These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4081 - 2015-12-08 14:57:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
See that's the thing. I know you've never lived in wormholes because the people who live there would be all over a new signature in moments. Literally, a matter of minutes, tops.

And people can be scanned in a single cycle.

This would also happen in K space over timer driver fights where the initial area is known.

Honestly, please stop trying to screw with mechanics you don't understand.


Do seekers and drifters often visit wormhole space (for one of the reasons behind my suggestion on a PvE trigger)?

The grid size just increased something terrible. Which is a factor in trying to decloak an on grid ship.

The point both Mike and I are trying to make is something along the line of a cloaked player should be given more than a sufficient chance to take corrective action to avoid pending unsolicited PvP, but there needs to be a chance of unsolicited PvP if no corrective action is taken.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4082 - 2015-12-08 15:02:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
I was referring to scan signatures, the idea is horrible and again underscores the lack of game experience by the proposer.

NPCs should never do a players dirty work. I do not want to be the cloaky scout providing warpins to my fleet whilst dodging some crappy NPCs. There is no "limit" you can set on this that doesn't risk screwing up fleet and scout work. None.

When cloaked, I have zero way to interact with another players vessel. If I become more vulnerable when cloaked, I'd like to activate mods and shoot whilst cloaked. It's only fair.....
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4083 - 2015-12-08 15:10:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
I was referring to scan signatures, the idea is horrible and again underscores the lack of game experience by the proposer.

NPCs should never do a players dirty work. I do not want to be the cloaky scout providing warpins to my fleet whilst dodging some crappy NPCs. There is no "limit" you can set on this that doesn't risk screwing up fleet and scout work. None.

When cloaked, I have zero way to interact with another players vessel. If I become more vulnerable when cloaked, I'd like to activate mods and shoot whilst cloaked. It's only fair.....


Of course there are conditionals can be scripted that will not make scanning seekers an issue for an actively piloted cloaky scout. Or indeed any cloaked ship that is not predominantly afk.

Hunting down entosis contraband is incidentally an Eve storyline agenda. That it can correlate to resolving a problematic afk issue is a happy coincidence.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4084 - 2015-12-08 15:17:13 UTC
List 5 ways you can tell if a ship is active without providing a tell for those on grid with it.

I'll be impressed if you manage
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4085 - 2015-12-08 15:19:17 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
List 5 ways you can tell if a ship is active without providing a tell for those on grid with it.

I'll be impressed if you manage


No you wouldn't. But that would be an interesting thread topic. You should make it.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4086 - 2015-12-08 15:21:09 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
List 5 ways you can tell if a ship is active without providing a tell for those on grid with it.

I'll be impressed if you manage


No you wouldn't. But that would be an interesting thread topic. You should make it.



So you cannot back up your assertion that:

Quote:
Of course there are conditionals can be scripted that will not make scanning seekers an issue for an actively piloted cloaky scout.


What's the point of this, then?

You might as well be talking about inventing perpetual motion.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4087 - 2015-12-08 15:31:53 UTC
Goodness.

The point has been rehashed quite a number of times now. You really should try to keep up. But never fear. I will rehash it again presently.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4088 - 2015-12-08 15:41:45 UTC
The point is your "fixing" a non problem in ways that break everything else.

You're trying to polish an already clean glass table with a hammer. Basically.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4089 - 2015-12-08 15:44:56 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Its still a conditional timer Mike.

If conditions A-X are met, then cloak ship detection likelihood becomes a function of time.

I am just making this point so that things remain conceptually clear.





The only timer involved is the respawn of the false positives. Location becomes a function of effort.

I will even go the wormholers one better, and suggest that as they are special snowflakes already that the scanner does not work there. It's stupid and unbalanced, but hey, so long as their assets remain safe from harm...
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4090 - 2015-12-08 15:46:50 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Its still a conditional timer Mike.

If conditions A-X are met, then cloak ship detection likelihood becomes a function of time.

I am just making this point so that things remain conceptually clear.





The only timer involved is the respawn of the false positives. Location becomes a function of effort.

I will even go the wormholers one better, and suggest that as they are special snowflakes already that the scanner does not work there. It's stupid and unbalanced, but hey, so long as their assets remain safe from harm...



FC what is right click>ignore result?


Go away. Learn the game. Come back on reflect on your foolishness.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4091 - 2015-12-08 15:52:33 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
The point is your "fixing" a non problem in ways that break everything else.

You're trying to polish an already clean glass table with a hammer. Basically.



There is a problem, you are just too worried about your assets to admit it, because getting hunted is something that should only happen to other people.

You can already do things while cloaked... you can warp around and provide warp ins for your fleet, scan and locate targets, and collect intel.

Sorry I don't believe either you about people waiting 3 years in one spot just to catch a guy logging in for the first time. Maybe they put him on a watch list, and he was unprepared to defend his very shiny killmail-in-waiting... But you make it sound like there are people just camped out waiting on every super to ever log off.

If that was the case, then providing a way to hunt cloaks would help alleviate that.

Having to actually move around once in a while to secure your own safety once in a while simply won't break anything. It's literally the same effort you discard as trivial for the other side. You aren't looking to maintain a balance, you are just looking to protect yourself while hunting others.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4092 - 2015-12-08 15:55:41 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Its still a conditional timer Mike.

If conditions A-X are met, then cloak ship detection likelihood becomes a function of time.

I am just making this point so that things remain conceptually clear.





The only timer involved is the respawn of the false positives. Location becomes a function of effort.

I will even go the wormholers one better, and suggest that as they are special snowflakes already that the scanner does not work there. It's stupid and unbalanced, but hey, so long as their assets remain safe from harm...



FC what is right click>ignore result?


Go away. Learn the game. Come back on reflect on your foolishness.


And how do they know to ignore the result if they don't send someone to check it out. These results are not uniquely identified.

And yeah, a whole fleet sending scouts to check every sig... you should probably get detected fairly quickly in that circumstance. Of course since you are worried about wormholes and there is no name in local to alert them to your presence, that becomes less of an issue. There might be *a lot* of these signatures. They might even multiply with high numbers in system. There's a lot of ways things can be tweaked, but first you have to stop being so upset that you aren't 100% safe that you cannot even begin to discuss it.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4093 - 2015-12-08 15:56:28 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Having to actually move around once in a while to secure your own safety once in a while simply won't break anything. It's literally the same effort you discard as trivial for the other side. You aren't looking to maintain a balance, you are just looking to protect yourself while hunting others.



And yet your lazy arse won't even move systems. Or work as a unit. Or (and this is my favourite, by the way) consider ratting in anything but a min/maxed isk printing machine even going so far as to suggest that even floating that idea is "unreasonable"

I'm sorry, your credibility is shot.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4094 - 2015-12-08 15:57:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Its still a conditional timer Mike.

If conditions A-X are met, then cloak ship detection likelihood becomes a function of time.

I am just making this point so that things remain conceptually clear.





The only timer involved is the respawn of the false positives. Location becomes a function of effort.

I will even go the wormholers one better, and suggest that as they are special snowflakes already that the scanner does not work there. It's stupid and unbalanced, but hey, so long as their assets remain safe from harm...



FC what is right click>ignore result?


Go away. Learn the game. Come back on reflect on your foolishness.


And how do they know to ignore the result if they don't send someone to check it out. These results are not uniquely identified.

And yeah, a whole fleet sending scouts to check every sig... you should probably get detected fairly quickly in that circumstance. Of course since you are worried about wormholes and there is no name in local to alert them to your presence, that becomes less of an issue. There might be *a lot* of these signatures. They might even multiply with high numbers in system. There's a lot of ways things can be tweaked, but first you have to stop being so upset that you aren't 100% safe that you cannot even begin to discuss it.



Can you stop making posts which underscore your complete lack of comprehension around wormholes, scanners and scanning mechanics in general, please.

We get it, you've got no idea (presumably through abject lack of experience) about what you're blabbering on about.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4095 - 2015-12-08 16:00:23 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Having to actually move around once in a while to secure your own safety once in a while simply won't break anything. It's literally the same effort you discard as trivial for the other side. You aren't looking to maintain a balance, you are just looking to protect yourself while hunting others.



And yet your lazy arse won't even move systems. Or work as a unit. Or (and this is my favourite, by the way) consider ratting in anything but a min/maxed isk printing machine even going so far as to suggest that even floating that idea is "unreasonable"

I'm sorry, your credibility is shot.



Lol, says the one so worried about randomly returning titans that any risk at all is unacceptable.

Anything that cuts profit below high sec levels becomes unreasonable if your goal is pve. Since this is a sandbox game, that is indeed a legitimate concern.

If you are just out having fun, it's fine. If you are looking to bait in hunters, it's fine. If you are looking to do any of dozens of other things, it's fine.

But PvE activity isn't exactly a rare profession. It's the largest demographic in the game. Their concerns matter too, and the PvP playstyles are very well taken care of.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4096 - 2015-12-08 16:01:21 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Its still a conditional timer Mike.

If conditions A-X are met, then cloak ship detection likelihood becomes a function of time.

I am just making this point so that things remain conceptually clear.





The only timer involved is the respawn of the false positives. Location becomes a function of effort.

I will even go the wormholers one better, and suggest that as they are special snowflakes already that the scanner does not work there. It's stupid and unbalanced, but hey, so long as their assets remain safe from harm...



FC what is right click>ignore result?


Go away. Learn the game. Come back on reflect on your foolishness.


And how do they know to ignore the result if they don't send someone to check it out. These results are not uniquely identified.

And yeah, a whole fleet sending scouts to check every sig... you should probably get detected fairly quickly in that circumstance. Of course since you are worried about wormholes and there is no name in local to alert them to your presence, that becomes less of an issue. There might be *a lot* of these signatures. They might even multiply with high numbers in system. There's a lot of ways things can be tweaked, but first you have to stop being so upset that you aren't 100% safe that you cannot even begin to discuss it.



Can you stop making posts which underscore your complete lack of comprehension around wormholes, scanners and scanning mechanics in general, please.

We get it, you've got no idea (presumably through abject lack of experience) about what you're blabbering on about.


eh, no. I do know what I'm talking about. You are just too afraid, and we should all just "think of the titans!"
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4097 - 2015-12-08 16:06:42 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Its still a conditional timer Mike.

If conditions A-X are met, then cloak ship detection likelihood becomes a function of time.

I am just making this point so that things remain conceptually clear.





The only timer involved is the respawn of the false positives. Location becomes a function of effort.

I will even go the wormholers one better, and suggest that as they are special snowflakes already that the scanner does not work there. It's stupid and unbalanced, but hey, so long as their assets remain safe from harm...


And effort has a time component rendering it a function of time.

Its important to recognize that conditional timers are still timers. Its helpful when trying to design mechanisms, but you have to accept that "timer" is not an inherently evil term.

Enduring afk cloaky campers are on a timer currently for example. They are removed from systems once a day.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4098 - 2015-12-08 16:10:01 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Its still a conditional timer Mike.

If conditions A-X are met, then cloak ship detection likelihood becomes a function of time.

I am just making this point so that things remain conceptually clear.





The only timer involved is the respawn of the false positives. Location becomes a function of effort.

I will even go the wormholers one better, and suggest that as they are special snowflakes already that the scanner does not work there. It's stupid and unbalanced, but hey, so long as their assets remain safe from harm...


And effort has a time component rendering it a function of time.

Its important to recognize that conditional timers are still timers. Its helpful when trying to design mechanisms, but you have to accept that "timer" is not an inherently evil term.

Enduring afk cloaky campers are on a timer currently for example. They are removed from systems once a day.


Sorry, no.

If you put in more effort, you find things faster. Less effort is slower. No effort is never. Luck can be instant or possibly never if you can't eliminate them all.

You can call it a timer if you want, but it's nothing like what you have suggested.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4099 - 2015-12-08 16:17:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Of course its nothing like I have suggested. There are any number of timer based solutions; particularly when you start mucking about with conditional timers.

I am not married to any solution for as long as it achieves my end goal; Potential vulnerability to unsolicited PvP for enduring afk cloaky campers in a way that is avoidable through active cloaky pilot counteraction.

Thats the fix. Human error inherent to afk will ensure sufficient impact.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4100 - 2015-12-08 18:50:17 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

eh, no. I do know what I'm talking about. You are just too afraid, and we should all just "think of the titans!"



I'm afraid not, but you cling to your edge case.

Lets recap, shall we?

You are:

  • Unaware of how a fleet scout operates
  • Unaware of how a generic scouting works and the importance of positioning
  • Unaware of how wormholers work, live and scan in general
  • Unaware of how real scanners operate in game when it matters
  • Lacking appreciation of people needing to emergency afk where log off is not an option
  • Quite happy to wreck all of these things mentioned in the name of making ratting safer
  • Unaware of even HOW your ideas break the aforementioned things and when challenged the response is a mere handwave of 'that wont happen; because'
  • Unable to see a link between a cloaked player and local
  • Refusing to acknowledge the power of local whilst simultaneous resisting its removal
  • Unable to frame the problem in a context relevant anywhere except ratting havens
  • Utterly and complete unable to explain to any remote standard why this isn't a problem in lowsec, or NPC null
  • Still somehow holding the belief it is "unreasonable" to do PvE in anything sub-optimal
  • Claim a cloak is safer than being docked in highsec


But of course, it's me who has no idea what I'm talking about. I mean it's not like I've ever lived and battled in WH, or nullsec, or low and naturally I'm all about "increased safety" as the billions both killed and lost on my killboard can attest to. And you accuse me of being risk averse, the irony is staggering.