These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3341 - 2015-10-01 03:32:06 UTC
There is perhaps another possibility to fix The Issue... give a ship an 80 second timer after decloaking before it can light a cyno?

That would mean the hunter has to either survive long enough on his own behalf, cyno in the troops at a safespot / system nextdoor, or decloak at a deep safe and then warp on the target.

Realistically speaking, it would simply mean the prey gets a chance to blap the hunter before things go horribly wrong. End result may be a seriously overtanked hunterkiller, idk. It's not like I thought real hard about this. But it's a possibility.

Scanning the cloakies is of course still my preference, although they pose much less of a threat if it can't *immediately* tackle and cyno.
Woozlez
Hundred Acre Mine Co.
#3342 - 2015-10-01 14:56:11 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Woozlez wrote:
Make cloaking devices consume fuel relative to the size of the ship.


Ok, my initial response was to point out the suggestion is horrible and that you are horrible...but no...

Fuel is a horrible idea because cloaking ships in general have fairly small cargo bays and need to carry around stuff like ammo and nanite paste.


(Thus limiting the length of time a ship can be cloaked, forcing the camper to make choices about each.)

Quote:
Further it does nothing with regards to how people use local and secure an advantage over anyone entering system.


Except by limiting how long they may remain cloaked there. IT doesn't eliminate the cloaky aspect of Pvp, it just places a limit on how long a ship may do so.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#3343 - 2015-10-01 14:56:11 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
There is perhaps another possibility to fix The Issue... give a ship an 80 second timer after decloaking before it can light a cyno?

That would mean the hunter has to either survive long enough on his own behalf, cyno in the troops at a safespot / system nextdoor, or decloak at a deep safe and then warp on the target.

Realistically speaking, it would simply mean the prey gets a chance to blap the hunter before things go horribly wrong. End result may be a seriously overtanked hunterkiller, idk. It's not like I thought real hard about this. But it's a possibility.

Scanning the cloakies is of course still my preference, although they pose much less of a threat if it can't *immediately* tackle and cyno.

Already been suggested, and while I don't recall it being shot down, it simply faded from discussion.

I could likely dig up the post, it was under my name from a few months back. Maybe longer, but in this thread.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#3344 - 2015-10-01 15:03:34 UTC
Woozlez wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Woozlez wrote:
Make cloaking devices consume fuel relative to the size of the ship.


Ok, my initial response was to point out the suggestion is horrible and that you are horrible...but no...

Fuel is a horrible idea because cloaking ships in general have fairly small cargo bays and need to carry around stuff like ammo and nanite paste.


(Thus limiting the length of time a ship can be cloaked, forcing the camper to make choices about each.)

Quote:
Further it does nothing with regards to how people use local and secure an advantage over anyone entering system.


Except by limiting how long they may remain cloaked there. IT doesn't eliminate the cloaky aspect of Pvp, it just places a limit on how long a ship may do so.

It diminishes the cloaky aspect harshly.

In many cases, a cloak is the only means of reliable concealment where stations and POS are not options.

Added to which, you left my nigh insurmountable PvE defenses completely intact.

If you want to change how PvE like myself is limited by cloaked ships, we need skin in the game too. Right now we avoid the game, with risk only appearing in cases of player error.
You left me with my perfect defense, while I could already have bubble ganked the cloaker while he came into the system.
Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#3345 - 2015-10-01 15:30:20 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Please. The only person afraid of PvP is you and those like you under that cloak.

I don't play the way you play. Get over it. You are not the ultimate arbiter of the one twue way.

I have never asked for a way to exclusively PvE. What I asked was for a way to fight to secure space for my own purpose. There is literally nothing more EVE-like. It does not matter if I want to use that space to shoot rats or practice synchronized space swimming. You are terrified that you might have to face a prepared defender, and that's all you.

So long as you hide under a cloak you are the most risk averse type of player in the game.


Wait wait wait, you, who has exactly zero kills to date are accusing others of being afraid to PvP?

My IQ dropped from reading that.

I will attack you just to attack for the sake of the fight. A red killboard is better than no killboard. You have zero credibility right now, Mr. Mike.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#3346 - 2015-10-01 15:49:28 UTC
Because attacking your opponent instead of his argument is always a good sign of a strong position.

Double standards are always fun for the people it benefits, I am not surprised you cling to yours so fanatically.

Careful of those IQ drops, you didn't have that much to spare in the first place.
Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#3347 - 2015-10-01 16:01:13 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Because attacking your opponent instead of his argument is always a good sign of a strong position.

Double standards are always fun for the people it benefits, I am not surprised you cling to yours so fanatically.

Careful of those IQ drops, you didn't have that much to spare in the first place.


Yet again, I suggested a nerf to you (local) as well as a nerf to me (cloaking). I'm not the one with double standards here.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3348 - 2015-10-01 16:02:20 UTC
Woozlez wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Woozlez wrote:
Make cloaking devices consume fuel relative to the size of the ship.


Ok, my initial response was to point out the suggestion is horrible and that you are horrible...but no...

Fuel is a horrible idea because cloaking ships in general have fairly small cargo bays and need to carry around stuff like ammo and nanite paste.


(Thus limiting the length of time a ship can be cloaked, forcing the camper to make choices about each.)

Quote:
Further it does nothing with regards to how people use local and secure an advantage over anyone entering system.


Except by limiting how long they may remain cloaked there. IT doesn't eliminate the cloaky aspect of Pvp, it just places a limit on how long a ship may do so.


It is also a nerf to cloaking ships where the player is ACTIVE.

When you nerf active players to get at the in-acitve ones you have a horrible idea.

"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
#3349 - 2015-10-01 16:29:06 UTC
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Because attacking your opponent instead of his argument is always a good sign of a strong position.

Double standards are always fun for the people it benefits, I am not surprised you cling to yours so fanatically.

Careful of those IQ drops, you didn't have that much to spare in the first place.


Yet again, I suggested a nerf to you (local) as well as a nerf to me (cloaking). I'm not the one with double standards here.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.


To be fair to Mike he has made some good suggestions of how the OA could work to eliminate AFK cloaking and make intel vulnerable to attack.

The trick is...will CCP do that? Probably wont be perfect right out of the box, but hopefully they'll iterate on it and we'll get something good.

"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

Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#3350 - 2015-10-01 16:38:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Cidanel Afuran
Teckos Pech wrote:

To be fair to Mike he has made some good suggestions of how the OA could work to eliminate AFK cloaking and make intel vulnerable to attack.

The trick is...will CCP do that? Probably wont be perfect right out of the box, but hopefully they'll iterate on it and we'll get something good.


I'm OK with a nerf to cloaks, but only if it goes hand in hand with a nerf to PvE-ers 100% effective line of defense (local).

Until Mike agrees to nerf his playstyle along with nerfing mine, we will never see eye to eye.

It also bothers me that he refuses to use existing game mechanics to combat someone in a cloaked ship, and then cries for a nerf.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#3351 - 2015-10-01 22:06:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
There are no existing mechanics to deal with a cloaked ship.

You can:

1. Fly Suicidal. Completely unreasonable considering you won't even consider being vulnerable for 10 seconds upon logging in at a random time of your choosing.

2. Fly crippled for PvE. Completely unreasonable until there is way to combat what's causing the issue. Regardless if it's flying with escorts, flying with a compromised PvP competitive fit, for many players this will drop profits well below that of a high sec income, which is itself unreasonable for the level of risk inherent in operating in Null Sec.

3. Simply not play. That can mean moving over a system or two, or just plain not play at all. Either way the space with the cloaked camper is worth only half(ish) what it was, and since it's impossible to bring aggression to the person cutting your profits there is exactly no point in even being there at all. Rigged games where it's impossible to win are not fun.

All other 'counters' require the cloaked pilot to make both grievous errors *and* be really unlucky. You can bait them- requiring the pilot to choose to participate, catch them at gates- requiring the pilot to choose to move, or just running into them by chance- pretty much requiring the pilot to choose to fly up close enough to kiss

That situation is not balanced except by Dev Fiat. All that has been asked is the ability to bring PvP to the person contesting the right to use the space. That's supposed to be how the sandbox works.
Ziranda Hakuli
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3352 - 2015-10-02 01:23:37 UTC
Time to be annoying in a GOON renters space and cloak up cause i got my ceptor or what there and head off to work.

What I gather is folks are tired of the AFK cloakers. Why punish just them? Why not affect all those who have been AGl for like 20 minutes.

Imagine what would happen if this is ever implemented.
1> AFK in NullSec leaves system cause user is not there to do things.
2> AFK OGB will no longer be around ALL day LONG!!! ALL DAY!!!
3> Incursion runners will also have to poke their OGBs every now an then...Imagine the tears when an HQ fleet dies due to owner of the OGB has not been poked in that 20 minute time frame.

This is something that would solve many iissues that I have seen over the years of playing and actually force people to "PLAY" the game and not be AFK all the time. I remember the time when there was the AFKers in mission sites that ran all day long with drones out and super passive tank that cannot be killed. This still happens but not to the extent that it once did.

Now if CCP did an inactivity timer of 20 to 30 minutes would make me giggle. just because the amount of chaos it wouldbring.

go with it have fun.
Woozlez
Hundred Acre Mine Co.
#3353 - 2015-10-02 13:32:45 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Woozlez wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Woozlez wrote:
Make cloaking devices consume fuel relative to the size of the ship.


Ok, my initial response was to point out the suggestion is horrible and that you are horrible...but no...

Fuel is a horrible idea because cloaking ships in general have fairly small cargo bays and need to carry around stuff like ammo and nanite paste.


(Thus limiting the length of time a ship can be cloaked, forcing the camper to make choices about each.)

Quote:
Further it does nothing with regards to how people use local and secure an advantage over anyone entering system.


Except by limiting how long they may remain cloaked there. IT doesn't eliminate the cloaky aspect of Pvp, it just places a limit on how long a ship may do so.


It is also a nerf to cloaking ships where the player is ACTIVE.

When you nerf active players to get at the in-acitve ones you have a horrible idea.


Other than a minor reduction in the amount of cargo space, how is this a nerf? They can still do everything they did before.

If it makes you feel better, increase the cargo space on cloaky camper ships by 5%
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#3354 - 2015-10-02 14:10:21 UTC
Woozlez wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

It is also a nerf to cloaking ships where the player is ACTIVE.

When you nerf active players to get at the in-acitve ones you have a horrible idea.


Other than a minor reduction in the amount of cargo space, how is this a nerf? They can still do everything they did before.

If it makes you feel better, increase the cargo space on cloaky camper ships by 5%

I seem to be picking up on an apparent perception that AFK Camping is something most, if not all, cloaked ships do.

AFK camping is predominantly done by players sitting in either an Outpost or in a POS. The POS sitting ones often notorious for OGB.
It seems taken for granted that this is expected, and that they are not playing the game while docked / shielded.
(Despite clear evidence that they are gaining ISK or affecting play directly, from their own actions*)
(*Market trading is free of space combat risk, and a popular way to make ISK, while OGB behind POS shields most definitely affects play directly, while neither are vulnerable to anything less than capable of threatening their host structure itself)

Cloaks predominantly are used in two ways, in non-wormhole space.
1. Travel through high risk bottlenecks, where brute force is not an option.

2. Passive use, where the player is either absent due to necessity, or present and monitoring like an observation post.
Neither of these can replace the cloak with alternatives, and both are keystone aspects of the game we need.

In wormhole space, the cloak defines the barrier between travel and concealment, and ISK making / collecting.
Don't upset them.... many are referred to as reavers and have dangerous appetites. They can make house calls to your system. Just don't make them want to do that....

The cloak tends to be a highly valued tool in many play styles NOT centered around blobbing / roaming, or simply using direct frontal assault as a defining strategy.

We need this tool to remain intact, and for that, it needs to avoid having time limits defined by fuel availability / access.
Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#3355 - 2015-10-02 14:39:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Cidanel Afuran
Mike Voidstar wrote:
There are no existing mechanics to deal with a cloaked ship.

You can:

1. Fly Suicidal. Completely unreasonable considering you won't even consider being vulnerable for 10 seconds upon logging in at a random time of your choosing.

2. Fly crippled for PvE. Completely unreasonable until there is way to combat what's causing the issue. Regardless if it's flying with escorts, flying with a compromised PvP competitive fit, for many players this will drop profits well below that of a high sec income, which is itself unreasonable for the level of risk inherent in operating in Null Sec.

3. Simply not play. That can mean moving over a system or two, or just plain not play at all. Either way the space with the cloaked camper is worth only half(ish) what it was, and since it's impossible to bring aggression to the person cutting your profits there is exactly no point in even being there at all. Rigged games where it's impossible to win are not fun.

All other 'counters' require the cloaked pilot to make both grievous errors *and* be really unlucky. You can bait them- requiring the pilot to choose to participate, catch them at gates- requiring the pilot to choose to move, or just running into them by chance- pretty much requiring the pilot to choose to fly up close enough to kiss

That situation is not balanced except by Dev Fiat. All that has been asked is the ability to bring PvP to the person contesting the right to use the space. That's supposed to be how the sandbox works.


/sigh. We have been over this Mike. Fitting a point to your PvE ship doesn't "cripple PvE". Stop being so dramatic. Hell, I've ratted in null in a PvP fit drake as bait before, but you can't bother to PvE in ANY PvP ship? Jesus.

Yet again, go back to WoW please.
Woozlez
Hundred Acre Mine Co.
#3356 - 2015-10-02 17:21:30 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:

I seem to be picking up on an apparent perception that AFK Camping is something most, if not all, cloaked ships do.


Incorrect.

Quote:
AFK camping is predominantly done by players sitting in either an Outpost or in a POS. The POS sitting ones often notorious for OGB.


You cannot be cloaked in station. Cloaking in a POS is pointless.

Quote:
It seems taken for granted that this is expected, and that they are not playing the game while docked / shielded.
(Despite clear evidence that they are gaining ISK or affecting play directly, from their own actions*)
(*Market trading is free of space combat risk, and a popular way to make ISK, while OGB behind POS shields most definitely affects play directly, while neither are vulnerable to anything less than capable of threatening their host structure itself)

Cloaks predominantly are used in two ways, in non-wormhole space.
1. Travel through high risk bottlenecks, where brute force is not an option.

2. Passive use, where the player is either absent due to necessity, or present and monitoring like an observation post.
Neither of these can replace the cloak with alternatives, and both are keystone aspects of the game we need.

In wormhole space, the cloak defines the barrier between travel and concealment, and ISK making / collecting.
Don't upset them.... many are referred to as reavers and have dangerous appetites. They can make house calls to your system. Just don't make them want to do that....

The cloak tends to be a highly valued tool in many play styles NOT centered around blobbing / roaming, or simply using direct frontal assault as a defining strategy.

We need this tool to remain intact, and for that, it needs to avoid having time limits defined by fuel availability / access.


My proposed change does not affect any of these things in the slightest. It would not remove cloaking from the game, nor would it affect its use by players present and playing the game.

The problem that exists is that player who logs into the game, warps to a place in a system, cloaks up, and goes to work for the day. The INactive player. For those who would otherwise participate in that system, it creates an unknown risk: Is the cloaky camper there or not? And the risk remains for the 8, 9, 10, 11, 12+ hours that the cloaky camper is actually AFK. Mining in these conditions is hazardous, as is running missions and such, as the AFK cloaky may return without any warning, and become active.

A clone with an AFK player cannot even be baited into showing themselves.

The fact is that there is no way to counter someone who cloaks up and goes away for the day.

Which is why some mechanic is needed for those who abuse the cloaking tool in a way that involves themselves when they are away.

My solution is simple: Limit the amount of time one may be cloaked by requiring the cloak to use fuel. When the fuel runs out, the cloak runs out. The length of a time a camper may be cloaked based upon the amount of fuel and the size of the ship can be debated and balanced, so that active players using a cloak are not affected, and those who abuse cloaking by cloaking up and going away for hours are.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#3357 - 2015-10-02 18:27:04 UTC
Woozlez wrote:

quoting Nikk Narrel
I seem to be picking up on an apparent perception that AFK Camping is something most, if not all, cloaked ships do.

Woozlez:
Incorrect.

And yet you throw out a so-called solution that WOULD affect all of them.
Even if it were no more than an additional burden to secure the fuel before each outing, it would affect all of them.

Woozlez wrote:

quoting Nikk Narrel
AFK camping is predominantly done by players sitting in either an Outpost or in a POS. The POS sitting ones often notorious for OGB.

Woozlez:
You cannot be cloaked in station. Cloaking in a POS is pointless.

You have a bit of tunnel vision there. I was talking about AFK Camping, not cloaking itself.
You can obviously AFK Camp using a cloak, but it is hardly the most popular way to do this.

Woozlez wrote:

quoting Nikk Narrel
It seems taken for granted that this is expected, and that they are not playing the game while docked / shielded.
(Despite clear evidence that they are gaining ISK or affecting play directly, from their own actions*)
(*Market trading is free of space combat risk, and a popular way to make ISK, while OGB behind POS shields most definitely affects play directly, while neither are vulnerable to anything less than capable of threatening their host structure itself)

Cloaks predominantly are used in two ways, in non-wormhole space.
1. Travel through high risk bottlenecks, where brute force is not an option.

2. Passive use, where the player is either absent due to necessity, or present and monitoring like an observation post.
Neither of these can replace the cloak with alternatives, and both are keystone aspects of the game we need.

In wormhole space, the cloak defines the barrier between travel and concealment, and ISK making / collecting.
Don't upset them.... many are referred to as reavers and have dangerous appetites. They can make house calls to your system. Just don't make them want to do that....

The cloak tends to be a highly valued tool in many play styles NOT centered around blobbing / roaming, or simply using direct frontal assault as a defining strategy.

We need this tool to remain intact, and for that, it needs to avoid having time limits defined by fuel availability / access.


Woozlez:
My proposed change does not affect any of these things in the slightest. It would not remove cloaking from the game, nor would it affect its use by players present and playing the game.

The problem that exists is that player who logs into the game, warps to a place in a system, cloaks up, and goes to work for the day. The INactive player. For those who would otherwise participate in that system, it creates an unknown risk: Is the cloaky camper there or not? And the risk remains for the 8, 9, 10, 11, 12+ hours that the cloaky camper is actually AFK. Mining in these conditions is hazardous, as is running missions and such, as the AFK cloaky may return without any warning, and become active.

A clone with an AFK player cannot even be baited into showing themselves.

The fact is that there is no way to counter someone who cloaks up and goes away for the day.

Which is why some mechanic is needed for those who abuse the cloaking tool in a way that involves themselves when they are away.

My solution is simple: Limit the amount of time one may be cloaked by requiring the cloak to use fuel. When the fuel runs out, the cloak runs out. The length of a time a camper may be cloaked based upon the amount of fuel and the size of the ship can be debated and balanced, so that active players using a cloak are not affected, and those who abuse cloaking by cloaking up and going away for hours are.


Your perception of need seems biased. The impact this has on EVE as a whole is far less dramatic.

Your expectation that this would not be unduly burdensome seems based on the perspective that YOU would not be bothered by any such difficulty.
Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#3358 - 2015-10-02 18:48:58 UTC
Woozlez wrote:
My solution is simple: Limit the amount of time one may be cloaked by requiring the cloak to use fuel. When the fuel runs out, the cloak runs out. The length of a time a camper may be cloaked based upon the amount of fuel and the size of the ship can be debated and balanced, so that active players using a cloak are not affected, and those who abuse cloaking by cloaking up and going away for hours are.


So now in addition to having to bring fuel into my WH for pos's, I have to bring cloak fuel in for a few dozen ships on a regular basis? Ain't no one got time for that.
Dextrome Thorphan
#3359 - 2015-10-02 19:23:36 UTC
Ines Tegator wrote:
There is no way to address cloaking without breaking the gameplay cloaking provides. Depth charges, fuel, capacitor, whatever, all undermine both the defense purpose of cloaking and the recon purpose, not to mention the "I have to take a bio break" aspect. Besides, cloaking is not the problem. The problem is with Local. A cloaker who is truly afk is harmless in every way. His only power is in making you paranoid.

Option 1: Remove cloakers from local:
-solves problem.
-creates new problems, such as surprise cynos.
-reduces the value of nullsec by making it more like wormholes.
-not a good idea.

Option 2: Remove inactive cloakers from local:
-solves problem
-makes local EVEN BETTER intel, since it will tell you whether a cloaker is active or not.
-much better then option 1, though still not ideal.

Option 3: Completely overhaul Local, Dscan, and Intel gathering in general.
-solves problem
-takes a lot of work
-updates EVE gameplay by 10 years. yay.
-new system may be worse then old one (ccp has a very bad track record on UI issues).
-UPDATE: I put together some suggestions on how to to do this.

Honestly, I can't decide whether to push the issue or not. The status quo is, at the least, reliably quo. Pushing for change in such a core aspect of gameplay may just lead to trouble. On the other hand, Local as an intel tool is stupid and Dscan is decades out of date as a gameplay feature.

^
this
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3360 - 2015-10-02 19:36:01 UTC
Woozlez wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:


It is also a nerf to cloaking ships where the player is ACTIVE.

When you nerf active players to get at the in-acitve ones you have a horrible idea.


Other than a minor reduction in the amount of cargo space, how is this a nerf? They can still do everything they did before.

If it makes you feel better, increase the cargo space on cloaky camper ships by 5%


You have never been on a long deployment then apparently. I've had a cloaky in space for days on end. When I would get done doing what needed to be done, I'd log in space.

"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