These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#7121 - 2016-10-21 17:05:41 UTC
Jerghul wrote:

Counter-play starts the moment you undock and launch probes.


Nobody undocks and launches probes against a cloaked ship now....so there is no counter play.

"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
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#7122 - 2016-10-21 17:39:25 UTC
Have to admit Jerghul has a ... umm... let's just say he's got his very own particular style for debate- but he does raise a valid point. More people in space is better.

(of course I agree cause I tried to raise that one myself, but nowhere near as efficient as Jerghul did. Just keep hammering it till it sticks, right?)

Basically put, EvE would be a better place if both the cloaker and the nullsec occupants would be at more risk. All this cloak and dagger stuff is dandy and nice but don't you want to shoot someone in the face just every once in a while? Pretty hard to do when one side is 99% safe and the other 98.5%. Reduce safety on all sides --never mind the lost ships left and right; it's supposed to be a spaceshooter aye?

Boils down to this:

* if locals have intel channels, they should be set up (in theory) to counter-attack whatever gang wants to play with them. (right now, posting eyes or having intel isn't even required. #TrueStory !)
* the cloaker can't cloak forever: he has ample time to make his move, but if he doesn't he ought to be at risk. Be it with a timer, or by being probeable doesn't matter- as long as he's not entirely safe everybody wins.
* if locals DO NOT have intel channels, I'd love to see some delayed local to give roaming gangs a chance.

More risk for everyone. Are you not entertained?

If that's what Jerghul is saying -- and he's trying to come up with the least intrusive option this time, far better than player-controlled gates blocking traffic and -- but essentially I hear a plea for more ships in space and less security for everyone involved. I can get behind this. More wrecks equals more fun.

Let's be honest here: the occasional retriever or Ishtar isn't all that expensive. Even if some are lost, it's not the end of the world. Same goes for the cloaky hunters: you can get a good one for 200-400 mil (depending on which is your poison of choice) and with the advantage of stealth and picking your own fights (mostly), that sort of evens out the odds.

If no Ishtars are at risk, and no Rapiers are at risk, ......... New Eden is a boring place man. Nobody likes to lose a ship but it's already replaced, ain't that so? More fights please, thanks. Pirate
Limi Etherseed
The Seven Sisters
#7123 - 2016-10-21 17:55:19 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Limi Etherseed wrote:


:P Would just like to point out that I could interact with an AFK cloaky camper. I'd shoot them, if I could find them. Much like they can interact with an AFK ratter. The counter-counter play option is one of those risks I think SHOULD be in the game.


I agree.

[snip, it was my post :B]

If by this you mean looking at removing/modifying local, again I agree. I like the idea of sov holders facing a choice in terms of fitting for intel, the trade offs. Do I fit the module to find AFK cloakers, or do I fit another module that does something elese? Of course if you have a problem with cloaking ships you can refit as needed too.

And having it be vulnerable so that it can be a possible conflict driver. Personally, I'd like the timers to be such that after the first entosis, intel goes dark or drops to some minimal level until the defender entosis' the structure. So defenders might want to get out there and stop the agressor before the defenders entire intel network goes down.


I do mean modifying or removing the intel out of local. A couple of posts back, I laid out that I'd like to see just a simple "traffic" number for what is now local. Stargate broadcasts "12 incoming ships, 3 outgoing in the last 5 minutes." as a function of the linked stargates. And that's all you get. Unless you speak in local, which would ping your character name up there. Proper intel systems would require monitoring the stargates and constant active dscan/probe scanning. If someone slips through the gate, they have a window of time before they are detected before the intel channels light up.

A single cyno-equipped stealth ship that gets through can bring a bunch of ships through under the radar. Alliances and corps would have to actively defend and monitor their space. Which I understand would be a lot of work, but if you're not willing to put in the effort to defend your space... why should you have it? Defense extends to intelligence as well as combat.

With that in mind for my suggestion, I would say THEN give us the ability to scan for cloaked ships. I'd prefer to see it on a ship so that anyone can reship and hunt a cloaked ship down (with difficulty so it doesn't unbalance it one way or the other), but I will accept a destructible structure in each system if it reacts quickly enough to actually catch someone.

I'm not certain on the limit to where the intel structure would stop working as far as entosis goes, that'd require a little bit of number crunching so that it couldn't be abused, but could be taken down.

Ah! Don't shoot me there, I'm a bleeder!
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7124 - 2016-10-21 19:04:57 UTC
Brokk
Thanks, bro.

I do think the least intrusive measure that fixes afk cloaky camping is the way to go. The underlying issue (why afk cloaky camping is bad) being that afk cloaky camping destroys content.

Charged based cloaks generate a lot of content opportunities that currently do not exist. The only downside is that whoever wants to afk cloaky camp has to be reasonably sure they will be at the keyboard at some point within the next 5 hours. Their bad if they get that wrong.

It may not be enough. But it certainly is a start.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#7125 - 2016-10-21 19:22:48 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Have to admit Jerghul has a ... umm... let's just say he's got his very own particular style for debate- but he does raise a valid point. More people in space is better.

(of course I agree cause I tried to raise that one myself, but nowhere near as efficient as Jerghul did. Just keep hammering it till it sticks, right?)

Basically put, EvE would be a better place if both the cloaker and the nullsec occupants would be at more risk. All this cloak and dagger stuff is dandy and nice but don't you want to shoot someone in the face just every once in a while? Pretty hard to do when one side is 99% safe and the other 98.5%. Reduce safety on all sides --never mind the lost ships left and right; it's supposed to be a spaceshooter aye?

Boils down to this:

* if locals have intel channels, they should be set up (in theory) to counter-attack whatever gang wants to play with them. (right now, posting eyes or having intel isn't even required. #TrueStory !)
* the cloaker can't cloak forever: he has ample time to make his move, but if he doesn't he ought to be at risk. Be it with a timer, or by being probeable doesn't matter- as long as he's not entirely safe everybody wins.
* if locals DO NOT have intel channels, I'd love to see some delayed local to give roaming gangs a chance.

More risk for everyone. Are you not entertained?

If that's what Jerghul is saying -- and he's trying to come up with the least intrusive option this time, far better than player-controlled gates blocking traffic and -- but essentially I hear a plea for more ships in space and less security for everyone involved. I can get behind this. More wrecks equals more fun.

Let's be honest here: the occasional retriever or Ishtar isn't all that expensive. Even if some are lost, it's not the end of the world. Same goes for the cloaky hunters: you can get a good one for 200-400 mil (depending on which is your poison of choice) and with the advantage of stealth and picking your own fights (mostly), that sort of evens out the odds.

If no Ishtars are at risk, and no Rapiers are at risk, ......... New Eden is a boring place man. Nobody likes to lose a ship but it's already replaced, ain't that so? More fights please, thanks. Pirate


Delayed local woud also nerf AFK cloaking too simply because AFK cloaking is only needed and indeed only works with the way null local works and is used. So the second local stops being useful for intel is the moment AFK cloaking dies.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#7126 - 2016-10-21 19:24:38 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Brokk
Thanks, bro.

I do think the least intrusive measure that fixes afk cloaky camping is the way to go. The underlying issue (why afk cloaky camping is bad) being that afk cloaky camping destroys content.

Charged based cloaks generate a lot of content opportunities that currently do not exist. The only downside is that whoever wants to afk cloaky camp has to be reasonably sure they will be at the keyboard at some point within the next 5 hours. Their bad if they get that wrong.

It may not be enough. But it certainly is a start.


Once again I point out this plan hands 100% foolproof intel via local that is instant and free to the defenders that nobody could get around. Your plan would reduce the number of ships killed.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7127 - 2016-10-21 19:32:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
baltec
Wrong, my dear friend. Though as always; feel free to have as many opinions as you like.

The biweekly single kill opportunity that arise at the afk cloaky camper convenience bleaken compared to the opportunities lost by afk cloaky campers keeping would be ratters docked up in the 100ds of hours interims between their kills.

Human error is the premier content provider in null-sec, buddy. But ships have to undock to make mistakes.

But we have been through these points a few times now. I should remember copy paste is my friend at some point :).

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#7128 - 2016-10-21 19:40:02 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Jerghul wrote:
baltec
Wrong, my dear friend. Though as always; feel free to have as many opinions as you like.

The biweekly single kill opportunity that arise at the afk cloaky camper convenience bleaken compared to the opportunities lost by afk cloaky campers keeping would be ratters docked up in the 100ds of hours interims between their kills.

Human error is the premier content provider in null-sec, buddy. But ships have to undock to make mistakes.

But we have been through these points a few times now. I should remember copy paste is my friend at some point :).


We have and you still have no idea what you are talking about.

Tell me, with local the way it is how are you going to catch anything that is located deep inside say, goon space? They will see you and be gone before you even get within 4 jumps of the system. Your plan make it impossible to catch them because the only counter to local has been destroyed.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7129 - 2016-10-21 19:40:51 UTC
Wrong, my dear friend. Though as always; feel free to have as many opinions as you like.

The biweekly single kill opportunity that arise at the afk cloaky camper convenience bleaken compared to the opportunities lost by afk cloaky campers keeping would be ratters docked up in the 100ds of hours interims between their kills.

Human error is the premier content provider in null-sec, buddy. But ships have to undock to make mistakes.

But we have been through these points a few times now. I remembered copy-paste is my friend :).

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#7130 - 2016-10-21 19:42:23 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Wrong, my dear friend. Though as always; feel free to have as many opinions as you like.

The biweekly single kill opportunity that arise at the afk cloaky camper convenience bleaken compared to the opportunities lost by afk cloaky campers keeping would be ratters docked up in the 100ds of hours interims between their kills.

Human error is the premier content provider in null-sec, buddy. But ships have to undock to make mistakes.

But we have been through these points a few times now. I remembered copy-paste is my friend :).


And now you cant even respond to me.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7131 - 2016-10-21 19:48:04 UTC
Baltec
My answer for goon space would be that if you think afk cloaky camping is effective deep in say goon space, then do that and remember to reload your cloak module every 5 hours.

But I think you are actually rehashing a battle already lost. This thread is not about jump fatigue and the weakening of strategic mobility.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#7132 - 2016-10-21 20:36:10 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Baltec
My answer for goon space would be that if you think afk cloaky camping is effective deep in say goon space, then do that and remember to reload your cloak module every 5 hours.



That doesn't work because you are not AFK anymore. Your plan means there is no such thing as AFK camping.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7133 - 2016-10-21 20:55:12 UTC
Baltec
You are as afk as you want to be. I hate to use the word pathetic. But that is sort of what pops up when I consider the merits of your objection.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#7134 - 2016-10-22 00:08:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Jerghul wrote:
Wrong, my dear friend. Though as always; feel free to have as many opinions as you like.

The biweekly single kill opportunity that arise at the afk cloaky camper convenience bleaken compared to the opportunities lost by afk cloaky campers keeping would be ratters docked up in the 100ds of hours interims between their kills.

Human error is the premier content provider in null-sec, buddy. But ships have to undock to make mistakes.

But we have been through these points a few times now. I remembered copy-paste is my friend :).


Brokk we have already gone over that human error is not a counter to anything, so pointing to it as a content providder is a non-sequitur.

"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
#7135 - 2016-10-22 08:25:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Ratpack
You have the right you your opinions, no matter how wrong they may be.

Not only is human error an important content provider anywhere is Eve. It is the premier content provider in null-sec pvp.

But people have to undock to make mistakes.

Afk cloaky camping keeps people from undocking. The mechanism in its current form destroys content.

We have been though this a number of times now. I should remember that copy+paste is my friend.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#7136 - 2016-10-22 09:05:09 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Ratpack
You have the right you your opinions, no matter how wrong they may be.

Not only is human error an important content provider anywhere is Eve. It is the premier content provider in null-sec pvp.

But people have to undock to make mistakes.

Afk cloaky camping keeps people from undocking. The mechanism in its current form destroys content.

We have been though this a number of times now. I should remember that copy+paste is my friend.


No matter how many times you post your opinion, it does not make you right. You have zero proof, flimsy reasoning and you keep moving the goalposts every time someone actually makes a reasonable counter-point. This is your 4th or 5th different idea. You are basically throwing stuff at the wall and see what sticks, while throwing thinly veiled insults at anyone who doesn't think it will work.

Wormholer for life.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7137 - 2016-10-22 09:22:41 UTC
Ratpack
I will admit to often assuming malice, when simple stupidity has sufficient explanatory power. So, yes, when I act on assuming people understand the disasterous caskading conscequences of their musings, I sometimes assume malice, and can be slightly uncouth.

But that is never the case with you, my dear friend! I never assume malice!

The laws of large numbers make me right. The more people in space, the more they will screw up and die. We can discuss what fractions might screw up (I am operating with 3%, but that is just a number aligned with industrial quality standards in real life), we can discuss if rat bounties should be tweaked down as a conscequence of giving cloak modules charge capacity. We can even discuss if we think command burst style charges for cloaks is an insufficient intervention (a problem with the least intrusive approach is that I might be erring on the side of caution).

If we ever wanted to move forward. But forward momentum does not seem to be much of a priority here. Which is fair enough. Good fun and all that.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#7138 - 2016-10-22 10:00:10 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Baltec
You are as afk as you want to be. I hate to use the word pathetic. But that is sort of what pops up when I consider the merits of your objection.


How can you be "AFK as much as you want" when your system forces me to reapply the cloak?

AFK works because you spend a week in system doing nothing, under your plan the cloaker needs to be active at least once every 5 hours and cannot stay in system while you sleep or work because you will decloak. So not only can you not camp it for the length of time required but you also have to be active enough to maintain your cloak that people will simply assume you are active all the time. And then we have the likes of blocade runners in highsec chewing through charges like no tomorrow as they jump through gates and explorers not far behind them.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7139 - 2016-10-22 10:33:14 UTC
Baltec
You are not spending a week doing nothing. You are spending a week destroying content until ratters become habituated to your presence and begin to make sorties into space again. Mass destruction of content cannot be justified by a single kill on a biweekly basis.

Log off if you are unwilling or unable to reload the cloaking module in 5 hours. You will still be in system the next time you log on.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#7140 - 2016-10-22 10:36:00 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Ratpack
I will admit to often assuming malice, when simple stupidity has sufficient explanatory power. So, yes, when I act on assuming people understand the disasterous caskading conscequences of their musings, I sometimes assume malice, and can be slightly uncouth.

But that is never the case with you, my dear friend! I never assume malice!

The laws of large numbers make me right. The more people in space, the more they will screw up and die. We can discuss what fractions might screw up (I am operating with 3%, but that is just a number aligned with industrial quality standards in real life), we can discuss if rat bounties should be tweaked down as a conscequence of giving cloak modules charge capacity. We can even discuss if we think command burst style charges for cloaks is an insufficient intervention (a problem with the least intrusive approach is that I might be erring on the side of caution).

If we ever wanted to move forward. But forward momentum does not seem to be much of a priority here. Which is fair enough. Good fun and all that.



And yet again, you manage to keep up with your insults.

There is no law of large numbers. You have zero proof, except your opinion what is the result of your "fix". You also completely ignore the reason why AFK-cloaking is done. It's not something done in isolation, it's the counter-point to the perfect intel given by local and it's use as a intel-channel in nullsec, resulting in increased of safety for ratters.

The amount of kills your fleet will get will stay exactly the same. There won't be any new targets you can even possibly catch, as the intel-channels will keep people docked up way before you hit the system and local gives away your entry at the latest. You won't have more targets as it's the same people who get caught by fleets and AFk-cloakers. It's the people who don't use the safety-net of intel-channels, local, be aligned or be in a fleet.

The only echo-chamber in this thread is inside your head.

Wormholer for life.