These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#9361 - 2017-04-27 05:23:34 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Yet the one thing they are supposed to do, provide a safe place, is done better by a cloak.


Nope. How is a station inferior? How is a citadel inferior?

"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
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#9362 - 2017-04-27 10:39:56 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Yet the one thing they are supposed to do, provide a safe place, is done better by a cloak.


Cloaks don't come armed with a doomsday, invincibility or asset protection.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#9363 - 2017-04-27 11:40:11 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
OK, I was told reliably that CCP are intending to set up the uncloaking wave idea within a system with a long cooldown attached to a citadel, so that active campers will have no issues but those that are AFK will be uncloaked and can then be probed down.

That is good news even if it screws up cloaks for casual players who get called away.

I think that this is a good solution and it makes me very happy. Good job CCP, don't back away from it.


Roll

If true, it shows that CCP have not learned anything when it comes to their player base.


He is talking rubbish.

What that would mean is 100% safety for ratters in null with no way to counter it.
I don't doubt that idea is on a whiteboard in Reykjavik as a possible improvement for dealing with cloak campers. It is essentially the Observatory Array idea mentioned in the original structure devblog.

Of course, right next to it is a little asterisk and the note 'IMPLEMENT WITH NERF TO LOCAL IN NULLSEC'.

After how cagey CCP was to questions on AFK cloaking and future structures at Fanfest, I wouldn't expect to see this functionality (and the nerf to local) for citadels or via a dedicated Observatory Array until well into 2018 though. Neither appears to be anywhere close to being on the roadmap and with all hands on deck for an Empire-focused expansion this winter, it isn't going to be on the roadmap for a while.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#9364 - 2017-04-27 17:41:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Black Pedro wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
OK, I was told reliably that CCP are intending to set up the uncloaking wave idea within a system with a long cooldown attached to a citadel, so that active campers will have no issues but those that are AFK will be uncloaked and can then be probed down.

That is good news even if it screws up cloaks for casual players who get called away.

I think that this is a good solution and it makes me very happy. Good job CCP, don't back away from it.


Roll

If true, it shows that CCP have not learned anything when it comes to their player base.


He is talking rubbish.

What that would mean is 100% safety for ratters in null with no way to counter it.
I don't doubt that idea is on a whiteboard in Reykjavik as a possible improvement for dealing with cloak campers. It is essentially the Observatory Array idea mentioned in the original structure devblog.

Of course, right next to it is a little asterisk and the note 'IMPLEMENT WITH NERF TO LOCAL IN NULLSEC'.

After how cagey CCP was to questions on AFK cloaking and future structures at Fanfest, I wouldn't expect to see this functionality (and the nerf to local) for citadels or via a dedicated Observatory Array until well into 2018 though. Neither appears to be anywhere close to being on the roadmap and with all hands on deck for an Empire-focused expansion this winter, it isn't going to be on the roadmap for a while.


Possibly. I would hope they come up with a different solution or make this one expensive--i.e. if you do this, the other features you can put on the Observatory Array (OA) are much more limited. That is, you can push the "decloak wave" button, but that is about all the OA is going to let you do. Or more bluntly, local is gone, you can decloak cloaked ships, but that is all making it possible that ATK hunters will find you. Combat recons will be wonderful, do not show up on d-scan and no local....have a nice day Mike, Drac, and Xcom.

And yeah, my guess is this is way down there on the development cycle. CCP has repeatedly indicated they are reasonably happy with cloaks as is....so they may change it, but not for awhile. So Drac may be right, but he is either not telling the full story or doesn't have the full story.

"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
Dziqn
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#9365 - 2017-04-28 10:46:23 UTC
We need some kind of conter for AFK Cloaky alts. Its stupid he can sit in system all day and night. Maybe fuel or new combat probes.
Its not about ppl cloaking its about doing it afk
Tessa Sage
Long Pig Luncheon Meat
Sending Thots And Players
#9366 - 2017-04-28 11:17:12 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
...

Look, both local and AFK cloaking need to go. Players should be able to "claw" back the benefits of local via the Observatory Array. However, it should not simply give back local as it is "too good". Intel should be based on player effort not just some structure one anchors.

I'd also like to see the structure vulnerable not only to attack, but also some sort of subversion. That is when subverted (where there is a chance of both failure and success) the person(s) subverting the OA get some sort of benefit, such as appearing as blue, not appearing on intel reports or some such.

At the same time cloaked ships should be vulnerable to probing. Maybe not as vulnerable as an uncloaked/non-cloaking ship (i.e. it will take longer to scan them down--after all cloaks should provide some benefit even against probes IMO), but vulnerable enough so that AFK cloaking is no longer a viable strategy.


Arbitrarily I went to the 'Pi' page 314 of this thread and behold, the very same someone I just read / replied to on a previous post. I agree with the opportunity for entosis level espionage: a normal behaving OA could counter neutral incursions whether with augments to player scanning or other buffs. Crack said Array in a manageable Entosis fit, and local goes bonk reflecting far from the true player count at that time (think wh space again, but not dark, disco).

Pirate
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#9367 - 2017-04-28 19:09:53 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Yet the one thing they are supposed to do, provide a safe place, is done better by a cloak.


Cloaks don't come armed with a doomsday, invincibility or asset protection.



Asset Protection is the only reason a safe place in EVE exists at all.

Cloaks don't need and should not have anywhere near, never mind superior, safety to the only thing that is supposed to be safe for that purpose.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#9368 - 2017-04-28 21:27:54 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Yet the one thing they are supposed to do, provide a safe place, is done better by a cloak.


Cloaks don't come armed with a doomsday, invincibility or asset protection.



Asset Protection is the only reason a safe place in EVE exists at all.

Cloaks don't need and should not have anywhere near, never mind superior, safety to the only thing that is supposed to be safe for that purpose.


Good thing they aren't superior.

Maybe when I can park my obelisk inside my nemesis....

"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
#9369 - 2017-04-28 21:31:03 UTC
Dziqn wrote:
We need some kind of conter for AFK Cloaky alts. Its stupid he can sit in system all day and night. Maybe fuel or new combat probes.
Its not about ppl cloaking its about doing it afk


No need for implementing a counter you already have one. How do you know there is an AFK cloaker in system?

"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
#9370 - 2017-04-29 03:38:25 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Yet the one thing they are supposed to do, provide a safe place, is done better by a cloak.


Cloaks don't come armed with a doomsday, invincibility or asset protection.



Asset Protection is the only reason a safe place in EVE exists at all.

Cloaks don't need and should not have anywhere near, never mind superior, safety to the only thing that is supposed to be safe for that purpose.


Good thing they aren't superior.

Maybe when I can park my obelisk inside my nemesis....



How about that Nemesis itself? Right. Non-Consent only applies to your targets, it should never ever be allowed to come back to the hunter.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#9371 - 2017-04-29 04:28:21 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Yet the one thing they are supposed to do, provide a safe place, is done better by a cloak.


Cloaks don't come armed with a doomsday, invincibility or asset protection.



Asset Protection is the only reason a safe place in EVE exists at all.

Cloaks don't need and should not have anywhere near, never mind superior, safety to the only thing that is supposed to be safe for that purpose.


Good thing they aren't superior.

Maybe when I can park my obelisk inside my nemesis....



How about that Nemesis itself? Right. Non-Consent only applies to your targets, it should never ever be allowed to come back to the hunter.


Of course it does not apply, the nemesis pilot is consenting to PvP. Roll

And cloaks are still not superior to stations or citadels. Maybe when I can keep 5 billion ISK worth of invention materials in my proteus you might have a point.

"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
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#9372 - 2017-04-29 06:56:16 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Right. Non-Consent only applies to your targets, it should never ever be allowed to come back to the hunter.


Ah yes, the same tired old bleating about "I MUST PVP THIS". You've provided no good reasons for your blanket statements that everything must be vulnerable to attack at all times, you've just declared it to be true. And you continue to overlook the massive balance problems that come with every proposal to add vulnerability to cloaked ships: either the counter is ineffective at best and non-consent applies only in theory, or the counter is way too easy and effectively removes cloaks from the game. And I have no idea why you consider this "ALL MUST BE VULNERABLE" principle to be more important than the practical balance consequences of your obsession with it.
Now Life
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#9373 - 2017-04-29 09:19:05 UTC
Thelonious Blake wrote:
And honestly I have yet to see a member of distinguished wormhole group/corporation to moan about cloaking mechanics. And this speaks alot. Prove me wrong with a link.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
being vocal about AFK cloaking doesn't mean the mechanic is broken. Not in the current state of the game, at least by my opinion.



wormhole group/corporations can't be hotdropt by 100+ capitals /BS
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#9374 - 2017-04-29 09:31:18 UTC
Now Life wrote:
Thelonious Blake wrote:
And honestly I have yet to see a member of distinguished wormhole group/corporation to moan about cloaking mechanics. And this speaks alot. Prove me wrong with a link.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
being vocal about AFK cloaking doesn't mean the mechanic is broken. Not in the current state of the game, at least by my opinion.



wormhole group/corporations can't be hotdropt by 100+ capitals /BS


It sounds like you have issue with cynos, not with cloaks ...

Wormholer for life.
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#9375 - 2017-04-29 09:36:22 UTC
Now Life wrote:
wormhole group/corporations can't be hotdropt by 100+ capitals /BS


I fail to see the problem with a 100+ man fleet succeeding in killing something. If you bring that many ships against a lesser target of course you should win. Perhaps, instead of whining that you can get hotdropped by 100+ capitals, you should match their hotdrop with 100+ capitals of your own?
Now Life
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#9376 - 2017-04-29 09:49:32 UTC
The biggest problem with a afk cloaker is the cyno on the ship .
He just need to be in system just watching his DS for Juicy targets and meanwhile ratting with a different character in their home systems .
Camp the system for as long as he wants and still no way to find him .
When the targets ar nice cal for fleet and hot drop

We need to keep backup fleets ready fore every day as long he is in system .
So one character can keep a fleet on stand by even when he is afk .
and removing local Is not a solution you can see on dotlan in which systems people are active.
Self ccp gives intelligence with their monthly economic report
Now Life
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#9377 - 2017-04-29 09:54:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Now Life
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Now Life wrote:
wormhole group/corporations can't be hotdropt by 100+ capitals /BS


I fail to see the problem with a 100+ man fleet succeeding in killing something. If you bring that many ships against a lesser target of course you should win. Perhaps, instead of whining that you can get hotdropped by 100+ capitals, you should match their hotdrop with 100+ capitals of your own?



We have
And its not the 100+ capitals i have problems with, it's the afk cloaker
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale
#9378 - 2017-04-29 10:23:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Linus Gorp
Mike Voidstar wrote:
What you are failing to comprehend is that it does not matter what you are doing, if you are in space you should be subject to non-consensual interaction. You seem to understand it just fine when it's not your ship or playstyle, but somehow cloaks get a pass.

Let's get rid of citadel tethers and pos forcefields too, then.

Now Life wrote:
The biggest problem with a afk cloaker is the cyno on the ship .
He just need to be in system just watching his DS for Juicy targets and meanwhile ratting with a different character in their home systems .
Camp the system for as long as he wants and still no way to find him .
When the targets ar nice cal for fleet and hot drop

We need to keep backup fleets ready fore every day as long he is in system .
So one character can keep a fleet on stand by even when he is afk .
and removing local Is not a solution you can see on dotlan in which systems people are active.
Self ccp gives intelligence with their monthly economic report

Or, you know, pay attention and stay aligned?

When you don't know the difference between there, their, and they're, you come across as being so uneducated that your viewpoint can be safely dismissed. The literate is unlikely to learn much from the illiterate.
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#9379 - 2017-04-29 10:39:28 UTC
Now Life wrote:
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Now Life wrote:
wormhole group/corporations can't be hotdropt by 100+ capitals /BS


I fail to see the problem with a 100+ man fleet succeeding in killing something. If you bring that many ships against a lesser target of course you should win. Perhaps, instead of whining that you can get hotdropped by 100+ capitals, you should match their hotdrop with 100+ capitals of your own?



We have
And its not the 100+ capitals i have problems with, it's the afk cloaker


Then why do you bring up the cyno then? Your issue is with it's ability to have a rapidly increasing amount of enemies in your system. You just don't want to nerf it since you use it too. Wanting to nerf cloaks to stop cyno's so you can PVE in perfect safety is quite funny to me as you are supposed to live in a dangerous part of New Eden....

Wormholer for life.
Now Life
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#9380 - 2017-04-29 14:04:45 UTC


Then why do you bring up the cyno then? Your issue is with it's ability to have a rapidly increasing amount of enemies in your system. You just don't want to nerf it since you use it too. Wanting to nerf cloaks to stop cyno's so you can PVE in perfect safety is quite funny to me as you are supposed to live in a dangerous part of New Eden....[/quote]


i have no problems with cloakt ships with cyno on it as long as they actively play
i have problems when the cloakt ship (character) remains online player go to work / sleep : AFK for long time and not active
If the Afk cloaker have no cyno you do not need backup fleet on standby just watch intel