These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#3941 - 2015-12-07 08:17:23 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
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?


Because as has been shown in this very thread you have absolutely no idea about wormhole life, yet you feel you are in a position to advocate something which would completely screw it over? All in the name of making one niche group of people (anomaly squatters) happy?

This to varying degrees breaks high sec, low sec, NPC 0.0, sov 0.0 and wormholes....now if the aim of the game wasn't ratter protection perhaps we could discuss it. But it is. Always has been and until local goes, it always will be.

The fact you cannot see this directly brings your credibility, knowledge of game mechanics and basic experience into question. Currently it has been found wanting.

Literally all you want is to create safe ratting. Even when I give you a way to stop cloakers being a problem, ever, suddenly "that's off topic". Honestly.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#3942 - 2015-12-07 08:40:47 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
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?


Because as has been shown in this very thread you have absolutely no idea about wormhole life, yet you feel you are in a position to advocate something which would completely screw it over? All in the name of making one niche group of people (anomaly squatters) happy?

This to varying degrees breaks high sec, low sec, NPC 0.0, sov 0.0 and wormholes....now if the aim of the game wasn't ratter protection perhaps we could discuss it. But it is. Always has been and until local goes, it always will be.

The fact you cannot see this directly brings your credibility, knowledge of game mechanics and basic experience into question. Currently it has been found wanting.

Literally all you want is to create safe ratting. Even when I give you a way to stop cloakers being a problem, ever, suddenly "that's off topic". Honestly.


Removing local is as one sided agenda driven nonsense as the insane timer + recovery on structure mechanic he is proposing.

It works for wormholes, but wormholes aren't exactly the most populated or popular place in EVE. That's cool, you guys are welcome to your niche. However, no local is only one of the differences in an entire environmental shift from k-space.

Most people there want more people in low and null sec, not less.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3943 - 2015-12-07 09:09:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Mags
I think I will jot down "break" as hyperbole.

Brokk
Not logging on is the best way to remain undetected for long periods of time. As is logging off if something turns up in real life.

The inconvenience otherwise to having small windows of potential vulnerability could easily be justified by the simple adage that nothing need be absolutely safe or convenient once you chose to undock.

I should perhaps outline what I mean

A charged cloak could have a 6 hour charge for all I care. The problem I see is perpetual invulnerability. The recharge windows need not be frequent.

Something in the region of 30 minutes being recharged every 30 seconds the cloak module is not active is fine.

Small, occasional windows. Enough to warrant an occasional hunt, but with low actual chance of success.


They are right on this, Jerguhl.

Timers are unsuitable to the problem at hand. As has been discussed in the thread numerous times...

Any timer short enough to be reasonable for making cloaks huntable would break almost any other use of the cloak other than camping at a deep safe. I would consider reasonable no longer than 15 minutes because...

Any timer too long will leave us in exactly the same place. You might get the very rare case where someone's random frustration check coincided with the once in 6 hours window of vulnerability, but for the most part no one is going to make any kind of regular effort to hunt something when they have to continually scan for long periods of time just on the off chance that they get something. This is more true the shorter the window of vulnerability is. You think it's reasonable that someone looking to defend their system do nothing but scan for 30 minutes at a time, and if they ever stop they stand a really good chance of missing their 30 second window of opportunity? Frequency or duration of vulnerability need to be sufficient to catch them, and doing that breaks any use the cloak has other than camping under it.

The reason I suggested and support a system of false positives for scanning cloaks is because the cloak should start with a high degree of safety, that is then degraded by active effort of the systems defenders. The cloaker can slow their progress by taking action of his own, but if afk eventually that safety will degrade and he will be caught. The hunting and evading ideally would depend on a combination of luck and skill, until the situation resolves.

Such a system allows long windows of opportunity for other uses of the cloak without leaving a cloaked camp that snuck in at 3am when the defenders of the system are normally asleep to be permanently entrenched until such time as they choose to leave or attack, while still affecting activity in the system due to response to their presence.

I happen to agree that if you are going to be gone longer than a few minutes then logging off should be your best option if you are in open space. The entire beef that brought about afk cloaking was the idea that if you go hunting you have a reasonable shot at a target. That should either apply to everybody, in which case you are being hunted and your hunters deserve a chance at catching you... or nobody, in which case afk cloak camping is not a reasonable hunting technique.


Thanks for the feedback.

Timers suit what I am trying to fix I think. In a sov war context, content is often created by a sense of purpose, and not necessarily what is rational isk/hour considerations. The possibility of catching an afk cloaky camper is enough to suit my purposes. The chance does not have to be particularly realistic.

And I think we know that human error will cause most afk cloaky camper losses. There is a timer and the afk bit will lead to the occasional screw-up as timers run out and afk cloaky campers become afk ratters without rats.

Here was my updated variant as of last night. "Recharge on structure" changed to proximity within 5 AU of a gate or wormwhole (which is still proximity I suppose).

"A cloaked vessel needs to decloak occasionally so that its cloak can recharge. Recharging occurs any time the cloak module is inactive (so would also be recharged while gate cloaked). The cloak can only recharge within 5 AU of a gate or wormhole. It need not be fully recharged (so a blockade runner doing its milk runs would always be topped up. For example)."

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#3944 - 2015-12-07 09:25:44 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
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?


Because as has been shown in this very thread you have absolutely no idea about wormhole life, yet you feel you are in a position to advocate something which would completely screw it over? All in the name of making one niche group of people (anomaly squatters) happy?

This to varying degrees breaks high sec, low sec, NPC 0.0, sov 0.0 and wormholes....now if the aim of the game wasn't ratter protection perhaps we could discuss it. But it is. Always has been and until local goes, it always will be.

The fact you cannot see this directly brings your credibility, knowledge of game mechanics and basic experience into question. Currently it has been found wanting.

Literally all you want is to create safe ratting. Even when I give you a way to stop cloakers being a problem, ever, suddenly "that's off topic". Honestly.


Removing local is as one sided agenda driven nonsense as the insane timer + recovery on structure mechanic he is proposing.

It works for wormholes, but wormholes aren't exactly the most populated or popular place in EVE. That's cool, you guys are welcome to your niche. However, no local is only one of the differences in an entire environmental shift from k-space.

Most people there want more people in low and null sec, not less.


Actually it's not local that keeps the mainstream out of WH, it is the logistical challenges, scanning requirement and the pain in the ass of a podding out that does it. You see I know this, because I've lived there and fielded the challenges from the people who didn't want to move.

And removing local is not "one sided agenda driven". Removing local cuts both ways, equally. If you don't know they are there, they also don't know YOU are there, or how many friends you have.

Removing local is certainly a game changer, but it is also a beautiful leveller. It's far more risky for the attackers than today, with local.

But again, none of this is about equal risk, really, is it?
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3945 - 2015-12-07 09:28:10 UTC
Lets see, another possible intervention is to simply turn afk cloaky camping into a PvE problem.

Circardian seekers seem to have pretty advanced scanning equipment. Scripting them to awkwardly scan down cloaked ships and awkwardly aggress cloaked ships would suit my purposes too. It would again be visually stunning (imagine their scanning rays pointing off in space, then gradually triangulating before they finally warp off towards something. Brave scavengers that try to follow might be rewarded with the smoking wreck of what once was an afk cloaky camper).

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#3946 - 2015-12-07 10:08:26 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Lets see, another possible intervention is to simply turn afk cloaky camping into a PvE problem.

Circardian seekers seem to have pretty advanced scanning equipment. Scripting them to awkwardly scan down cloaked ships and awkwardly aggress cloaked ships would suit my purposes too. It would again be visually stunning (imagine their scanning rays pointing off in space, then gradually triangulating before they finally warp off towards something. Brave scavengers that try to follow might be rewarded with the smoking wreck of what once was an afk cloaky camper).



Yet another inspired way to completely break cloaking.

Bravo.

And if you have to ask why, you have exactly no business in this thread.


You nail it with "suit MY purposes" though, I'll give you that.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#3947 - 2015-12-07 10:10:07 UTC
For me, yes it is about equal risk.

Without those logistical challenges acting as a barrier to entry, trying to field PvE ships like miners or haulers in a world without local would be a nightmare.

Maybe, maybe if they automated dscan so it didn't need to be manually clicked every 5 seconds so it could be used as a more limited form of the same function, it would be livable.

In wormholes the nature of everything is different, from roaming fleets to how to run your defenses. Removing local from K-space is just as bad as putting a timer on cloaks. It breaks almost everything for the satisfaction of solving a specific issue with a limited group of players.

But even so, local, Intel, and all similar subjects are up for debate in their own threads. You don't have to touch them to adjust cloaks.

Jerghul, timers are not the way. If there does not need to be a reasonably realistic chance of breaking the cloaked camp, then you don't have a problem that needs solving. It's either an issue, or it isn't. If what you propose is true, then the problem is real, and the counter needs to be useful, reasonable and realistic. I agree there is a problem, just not for the reasons you suggest. Find a solution that is both effective against indefinite cloaking, yet useful for hunters. I came up with false positives so they could see the probes and know when they need to move.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#3948 - 2015-12-07 10:52:14 UTC
You absolutely cannot divorce cloaks from local and attempting to do so is a complete logical fallacy. Please stop trying, it's just making you look ridiculous.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
It breaks almost everything for the satisfaction of solving a specific issue with a limited group of players.


So with that, maybe we leave the status quo alone in the spirit of "better the devil you know" eh? Because there's not a single suggestion in this thread, not one which doesn't break other uses of cloaks in the name of protecting anomaly squatters and removing their even needing to consider a less isk/hour efficient fit.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3949 - 2015-12-07 12:29:42 UTC
Jerghul wrote:

Boy are you risk adverse.


Suggesting that cloaks work as intended does not qualify.

"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.
#3950 - 2015-12-07 12:40:55 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Removing local is as one sided agenda driven nonsense as the insane timer + recovery on structure mechanic he is proposing.


It's not, and it's far more likely to happen than CCP deciding to arbitrarily ruin cloaking devices.

The only reason you can see the cloaker to cry about him is because local gives you an unreasonable advantage in terms of intel. If that goes away, not only can you no longer see the cloaker, but he can't see if there is anyone to pester without going and looking for himself.

It's very literally the most balanced solution to the supposed problem(which is why you hate it). Ups the barrier of effort for everyone instead of just one side, effects both sides equally, and incentivizes active gameplay for both sides.


Quote:

It works for wormholes, but wormholes aren't exactly the most populated or popular place in EVE.


Wormholes actually have an excellent population density, and activity level for how many people are in there. IMO, it is the ideal EVE Online gameplay, were POSes not such a pain in the ever loving ass anyway(bringing the activity barrier up immensely high). But Citadels won't require fuel in and of themselves, so if we can avoid Sort Dragon nerfing anything else about wormholes with his flow of tears, they will be sitting pretty in the future.

"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
#3951 - 2015-12-07 12:44:06 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
You absolutely cannot divorce cloaks from local and attempting to do so is a complete logical fallacy. Please stop trying, it's just making you look ridiculous.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
It breaks almost everything for the satisfaction of solving a specific issue with a limited group of players.


So with that, maybe we leave the status quo alone in the spirit of "better the devil you know" eh? Because there's not a single suggestion in this thread, not one which doesn't break other uses of cloaks in the name of protecting anomaly squatters and removing their even needing to consider a less isk/hour efficient fit.



Actually, wormholes prove you can separate cloaks from local. So does high sec, along with proving local isn't a defense.

Making you move around a bit and not be afk does not break cloaks. Claiming it does makes you look ridiculous.

Cloaks are neither stations or structures. They should provide a degree of safety, not total safety forever until you decide otherwise. Creating a system where that safety can be degraded by action of enemies is entirely in keeping with core design concepts and provides balance, where now there is little to none.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3952 - 2015-12-07 12:53:05 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
They should provide a degree of safety, not total safety forever until you decide otherwise.


The problem is not with cloaking devices.

They are working as precisely intended, by rewarding patience with the ability to attack a target of opportunity.

If they didn't do that they would be broken, and require a full rebalance of every cov ops capable ship in the game.

"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.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#3953 - 2015-12-07 13:09:52 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
You absolutely cannot divorce cloaks from local and attempting to do so is a complete logical fallacy. Please stop trying, it's just making you look ridiculous.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
It breaks almost everything for the satisfaction of solving a specific issue with a limited group of players.


So with that, maybe we leave the status quo alone in the spirit of "better the devil you know" eh? Because there's not a single suggestion in this thread, not one which doesn't break other uses of cloaks in the name of protecting anomaly squatters and removing their even needing to consider a less isk/hour efficient fit.



Actually, wormholes prove you can separate cloaks from local. So does high sec, along with proving local isn't a defense.


Wait, so local isn't an issue in the areas cloaks aren't an issue; but they're not related? Hah, ok.

I mean, if you want to take your example just a hair further, the relative "uselessness" of local in these areas suggests that there would be no issue with removing it. Right?
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#3954 - 2015-12-07 13:19:47 UTC
You are trying to conflate Local not being a defense with local being useless.


If you are in an area with local, go afk, and someone tries to hunt you, you get found and die.

Local is not a defense. You can take action to protect yourself, but local does nothing to defend you.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#3955 - 2015-12-07 13:21:27 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
They should provide a degree of safety, not total safety forever until you decide otherwise.


The problem is not with cloaking devices.

They are working as precisely intended, by rewarding patience with the ability to attack a target of opportunity.

If they didn't do that they would be broken, and require a full rebalance of every cov ops capable ship in the game.


Making you move around a bit and not be afk does not affect your ability to select targets.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3956 - 2015-12-07 13:22:47 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Making you move around a bit and not be afk does not affect your ability to select targets.


Heh, handcuffing them to recharging on a gate damn sure does, actually.

In fact everything you've suggested thus far defeats the whole point of a cloaking device. And let's not get started on Jergens, if they did what he wanted they might as well just delete every cov ops ship and module from the game.

"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.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#3957 - 2015-12-07 13:25:01 UTC
Why should you ever STOP taking action to defend yourself? Because local tells you that you can do so.

To suggest the 100% free and *perfect* intel isn't a factor in defence work is utterly nonsensical.


If you do not have local, how do you know a cloaker is there? Answer: You do not. You never do. Ever. So one must take action to protect oneself constantly. As it should be. I know, it's weird at first but actually you get used to it quite quickly. Death becomes the cost of doing business in dangerous space. Again as it should be.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3958 - 2015-12-07 13:28:42 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Why should you ever STOP taking action to defend yourself? Because local tells you that you can do so.

To suggest the 100% free and *perfect* intel isn't a factor in defence work is utterly nonsensical.


If you do not have local, how do you know a cloaker is there? Answer: You do not. You never do. Ever. So one must take action to protect oneself constantly. As it should be. I know, it's weird at first but actually you get used to it quite quickly. Death becomes the cost of doing business in dangerous space. Again as it should be.


Exactly this. Local replaces the need to use d-scan, among other things(such as watching your gates), as a tool to defend yourself.

It is literally the most powerful defensive AND intel tool in the game, and you don't have to do a damned thing to get it.

That is broken, and it does not belong in nullsec.

"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
#3959 - 2015-12-07 13:42:36 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Making you move around a bit and not be afk does not affect your ability to select targets.


Heh, handcuffing them to recharging on a gate damn sure does, actually.

In fact everything you've suggested thus far defeats the whole point of a cloaking device. And let's not get started on Jergens, if they did what he wanted they might as well just delete every cov ops ship and module from the game.


Timers and the gate thing isn't me. Go troll someone else with that stuff.

I suggest that the safety be degradeable over time so that you can't stay afk forever.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3960 - 2015-12-07 13:46:57 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

I suggest that the safety be degradeable over time so that you can't stay afk forever.


You know what? I'll go ahead and bite.

List out your current suggestion, in detail. You've flip flopped so many times in this thread that I'm not going to bother going back twenty pages to whatever it is you might have said.

Let's see this supposedly balanced suggestion of yours. I'm certain it won't be completely one sided either.

"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.