These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#7321 - 2016-11-04 23:32:25 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Omna
I know. Hence bounty decreases being a premise for tempering (not removing) afk cloaky camping.


It would need to be somewhere in the 50 to 60% range of a decrease to compensate for the seer amount of ISK that would be able to generated from the ships that are not being destroyed that used to stay docked because of the terrifying AFK cloaker.


Using Vic's 60 million ISK/Hour and the "conservative" estimate of 1,000 more ships undocked (is that per hour, or per day...like such a thing rarely matters given the foolishness of the whole premise) we'd see, after an hours worth of ratting (and accounting for kills) 49.2 billion ISK entering the economy for that hour. For 365 days out of the year that would account for just under 18 trillion ISK entering the game. That is almost double the amount of ISK that incursions inject into the game for September and that is just one hours worth of ratting.

"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
#7322 - 2016-11-04 23:34:20 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Omna
I expect to see a double digit % reduction in the number of afk cloaky camped systems.

I would not care to wager the level of bounty reductions (measured in isk/ship hour) beyond suggesting the order of magnitude (double digit reduction) as we do not really know how bounties decompose. To what degree do ratting carriers (or whatever) inside blue doughnuts inflate total bounty numbers.

More intelligent rats (overseers + henchmen flying off with their personal things if not overseer not scrammed when facing losing battle) might be as easy a way to nerf bounties as anything. And sort of fits the direction CCP wants to move in.

But who knows. All I know is that bounty reduction is a premise for introducing a command burst style charge for cloaking modules (ie a 5 hour timer), not a coscequence as I initially thought.


And never mind that if the ISK/hour drops people may very well shift to other sources of income so we don't see this "explosion" of ratting ships in space.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7323 - 2016-11-04 23:47:13 UTC
Ratpack
Thank you for thinking that through a bit more for your second post.

Yepp, people would actually have to go on ratting roams, or suffer their way through with belt rats. Bounties would not increase on a linear scale, nor would 60 billion isk/hr be even close to average bounty payouts (its actually not even close to the average sum of loot+bounties+salvage)

I do not really feel the need to engage in pseudo-math beyond noting that bounties (isk/hr) would need to be reduced in a double digit order of magnitude.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#7324 - 2016-11-04 23:54:22 UTC
You seem to want to keep things simple to hide the magnitude of what you are proposing to do.
There is no two ways about it if AFK cloaking is removed then ISK/HR increases proportionally. Adjusting the rat AI will work for a short time, but like all other PVE players adapt to maintain their ISK/HR ticks.
The only way to permanently reduce the ISK amounts generated from ratting is to a direct nerf to bounties which would end up driving players out of null sec.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#7325 - 2016-11-04 23:55:59 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Ratpack
Thank you for thinking that through a bit more for your second post.

Yepp, people would actually have to go on ratting roams, or suffer their way through with belt rats. Bounties would not increase on a linear scale, nor would 60 billion isk/hr be even close to average bounty payouts (its actually not even close to the average sum of loot+bounties+salvage)

I do not really feel the need to engage in pseudo-math beyond noting that bounties (isk/hr) would need to be reduced in a double digit order of magnitude.


So much for dealing with how players are vs. how we want them to be. Roll

And you have been engaged in nothing but pseudo-math and pseudo-logic in every post.

"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
#7326 - 2016-11-04 23:57:57 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
You seem to want to keep things simple to hide the magnitude of what you are proposing to do.
There is no two ways about it if AFK cloaking is removed then ISK/HR increases proportionally. Adjusting the rat AI will work for a short time, but like all other PVE players adapt to maintain their ISK/HR ticks.
The only way to permanently reduce the ISK amounts generated from ratting is to a direct nerf to bounties which would end up driving players out of null sec.


Yep, blitz a mission and then cash in the LP for one. Or if you have some alts, a PI farm--added benefit it is semi-passive. Or if you can, get in incursion fleets.

"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
#7327 - 2016-11-05 00:07:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Omna
Again, I am not suggesting afk cloaky camping be removed, merely tempered.

My expectation is for a double digit % reduction of systems camped. And a double digit % increase in bounties payout if that does not change.

Which is why I strongly suggest reducing bounties as a premise for the concept.

But bounty pay-outs will not increase linearly as the result of increased undocked ships. All sites are created equal, but some are more equal than others.

Ratpack
"engage in pseudo-math beyond noting order of magnitude" indicates clearly I know this is not an exact science.

You are trying to overspecify when there are too many unknown variables. "No ratpack, bad ratpack!" *Jerghul rolls up newspaper in threatening manner* :-)

============

Edit
You all are getting the irony of arguing that players will leave null-sec if afk cloaky camping is tampered with, right?

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#7328 - 2016-11-05 00:23:10 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Omna
Again, I am not suggesting afk cloaky camping be removed, merely tempered.

My expectation is for a double digit % reduction of systems camped. And a double digit % increase in bounties payout if that does not change.

Which is why I strongly suggest reducing bounties as a premise for the concept.

But bounty pay-outs will not increase linearly as the result of increased undocked ships. All sites are created equal, but some are more equal than others.

Ratpack
"engage in pseudo-math beyond noting order of magnitude" indicates clearly I know this is not an exact science.

You are trying to overspecify when there are too many unknown variables. "No ratpack, bad ratpack!" *Jerghul rolls up newspaper in threatening manner* :-)

============

Edit
You all are getting the irony of arguing that players will leave null-sec if afk cloaky camping is tampered with, right?


But that is exactly what you have been doing. Making up nonsense numbers based on nothing. They are all pure fabrications. All of your predictions are about as solid as a pile of wet toilet paper.

The best that can be said of your proposal is this:

More people will be able to rat. More people will be caught unawares while ratting. So more people will get blown up.

How much more? You don't know at all, but that has not stopped you from quantifying it. And these attempts to quantify it is all a load of complete Bravo Sierra.

And what is to stop people from logging off via a macro? Said macro will not interact with the game, will not let the player acquire any resources, and it wouldn't even be possible to tell the difference from closing the EVE client manually vs. the macro. And since it is using automation to NOT play the game it seems it wouldn't even violate the EULA.

"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
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#7329 - 2016-11-05 00:39:21 UTC
Jerghul wrote:

My expectation is for a double digit % reduction of systems camped.

Based on what logic that allows you to come to a semi-quantitative estimate here?
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7330 - 2016-11-05 01:09:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Teckos
Its quite valid to state expected effects within a huge margin of error. I used orders of magnitude (give or take a 0). Is it pseudo-math? Sure.

But over-specifying with many unknown variables like you tried just does not work.

Macro? Well, then the system is no longer cloaky camped. All it does is give 5 extra camping hours. Which I am sure some people will do. Yay life hax.

Scripio
The logic has been repeated so many times, it was reported as spam. Quite justified to report it I thought.

If charges (5 hour timers) are introduced, then the afk cloaky camper has to be atk ever 5 hours or risk being probbed down when his afk cloaky camper becomes an afk ship in space.

So a certain % of afk cloaky campers will decide to log off in unsure of making it back from the pub in 5 hours (or whatever).

Even given redundancies (some systems have multiple cloaky campers), I still feel reasonably sure the reduction in cloaky camped systems will be in the double digit %. So more than a 9% reduction and less than a 100% reduction.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#7331 - 2016-11-05 01:21:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Jerghul wrote:
Scripio
The logic has been repeated so many times, it was reported as spam. Quite justified to report it I thought.

If charges (5 hour timers) are introduced, then the afk cloaky camper has to be atk ever 5 hours or risk being probbed down when his afk cloaky camper becomes an afk ship in space.

So a certain % of afk cloaky campers will decide to log off in unsure of making it back from the pub in 5 hours (or whatever).

Even given redundancies (some systems have multiple cloaky campers), I still feel reasonably sure the reduction in cloaky camped systems will be in the double digit %. So more than a 9% reduction and less than a 100% reduction.

Jorgul
You feel reasonably sure of double digits, yet lack a sold justification for it based on he above. At this point, it's just a guess.

How many systems are currently cloaky camped? What is the average amount of time cloaked campers stay inactive? Will 5 hours even matter? What is the basis for a 5 hour timer? What percentage will decide to log off instead?

None of this sort of analysis has been outlined anywhere. It's that type of critical analysis that would justify what you've said. At the moment, it's just a stab in the dark and completely useless as a basis to discuss game mechanics changes.
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#7332 - 2016-11-05 01:24:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Sonya Corvinus
Jerghul wrote:
Omna
I know. Hence bounty decreases being a premise for tempering (not removing) afk cloaky camping.

Ratpack
1000nds more on a daily basis. You know that, bro. Goodness knows I have said it often enough.

Sonya
Its not about me, sis. Reported for adhom.

Vic
Nope. Afk cloaky camping relies on habituation get kills. Hang around until players get used to the afk cloaky camper, and finally make a mistake and undock.

afk cloaky camping is hideously inefficient. Counter-counter play (pretending to be uncloaked by the 5 hour timer) will generate more kills for afk cloaky campers than they get now. If skillfully played.

xcom
The problem with afk cloaky camping is it kills content by keeping players docked.
Removing local renders afk cloaky camping redundant, but would kill content by keeping even more players docked.

So does not resolve the problem I see at all.

Ratpack
Exactly. afk cloaky campers need to HTFU and accept some volitility in their gameplay.

Sonya
Providing alternate ways for individual players to gain consistent real time information is the premise for being able to disable local. But good to know you would support a way to hunt/track cloaked ships.


Given your entire premise is to improve PvP, respond with your PvP character instead of your PvE/industry one and we can respond seriously.

You've killed exactly zero people in months and want to be taken seriously when it comes to changes affecting PvP? God, I love you.

But hey! we're getting somewhere! You acknowledged I would support a way to hunt/track cloaked ships. That means you agree nerfing local is part of the solution, yeah? Eagerly await you ignoring this post.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7333 - 2016-11-05 01:39:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Sonya
Reported for adhom. I would suggest you review the forum rules.

Otherwise, recognizing your position does not entail agreeing with it. So that part would be a strawman argument.

You can do better, I have seen you debate in good faith for several posts in a row occassionally.

Ratpack
You too incidentally for masked profanity.

Scorpio
Lack of data. CCP has the data and can verify some of the assumptions in early stage concept evaluations if it wants to.

It is otherwise perfectly valid to state expectations for as long as the degree of uncertainty is explicit. Uncertainty does not get more explicit than stating expectations within orders of magnitude.

I am under no illusions that changes to game mechanics are consensus driven. You are not the one I am trying to convince.

But I value your input. I have changed things as the result of exchanges here. Yay reluctant collaboration :-).

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#7334 - 2016-11-05 01:47:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Jerghul wrote:

Scorpio
Lack of data.

Yerghul
Exactly. You don't have the data and can't, as a result, make any believable claim about double digits. It's pure fantasy unsupported by any reasonable justification.

You haven't even tried to validate what you are claiming, yet make the claims anyway. It's pure charlatanism.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7335 - 2016-11-05 01:54:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Scripio
The analysis is there for anyone to see. My expectations are not really particularly relevant in any order of magnitude beyond knowing the changes do go in the direction I suggest.

Feel free to ignore the order of magnitude.

I can restate it without quantifying the expected effects at times as a head-nod to your input.

Reported for adhom.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#7336 - 2016-11-05 02:21:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Jerghul wrote:
Scripio
... beyond knowing the changes do go in the direction I suggest..

Jorqual
That's the thing. You don't actually know at all.

You are entitled to an opinion as we all are, but not to claiming you know it heads in a specific direction, since you have no objective, validated basis for knowing.

That then comes back to what others have been saying. There is nothing presented that actually shows you have any sort of credibility in this debate and they are absolutely right to conclude/assume that really your motivation here is to make it easier to rat in null in safety.

You appear to want less cloaky camping (ie. double digit change in the direction you suggest), which serves only to make nullsec safer for ratting.

Why does cloaky camping even need to be lowered at all? Why does nullsec need to be made safer for PvE?
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#7337 - 2016-11-05 02:50:40 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Scripio
The analysis is there for anyone to see. My expectations are not really particularly relevant in any order of magnitude beyond knowing the changes do go in the direction I suggest.

Feel free to ignore the order of magnitude.

I can restate it without quantifying the expected effects at times as a head-nod to your input.

Reported for adhom.


Pointing out the missing facts, the weird logic, lack of proof and overall stupidity of your ideas is not a attack on you, it just means that you need to make better arguments. Eve-players are quite clever at poking holes in other people's ideas and proving how they can be used against themselves.

You don't know anything more than we do and acting like you are above the rest just makes us want to tear your ideas to pieces even more.

Again: If there was a simple "least intrusive" fix to this, CCP would have done it years ago. IF they decide to do something ,it's going to be a major rework and very intrusive. Keeping your hopes up for anything less is just that, hoping.

Wormholer for life.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7338 - 2016-11-05 04:13:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Scipio
Reported again. Stop with the adhoms, bro. They are against forum rules.

afk cloaky camping should be tempered because it keeps ships from undocking.

Ironically making null-sec safer, as nothing besides afk cloaky camping is as safe as remaining docked up.

I have repeatedly stated my objective: I want more ships in space in null-sec.

You have other objectives. Fair enough. That is your right.

Wander
There is no reason to flag posts that simply attack ideas. Try to stick to that in a constructive way.

Its not a personal opinion of mine. I can debate by whatever lowest common denominator there is.

But the thread was closed recently. I think we owe the moderators to at least try to play by the forum rules.

Command burst like charges (ie a 5 hour timer) for cloaking modules is the least intrusive measure I have devised.

Alpha clones are a premise for its introduction. The server needs the account buff before afk cloaky camping could be touched.

Because afk cloaky camping is superb at keeping server numbers inflated. You can say what you want about afk cloaky camping accounts....but they certainly are online a lot.

So the suggestion is quite timely.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#7339 - 2016-11-05 04:40:51 UTC
Jerghul wrote:


Vic
Nope. Afk cloaky camping relies on habituation get kills. Hang around until players get used to the afk cloaky camper, and finally make a mistake and undock.

afk cloaky camping is hideously inefficient. Counter-counter play (pretending to be uncloaked by the 5 hour timer) will generate more kills for afk cloaky campers than they get now. If skillfully played.



No. Current camping is extremely efficient in terms of effort. Have you spent literally hundreds of hours hunting, when 99.99% of targets know where you are 10 minutes before you get there? You have no idea about this. Add in the modern ratting ships which are extremely tackle resistant, and you have another contributing factor of why nullsec is just terrible for content generation.

Even in a normal roam, intel basically eliminates all game play around catching targets. You have almost no understanding of the meta if you think baiting by pretending to be decloaked is a good idea in deep sov.

Cloaky camping does not prevent ships from unlocking. It prevents un-organized groups from reaping the benefits of nullsec, a place designed around organized group play.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#7340 - 2016-11-05 04:52:03 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Jerghul wrote:

My expectation is for a double digit % reduction of systems camped.

Based on what logic that allows you to come to a semi-quantitative estimate here?


The logic of WTFAYTA.

"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