking as a problem. It is boring game play, really boring. Boring for those who do it, and boring for those who are victims of it. I'd like to see it go. So, for guys like Lucas, Vas, et. al. we are in agreement (I hope).

2. I would like to see more PvE/Industry in null. This is a bigger issue than just AFK cloaking. We can discuss it in this thread, but it is a bit off topic. If somebody started that topic, that wouldn't be a Bad Thing™.

3. This is an attempt at a Serious Internet Spaceship Game™ post. No insults are intended anywhere through out.

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

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1469 - 2013-09-18 15:50:47 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
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.


Let me interject something...

In theory would you agree with The Gunslinger? That is, as an abstract concept that both sides have a chance of success. You Lucas have a chance of escape, all is p and The Gunslinger has a chance of success, call it (1-p).

Now your worry, which is a good point, is that mechanically, trying to implement it means p could degenerate to zero. I agree, that is a concern and I think The Gunslinger would agree too.

Thus if such a mechanic were introduced and that did happen it would be bad and should either be removed, or if on the Test server, rejected. Yes?

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

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1470 - 2013-09-18 15:55:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
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,...


Pulling that part out to offer a suggestion....

How about some random timer on when local updates for you, the current resident in the system. Sometimes you'll see with plenty of time to warp. Sometimes it will be iffy, and sometimes you'll notice him when it is waaaay to late (in local chat that is, d-scan would still work if he is not cloaked). Note, I'm not specifying any exact probabilities or probability density function here, so don't assume anything horrible. Its a basic idea being tossed out. Smile

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

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1471 - 2013-09-18 16:01:31 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Let me interject something...

In theory would you agree with The Gunslinger? That is, as an abstract concept that both sides have a chance of success. You Lucas have a chance of escape, all is p and The Gunslinger has a chance of success, call it (1-p).

Now your worry, which is a good point, is that mechanically, trying to implement it means p could degenerate to zero. I agree, that is a concern and I think The Gunslinger would agree too.

Thus if such a mechanic were introduced and that did happen it would be bad and should either be removed, or if on the Test server, rejected. Yes?
Yes, I agree that both should have a chance of happening, but I don't see a method of it happening any more than it currently does.

Essentially the issue is that if both parties do their job perfectly, one has to win over the other, since there is no such thing as a draw in the scenario (either there is a kill, or there is not). Without the implementation of some kind of randomness, if both sides do their job perfectly, the same result will always occur, since there is nothing to vary the outcome.
Thus, without the implementation of a random element, there are only 2 choices:
1. When both are playing perfectly the miner always escapes (current).
2. When both are playing perfectly the miner always dies.

To me, option 1 is the only one that sustains null industry, and there's enough inattentive miners to ensure plenty of them get killed (see KB, in fact see the 28b isk BL drop on and FCON mining fleet). Bear in mind that the difference between life and death is literally a couple of seconds. It's a pretty thin line.
Option 2 would simply increase the number of covops attackers as they would realise that done right, they can always kill the miners, and secure a healthy green KB, making null relatively inefficient. Since industry players generally strive for efficiency, they would likely move elsewhere.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1472 - 2013-09-18 16:03:10 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Let me interject something...

In theory would you agree with The Gunslinger? That is, as an abstract concept that both sides have a chance of success. You Lucas have a chance of escape, all is p and The Gunslinger has a chance of success, call it (1-p).

Now your worry, which is a good point, is that mechanically, trying to implement it means p could degenerate to zero. I agree, that is a concern and I think The Gunslinger would agree too.

Thus if such a mechanic were introduced and that did happen it would be bad and should either be removed, or if on the Test server, rejected. Yes?
Yes, I agree that both should have a chance of happening, but I don't see a method of it happening any more than it currently does.

Essentially the issue is that if both parties do their job perfectly, one has to win over the other, since there is no such thing as a draw in the scenario (either there is a kill, or there is not). Without the implementation of some kind of randomness, if both sides do their job perfectly, the same result will always occur, since there is nothing to vary the outcome.
Thus, without the implementation of a random element, there are only 2 choices:
1. When both are playing perfectly the miner always escapes (current).
2. When both are playing perfectly the miner always dies.

To me, option 1 is the only one that sustains null industry, and there's enough inattentive miners to ensure plenty of them get killed (see KB, in fact see the 28b isk BL drop on and FCON mining fleet). Bear in mind that the difference between life and death is literally a couple of seconds. It's a pretty thin line.
Option 2 would simply increase the number of covops attackers as they would realise that done right, they can always kill the miners, and secure a healthy green KB, making null relatively inefficient. Since industry players generally strive for efficiency, they would likely move elsewhere.


Just a quick question, we are talking about the current mechanics, right. With local how it works now?

"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
#1473 - 2013-09-18 16:03:10 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
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,...


Pulling that part out to offer a suggestion....

How about some random timer on when local updates for you, the current resident in the system. Sometimes you'll see with plenty of time to warp. Sometimes it will be iffy, and sometimes you'll notice him when it is waaaay to late (in local chat that is, d-scan would still work if he is not cloaked). Note, I'm not specifying any exact probabilities or probability density function here, so don't assume anything horrible. Its a basic idea being tossed out. Smile
Functionally it would work, but as an EVE concept, programmed randomness like this is generally avoided. As far as mechanics are concerned, it's supposed to be more about what you do, not what the game does at random for you.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1474 - 2013-09-18 16:04:24 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Just a quick question, we are talking about the current mechanics, right. With local how it works now?
With any mechanic. All mechanics can be mastered to give a perfect result. A new intel tool would take time to adjust to, but would result in a "one best way" approach to early detection.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1475 - 2013-09-18 16:10:28 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
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,...


Pulling that part out to offer a suggestion....

How about some random timer on when local updates for you, the current resident in the system. Sometimes you'll see with plenty of time to warp. Sometimes it will be iffy, and sometimes you'll notice him when it is waaaay to late (in local chat that is, d-scan would still work if he is not cloaked). Note, I'm not specifying any exact probabilities or probability density function here, so don't assume anything horrible. Its a basic idea being tossed out. Smile
Functionally it would work, but as an EVE concept, programmed randomness like this is generally avoided. As far as mechanics are concerned, it's supposed to be more about what you do, not what the game does at random for you.


I agree, that this is not an ideal fix, but it could be a short term fix. And since cloaked ships would have a distinct advantage, introduce a way to hunt cloaked ships, thus killing off AFK cloaking?

At least until something more suitable and appealing can be found such as the idea of an IFF beacon.

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

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1476 - 2013-09-18 16:15:33 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Just a quick question, we are talking about the current mechanics, right. With local how it works now?
With any mechanic. All mechanics can be mastered to give a perfect result. A new intel tool would take time to adjust to, but would result in a "one best way" approach to early detection.


Just tossing out a precedent in game that does not fit this: invention. Skills can influence it, but it isn't perfect.

And another: shooting with guns, IIRC there is probability at work somewhere in there which is likely influenced by skills...IDK, I'd have to go back and look at the damage equation for guns.

"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
#1477 - 2013-09-18 16:22:26 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
I agree, that this is not an ideal fix, but it could be a short term fix. And since cloaked ships would have a distinct advantage, introduce a way to hunt cloaked ships, thus killing off AFK cloaking?

At least until something more suitable and appealing can be found such as the idea of an IFF beacon.
Honestly, AFK cloaking is not a big enough issue to just throw a quick fix at it. It does need to be considered more heavily, but I don't think it should automatically be made to go hand in hand with the topic of local. While it's rooted in local, local is a considerably bigger issue which has much bigger implications.
I think AFK cloaking needs a separate consideration between "quick fix" and "core mechanic overhaul". The problem is, every time it's raised and people are urged to put forward ideas, it gets buried between posts of "fix local = problem solved" and "AFK people don't kill people, lasers do", which is not a great way of having a discussion about it. Unfortunately, that's the way the community is, and that's not something that is likely to change.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1478 - 2013-09-18 16:28:49 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
I agree, that this is not an ideal fix, but it could be a short term fix. And since cloaked ships would have a distinct advantage, introduce a way to hunt cloaked ships, thus killing off AFK cloaking?

At least until something more suitable and appealing can be found such as the idea of an IFF beacon.
Honestly, AFK cloaking is not a big enough issue to just throw a quick fix at it. It does need to be considered more heavily, but I don't think it should automatically be made to go hand in hand with the topic of local. While it's rooted in local, local is a considerably bigger issue which has much bigger implications.
I think AFK cloaking needs a separate consideration between "quick fix" and "core mechanic overhaul". The problem is, every time it's raised and people are urged to put forward ideas, it gets buried between posts of "fix local = problem solved" and "AFK people don't kill people, lasers do", which is not a great way of having a discussion about it. Unfortunately, that's the way the community is, and that's not something that is likely to change.


I know the discussions devolve into primarily two camps that become very ossified in their positions. But I can't help but look back over out last few posts and see a strong link between AFK cloaking and local.

And maybe the suggested quick fix is not good. Maybe its horrible, but it is something that could be put on the test server (maybe, IDK if it is even doable from a programming stand point) and tested.

Or we stick with the status quo for now. What?

"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
#1479 - 2013-09-18 16:29:36 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Just tossing out a precedent in game that does not fit this: invention. Skills can influence it, but it isn't perfect.
Touché. Invention is truly horrible though.

Teckos Pech wrote:
And another: shooting with guns, IIRC there is probability at work somewhere in there which is likely influenced by skills...IDK, I'd have to go back and look at the damage equation for guns.
I'm not sure it does, if it does, it's a tiny tiny piece, like deciding if it's a smashing hit when it's on the threshold. I think damage calcs are just done from so many variables, that it has the appearance of random.

There are other elements of random, such as wormhole endpoints too, but for active mechanics (i.e. combat, mining, scanning, etc) nearly everything is straight math based. I say nearly, because EWAR has randomness, but that's the part they are looking to balance out because everyone is saying "Why random? you make me has a sad!"

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1480 - 2013-09-18 16:37:22 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
I know the discussions devolve into primarily two camps that become very ossified in their positions. But I can't help but look back over out last few posts and see a strong link between AFK cloaking and local.

And maybe the suggested quick fix is not good. Maybe its horrible, but it is something that could be put on the test server (maybe, IDK if it is even doable from a programming stand point) and tested.

Or we stick with the status quo for now. What?
Like I say though, I don;t at all disagree that local is the root cause. I don't disagree that changing local would fix the issue. I just think changing local would have too many other issues, most affecting the null blob playerbase which is pretty enormous, while providing no real benefit for the high sec player base. Core mechanic changes like this could take years just to reach a decision on how to approach them, then just as long to implement.
From my point of view, separating individual issues from local, 1 at a time, would make it easier to change. Put in a new type of intel now, alongside local. Make it all shiny and good to use, with it's own benefits to local reliance is not so strong. Once you've worked out all of the issues that rely on local, changing local will be like changing any other minor feature.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.