These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#5461 - 2016-01-15 15:01:14 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Go way back to before this thread was made. My point has always been the AFK part of the equation in null is just a symptom of a larger balance problem.


And no Teckos, your fozzie radio quote didn't say cloaks were balanced. The balance is handwaved because the effect on prey professions is more important than balance. The problem is recognized and ignored because they simply don't want to develop anything further, presumably intending to visit the issue with OA, but at this point we are still looking at leaving them broken for years because **** prey professions.

Taking targets of opportunity isn't bad FFS. However, taking targets of opportunity only in a certain place and irrespective to the type or identification of those targets isn't hunting a ship already entrenched in a system. That any ship at all can be caught at a gate says exactly nothing that a ship that happens to have a cloak equipped can be caught there too. A ship using a cloak can be anywhere it wants more than 2k from another object and may as well be docked for all you can do about it. Does not matter if it's on grid or off grid, so long as they fly with a modicum of intelligence they are perfectly safe.


You sure about that quote Mike? Lets take a look.

Quote:
We're not worried about cloaked ships being overpowered because cloaked ships do very little DPS.--CCP Fozzie


Okay, he did not say they are balanced, but he did say they are not over powered. Sooooo....maybe they are unbalanced and under powered? Yeah? No!? OMG. Well then they must be balanced. Roll

And you should note I did not say "caught at a gate" but noted it could happen typically at the end of a warp that is not a safe spot. And lets think about that second to last statement. Is it more risky being 2,500 meteres from a ship vs. 8.5 AU at a safe spot not in line with any other celestial object that nobody but me knows about? Hmmmm.....Roll

So your claim of perfectly safe is complete Bravo Sierra and indicates you either have little experience in a cloaked ship or you are being deliberately misleading.

"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
#5462 - 2016-01-15 15:07:10 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

And lastly...so a guy in a cloak is snooping around in your space. Finding stuff out. I'm totally fine with it. At least he is working for that intel. Unlike most people who complain about cloaks in general whose efforts towards intel are watching local. Oh...and here I am a guy in a sov holding alliance, fine with it. And there is you, the guy not anywhere in NS. Just thought I'd point that out.



Not only that, someone active can as easily use a nano-ceptor and be functionally invulnerable at the same time.

He can just bounce from safe to safe to safe, instantly aligning to the next one before anyone can get near, dscanning and probing all the while.


I do love though that "AFK cloaking" has degenerated into people just hating on cloaks in general.



And you know what that interceptor pilot is doing to make that level of safety OK?

Constant, active effort. The very thing that cloaks do not need to do, because an active cloak is inviolate barring bad pilots or bad luck.


Sorry Mike, you keep saying it is bad to have a cloak running around gathering intel and you can't stop him. Somebody says, "Hey, specially fit ceptor!" and you move the goal posts. Nice job.

And if it is effort that is important, then moving local into a POS that is vulnerable, takes effort (and choices) to set up, and defend, etc. is the way to go too.

"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

Mag's
Azn Empire
#5463 - 2016-01-15 15:31:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Sorry, but it was ironic. You're the master of using an argument when it suits, then ignoring or claiming it not relevant when it doesn't.

Safety when cloaked is a two way street. No matter how you try and word it.

Also yet again, I have to point out to you the name of the module. Covert Ops Cloak. It kinda points to what it's intended use is. If it's still not clear, spying would be included in that. Blink

As far as being threatened is concerned, just what mechanic are they using to do that Mike? Oh sorry, can't I mention that? Is it only you that can use it when it suits? That old having it both ways thing again.
Oh and the threat from local also goes both ways, as has already been pointed out.



So it's your argument that specific intel holds no value? No efforts to catch spies are ever needed in game? Acting as a warp in to your fleet is useless?

If you have any effect that an enemy would want or need to interrupt, then it's too safe under a cloak. Remove the ability or adjust the safety of cloaks.
No. It's my position that you're now clutching at straws to make an argument against cloaks.
You're basically using their role, as a reason to nerf them. But in the meantime, blissfully and wilfully ignoring the elephant in the room.
Let's see if you can spot it this time.

What mechanic are the using to interact with you and create an effect, whilst they are AFK?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#5464 - 2016-01-15 15:35:54 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Go way back to before this thread was made. My point has always been the AFK part of the equation in null is just a symptom of a larger balance problem.


You do realise though, that if local did not exist, neither would this tactic, right? It wouldn't need to exist, hell it couldn't exist.

It is the only counter to local.

The fact it can also push people out of a system is because they're not inventive enough, or too lazy, or unwilling to deal with it. Or most commonly actually, they simply have so much space they need not care about hopping a system over.


So what? The issue isn't local. Local needs no counter because it's actually balanced by being freely available to all in system. It does not favor one side or the other with its charms, other than unavoidable hardware issues, which have had fixes to pull that advantage to the hunter's side.

The issue is the safety vs. the level of activity available under cloak. If you can do *anything* not available in a station that another player would want to stop, then you need to be vulnerable. Either fix the safety, or fix the activity. The current state isn't balanced.


But they are vulnerable Mike. The problem is you have decreed cloaks are safe everywhere, literally as safe as being docked everywhere. Despite being shown this claim is false, you doggedly stick to this claim. Whenever somebody points out, "You can be decloaked in this situation" you respond with, "Oh, well that doesn't count." Despite people saying a cloaked ship can get decloaked in situations S(1),...,S(n) you say keep saying perfectly safe. So we know perfectly safe is a false claim in general. Further, I contend that to keep that perfect safety you have to avoid those instances when you are not perfectly safe and that greatly hampers one's ability to "do things not available while docked".

In other words, you are over generalizing when it suits you, and then ignoring the dangers to cloaked ships when it suits you. This is why there are claims about your intellectual honesty.

Is a cloaked ship at risk warping to a gate? Yes.
Is a cloaked ship at risk jumping through a gate? Yes.
Is a cloaked ship at risk warping to a POS, moon, planet, sun, POCO, etc.? Yes.

How does one reduce that risk? Stay at your safe spot.

Problem is staying at that safe spot makes those the cloaked ship might try to attack safer as well and in the case of the cloaked ship they are 100% safe...as safe as being docked.

This strikes me a pretty balanced.

"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

Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#5465 - 2016-01-15 15:38:05 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Sorry, but it was ironic. You're the master of using an argument when it suits, then ignoring or claiming it not relevant when it doesn't.

Safety when cloaked is a two way street. No matter how you try and word it.

Also yet again, I have to point out to you the name of the module. Covert Ops Cloak. It kinda points to what it's intended use is. If it's still not clear, spying would be included in that. Blink

As far as being threatened is concerned, just what mechanic are they using to do that Mike? Oh sorry, can't I mention that? Is it only you that can use it when it suits? That old having it both ways thing again.
Oh and the threat from local also goes both ways, as has already been pointed out.



So it's your argument that specific intel holds no value? No efforts to catch spies are ever needed in game? Acting as a warp in to your fleet is useless?

If you have any effect that an enemy would want or need to interrupt, then it's too safe under a cloak. Remove the ability or adjust the safety of cloaks.
No. It's my position that you're now clutching at straws to make an argument against cloaks.
You're basically using their role, as a reason to nerf them. But in the meantime, blissfully and wilfully ignoring the elephant in the room.
Let's see if you can spot it this time.

What mechanic are the using to interact with you and create an effect, whilst they are AFK?


Does not matter if they are AFK or not. AFK cloaking is a symptom of a bigger problem.

The argument was made that they should be safe as a station. I tend to disagree, and do agree that their role is more active. However, the safety they offer is too strong for the role they are supposed to fill. Since we cannot discuss tuning the safety, then we must discuss tuning their range of action.

The thing you cannot get around is that cloaks are too strong to have any affect at all that an enemy pilot would have a need or desire to interfere with. AFK cloaking is just an extreme example of how safe cloaks are, and not the root of the problem in any way.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#5466 - 2016-01-15 15:39:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
But Teckos, only an idiot wouldn't use a scout for their scout for their scout for their scout for their scout for their scout for their scout for their scout which should be using a crystal ball to spot the sabre on the other side to scout the fleet!

Thus we can clearly see anyone who dies in a covops is bad

/s
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#5467 - 2016-01-15 15:41:26 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Does not matter if they are AFK or not. AFK cloaking is a symptom of a bigger problem.


Yeah, and that problem 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.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#5468 - 2016-01-15 15:44:04 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Go way back to before this thread was made. My point has always been the AFK part of the equation in null is just a symptom of a larger balance problem.


You do realise though, that if local did not exist, neither would this tactic, right? It wouldn't need to exist, hell it couldn't exist.

It is the only counter to local.

The fact it can also push people out of a system is because they're not inventive enough, or too lazy, or unwilling to deal with it. Or most commonly actually, they simply have so much space they need not care about hopping a system over.


So what? The issue isn't local. Local needs no counter because it's actually balanced by being freely available to all in system. It does not favor one side or the other with its charms, other than unavoidable hardware issues, which have had fixes to pull that advantage to the hunter's side.


How can you even sit there and say that with a straight face?


Tell you what, without using the word "local", tell me how you know a cloaker is there.


sigh

It is a fact that local favors the incumbent over then entrant. A fact. So that claim Mike is demonstrably false.

"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
#5469 - 2016-01-15 15:47:18 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:


The argument was made that they should be safe as a station.


While at a safe spot, while not in a fleet, that only the player knows about, and is not inline with any other celestial or warpable object in game.

Wow...so totally OP. Roll

Can't wait to fit a cloak and go to a system activate it and see all ships in that system explode!

"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

Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#5470 - 2016-01-15 15:48:53 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:


Is a cloaked ship at risk warping to a gate? Yes.
Is a cloaked ship at risk jumping through a gate? Yes.
Is a cloaked ship at risk warping to a POS, moon, planet, sun, POCO, etc.? Yes.

How does one reduce that risk? Stay at your safe spot.

Problem is staying at that safe spot makes those the cloaked ship might try to attack safer as well and in the case of the cloaked ship they are 100% safe...as safe as being docked.

This strikes me a pretty balanced.


You want to inflate the danger to a cloaked ship, then say it's balanced on a painfully irrational estimate of their risk.

At risk warping to a gate? Infinitesimal to the point of no risk at all if they are at all intelligent and don't warp to zero.
At risk jumping through a gate? Far less than most other ships.
At risk warping to an object? Again, infinitesimal to the point of no risk at all if they are intelligent.

Meanwhile, they take whatever actions they choose with a better range of intel than someone leaving a station, and do it from a position that cannot be camped, unlike a station.

Meanwhile, they are capable of gathering specific intel and setting up ambushes, and keeping tabs on the system completely free of risk. They are too safe for having a range of effective actions they can take. Reduce the safety or reduce their options to match the safety they have.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#5471 - 2016-01-15 16:39:03 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:


Is a cloaked ship at risk warping to a gate? Yes.
Is a cloaked ship at risk jumping through a gate? Yes.
Is a cloaked ship at risk warping to a POS, moon, planet, sun, POCO, etc.? Yes.

How does one reduce that risk? Stay at your safe spot.

Problem is staying at that safe spot makes those the cloaked ship might try to attack safer as well and in the case of the cloaked ship they are 100% safe...as safe as being docked.

This strikes me a pretty balanced.


You want to inflate the danger to a cloaked ship, then say it's balanced on a painfully irrational estimate of their risk.

At risk warping to a gate? Infinitesimal to the point of no risk at all if they are at all intelligent and don't warp to zero.
At risk jumping through a gate? Far less than most other ships.
At risk warping to an object? Again, infinitesimal to the point of no risk at all if they are intelligent.

Meanwhile, they take whatever actions they choose with a better range of intel than someone leaving a station, and do it from a position that cannot be camped, unlike a station.

Meanwhile, they are capable of gathering specific intel and setting up ambushes, and keeping tabs on the system completely free of risk. They are too safe for having a range of effective actions they can take. Reduce the safety or reduce their options to match the safety they have.


Where am I inflating anything. A cloaked ship will find it easier to get through a gate camp than most ships. A cloaked ship can warp to objects in a system safer than most other ships. But that does not mean they are perfectly safe. A statement you have made as if it were a fact again and again and again.

And you can't always avoid these risks. Yes, if it is a system where I've been living for awhile I'll have plenty of perchs and book marks. But if not....well a well constructed gate camp means either I come back later or not at all. And if that is case it means I can't gather intel, set up ambushes, etc.

"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

Mag's
Azn Empire
#5472 - 2016-01-15 17:00:52 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Mag's wrote:
No. It's my position that you're now clutching at straws to make an argument against cloaks.
You're basically using their role, as a reason to nerf them. But in the meantime, blissfully and wilfully ignoring the elephant in the room.
Let's see if you can spot it this time.

What mechanic are the using to interact with you and create an effect, whilst they are AFK?


Does not matter if they are AFK or not. AFK cloaking is a symptom of a bigger problem.

The argument was made that they should be safe as a station. I tend to disagree, and do agree that their role is more active. However, the safety they offer is too strong for the role they are supposed to fill. Since we cannot discuss tuning the safety, then we must discuss tuning their range of action.

The thing you cannot get around is that cloaks are too strong to have any affect at all that an enemy pilot would have a need or desire to interfere with. AFK cloaking is just an extreme example of how safe cloaks are, and not the root of the problem in any way.
There's that elephant again.

Safety is a two way street. We already know the position taken, in regards to safety at a secret safe spot.
Safety for cloakers also fluctuates when active, unlike stations.

Now then, back to that root elephant problem......

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5473 - 2016-01-15 18:23:30 UTC
Mike
The fundamental problem with the "prey profession" is that no one really does it. Its done 13% of logons. Or about as often as male exotic dancers offer laptop (intended) dances.

The handwave@fundamental imbalance is invalid. PvP as an activity is as popular as eating yellow snow.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1

Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#5474 - 2016-01-15 18:49:28 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
How is this thread still going on? From CCP's Golden Rules

Quote:
Consent to PvP

You consent to PvP when you click "undock".
You are not safe in 1.0 security space. CONCORD is there to punish, not to protect. Get used to the idea.
In most cases, the only way to be 100% safe from aggression inside the game is to be docked in a station. Being cloaked in a secret safespot could work too.


/thread


Be nice if everyone consented to PvP while undocked though.

However, I do take it for evidence that it's understood that cloaks be as safe as a station. Thus to achieve balance we need to remove any and all ship capability from ship under cloak other than navigation that is not available while in station. No ships or temporary objects on overview, no dscan, no probes, no activating of any modules of any kind while the targeting delay is still in effect.

Station safety, station restriction of activity.


Then you will let me refit, repair, change my clone, jump clone and change ships while cloaked too? Station safety, station benefits.

See what I did there Mike?
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5475 - 2016-01-15 19:25:05 UTC
I saw what you did there. You want a cloaky, flyable, full feature citadel for less than 50 million isk as compensation for any nerf to afk cloaky camping.

You win EvE, bro.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1

Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#5476 - 2016-01-15 22:19:48 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Mag's wrote:
No. It's my position that you're now clutching at straws to make an argument against cloaks.
You're basically using their role, as a reason to nerf them. But in the meantime, blissfully and wilfully ignoring the elephant in the room.
Let's see if you can spot it this time.

What mechanic are the using to interact with you and create an effect, whilst they are AFK?


Does not matter if they are AFK or not. AFK cloaking is a symptom of a bigger problem.

The argument was made that they should be safe as a station. I tend to disagree, and do agree that their role is more active. However, the safety they offer is too strong for the role they are supposed to fill. Since we cannot discuss tuning the safety, then we must discuss tuning their range of action.

The thing you cannot get around is that cloaks are too strong to have any affect at all that an enemy pilot would have a need or desire to interfere with. AFK cloaking is just an extreme example of how safe cloaks are, and not the root of the problem in any way.
There's that elephant again.

Safety is a two way street. We already know the position taken, in regards to safety at a secret safe spot.
Safety for cloakers also fluctuates when active, unlike stations.

Now then, back to that root elephant problem......


You mean that without local they could not project threat. Sure. That's just one small issue in a much larger problem, and a stupid solution in any case. Kind of like removing the light bulb from a warning light and calling the problem fixed.

Just because you are not aware of it, that does not mean the threat isn't there. AFK cloaking is a symptom. The problem being that cloaks offer too much range of ability for their safety. Since the safety is inviolate, the range of activity needs to be reduced to an appropriate level. As the safety is in fact higher than that offered by a station, then the range of action must be quite limited in deed.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#5477 - 2016-01-15 22:25:37 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

You mean that without local they could not project threat. Sure. That's just one small issue in a much larger problem, and a stupid solution in any case. Kind of like removing the light bulb from a warning light and calling the problem fixed.


Seems to work for worm holes. I can count on one finger the number of people who live in worm holes and complaining of cloaks.

Mike Voidstar wrote:

Just because you are not aware of it, that does not mean the threat isn't there. AFK cloaking is a symptom. The problem being that cloaks offer too much range of ability for their safety. Since the safety is inviolate, the range of activity needs to be reduced to an appropriate level. As the safety is in fact higher than that offered by a station, then the range of action must be quite limited in deed.


The safety is not inviolate. Drop that cloak to attack and guess what…you are vulnerable too. Screw up or get unlucky, or run across a good captor pilot and you are dead. Happens all the time.

Mike Voidstar wrote:

As the safety is in fact higher than that offered by a station….


I almost reported your post for that because it is so hilarious it could kill somebody by laughing to death. Seriously Mike, how many ships have been destroyed in station? I know linking kill mails is not allowed, but you can eve mail it to me. I’d love to see just 1 kill mail for a docked ship.

"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.
#5478 - 2016-01-15 22:29:15 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

AFK cloaking is a symptom.


Of the neverending cowardice of carebears.


Quote:

As the safety is in fact higher than that offered by a station


You are the biggest liar in the history of this forum, even if not in your absurdly dishonest post history, but just for this one sentence alone.

"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.

Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#5479 - 2016-01-15 23:10:32 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Seems to work for worm holes. I can count on one finger the number of people who live in worm holes and complaining of cloaks.


Hey, in Mike's defense, all of us out here in WHs are in fleet, on comms, and ready to reship and help defend corp mates 100% of the time we are playing.

Oh wait, those are the existing in-game counters we already suggested that Mike should start doing. Hmmm....
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#5480 - 2016-01-15 23:18:55 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

At risk warping to a gate? Infinitesimal to the point of no risk at all if they are at all intelligent and don't warp to zero.
At risk jumping through a gate? Far less than most other ships.
At risk warping to an object? Again, infinitesimal to the point of no risk at all if they are intelligent.


Oh Mike. The highsec is strong in this one. Let me help you out:

at risk when warping to a gate: granted, not so much. But you can definitely take them on the other side! That said, not everybody has a bookmark off the gate, and bouncing to a celestial is the oldest trick in the book. Those directions may very well have a permanent dragbubble and decloaking cans (or a mobile depot LOL) anchored. The proficient player will cap himself out and get close enough for a DScan, but at some point he'll want to warp to the gate and go through it.

at risk when jumping through a gate? Hell yeah! You bubble his assss---rear end- and a frig can get a good decloak on them like 80% of the time. Possibly more, but that's accounting for him burning out of your bubble or landing at a favourable location. To do this, have your Stiletto / Daredevil / whatever you use sit aboven or below the gatestructure, MWD primed, and burn as soon as he loses his gatecloak. Other tactics, such as a couple drone carriers spread out at several km from the gate also work. And dropping cans.

At risk when warping to an object? Same rules as for a gate apply, but it gets better:

in a belt, it may be very hard to get close enough without getting decloaked by asteroids / rats. Especially with gimped velocity under cloak.

in a complex, it get even better: people tend to drop their MTU or a can where you come out of the acceleration gate. This is a fixed location you cannot circumvent by warping from other directions or at range, therefore the decloak is guaranteed.



Briefly put: you forgot to account for DICs and dragbubbles. Every time you can "force" the inbound location and anchor a can, you have defeated the cloak. Every time you prevent a cloaker from warping off straight away, you have a chance to manually decloak him. All the bubbles man.