These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
 

In regards to Cloaks and AFK-Cloaked Campers
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Balthazar Lestrane
Dirt 'n' Glitter
Local Is Primary
#21 - 2013-08-03 02:52:12 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
Mighty angry of you there, Balthazar... did someone forget the lube and the reach around?

Instead of a hate rant, why not try proposing valid, reasoned arguements... or do you prefer it when people start ignoring your posts?


Did you read my post? I was re-iterating what others have stated before me, though I do agree with them.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=216699&find=unread

Use the search function next time you have a "brilliant" idea.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#22 - 2013-08-03 03:11:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Pelea Ming
Ahh, but again, this wouldn't be making anything more difficult for the cloaky-camper who is at least paying some attention every so often to that account, it's simply aimed at, for example, that guy who wakes up in the morning, logs the acct in, cloaks up, and goes to work, thereby obviously not doing anything with the account till they get home and are ready to play the game.

Essentially, your arguing that the ratters/miners have no real risk if they are paying attention... yet what I'm proposing to the same effect poses no risk to the cloaky-camper... if they are paying attention.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#23 - 2013-08-03 03:12:45 UTC
And, Bal, if you can't take the time to post your argument here, why should I feel obligated to read them in some other thread?
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
#24 - 2013-08-03 03:20:59 UTC
Personally, I see nothing wrong with cloaking as it stands now. All they can do is spy on you when cloaked and if they are AFK, not even that. And, for all you really, really, know, they are not afk but jumping from one safe to another safe outside your DSCAN range. If they were docked in station, it would have the same effect except you would know where they were located - and still you could do nothing about them being there in system.

Ultimately, I think your main issue is with Cynos. A cloaky can sit near you, uncloak, light one up, and make you one sad panda.

Maybe adding an extended module activation delay for Cyno equiped ships post de-cloak would help you run away in time?

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#25 - 2013-08-03 03:23:14 UTC
Oh, no, I don't want to, in anyway, change a cloaker who is active/paying attention, personally, I feel those are a perfectly valid use of the mechanics for that, including trapping someone for a cyno.

I'm simply saying that if your going to log in, cloak up, and goto work/sleep, that there should be some sort of inherent repercussions.
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
#26 - 2013-08-03 03:25:27 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
Oh, no, I don't want to, in anyway, change a cloaker who is active/paying attention, personally, I feel those are a perfectly valid use of the mechanics for that, including trapping someone for a cyno.

I'm simply saying that if your going to log in, cloak up, and goto work/sleep, that there should be some sort of inherent repercussions.


Sure there are: if perchance (and I know in space there is a lot of room but strange things do happen) you get decloaked, not a lot you can do to avoid the eventual pod death if you are AFK.

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#27 - 2013-08-03 03:30:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Pelea Ming
lol, that's stretching rather abit, though, isn't it? I mean, even if your using a bot to make your ship warp around at random, the odds of something managing to be close enough to decloak you are quite slim... in my opinion, definately not much of a valid risk overall for the practice. If anything, that would fall more under Nikk's claims of ratters/miners being pretty much untouchable as long as they don't screw something up... same effect, if the cloaker is paying proper attention when setting up bookmarks, there's no realistic chance of them being randomly decloaked.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#28 - 2013-08-03 03:40:33 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
Note, I'm not trying to get rid of the afk camper here, I've done it myself, as well as having been the PvE'r who had to deal with afk campers in system. I'm simply trying to propose a reasonable balance to it all, as currently, there is no balance, all the risk is on the PvE'r, and none on the afk camper.



Ooooh, what if, and here me out here:

We make it so that a cloaked ship cannot activate modules, bump other ships, or affect another ship in any way...


...oh

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Balthazar Lestrane
Dirt 'n' Glitter
Local Is Primary
#29 - 2013-08-03 03:42:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Balthazar Lestrane
Because I was eating dinner and I'm not your mommy, I linked the thread for your perusal, not so I can go to sleep tonight content that you had read it.

Quote:
Something along the lines of, for example, every 15 minutes there's a % chance of it 'glitching out,' (based on meta level of the cloak, and introduce a new skill that will reduce it) that would make the cloak continue to cycle, but not actually function for several cycles (reduced by a new skill) and then the cloak would auto-correct for the glitch and the cloak would go back to functioning normally?


Stop trying to inadvertently punish active players because you can't be arsed to actually do something for yourself to remove the AFK cloaking problem you seem to be so butthurt about. Why should I have to **** with my cloak at all after activating it? Cloaks have no cycle time, so what do you propose is a balanced cycle time for the cloak to "glitch" out? Can these AFK cloakers actually be probed and scanned down in the time that their cloak is glitching?

Arguments against this:


  • It's a waste of dev time as AFK cloaking itself has no effect whatsoever on the core gameplay in EVE, blowing stuff up


  • There are several things you can do already to subvert AFK cloakers: setting up gatecamps, moving to another system, baiting them and removing them from your system.


  • There are ships that are currently balanced to fit cloaks, most notably by their sub par tanks (the covert ops line, bombers, force recons and black ops). Nerfing cloaks would not be a massive detriment to the functions of these ships, but it would undermine the current balancing in place that allows them to fit them. I have never seen a AFK cloaking thread that actually takes this into account and offers a balance to these ships to compensate for nerfing what is their defining module. So I have to ask the question. If you can't be arsed to flesh something out and at least attempt to take into account everything it would affect, why should anyone else be arsed to even consider the idea?
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#30 - 2013-08-03 03:52:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Pelea Ming
Balthazar Lestrane wrote:

Stop trying to inadvertently punish active players because you can't be arsed to actually do something for yourself to remove the AFK cloaking problem you seem to be so butthurt about. Why should I have to **** with my cloak at all after activating it? Cloaks have no cycle time, so what do you propose is a balanced cycle time for the cloak to "glitch" out? Can these AFK cloakers actually be probed and scanned down in the time that their cloak is glitching?

Nothing I'm proposing would be detrimental to an active player, as with just a minimal amount of attention, it would be easily circumvented simply by cycling the cloak off/on every once in a while.
Purely and simply, it would only be a detriment to those who are being inactive/afk. (and if you want to be afk, you might as well just dock up/log out)
Yes, cloaks do have a cycle time, check out the show info panel, attributes tab. Every module, including weapons, that must be activated have a cyle time.
As for scanning someone down during a limited duration of time, I know I can scan down a frigate sized sig radius in about 3 mins, from the time I deploy my probes till they are fully retrieved, and I only have middling probe skill levels. So, given, say, 30 seconds to a minute, someone with top end skills and probes already deployed should have a narrow but relatively reasonable chance of catching the afk-cloaky 'with their pants down.'
Quote:

  • It's a waste of dev time as AFK cloaking itself has no effect whatsoever on the core gameplay in EVE, blowing stuff up

it's never a waste of Dev time to at least explore a concept which has the potential to improve game enjoyment, and that is a quote from CCP.
Quote:

  • There are ships that are currently balanced to fit cloaks, most notably by their sub par tanks (the covert ops line, bombers, force recons and black ops). Nerfing cloaks would not be a massive detriment to the functions of these ships, but it would undermine the current balancing in place that allows them to fit them. I have never seen a AFK cloaking thread that actually takes this into account and offers a balance to these ships to compensate for nerfing what is their defining module. So I have to ask the question. If you can't be arsed to flesh something out and at least attempt to take into account everything it would affect, why should anyone else be arsed to even consider the idea?

Why not try providing some argument to how something which long term only affects those sitting afk/cloaked would be a detriment to everyone who uses a cloak on their ship throughout the entire game?
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#31 - 2013-08-03 03:53:10 UTC
and, Ruby, if you can't provide reasoned argument, please take your trolling elsewhere.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#32 - 2013-08-03 03:55:55 UTC
Also, Bal, there are fits that can be done to make a ship harder to probe out, so it's not like my proposal would guarantee the afk-cloaky would get nailed.
Balthazar Lestrane
Dirt 'n' Glitter
Local Is Primary
#33 - 2013-08-03 03:59:44 UTC
You'll have no more of my time, Pelea when you only quote the sections of my post that you're feebly arguing against nor offering any counter argument to why you are so lazy that you cannot solve the problem yourself.

Quote:
it's never a waste of Dev time to at least explore a concept which has the potential to improve game enjoyment, and that is a quote from CCP.


Then where is CCP and their comments on this thread and the countless others that crop up daily?
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#34 - 2013-08-03 03:59:58 UTC
basically, I'm simply proposing that there be an element of risk to afk-cloaky-camping. I'm not trying to make it impossible, simply harder, provide a balancing measure of risk for the camper to the risk to the ratters/miners in the system.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#35 - 2013-08-03 04:02:26 UTC
Balthazar Lestrane wrote:
You'll have no more of my time, Pelea when you only quote the sections of my post that you're feebly arguing against nor offering any counter argument to why you are so lazy that you cannot solve the problem yourself.

Quote:
it's never a waste of Dev time to at least explore a concept which has the potential to improve game enjoyment, and that is a quote from CCP.


Then where is CCP and their comments on this thread and the countless others that crop up daily?

Considering I didn't start this thread till after the close of the business day for CCP's time zone, I don't expect them to be able to get to it till Monday seeing as it's Friday now.

And I'm rather enjoying the chance to debate the merits and flaws of my idea with other players in the meantime.

As for only quoting those sections of your post I was proposing arguments against, that was simply to make it more obvious what my arguments were pointed to, if I didn't quote a section it would be because I either did not feel it was worth debating, or I had no argument to counter it.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#36 - 2013-08-03 04:06:29 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
and, Ruby, if you can't provide reasoned argument, please take your trolling elsewhere.



That was my reasoned argument.

They can't affect you (moreso if they're AFK). You can't affect them.
Fair trade.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#37 - 2013-08-03 06:44:36 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
Mighty angry of you there, Balthazar... did someone forget the lube and the reach around?

Instead of a hate rant, why not try proposing valid, reasoned arguements... or do you prefer it when people start ignoring your posts?


For somebody bitching about trolling, you sure do troll.

The issue is ratters face very little risk from hostiles except for AFK cloakers. You want to remove that risk for the ratter by increasing the risk for afk-cloakers...who of course are gaining virtually nothing while they are afk cloaking.

So when somebody like Danika proposes something be done about people afk docking your snide comment about trolling is in fact a load of bravo sierra because you aren't grasping the fundamental points.

"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
#38 - 2013-08-03 06:49:33 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
Ahh, but again, this wouldn't be making anything more difficult for the cloaky-camper who is at least paying some attention every so often to that account, it's simply aimed at, for example, that guy who wakes up in the morning, logs the acct in, cloaks up, and goes to work, thereby obviously not doing anything with the account till they get home and are ready to play the game.

Essentially, your arguing that the ratters/miners have no real risk if they are paying attention... yet what I'm proposing to the same effect poses no risk to the cloaky-camper... if they are paying attention.


The problem is that ratters and miners wont engage in PVP. They immediately warp and:

1. POS up.
2. Safe up and log.
3. Safe up and cloak (oh how f***ing ironic).
4. Dock up.

In all cases, they go from very, very low risk to zero risk, and zero rewards.

The AFK cloaker goes from very, very low risk (getting through the gates to his destination) to no risk and zero rewards.

The situation is balanced. Working as intended. Maybe not the best situation, but until CCP does something about the intel offered by local changing the situation will move the situation to being unbalanced.

"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
#39 - 2013-08-03 06:51:15 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
And, Bal, if you can't take the time to post your argument here, why should I feel obligated to read them in some other thread?


The other thread is mine. It is a collection thread...a garbage dump of the horrible ideas (mostly) on how to nerf cloaking and thereby buff PVE in null. Have no fear, I'll be adding your idea there soon enough. Big smile

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

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#40 - 2013-08-03 06:57:31 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
Balthazar Lestrane wrote:
You'll have no more of my time, Pelea when you only quote the sections of my post that you're feebly arguing against nor offering any counter argument to why you are so lazy that you cannot solve the problem yourself.

Quote:
it's never a waste of Dev time to at least explore a concept which has the potential to improve game enjoyment, and that is a quote from CCP.


Then where is CCP and their comments on this thread and the countless others that crop up daily?

Considering I didn't start this thread till after the close of the business day for CCP's time zone, I don't expect them to be able to get to it till Monday seeing as it's Friday now.

And I'm rather enjoying the chance to debate the merits and flaws of my idea with other players in the meantime.

As for only quoting those sections of your post I was proposing arguments against, that was simply to make it more obvious what my arguments were pointed to, if I didn't quote a section it would be because I either did not feel it was worth debating, or I had no argument to counter it.


there are dozens if not hundreds of these threads and your idea is almost surely already in one of them. And CCP has never, ever commented.

CCP has commented, at least a Dev has, about the issues surrounding local and its infallible intel and that they don't like it. It is linked in my thread linked above. If you had bothered to actually read the thread you'd have seen it.

So, if anything CCP is more in favor of:

1. Do nothing to local and also cloaks.
2. If they find a good replacement for intel gathering other than local, cloaks might get hit with the nerf bat.

See the comment thread there that you are completely ignoring? No? Didn't think so.

"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