These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3641 - 2015-12-03 23:46:54 UTC
Jerghoul wrote:


A minor fuel requirement is hardly an intrusive suggestion.

I am not sure how restricting the cyno-cloak combination to a few specialized ships would break the whole idea behind black ops battleships either if you preferred that solution (it is a solution, though I will not outline why AFK cloaking is ok in a black ops battleship unless someone specifically wants to know).

The main point remains that the cyno-cloak combination potential for nullsec AFK campers is a serious design flaw that needs to be resolved. Design flaw defined here as a game mechanic that is used specifically to increase Eve player attrition (get people to not play Eve).


It is very simple. You have two players. Player A is using a cloak to scout, gather intel, etc. He is an active cloak user.

Player B logs in at a safe spot, cloaks up goes AFK.

You deem B a "problem"....why screw over A, even slightly to get at B?

That is inherently bad game design. Especially when the "problem" is not really an actual problem.

"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

Jerghoul
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#3642 - 2015-12-03 23:53:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghoul
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
The very fact you keep banging on about cyno-cloaks tells me you've never seen the inside of J space. They door is over there.


I have tried to consistently present this as a null-sec issue. I apologize if any lapses in qualifying with "null-sec" lead you to misunderstand what part of Eve space the design flaw relates to.

Design flaw defined as game mechanisms used specifically to increase player attrition (get people to not play Eve).


Teckos Pech wrote:
Jerghoul wrote:


A minor fuel requirement is hardly an intrusive suggestion.

I am not sure how restricting the cyno-cloak combination to a few specialized ships would break the whole idea behind black ops battleships either if you preferred that solution (it is a solution, though I will not outline why AFK cloaking is ok in a black ops battleship unless someone specifically wants to know).

The main point remains that the cyno-cloak combination potential for nullsec AFK campers is a serious design flaw that needs to be resolved. Design flaw defined here as a game mechanic that is used specifically to increase Eve player attrition (get people to not play Eve).


It is very simple. You have two players. Player A is using a cloak to scout, gather intel, etc. He is an active cloak user.

Player B logs in at a safe spot, cloaks up goes AFK.

You deem B a "problem"....why screw over A, even slightly to get at B?

That is inherently bad game design. Especially when the "problem" is not really an actual problem.



Game mechanisms that are used specifically to increase Eve player attrition (get people to quit Eve) are extremely flawed.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3643 - 2015-12-03 23:58:29 UTC
Jerghoul wrote:


The main point remains that the cyno-cloak combination potential for nullsec AFK campers is a serious design flaw that needs to be resolved. Design flaw defined here as a game mechanic that is used specifically to increase Eve player attrition (get people to not play Eve).


Design flaw...why? Because it makes you less safe? Well boo-hoo.

Further, if a cyno is being activated and people are jumping through....nobody is AFK.

"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

Jerghoul
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#3644 - 2015-12-04 00:24:35 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Jerghoul wrote:


The main point remains that the cyno-cloak combination potential for nullsec AFK campers is a serious design flaw that needs to be resolved. Design flaw defined here as a game mechanic that is used specifically to increase Eve player attrition (get people to not play Eve).


Design flaw...why? Because it makes you less safe? Well boo-hoo.

Further, if a cyno is being activated and people are jumping through....nobody is AFK.


Null-sec AFK cloaky camping is a sov war technique used to target activity levels.

Its main goal is to discourage players from logging on in general, and more specifically to limit the number of players an alliance can muster in battle. Its not economic war so much as a measure to increase player attrition.

The nullsec AFK cloaky camping (with inferred cyno potential) is meant to keep players out of the game friend. Because killing your opponents activity levels helps win wars.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3645 - 2015-12-04 00:47:07 UTC
Jerghoul wrote:


Null-sec AFK cloaky camping is a sov war technique used to target activity levels.


Nope, and I've fought in quite a few sov wars. Never used AFK cloaking.

Quote:
Its main goal is to discourage players from logging on in general, and more specifically to limit the number of players an alliance can muster in battle. Its not economic war so much as a measure to increase player attrition.


Have you fought in many sov conflicts?

Quote:
The nullsec AFK cloaky camping (with inferred cyno potential) is meant to keep players out of the game friend. Because killing your opponents activity levels helps win wars.


No, not really. Even today, people just bring a fleet, park a guy with the magic wand in range of the target, and everyone just waits...hoping for a fight.

I know, I've been on a couple of deployments where we attacked sov. No real cloaking camping.

"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

Jerghoul
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#3646 - 2015-12-04 00:57:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghoul
Teckos Pech wrote:
Jerghoul wrote:


Null-sec AFK cloaky camping is a sov war technique used to target activity levels.


Nope, and I've fought in quite a few sov wars. Never used AFK cloaking.

Quote:
Its main goal is to discourage players from logging on in general, and more specifically to limit the number of players an alliance can muster in battle. Its not economic war so much as a measure to increase player attrition.


Have you fought in many sov conflicts?

Quote:
The nullsec AFK cloaky camping (with inferred cyno potential) is meant to keep players out of the game friend. Because killing your opponents activity levels helps win wars.


No, not really. Even today, people just bring a fleet, park a guy with the magic wand in range of the target, and everyone just waits...hoping for a fight.

I know, I've been on a couple of deployments where we attacked sov. No real cloaking camping.


Nothing you said there contradicted what I said. I will clarify the one that seemed unclear.

Null-sec AFK cloaky camping is *A* sov war technique used to target activity levels. It does not exclude the use of other sov war techniques and tactics that can provide actual content instead of seeking to eliminate it.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3647 - 2015-12-04 01:16:58 UTC
Jerghoul wrote:

The purpose is to require cloaked ships to actively resupply regularly.


So, to completely defeat the intent of the cloaking device to begin with, then.

Because cloaks are intended to let you operate behind enemy lines or in hostile territory for a long time, until an opportune strike is possible.


Quote:

I do not see how that could cause undue hardship.


Roll

Of course you don't.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3648 - 2015-12-04 01:20:31 UTC
Jerghoul wrote:

Null-sec AFK cloaky camping is a sov war technique used to target activity levels.


Stop repeating this lie, or start getting reported for trolling/spamming. I'm done with this carebear bullshit. You do not get to just repeat the same bullshit and expect people to approach this as though it were the truth.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#3649 - 2015-12-04 01:28:25 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:


Could you find it in your heart to consider cloaked up = safe? Because true, it's not a station. But they do spend a highslot and considerable CPU, in return for the ability to move unseen. Other than that, though, they're pretty much doing nothing. Is there any good reason why they shouldn't be safe? They're not making ISK, they're not mining roids, they're not shooting you (yet) ...... they are simply logged in and sitting there. Is that a capital offense?


Not empty quoting.


Undocked means at risk. That's the very first principal of EVE. Supporters of cloaking use that very same argument to protect their own safety, because others would prevent them from suppressing the value of the space they camp if there was a choice.

Profit comes from many sources. They may not be making isk, but their goal is getting kills, suppressing PvE, and reducing the value of the system. Just because they aren't bringing in OAK does not mean they aren't effective at their goals.


Not all ships are equally at risk when undocked. So I don't have a problem with cloaks at a safe being very, very safe because it is also very limited game play for the person doing it. To remain that safe they have to do...pretty much nothing. I'm good with it. Strikes me as reasonably balanced.



Of course you are good with it. It gives you everything you want at a cost so negligible you are happy to pay it. Screw the other guy, he is not your playstyle and counts as sub-human destructible terrain.

Any effort to change it, no matter how light the impact on other uses of the cloak, is somehow unreasonable despite the massive impact it has on the people complaining about it. Care to guess how many that is? Most of those players come here, post once or twice, get put through the wringer by the troll patrol and give up. Yet somehow this comes up all the time. Same group of maybe a dozen shouting it down over and over, and every few weeks a new person posting the same problem. For years.
Jerghoul
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#3650 - 2015-12-04 01:35:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghoul
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Jerghoul wrote:

Null-sec AFK cloaky camping is a sov war technique used to target activity levels.


Stop repeating this lie, or start getting reported for trolling/spamming. I'm done with this carebear bullshit. You do not get to just repeat the same bullshit and expect people to approach this as though it were the truth.


Obviously all we are doing here is sharing our opinions. I can accept that you may not have experienced null sec cloaky camping (specifically cloak + cyno potential) used as a way to increase Eve player attrition (get people to not play eve), but you should humour the possibility that it indeed does take place.

A game mechanism (cloak + cyno potential) used to increase player attrition is a flawed game design feature. Not anyone's fault. Players are given tools to use as they see fit, and 6 week release cycles allow devs to quickly change mechanisms that have an undesirable effect.

I think we can all agree that increasing Eve player attrition is an undesirable effect.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3651 - 2015-12-04 01:36:05 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Of course you are good with it. It gives you everything you want at a cost so negligible you are happy to pay it. Screw the other guy, he is not your playstyle and counts as sub-human destructible terrain.


And of course you don't like it, it has a slight negative effect on your desire to rat while completely afk in nullsec space.


Quote:

Any effort to change it, no matter how light the impact on other uses of the cloak


Nothing that you or that NPC alt sock puppet have suggested can be categorized as "light". You both have suggested basically gutting cloaking devices completely to assuage your rabid risk aversion.

But you always betray the only real problem here.

You're scared because local lets you know there is a red around. Simple solution, remove local. And the funny is, that's probably what's going to happen anyway. You might get a deployable to put it back with a sixty second delay or something, but your perfect intel tool is going to die in the near future, probably after they finally get around to deleting off grid boosts.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3652 - 2015-12-04 01:41:17 UTC
Jerghoul wrote:

Obviously all we are doing here is sharing our opinions.


You and Mike certainly are not.

Both of you are just repeating a lie over and over again, expecting people to approach this as though your premise was true or valid.

And it is neither.


Quote:

I can accept that you may not have experienced null sec cloaky camping (specifically cloak + cyno potential) used as a way to increase Eve player attrition (get people to not play eve), but you should humour the possibility that it indeed does take place.


Or, my experience suggests that your claim is a lie, and I'm not going to humor a damned thing.

But thanks for basically admitting to what I was saying up above.

Quote:

A game mechanism (cloak + cyno potential) used to increase player attrition is a flawed game design feature.


And none exists here.

Quote:

I think we can all agree that increasing Eve player attrition is an undesirable effect.


Not as a whole, no. Some people simply don't belong in this game.

And that includes anyone who refuses to play the game if they have more than zero risk. Screw that and screw them.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3653 - 2015-12-04 01:42:47 UTC
Not a sock puppet I fear.

Karous, it probably would be more constructive if you considered things more for their merits instead of focusing on whatever you imagine might be posters' internal motivations. Motivational analysis are seldom relevant and always destructive.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3654 - 2015-12-04 01:49:14 UTC
Jerghul wrote:

Karous, it probably would be more constructive if you considered things more for their merits instead of focusing on whatever you imagine might be posters' internal motivations.


I am considering it based on it's merits(lack thereof), but I refuse to ignore the nonsense tactic you two are using either.

Your claim has no merit. His claim is the same. Repeating it does not magically make it true, or your basic points any less wrong. The moon landing actually happened, aliens did not kill JFK, and cloaks do not exist to drive down activity. (only cowardice does that, so maybe we should nerf the thing that enables you to act like such chickens?)

Heck, you even admitted that's what you are doing, you expect people to "humor" your lie and shift the discussion around it.

And the answer to that is no. You two can either discuss the facts, or keep spamming the same cut and pasted nonsense and get reported for it.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3655 - 2015-12-04 01:57:19 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Jerghul wrote:

Karous, it probably would be more constructive if you considered things more for their merits instead of focusing on whatever you imagine might be posters' internal motivations.


I am considering it based on it's merits(lack thereof), but I refuse to ignore the nonsense tactic you two are using either.

Your claim has no merit. His claim is the same. Repeating it does not magically make it true, or your basic points any less wrong. The moon landing actually happened, aliens did not kill JFK, and cloaks do not exist to drive down activity. (only cowardice does that, so maybe we should nerf the thing that enables you to act like such chickens?)

Heck, you even admitted that's what you are doing, you expect people to "humor" your lie and shift the discussion around it.

And the answer to that is no. You two can either discuss the facts, or keep spamming the same cut and pasted nonsense and get reported for it.


Except of course it is not a lie. null sec AFK cloaking is a sov war techique used specifically to increase Eve player attrition (get people to not play Eve).

You could argue that its not widespread enough to cause concern or justify changes to specific mechanism used (cloak + cyno potential), or you could suggest that dev's collect data to see how null-sec afk cloaky camping impacts on activity.

What you cannot do is dismiss it as a lie. Not without lying at least.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3656 - 2015-12-04 02:00:54 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
null sec AFK cloaking is a sov war techique used specifically to increase Eve player attrition (get people to not play Eve).


No, it's not.

The only thing doing that is risk aversion and cowardice. And the only thing enabling that is local.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#3657 - 2015-12-04 03:31:37 UTC
You cannot converse with Karrous.

All he will do is call anything he does not like a lie, spew a lot of trollish hatred at anyone not willing to kick puppies and eat babies for fun, and derail any discussion of a topic he disagrees with.

He has already said on multiple occasions that there is no way anyone whom he deems a caeebear is capable of being honest. We are also destructible terrain, and have no right to even play the game. We also do not have the right to hold or share "improper" opinions.

He is the sole arbiter of what and who belongs in game.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3658 - 2015-12-04 04:37:17 UTC
Jerghoul wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
The very fact you keep banging on about cyno-cloaks tells me you've never seen the inside of J space. They door is over there.


I have tried to consistently present this as a null-sec issue. I apologize if any lapses in qualifying with "null-sec" lead you to misunderstand what part of Eve space the design flaw relates to.

Design flaw defined as game mechanisms used specifically to increase player attrition (get people to not play Eve).


Teckos Pech wrote:
Jerghoul wrote:


A minor fuel requirement is hardly an intrusive suggestion.

I am not sure how restricting the cyno-cloak combination to a few specialized ships would break the whole idea behind black ops battleships either if you preferred that solution (it is a solution, though I will not outline why AFK cloaking is ok in a black ops battleship unless someone specifically wants to know).

The main point remains that the cyno-cloak combination potential for nullsec AFK campers is a serious design flaw that needs to be resolved. Design flaw defined here as a game mechanic that is used specifically to increase Eve player attrition (get people to not play Eve).


It is very simple. You have two players. Player A is using a cloak to scout, gather intel, etc. He is an active cloak user.

Player B logs in at a safe spot, cloaks up goes AFK.

You deem B a "problem"....why screw over A, even slightly to get at B?

That is inherently bad game design. Especially when the "problem" is not really an actual problem.



Game mechanisms that are used specifically to increase Eve player attrition (get people to quit Eve) are extremely flawed.


This is a load of horse crap.

"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
#3659 - 2015-12-04 04:45:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Jerghoul wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Jerghoul wrote:


Null-sec AFK cloaky camping is a sov war technique used to target activity levels.


Nope, and I've fought in quite a few sov wars. Never used AFK cloaking.

Quote:
Its main goal is to discourage players from logging on in general, and more specifically to limit the number of players an alliance can muster in battle. Its not economic war so much as a measure to increase player attrition.


Have you fought in many sov conflicts?

Quote:
The nullsec AFK cloaky camping (with inferred cyno potential) is meant to keep players out of the game friend. Because killing your opponents activity levels helps win wars.


No, not really. Even today, people just bring a fleet, park a guy with the magic wand in range of the target, and everyone just waits...hoping for a fight.

I know, I've been on a couple of deployments where we attacked sov. No real cloaking camping.


Nothing you said there contradicted what I said. I will clarify the one that seemed unclear.

Null-sec AFK cloaky camping is *A* sov war technique used to target activity levels. It does not exclude the use of other sov war techniques and tactics that can provide actual content instead of seeking to eliminate it.


Other than it is the voice of experience saying you are full of Bravo Sierra. I have fought in the Max campaign, BoB's push into the South East (no idea what it was named, most of my time was spent in Wicked Creek and the surrounding regions) the last ditch effort of BoB to recapture their former empire after Goons disbanded the alliance, the war in Syndicate, Arridia, and Fountain against PL and Son's of Tangra, then the invasion of Delve, IT's invasion of Cloud Ring, IT's invasion of the North, IT's invasion of Catch and supporting the Initiative's war against AAA, and also the defense of Fountain. Then after EXE joined up with the Imperium/CFC we were present for the TEST deployment to Vale of the Silent, then the CFC deployment to Branch which wiped out White Noise and started the downfall of the Drone Region Federation, then we deployed south to take Delve, Querious and Period Basis along with TEST. Then I was somewhat involved in the Imperium/CFC war with TEST and the Honey Badger Coalition.

Exactly what Sov wars have you fought in?

And in exactly none of those sov wars was AFK cloaking at thing that I know of. Maybe it was and nobody told me about it, but I highly doubt.

My money is on you are jut making **** up.

"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
#3660 - 2015-12-04 04:49:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:


Could you find it in your heart to consider cloaked up = safe? Because true, it's not a station. But they do spend a highslot and considerable CPU, in return for the ability to move unseen. Other than that, though, they're pretty much doing nothing. Is there any good reason why they shouldn't be safe? They're not making ISK, they're not mining roids, they're not shooting you (yet) ...... they are simply logged in and sitting there. Is that a capital offense?


Not empty quoting.


Undocked means at risk. That's the very first principal of EVE. Supporters of cloaking use that very same argument to protect their own safety, because others would prevent them from suppressing the value of the space they camp if there was a choice.

Profit comes from many sources. They may not be making isk, but their goal is getting kills, suppressing PvE, and reducing the value of the system. Just because they aren't bringing in OAK does not mean they aren't effective at their goals.


Not all ships are equally at risk when undocked. So I don't have a problem with cloaks at a safe being very, very safe because it is also very limited game play for the person doing it. To remain that safe they have to do...pretty much nothing. I'm good with it. Strikes me as reasonably balanced.



Of course you are good with it. It gives you everything you want at a cost so negligible you are happy to pay it. Screw the other guy, he is not your playstyle and counts as sub-human destructible terrain.

Any effort to change it, no matter how light the impact on other uses of the cloak, is somehow unreasonable despite the massive impact it has on the people complaining about it. Care to guess how many that is? Most of those players come here, post once or twice, get put through the wringer by the troll patrol and give up. Yet somehow this comes up all the time. Same group of maybe a dozen shouting it down over and over, and every few weeks a new person posting the same problem. For years.



This is all well and good other than the fact that I almost never AFK camp. I have only done in FinFleet systems and that was because, well they were FinFleet systems. Those **** ******* should be AFK camped 24/7 IMO.

The massive impact...there you go again with that ISK/hour argument. Of course you can't admit it. Whatever.

"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