These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3881 - 2015-12-06 23:01:49 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Jerghul wrote:

The issue we should be discussing is what might be the least intrusive intervention we can devise.



1) Remove local.

But you won't accept that because "risk" so...

2) Cloaked players do not appear in local.


Issue resolved all uses of cloaking preserved. Although doubtless not to the satisfaction of the risk averse bears.


Of course they'll cry about it. Their basic complaint is a huge false flag.

"Waah, we can see them in local!"

Okay, so we'll remove them from local.

"Waah, we have ANY RISK AT ALL!"

... then why are you playing EVE to begin with?

"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.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3882 - 2015-12-06 23:03:42 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
"Can you or can you not give us an example of AFK cloaking being the sharp tip of a sov war spear?"

Can I find examples of alliances I know have been subject to AFK camping and show they lost a lot of members when that happened?

Sure. God invented Dotlan for purposes like that.

Would that be meaningful? Nope.

Tell you what, lets pretend I did that, and you can immediately start on why player loss was actually due to other things, and besides, how many have actually left Eve, and do you know for sure they are not just taking a break anyway etc?

It would save me the wasted effort.


So....short answer is, "No."

I'm sorry, but if you make a claim one should be able to back it up.

And, no I don't need to come up reasons for Alliances losing pilots then space because your claim is unsupported.

FYI, God did not invent Dotlan, Wollari did, give the guy his credit, sheesh. Roll

"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
#3883 - 2015-12-06 23:07:35 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Jerghul wrote:

Its more a question of accepting that null sec afk-cloaky camping may negatively effect Eve player retention and think it fine that the developers look into it.


I can, with as much or more validity, say that highsec missions and mining negatively effect EVE player retention. (And I'd probably be right, given CCP's own numbers on the matter) And since highsec has more population, the effect on retention would be decidedly more pronounced.

So should we have CCP "look into" deleting highsec?

But of course you'll try to handwave that away.


Agreed, after running Damsel in Distress for the 50th time I could see a player say, "This is it...WTF, can't this idiot damsel not get into distress?" and then logins start to drop off, followed by canceling their subscription.

Problem is those players do not really understand the game. EVE is not about awesome missions and PvE content as that content, generally speaking, rather sucks hard.

The PvP is where the action is at, IMO. Either you love that, or hate it...and in the latter case you quite as you realize this is not the game for you.

Of those players I knew form my early days, those who chose PvE content over PvP are mostly gone. Whereas those who chose PvP have stuck around far, far longer.


So once again you and those like you are doing the sandbox 'right', and those that do other things are 'wrong'. Despite the fact that less than 20% of log ins engage in PvP?


Snipping the rest of the screed....

No Mike, I'm pointing out that much of the PvE content sucks and is basically a means to an end. Most long term players are those who interact with others which usually involves some sort of PvP (ship-to-ship, market, 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
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3884 - 2015-12-06 23:10:26 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Here's a non anecdotal thought to consider.

If this is so powerful and makes people quit, why have MOA not shattered the CFC yet?

Now consider that this has not happened directly shows us that being "affected" by cloakers is a mindset and player choice.

Perhaps then sov null teaches us only the strong who are prepared to fight for their empire survive. That those who don't, who cower at the possibility of a fight, who run from the mere whisper of a faceless boogieman are ran out of their area.

Sounds a lot like it's working as intended to me.


My thoughts exactly. If an alliance had an AFK cloaker in most of their systems my guess is they'd start doing stuff to try and bait them. Eventually you have to do something otherwise it becomes an empty threat which will be ignored. Heck even just sending a sacrificial lamb out there to see what they are in. And then the big reveal.....ventures of DOOM!!!!

"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
#3885 - 2015-12-06 23:12:26 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Well I give Jerghul his due, that's a new bit of Bravo Sierra to throw into the debate.

So over the last few pages he's been trying to claim this affects player retention, without any proof whatsoever?
And Mike has still been on his invulnerability line? Even though that's a two way street. But let's ignore one of the ways and simply focus on the cloaker?

I must say, it's all very interesting stuff. Please, do continue. Straight


It effects player retention (have more than 0 players quit Eve for lack of usable content in 0-sec systems?).

The only question is to what degree.

The degree of course is what should determine the level of Dev intervention.


Right, they can't go join an alliance that can hold their space and deal with cloaked ventures. Nope, must be too much effort or those alliances are too insular, or [insert Bravo Sierra reason here].

"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
#3886 - 2015-12-06 23:13:16 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Here's a non anecdotal thought to consider.

If this is so powerful and makes people quit, why have MOA not shattered the CFC yet?

Now consider that this has not happened directly shows us that being "affected" by cloakers is a mindset and player choice.

Perhaps then sov null teaches us only the strong who are prepared to fight for their empire survive. That those who don't, who cower at the possibility of a fight, who run from the mere whisper of a faceless boogieman are ran out of their area.

Sounds a lot like it's working as intended to me.


Of course passive, contact adverse, content removing, 0-risk, and "no-cost" afk cloaky camping with an implicit cyno works to increase attrition as intended.

If it didn't work, people would not do it.


Non-sequitur noted.

"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
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3887 - 2015-12-06 23:16:43 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Making cloaks huntable would create more PvP


This is one of your staple lies. You say this bull in every thread.

"Hey guys, this savage nerf to the mechanic enabling non consensual PvP would totally lead to more PvP and not more blatant carebearing"

Roll

No believes you.



I think the argument is more that there should be an mechanism for enabling non-consensual PvP with cloaked ships. I know that is my position on enduring afk cloaking techniques. There should be a mechanism making cloaked ships used that way vulnerable to player interaction ever so often.

Teckos
I actually only need the developers to look into their data. Our opinions and anecdotal evidence in favour or against is on its own very unconvincing. As the 1000ds of posts in this thread show.

Brott
Same response as given Teckos I suppose. I have not seen anything in the responses so far that suggest my opinion is incorrect.

I quite liked the potential of my suggestion. Beams indicating recharging cloaking devices in circardian seeker type fashion off various space structures would be visually stunning. I will work on it a bit more and think of variants now that I have identified the design criteria.

Thanks for your input.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3888 - 2015-12-06 23:18:22 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Well I give Jerghul his due, that's a new bit of Bravo Sierra to throw into the debate.

So over the last few pages he's been trying to claim this affects player retention, without any proof whatsoever?
And Mike has still been on his invulnerability line? Even though that's a two way street. But let's ignore one of the ways and simply focus on the cloaker?

I must say, it's all very interesting stuff. Please, do continue. Straight


Except that the guy who docks and gives up his play to avoid a hunter wasn't invulnerable. He lost. He conceeded his opportunity to fight in order to mitigate the loss of a battle that he judged could not be won.

Now the cloak denies him an opportunity of a fight more equal, and continues to enforce his loss indefinitely. He can't reship and try again.

I never mentioned docking. I'm talking about the two way street with regards to the clocker and the local ratter. When the clocker is invulnerable, as you call it, then they are from him. If what you mean is the cloak gives the him a better choice of when to attack, then yes that is true. But that's the point of the device, hence the name covert ops.
But please don't talk about invulnerability as if it only applies to him. That's simply false.



No, it's outright invulnerability.

If I am out doing whatever activity I am doing, and I go AFK, and a hunter shows up then I am dead.

If the cloaked camper goes afk, and someone hunting him shows up, the cloaker is never in any kind of danger at all.


Local isn't a defense, it simply allows opportunity to take defensive action. Cloaking is a defense. It outright denies any offensive action from being taken in the first place.

If I am in a dock and I want to go and attack something, I must get into space at a known point, travel to my target and only then can I begin my attack, with whatever I am hunting reacting to my presence immediately. The cloaker can hunt his target, provide intel to any allies, and knows as much as can be known before making any decisions or initiating his attack. There are several points of failure for the local, while the cloaker has only pilot error.


No Mike, if I am cloaky camping you so long as I maintain that "invulnerable" state you are, by definition, invulnerable too from attacks from me. Only when I make my self vulnerable are you also vulnerable. That is what Mag's is saying.

"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
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3889 - 2015-12-06 23:21:21 UTC
"No Mike, if I am cloaky camping you so long as I maintain that "invulnerable" state you are, by definition, invulnerable too from attacks from me. Only when I make my self vulnerable are you also vulnerable. That is what Mag's is saying."

He is not invulnerable to the unquantifiable, implicit threat you represent. Which is not a problem except you are given all the time in the world to maintain that implicit threat. A window of vulnerability every now and again would be nice. Risk free is a bit blah really.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3890 - 2015-12-06 23:22:53 UTC
Jerghul wrote:

I think the argument is more that there should be an mechanism for enabling non-consensual PvP with cloaked ships.


There already are.

Mike just can't be asked to put that effort out. Which makes sense, considering he's constantly arguing for afk ratting, afk mining, and afk hauling.

Here's the thing though. You absolutely do not get anything that denies the cloaked ship his right to target selection. That is the only point of the cloaking device in the first place, and you do not get to argue for invalidating it's intended design purpose.

TL;DR?

Grow a pair and bait him, decloak and catch him on the gate before he gets imbedded(you know, actually defend your space instead of just afk ratting all day) or ignore him.


Quote:

I quite liked the potential of my suggestion.


Your suggestion would basically cripple the whole point of cloaking devices. I suspect you know that full well.

"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.
#3891 - 2015-12-06 23:24:41 UTC
Jerghul wrote:

He is not invulnerable to the unquantifiable, implicit threat you represent.


And that's a meta concern, that doesn't have the slightest thing to do with game balance.

Stop crying about a limitation you choose to impose on yourself.

"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.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3892 - 2015-12-06 23:24:46 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
You call that a "SLIGHT MODIFICATION" ?!?!?!!

It is by far the most intrusive idea anyone has come up with so far?! What part of 'operating for prolonged periods of time behind enemy lines' also knows as 'recons / black ops' am I missing here?


None.

"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
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3893 - 2015-12-06 23:26:08 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Jerghul wrote:

I think the argument is more that there should be an mechanism for enabling non-consensual PvP with cloaked ships.


There already are.

Mike just can't be asked to put that effort out. Which makes sense, considering he's constantly arguing for afk ratting, afk mining, and afk hauling.

Here's the thing though. You absolutely do not get anything that denies the cloaked ship his right to target selection. That is the only point of the cloaking device in the first place, and you do not get to argue for invalidating it's intended design purpose.

TL;DR?

Grow a pair and bait him, decloak and catch him on the gate before he gets imbedded(you know, actually defend your space instead of just afk ratting all day) or ignore him.


Quote:

I quite liked the potential of my suggestion.


Your suggestion would basically cripple the whole point of cloaking devices. I suspect you know that full well.


There is nothing in my suggestion that impacts on a cloaked ships right to chose targets. All it does is create windows where a ship occassionally needs to drop its cloak to replenish it at any number of convenient locations.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3894 - 2015-12-06 23:28:45 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Say Jerghul... I Just did a little background check on ZKill (yes, I intend to investigate your claims and I started with trying to find what war you were in).

I am having severe issues with your credibility, however. Could you please post on your main if you wish to continue spilling theorycraft? Because this "Jerghul" character hasn't been in any sov war, hardly plays (with like 16 bil killed) at all and doesn't show any cloaky anywhere. T1 Destroyers and Maulus?

Do you even wormhole??


I stopped reading here to post. Prediction: no reply. I have been asking for this for awhile now, but to no avail.

"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
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3895 - 2015-12-06 23:29:52 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
You call that a "SLIGHT MODIFICATION" ?!?!?!!

It is by far the most intrusive idea anyone has come up with so far?! What part of 'operating for prolonged periods of time behind enemy lines' also knows as 'recons / black ops' am I missing here?


None.


It does nothing to hinder "operations for prolonged periods of time behind enemy lines" All you need to do is occasionally open a small window of vulnerability from time to time to recharge the cloak at any of a large number of convenient locations.

You can still log off and return the next day and all that.

It amazes me that so many of you have trouble understanding rather easy concepts.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3896 - 2015-12-06 23:31:08 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
as far as I'm concerned the devs need not waste their time. I think they're keeping a close eye on who's leaving the game and why anyway. Regarding cloaked Ventures claiming sov I think I've heard enough.


Boy, a lot is certainly lost in translation.

Increased player attrition is caused by implicit threat. The only thing required is an enduring cloaked red (or neut depending on how you set the overview) presence in local.

It does not claim sov. It impacts on the number of Eve players an Alliance has at its disposal


In sov warfare, it has been my experience (which I have given a partial listing off, which can be verified by my KB) you have to eventually back up that implicit threat with the real thing. If you never, ever kill anything with your Doom Fleet of Ventures you will take no 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
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3897 - 2015-12-06 23:31:27 UTC
Jerghul wrote:

There is nothing in my suggestion that impacts on a cloaked ships right to chose targets.


Aaaaaand you're trolling.

Thanks for playing.


Quote:

All it does is create windows where a ship occassionally needs to drop its cloak to replenish it at any number of convenient locations.


Why don't you just suggest they explode outright?

The whole point of cloaked ships is to reward patience with the ability to attack targets of opportunity. Your change would cripple cloaking devices on every level, in every part of space.

There are not enough languages to say no in.

"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
#3898 - 2015-12-06 23:31:37 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Say Jerghul... I Just did a little background check on ZKill (yes, I intend to investigate your claims and I started with trying to find what war you were in).

I am having severe issues with your credibility, however. Could you please post on your main if you wish to continue spilling theorycraft? Because this "Jerghul" character hasn't been in any sov war, hardly plays (with like 16 bil killed) at all and doesn't show any cloaky anywhere. T1 Destroyers and Maulus?

Do you even wormhole??


I stopped reading here to post. Prediction: no reply. I have been asking for this for awhile now, but to no avail.



There is no credibility issue here. Its the concepts that bother you, not the person presenting them.

As it should be, so why make it about the man?

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3899 - 2015-12-06 23:32:29 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Jerghul wrote:

There is nothing in my suggestion that impacts on a cloaked ships right to chose targets.


Aaaaaand you're trolling.

Thanks for playing.


Quote:

All it does is create windows where a ship occassionally needs to drop its cloak to replenish it at any number of convenient locations.


Why don't you just suggest they explode outright?

The whole point of cloaked ships is to reward patience with the ability to attack targets of opportunity. Your change would cripple cloaking devices on every level, in every part of space.

There are not enough languages to say no in.


Boy are you risk adverse.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3900 - 2015-12-06 23:32:56 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Brokk
I just have to ask. You do understand that afk cloaky camping can go on forever with absolutely no risk, right?

You issue is more with the "so what?" portion than it is with the actual premise I just phrased?


If you never attack and rely only on an "implicit" threat it is an empty threat. You simply cannot gain a major advantage in a sov war with a fleet of cloaking ventures that never attack.

"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