These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2961 - 2015-08-31 13:31:53 UTC
...unless you consider "cloaked up" as an intended "safe" mechanic, like docked or POSsed. Once you allow this concept into your head, Mag's and Techos arguments start making sense.

The problems arise when the ship uncloaks and lights a covert cyno. The act of lighting a cyno, regular or otherwise, is usually when trouble hits the fan and this is true even for non-cloaking ships.

Being Cloaked offers advantages similar to docking, while in space - yet it also comes with a disadvantage from not having docking rights in your stations: they can't refit.

Think about it Mike.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2962 - 2015-08-31 14:37:19 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
...unless you consider "cloaked up" as an intended "safe" mechanic, like docked or POSsed. Once you allow this concept into your head, Mag's and Techos arguments start making sense.

The problems arise when the ship uncloaks and lights a covert cyno. The act of lighting a cyno, regular or otherwise, is usually when trouble hits the fan and this is true even for non-cloaking ships.

Being Cloaked offers advantages similar to docking, while in space - yet it also comes with a disadvantage from not having docking rights in your stations: they can't refit.

Think about it Mike.


Or undocks and lights a cyno, or leaves that POS and lights a cyno...covert or otherwise.

And we do see lots of people ninja sites in cloaky ships. The cloak gives them a chance at doing this otherwise they'd be killed....not that they don't get killed with the cloak, it just makes it more doable. In this case the cloak works just like a POS or cloak when they are in system scanning, and helps them go from system to system.

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

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2963 - 2015-08-31 14:39:57 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
...

Unless you really want to go all the way with making PvE similar to PvP (which would probably also make the vets cry in their soup) and allow for a chance to FAIL your mission because you didn't manage to point the target in time, because they drove you off and you failed to put the mission structure into reenforce / blow it up, or because they heavily bubbled the warehouse where you were supposed to retrieve goods, lit a cyno and they blew you up. Is this what you want PvE to be?

...

I expect some would oppose this, but then I expect some would oppose ANY change, no matter what it involved.

Holy Frack, batman, if we could have this.... heck yeah!
And I mean integrate fully, by building up to it in the noob areas, and high sec, not just dump players into it to either sink or swim.

The rewards, of course, would need to be balanced for both multiple players with scaling potential, as well as taking into account the probability that more than a single attempt might be needed before success.

Can you imagine how PvP would also improve, with players trained on better PvE like this?

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2964 - 2015-08-31 14:40:10 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
No, absolutely no buffs to NS ratting. If anything NS needs a shake up in terms of income. In another thread the idea of having missions in NS with the bulk of the payoff being from LP sounds like a good idea as LP are actually an ISK sink, not a source.
Then you don't understand the economy. Adding that much of an isk sink would be as bad for the economy as adding faucets.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Oh and nice to know you are a dogmatist when it comes to your opinions. It sure tells the rest of us that they are basically ****.
Dont; get me wrong, other people may very well change my opinions, but from you I've heard every argument I've got and I'm convinced you are trying to push a buff to your own style of play for selfish reasons, thus I know there's nothing you can say to me that will change my point of view.


Right, and everyone wanting to remove cloaks isn't looking to buff their play style. As for my play style I don't have the time to hunt ratters and haven't in a long time.

And I've seen you on in other discussions Lucas, you are quite dogmatic.

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

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2965 - 2015-08-31 14:51:04 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Right, and everyone wanting to remove cloaks isn't looking to buff their play style. As for my play style I don't have the time to hunt ratters and haven't in a long time.
I don't rat or mine in nullsec except in fleets designed to raise indices. All of my income comes from highsec trading because nullsec income is for peasants. I gain precisely zero from the loss of AFK cloaking except of course the knowledge that players have to be active in game to directly affect others. Also, if you think about it AFK cloaking is unbalanced in itself, as it can be used by some timezones but not others due to downtime. There's yet another reason to get rid of it.

You've made it pretty clear that all you are interested in is a boost to cloaking, which is why even though there are multiple workable and valid ideas given in this thread, you've dismissed all of them with no real reason beyond "I R WANT LOCAL DEAD".

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2966 - 2015-08-31 15:22:46 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Right, and everyone wanting to remove cloaks isn't looking to buff their play style. As for my play style I don't have the time to hunt ratters and haven't in a long time.
I don't rat or mine in nullsec except in fleets designed to raise indices. All of my income comes from highsec trading because nullsec income is for peasants. I gain precisely zero from the loss of AFK cloaking except of course the knowledge that players have to be active in game to directly affect others. Also, if you think about it AFK cloaking is unbalanced in itself, as it can be used by some timezones but not others due to downtime. There's yet another reason to get rid of it.

You've made it pretty clear that all you are interested in is a boost to cloaking, which is why even though there are multiple workable and valid ideas given in this thread, you've dismissed all of them with no real reason beyond "I R WANT LOCAL DEAD".

I would consider more carefully, before simply labeling Techos so easily as that.

Making cloaking itself vanish, is a negative result. Something we should avoid.
If we limit cloaking, but do so in a way that strictly leaves cloaked play as still needing luck to succeed, that would diminish it.
I am defining needing luck, in this context, as the cloaked player can perform no action which reliably requires either a BETTER response, (rather than a default one), or results in a PvE player engaged with them.
Right now, the cloaked ship relies on luck as a key aspect, more than many other interactions between players do.

Notice I said engaged, as in interacting with the cloaked ship directly.
This is not an automatic win for the cloaked ship, but the base encounter which decides the results.
If the cloaked ship is portrayed here as always winning, that is a different argument which should be handled.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Mag's
Azn Empire
#2967 - 2015-08-31 19:18:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Not...fulfilling...my...requirements.

Let's break that down just al little, and examine my requirements.


In a thread about afk cloaking, you present a few 'counters' to cloaks that only work when the cloak is either off, or else the location of the cloaked ship is precisely enough known that you can manually pilot within decloak range. Neither of those circumstances are common at any time even when a cloaked ship is actively piloted, and may as well not even be possible when discussing afk camping.

So my requirements for a direct counter to cloaks being used for afk camping being that it actually having a realistic chance of being used to force a confrontation on a ship that is already cloaked at a location not already known. Ie, some way to actively hunt a passive player in open space.

That's the absolute least strenuous requirement that can be applied to this conversation. Requiring that an active, awake, and aware gate camp capable of catching a competent pilot in a cov ops ship at the precise instant he comes into system be on the every gate at all times is a bit of a high bar. I suppose you may be right that counters exist and I just don't like them.

How about we make some adjustment to mining and ratting so that we set up for it once and then we are only vulnerable to disruption for 5 minutes a week in any increments we decide from 30 seconds or longer at times of our own choosing until we are caught. That seems fair and balanced, right?
So as I said, not fulfilling your requirements. But because they don't, doesn't mean they don't exist.

So how about you simply say: "The cloaks current direct counters are not sufficient enough and need a buff or an additional counter added, to meet my requirements"Question

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2968 - 2015-08-31 19:29:28 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Making cloaking itself vanish, is a negative result. Something we should avoid.
Agreed.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
If we limit cloaking, but do so in a way that strictly leaves cloaked play as still needing luck to succeed, that would diminish it.
I am defining needing luck, in this context, as the cloaked player can perform no action which reliably requires either a BETTER response, (rather than a default one), or results in a PvE player engaged with them.
Right now, the cloaked ship relies on luck as a key aspect, more than many other interactions between players do.

Notice I said engaged, as in interacting with the cloaked ship directly.
This is not an automatic win for the cloaked ship, but the base encounter which decides the results.
If the cloaked ship is portrayed here as always winning, that is a different argument which should be handled.
I'm not sure why you're talking about cloaking needing luck here. It sounds like you are saying a cloaker needs luck to catch a PvE player, which is acceptable, since a cloaked ship is not designed to be an interceptor. Cloaked ships are designed to cloak, not hunt. The fundamental problem a lot of pro-cloaker arguments have is that they all tend to be geared around helping the cloaker perform a function they are not designed to perform.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2969 - 2015-08-31 20:00:19 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
...

I'm not sure why you're talking about cloaking needing luck here. It sounds like you are saying a cloaker needs luck to catch a PvE player, which is acceptable, since a cloaked ship is not designed to be an interceptor. Cloaked ships are designed to cloak, not hunt. The fundamental problem a lot of pro-cloaker arguments have is that they all tend to be geared around helping the cloaker perform a function they are not designed to perform.

I agree with most of what you said.

They were not designed to perform this role, but some players decided they wanted this role in the game.
The cloaked ship was simply the most practical means, with which to attempt this.

In simple truth, no ship exists that can reliably threaten PvE shipping.
A cloaked ship can weather the attempts by defense forces to eject it, but even it cannot force an engagement.

Now, and this may sound strange coming from a PvE player, I want SOMETHING to threaten PvE players like myself.
The dynamic where I grind ISK, and purchase a fighting ship just to butt heads with others who have done the same thing?
Not satisfying enough.

I found I was spending too much time grinding ISK, and avoiding content, for too little time spent enjoying fights that are not about me as a player.
I'm either supporting a roam, or stuck as PvP ship 93 in a fleet of others fitted just like me.
This would be great if I was into synchronized swimming, or choreographed dance numbers... but being one of this many, where my individual contribution is a drop in the bucket... not really satisfying.

Now, tracking down another PvE player like myself, and engaging them in a contest of survival... that is the pulse pounding challenge I can get into. Having someone do that to myself would be great too.
I just don't want to know who is going to win before the fight happens.

But we do know, or at least have a pretty good idea.
The cloaked player is expected to win against the PvE player, and the PvP player is expected to win against the cloaked player.
So the guys who expect to lose, avoid the fights where such loss seems likely. Hardly surprising, who wants to lose?

PvE has no requirement to need content avoidance, in order to be a meaningful game aspect.
Let's bring the content into the belts and rat spawns too.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2970 - 2015-08-31 22:55:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Right, and everyone wanting to remove cloaks isn't looking to buff their play style. As for my play style I don't have the time to hunt ratters and haven't in a long time.
I don't rat or mine in nullsec except in fleets designed to raise indices. All of my income comes from highsec trading because nullsec income is for peasants. I gain precisely zero from the loss of AFK cloaking except of course the knowledge that players have to be active in game to directly affect others. Also, if you think about it AFK cloaking is unbalanced in itself, as it can be used by some timezones but not others due to downtime. There's yet another reason to get rid of it.

You've made it pretty clear that all you are interested in is a boost to cloaking, which is why even though there are multiple workable and valid ideas given in this thread, you've dismissed all of them with no real reason beyond "I R WANT LOCAL DEAD".

I would consider more carefully, before simply labeling Techos so easily as that.

Making cloaking itself vanish, is a negative result. Something we should avoid.
If we limit cloaking, but do so in a way that strictly leaves cloaked play as still needing luck to succeed, that would diminish it.
I am defining needing luck, in this context, as the cloaked player can perform no action which reliably requires either a BETTER response, (rather than a default one), or results in a PvE player engaged with them.
Right now, the cloaked ship relies on luck as a key aspect, more than many other interactions between players do.

Notice I said engaged, as in interacting with the cloaked ship directly.
This is not an automatic win for the cloaked ship, but the base encounter which decides the results.
If the cloaked ship is portrayed here as always winning, that is a different argument which should be handled.


That's okay Nikk, I don't expect Lucas to ever admit a mistake, and it is so much easier to dismiss an opponent by distorting about their position. There is literally no way that Lucas can support his description of my view on this subject with any evidence. In fact, I have argued explicitly against simply wanting local gone and thereby buffing cloaks.

"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
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#2971 - 2015-08-31 23:14:32 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
...unless you consider "cloaked up" as an intended "safe" mechanic, like docked or POSsed. Once you allow this concept into your head, Mag's and Techos arguments start making sense.

The problems arise when the ship uncloaks and lights a covert cyno. The act of lighting a cyno, regular or otherwise, is usually when trouble hits the fan and this is true even for non-cloaking ships.

Being Cloaked offers advantages similar to docking, while in space - yet it also comes with a disadvantage from not having docking rights in your stations: they can't refit.

Think about it Mike.



Except it's a module, not a structure. They are not equivalent levels of play. Structures, especially those that require SOV to put up, require far more of every meaningful resource imaginable from effort, time, skill, ISK and raw mineral. Those structures are themselves vulnerable to attack--- being an entirely separate level of play a single ship is no real danger, whereas an active cloak is not even vulnerable at that level, of being somehow found and dealt with by the concerted efforts of dozens if not hundreds of players.

The problem arises when one wishes to visit violence upon a ship in open space, away from one of the structures designed specifically to protect assets safely in game and by all other accounts supposedly at risk of non-consensual PvP-- the very same thing they are claiming their targets need more of-- and there is no way, regardless of time, effort, manpower or isk spent to directly confront that ship.

If ISK coming in via Null Sec ratting is such a desperate problem, simply tuning the payouts should be the direction the dev team chooses, rather than relying on players using tactics considered griefing by most players, if not the standards in use by CCP.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2972 - 2015-09-01 03:36:44 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Not...fulfilling...my...requirements.

Let's break that down just al little, and examine my requirements.


In a thread about afk cloaking, you present a few 'counters' to cloaks that only work when the cloak is either off, or else the location of the cloaked ship is precisely enough known that you can manually pilot within decloak range. Neither of those circumstances are common at any time even when a cloaked ship is actively piloted, and may as well not even be possible when discussing afk camping.

So my requirements for a direct counter to cloaks being used for afk camping being that it actually having a realistic chance of being used to force a confrontation on a ship that is already cloaked at a location not already known. Ie, some way to actively hunt a passive player in open space.

That's the absolute least strenuous requirement that can be applied to this conversation. Requiring that an active, awake, and aware gate camp capable of catching a competent pilot in a cov ops ship at the precise instant he comes into system be on the every gate at all times is a bit of a high bar. I suppose you may be right that counters exist and I just don't like them.

How about we make some adjustment to mining and ratting so that we set up for it once and then we are only vulnerable to disruption for 5 minutes a week in any increments we decide from 30 seconds or longer at times of our own choosing until we are caught. That seems fair and balanced, right?


Look Mike I get that you want to secure your space. But at the same time there should be some degree of risk to go with the rewards of NS. Currently with local, intel channels, and gate camps about the only way for players to go in and disrupt things is via the following methods:

1. Roams
2. Invasions
3. AFK cloaking

Roams only disrupt things for a short period of time. Invasions are costly and infrequent. AFK cloaking on the other hand can be for a longer period of time and are much less costly.

As for the idea that AFK cloaking is insignificant...here are some numbers dubious numbers...

In Colbalt Edge the top ratting system had over 20,000 rats killed in the last 24 hours. If we assume an average of 300,000 ISK/rat and AFK camping cuts ratting in half that is about 3 billion ISK in "lost ratting". There are what...20ish NS regions, so lets say there is one AFK camper per region that breaks down to about 60 billion ISK/day in lost ratting income. Or about 6% of the 1 trillion ISK flowing into the Eve economy. Not exactly trivial. Small, but not that small.

"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
#2973 - 2015-09-01 03:49:57 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
...unless you consider "cloaked up" as an intended "safe" mechanic, like docked or POSsed. Once you allow this concept into your head, Mag's and Techos arguments start making sense.

The problems arise when the ship uncloaks and lights a covert cyno. The act of lighting a cyno, regular or otherwise, is usually when trouble hits the fan and this is true even for non-cloaking ships.

Being Cloaked offers advantages similar to docking, while in space - yet it also comes with a disadvantage from not having docking rights in your stations: they can't refit.

Think about it Mike.



Except it's a module, not a structure. They are not equivalent levels of play. Structures, especially those that require SOV to put up, require far more of every meaningful resource imaginable from effort, time, skill, ISK and raw mineral. Those structures are themselves vulnerable to attack--- being an entirely separate level of play a single ship is no real danger, whereas an active cloak is not even vulnerable at that level, of being somehow found and dealt with by the concerted efforts of dozens if not hundreds of players.

The problem arises when one wishes to visit violence upon a ship in open space, away from one of the structures designed specifically to protect assets safely in game and by all other accounts supposedly at risk of non-consensual PvP-- the very same thing they are claiming their targets need more of-- and there is no way, regardless of time, effort, manpower or isk spent to directly confront that ship.

If ISK coming in via Null Sec ratting is such a desperate problem, simply tuning the payouts should be the direction the dev team chooses, rather than relying on players using tactics considered griefing by most players, if not the standards in use by CCP.


A POS does not require Sov, Mike. Sov merely grants a bonus in terms of fuel usage, not insignificant, but still you could anchor a tower in hostile space. It might last long, but you could. In fact, during invasions this is not totally unheard of.

And I have to say it is amusing when Mike talks about visiting violence upon a ship where the player is almost surely AFK, but then gets all high and mighty about how poor and defenseless the PvE pilot is who has a shot at evading or trying to destroy his opponent. Yeah, it is a long shot, but not nearly as long as dying to an AFK pilot in a ship with no modules active.

As for ISK entering the game, I don't know why the Dev team is against it. One could be that they are worried that shifting over to something like an LP store would not sit well with many players. Having to move good out of NS into HS to sell...of course that can be solved by having an LP store in HS where NS pilots can redeem their LP. Hell, set up these LP stores near NS entry points and you might make some secondary and tertiary trade hubs as well. Lots of high end LP goods on the market and put stuff up for sale that NS has a hard time sourcing locally.

And yeah, ISK entering the economy can very much be a Thing™. Why do you think CCP backed off the anomaly buff with Dominion Sov? It cause considerable inflation. Inflation is everywhere an issue with money creation. Create too much money and you'll have inflation. Create too little money or even let the money supply shrink and you'll have deflation. As for deflation being bad, look to the Great Depression when the U.S. Federal Reserve let the money supply contract rather sharply.

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

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2974 - 2015-09-01 07:17:26 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
They were not designed to perform this role, but some players decided they wanted this role in the game.
The cloaked ship was simply the most practical means, with which to attempt this.

In simple truth, no ship exists that can reliably threaten PvE shipping.
A cloaked ship can weather the attempts by defense forces to eject it, but even it cannot force an engagement.
Of course no ship can force an engagement from a PvE ship. If the PvE player is performing his role correctly he should be able to evade, otherwise he stands absolutely no chance of surviving. At no point ever should a ship be introduced that can force a PvE ship into an engagement. If it were, then only that ship would be used to hunt PvE players and PvE would die as there would be no way to survive.

As it stands, the highest chance of successful hunting is with an interceptor to tackle and a DPS backup, which can be very effective. Just look at the number of PvE players killed in null, and it's clear people are having no trouble locking them down.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Now, and this may sound strange coming from a PvE player, I want SOMETHING to threaten PvE players like myself.
The dynamic where I grind ISK, and purchase a fighting ship just to butt heads with others who have done the same thing?
Not satisfying enough.
Well that's not going to happen by implementing a mechanic where there's no chance of you evading. Plenty of people can threaten PvE players, the fact that they are't tells me the problem is lack of people trying, not that we need a superbuffed cloak mechanic. One mechanic to rule them all and all that.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
I found I was spending too much time grinding ISK, and avoiding content, for too little time spent enjoying fights that are not about me as a player.
Don't do that then. This is a sandbox. Some people enjoy grinding PvE and evading.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Now, tracking down another PvE player like myself, and engaging them in a contest of survival... that is the pulse pounding challenge I can get into. Having someone do that to myself would be great too.
I just don't want to know who is going to win before the fight happens.
But you would know. On one side you have a PvP fit ship specifically designed to hunt down ratters. On the other side you have a ratter. You would win, every time. As it stands right now, get yourself a fast ship and you can have exactly what you want. Jump into a system, warp straight to where the targets are. If you catch them, you win. If they run away, they win.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2975 - 2015-09-01 13:34:34 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
...unless you consider "cloaked up" as an intended "safe" mechanic, like docked or POSsed. Once you allow this concept into your head, Mag's and Techos arguments start making sense.

...



Except it's a module, not a structure. They are not equivalent levels of play. Structures, especially those that require SOV to put up, require far more of every meaningful resource imaginable from effort, time, skill, ISK and raw mineral. Those structures are themselves vulnerable to attack--- being an entirely separate level of play a single ship is no real danger, whereas an active cloak is not even vulnerable at that level, of being somehow found and dealt with by the concerted efforts of dozens if not hundreds of players.

The problem arises when one wishes to visit violence upon a ship in open space, away from one of the structures designed specifically to protect assets safely in game and by all other accounts supposedly at risk of non-consensual PvP-- the very same thing they are claiming their targets need more of-- and there is no way, regardless of time, effort, manpower or isk spent to directly confront that ship.

If ISK coming in via Null Sec ratting is such a desperate problem, simply tuning the payouts should be the direction the dev team chooses, rather than relying on players using tactics considered griefing by most players, if not the standards in use by CCP.

Except it's a game.
That means it uses arbitrary rules, since at no point does the game need to justify itself as an accurate representation of any actual existing system.

Does this module give some of the same benefits as a POS or Outpost?
Yes.

And it is up to the devs whether this happens, regardless of anyone's impression of how things should work.

I think it would be amusing, if the soon to be released OA structure should have a specific weakness... like the snowball launcher covering it's sensors, causing temporary downtime for the data reports.
They probably won't use the snowball launcher this way... but they COULD.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2976 - 2015-09-01 13:45:32 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
They were not designed to perform this role, but some players decided they wanted this role in the game.
The cloaked ship was simply the most practical means, with which to attempt this.

In simple truth, no ship exists that can reliably threaten PvE shipping.
A cloaked ship can weather the attempts by defense forces to eject it, but even it cannot force an engagement.

Of course no ship can force an engagement from a PvE ship. If the PvE player is performing his role correctly he should be able to evade, otherwise he stands absolutely no chance of surviving. At no point ever should a ship be introduced that can force a PvE ship into an engagement. If it were, then only that ship would be used to hunt PvE players and PvE would die as there would be no way to survive.

...

Except you are extending my argument well beyond where I placed it.

I want to be able to threaten, and coerce a response from the PvE ship that is then compared to my effort.
I want the comparison to decide whether the next stage, an actual engagement in space, gets to happen.

I do NOT want the ability to force an engagement, nor do I want the PvE player able to perform a default action that succeeds simply because it was made.
That PvE action, with it's automatic success when applied, is what we have now.

It is vaguely balanced by a punishing result, in the event I do not employ it while playing PvE. I have little hope of surviving an encounter that I allow to happen, by failing to push the 'I Evade' button.

These two extreme aspects... my automatic success in evasion, or my hopeless defense prospect if I fail to react, suggests to me a dynamic that is begging to be reconsidered.

We are losing content on both sides by having this dumbed down process in place.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2977 - 2015-09-01 14:06:05 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I want to be able to threaten, and coerce a response from the PvE ship that is then compared to my effort.
I want the comparison to decide whether the next stage, an actual engagement in space, gets to happen.

I do NOT want the ability to force an engagement, nor do I want the PvE player able to perform a default action that succeeds simply because it was made.
That PvE action, with it's automatic success when applied, is what we have now.

It is vaguely balanced by a punishing result, in the event I do not employ it while playing PvE. I have little hope of surviving an encounter that I allow to happen, by failing to push the 'I Evade' button.

These two extreme aspects... my automatic success in evasion, or my hopeless defense prospect if I fail to react, suggests to me a dynamic that is begging to be reconsidered.

We are losing content on both sides by having this dumbed down process in place.
If you don't want to force an engagement, why did you state that a cloaked ship "cannot force an engagement" as if that was a problem?

And the PvE player does have to take an action, and should they fail or be ill prepared, they will frequently lose, as the killboards clearly show. In any given situation, if both sides perform perfectly the outcome will always be the same. Currently, if a PvE player performs everything perfectly from preparation through execution then they will evade. This is the closest to a draw as you can get. The PvP player loses nothing but doesn't get to perform his action (killing the PvE player) and the PvE player loses nothing but doesn't get to perform his action (shooting his rats). That's balanced.

The problem is that any mechanic will get minmaxed, and adding something that allows cloakers to get around a PvE players evasion will become the goto move for taking down PvE players, and PvE will simply die. As it stands, a couple of seconds where your attention is diverted is enough to guarantee your death in PvE.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2978 - 2015-09-01 14:12:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Brokk Witgenstein
Quick injection to let you guys know not all PvP vs. PvE encounters are by definition one sided.

Late last night we were roaming Phoebe Freeport, and what started off with a couple of Domi's and Mackinaws on DScan soon escalated to our intended victims having more battleships on grid than we had members in our fleet. YaY for content! At one point we managed to single out one Domi (through clever use of bubbles) and blap him, only to find ourselves boxed in and having to make a run for our very lives.

Relevant to AFK cloaking? Not really. Although there is no rule that says the PvE ship is defenseless or that you can take it down using an interceptor + DPS wing. The kill, my friends, is NOT guaranteed.

The concern regarding cloaking, and capitalized upon by doing it AFK, is the cyno -- yet there too, it has happened our blops was met with a counter-blops and hilarity ensued.

In nullsec, I would take the statement "automatic success" concerning PvP-PvE engagements with a grain of salt. Alliances DO respond (or they ought to) to threats. Even though you cannot "force" the engagement on a cloaked vessel, and you have to wait for it to make its move, you DO get to shoot back at some point.

For those wishing to rat in peace, solo, there is always highsec -- and it is precisely this behaviour an AFK cloaker counters. Since we all like to talk about counters ... what counter do we have to you ratting in absolute safety?

But I digress. Point I was going to make: it's not because people CAN opt-out of the content you wish to bestow upon them, that this is automatically the way it's going to go down. The comparison that decides if "the next stage gets to happen" could involve bubbling the station, baiting tactics, shotgunning interceptors and all kinds of manoevres -- as compared to "pretending" to PvE with PvP fits, fitting a cyno, having friends on comms ready to back you up, ... If you choose to dock up and deny us content, we get to watch you not make any ISK. Mechanics working as intended I would say.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2979 - 2015-09-01 14:35:21 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I want to be able to threaten, and coerce a response from the PvE ship that is then compared to my effort.
I want the comparison to decide whether the next stage, an actual engagement in space, gets to happen.

...

If you don't want to force an engagement, why did you state that a cloaked ship "cannot force an engagement" as if that was a problem?

And the PvE player does have to take an action, and should they fail or be ill prepared, they will frequently lose, as the killboards clearly show. In any given situation, if both sides perform perfectly the outcome will always be the same. Currently, if a PvE player performs everything perfectly from preparation through execution then they will evade. This is the closest to a draw as you can get. The PvP player loses nothing but doesn't get to perform his action (killing the PvE player) and the PvE player loses nothing but doesn't get to perform his action (shooting his rats). That's balanced.

The problem is that any mechanic will get minmaxed, and adding something that allows cloakers to get around a PvE players evasion will become the goto move for taking down PvE players, and PvE will simply die. As it stands, a couple of seconds where your attention is diverted is enough to guarantee your death in PvE.

I just said threaten, not force an engagement.

I cannot threaten something when it is completely beyond my grasp, and when I play PvE I can arrange this level of defense.

I want to have an opposed contest, comparing the quality and nature of effort presented by both sides for the result.

Even if the engagement is not as balanced as I would prefer, having an absolute defense on both sides denies resolution, and I think that is what we want from this.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2980 - 2015-09-01 14:41:48 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Quick injection to let you guys know not all PvP vs. PvE encounters are by definition one sided.

Late last night we were roaming Phoebe Freeport, and what started off with a couple of Domi's and Mackinaws on DScan soon escalated to our intended victims having more battleships on grid than we had members in our fleet. YaY for content! At one point we managed to single out one Domi (through clever use of bubbles) and blap him, only to find ourselves boxed in and having to make a run for our very lives.

...

It sounds like you encountered a group of players who set out bait for you, and attempted an ambush when you went for it.

I find it ironic that they used expectations of a small group, on it's own, as the bait.
We so come to expect seeing this kind of thing, that we can be baited by it as well.

These situations are genuine opportunities, for the right players.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...