These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
 

Anti-Cloaking Probes
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mag's
Azn Empire
#81 - 2011-12-18 14:08:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Lord Zim wrote:
Mag's wrote:
So in other words it would stop AFKing as complained about. I'm glad we reached an acceptance of that fact.

But again, you're talking as if the ones in favour of balance, would want the simple removal of local without a package of changes to take it's place. That's not what we are asking. But to end AFKing, the subject at hand, locals instant intel needs to be addressed.

But AFKing while cloaked or any other method, would cease to be the weapon it is today, without local. it's that Simple.

What I said was that AFKing "as complained about", i.e. where cloakers jump in/log in and cloak up, then go afk all day as the main way in which he inflicts terror, that'll cease because people in local can't see he's there. This means that he doesn't even have to be in the system to have the same impact he used to have back when local was working, and you've essentially made nullsec into wormhole space with easier access and hotdrop possibilities, but without the rewards.

As I said on the other thread, this doesn't affect me in the slightest, since I make literally all my cash in hisec, I'm just seeing it from the POV of those who do try to make a living in nullsec, and from what I can tell all these changes would do is make them go to hisec instead, making nullsec even emptier than it is right now.

And this is why I'm all for this change, so I can point to these threads and go "See? I told you so."
What happens after is conjecturer on your part tbh and totally reliant upon what package of changes are implemented. It's pointless second guessing any changes, let alone the outcome of game play from those changes.

As far as this thread is concerned, my point still stands. Local is the cause of AFKing, as complained about in these types of topics.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
YuuKnow
The Scope
#82 - 2011-12-18 14:25:13 UTC
Bah. The whole thread is TL;DR now. Oh well, my idea stands as is for CCP to judge. On to the next topic... gate camps.Twisted
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#83 - 2011-12-18 14:25:19 UTC
Which is why I'm saying, let's remove local and be done with it so I can say "I told you so".

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Mag's
Azn Empire
#84 - 2011-12-18 14:28:42 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Which is why I'm saying, let's remove local and be done with it so I can say "I told you so".
I thought you were after a balanced approach, or was I mistaken?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#85 - 2011-12-18 14:57:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Mag's wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Which is why I'm saying, let's remove local and be done with it so I can say "I told you so".
I thought you were after a balanced approach, or was I mistaken?

Well, my initial balanced change was to make cloaking in a system for an extended period of time require effort, because the fact that a red is in system requires the locals to be more vigilant, which is a rather unbalanced mechanic, but oh well.

That was obviously not good enough, so the counterproposal was to either remove cloaked ships from local (making extended system camping through cloaking a lot more effective) or remove local in and of itself (making cloaked ships even more powerful, but also buffing regular roaming gangs while vastly increasing the effort and risk for the locals).

Another example which has popped up in this thread, by me and someone else I believe, is to make changes to local so it's a system upgrade or module which can be shot, which allows the owner of the upgrade or module to see local. This was seemingly utterly ignored, while keeping on harping on about "remove local, remove local, remove local".

I am after a balanced approach, but at this point in time I'm also not against making a ****-poor change just so I can rub it in their faces when they get their wish to improve their chances to gank people, only to watch their actual number of ganks deteriorate because nullsec ends up with even fewer people actually trying to live there.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Mag's
Azn Empire
#86 - 2011-12-18 16:13:05 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Well, my initial balanced change was to make cloaking in a system for an extended period of time require effort, because the fact that a red is in system requires the locals to be more vigilant, which is a rather unbalanced mechanic, but oh well.
Yes, but as we have already established cloaking isn't the issue in that regard. So your idea didn't address the cause, but instead looked to nerf cloaks.

Also the effort made by the AFKer, is in direct proportion to the effort required for instant local intel.

Lord Zim wrote:
That was obviously not good enough, so the counterproposal was to either remove cloaked ships from local (making extended system camping through cloaking a lot more effective) or remove local in and of itself (making cloaked ships even more powerful, but also buffing regular roaming gangs while vastly increasing the effort and risk for the locals).
Which is your conjecturer on what could happen, with any changes made.

Lord Zim wrote:
Another example which has popped up in this thread, by me and someone else I believe, is to make changes to local so it's a system upgrade or module which can be shot, which allows the owner of the upgrade or module to see local. This was seemingly utterly ignored, while keeping on harping on about "remove local, remove local, remove local".
The idea you ended saying.....

"But, even just typing up this suggestion was probably hopeless since ~local is overpowered~, making it a system owner/blues only system will definitely not be accepted."?

You kinda answered the reason why, it's a bad idea.

Lord Zim wrote:
I am after a balanced approach, but at this point in time I'm also not against making a ****-poor change just so I can rub it in their faces when they get their wish to improve their chances to gank people, only to watch their actual number of ganks deteriorate because nullsec ends up with even fewer people actually trying to live there.
This is why I asked about your stance on a balanced approach, you have a habit of making posts with extreme conclusions.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Jebidea
Endless Destruction
The Serenity Initiative
#87 - 2011-12-18 16:40:46 UTC
Is everyone ********? You act like this guys probes will instantly de-cloak every ******* cloaky in the constellation. If it takes 10 minutes for them to find a cloaky, and in that whole time if the cloaky hits their scan button once, the probes are useless cause he just moves. This would not break the legitimate uses of cloaking devices. Simply it would allow for those of you who decide to step away from your computers for more than an hour that would have any sort of problem with this. Jesus using logic in the EvE community is impossible. You see the headling "cloak fix" and all you do is go in and yell "OMG! YOU'LL BREAK CLOAKING FOR SURE! YOU SUCK! REMOVE LOCAL!" I'd be fine with removing local, as long as my scan has range to see the whole system and there is a way for me to find cloakies once it is removed. All you "keep cloaking the same" people want is a better system of invulnerability for yourselves.

Nice idea OP, I like how you actually balanced it and have thought about how to keep cloaking legitimate. Fly safe, and keep up the good work.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#88 - 2011-12-18 17:16:11 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Yes, but as we have already established cloaking isn't the issue in that regard. So your idea didn't address the cause, but instead looked to nerf cloaks.

Also the effort made by the AFKer, is in direct proportion to the effort required for instant local intel.

Which again is balanced with the fact that the cloaked guy can pick and choose his battles, and as such can engage boats he know will pop before there's any chance of any real response, unless everyone has at least one guy along with them for everything they do. If you think, you know how realistic this is over an extended period of time.

And it wasn't a nerf for cloaks, it was a nerf for AFK cloaks. Oh dear, they couldn't just leave the client sitting around for 23.5/7 and choose f.ex one hauler or two a day at random. I'm literally crying.

Mag's wrote:
Which is your conjecturer on what could happen, with any changes made.

It's my prediction, and I'm fairly certain my prediction is going to be fairly accurate, so I'm sticking to it.

Mag's wrote:
The idea you ended saying.....

"But, even just typing up this suggestion was probably hopeless since ~local is overpowered~, making it a system owner/blues only system will definitely not be accepted."?

You kinda answered the reason why, it's a bad idea.

Well, that's exhausted all the ideas, then.

Delayed local (which I've started seeing popping up again) will heavily favour the ganker gangs, that's going to take a toll on carebear population. Cloaker-less local will definitely make every roaming gang a cloak-capable ship, and will take a toll on carebear population. Removing local will make roaming gangs of noncloakable ships actually slightly more powerful than delayed local would (since they can take more time lining up their gank), never mind cloak-capable ships. That'll devastate the carebear population. And replacing local with a system with shootable modules which gives local info based on standings isn't anywhere near being accepted by gankers.

So, what else is there?

Mag's wrote:
This is why I asked about your stance on a balanced approach, you have a habit of making posts with extreme conclusions.

Those aren't extreme conclusions, those are conclusions I predict will be wholly accurate.

Let me put the shoe on the other foot then, what are your predictions for what will happen in the scenarios outlined?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#89 - 2011-12-18 17:38:29 UTC
Jebidea wrote:
Is everyone ********? You act like this guys probes will instantly de-cloak every ******* cloaky in the constellation. If it takes 10 minutes for them to find a cloaky, and in that whole time if the cloaky hits their scan button once, the probes are useless cause he just moves. This would not break the legitimate uses of cloaking devices. Simply it would allow for those of you who decide to step away from your computers for more than an hour that would have any sort of problem with this. Jesus using logic in the EvE community is impossible. You see the headling "cloak fix" and all you do is go in and yell "OMG! YOU'LL BREAK CLOAKING FOR SURE! YOU SUCK! REMOVE LOCAL!" I'd be fine with removing local, as long as my scan has range to see the whole system and there is a way for me to find cloakies once it is removed. All you "keep cloaking the same" people want is a better system of invulnerability for yourselves.

Nice idea OP, I like how you actually balanced it and have thought about how to keep cloaking legitimate. Fly safe, and keep up the good work.


You are flat out wrong. Period. Obviously you have no knowledge of wromhole intel gathering in even the most remote sense or you'd realize this.

Allow me to explain.

When planning for an op in a wormhole, it's very common procedure (moreso now with the removal of jump data) to sneak a scanner into the hole, cloak up off the pos and simply sit there and watch things for days or even weeks to gather intel needed. What really gives the intel value is being able to remain completely undetected for this entire time period... if the target knows you're in there day after day in a buzzard, for example, that's pretty much a warning bell that something may be imminent. As a result, behavior changes, loot is taken out, arrays are offlined and defenses onlined, etc.

These probes, simply by being able to detect the presence of a cloaked ship in the wormhole break wormhole intel. You break an entire PvP mechanic. You also change the wormhole metagame such that these probes would become mandatory in day-to-day operations.

This is why this is such a stupid idea... you break the cloaked vessel's ability to remain undetected in wormholes.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#90 - 2011-12-18 17:43:37 UTC
Ingvar Angst wrote:
These probes, simply by being able to detect the presence of a cloaked ship in the wormhole break wormhole intel. You break an entire PvP mechanic. You also change the wormhole metagame such that these probes would become mandatory in day-to-day operations.

This is why this is such a stupid idea... you break the cloaked vessel's ability to remain undetected in wormholes.

If we were to go with the probes idea, they could be balanced by the cloaker being able to run silent as it were, by turning off all his mods.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#91 - 2011-12-18 18:15:12 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
These probes, simply by being able to detect the presence of a cloaked ship in the wormhole break wormhole intel. You break an entire PvP mechanic. You also change the wormhole metagame such that these probes would become mandatory in day-to-day operations.

This is why this is such a stupid idea... you break the cloaked vessel's ability to remain undetected in wormholes.


If we were to go with the probes idea, they could be balanced by the cloaker being able to run silent as it were, by turning off all his mods.


You realize that doesn't make any sense, right? The time delay in activating/deactivating modules based on how much cap you have etc. would leave ships exposed for far too long when you may want to simply fly off grid, drop a sngle combat and get a tally of current ships for example. That's a quick reason off my head why this isn't even close to ideal.

It's about time to admit that this breaks the intent and valid use of cloaks. There are better ways to deal with the alleged "afk cloak" situation that don't involve breaking wormhole intel while you're at it. And face it... you can't break cloaks without damaging wormholes unless you start adding layers of complications that are destined to cause other problems down the line.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#92 - 2011-12-18 18:37:42 UTC
Huh? Deactivating doesn't take long, and if you're activating the modules then you still want to let people who are actually paying attention to get some sort of warning. Or are you saying that this is once again giving carebears too much power?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Mag's
Azn Empire
#93 - 2011-12-18 21:07:36 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Which again is balanced with the fact that the cloaked guy can pick and choose his battles, and as such can engage boats he know will pop before there's any chance of any real response, unless everyone has at least one guy along with them for everything they do. If you think, you know how realistic this is over an extended period of time.
Which is balanced by the fact the locals could have a trap set, or be using their noodle and ratting in PvP fit ships etc. etc.

Lord Zim wrote:
And it wasn't a nerf for cloaks, it was a nerf for AFK cloaks. Oh dear, they couldn't just leave the client sitting around for 23.5/7 and choose f.ex one hauler or two a day at random. I'm literally crying.
It was an idea for fuel usage, which is a nerf to cloaks no matter how you try and spin it. It also didn't address the cause for AFKing.

Lord Zim wrote:
It's my prediction, and I'm fairly certain my prediction is going to be fairly accurate, so I'm sticking to it.
In other words, conjecture.

Lord Zim wrote:
Well, that's exhausted all the ideas, then.

Delayed local (which I've started seeing popping up again) will heavily favour the ganker gangs, that's going to take a toll on carebear population. Cloaker-less local will definitely make every roaming gang a cloak-capable ship, and will take a toll on carebear population. Removing local will make roaming gangs of noncloakable ships actually slightly more powerful than delayed local would (since they can take more time lining up their gank), never mind cloak-capable ships. That'll devastate the carebear population. And replacing local with a system with shootable modules which gives local info based on standings isn't anywhere near being accepted by gankers.

So, what else is there?
When you find it, tell CCP. They've been after a solution for quite some time.

Lord Zim wrote:
Those aren't extreme conclusions, those are conclusions I predict will be wholly accurate.

Let me put the shoe on the other foot then, what are your predictions for what will happen in the scenarios outlined?
I wouldn't know, I don't have all the facts to base any conclusions on. We don't have any idea what package of changes, would replace local.

I would say Ingvar Angst's idea is probably the most balanced idea yet on the subject of AFKing. How it would work in principle, is again hard to predict. But as far as AFKing is concerned, it ticks all the right boxes.

There is one prediction I'm willing to make. When CCP finally replace local, this forum will be a very busy place. Lol

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#94 - 2011-12-18 21:29:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Mag's wrote:
Which is balanced by the fact the locals could have a trap set, or be using their noodle and ratting in PvP fit ships etc. etc.

Yes. That's going to happen for several days at a time.[/sarcasm]

People are ******* lazy. The sooner you fathom this, the better you'll understand how much this will affect the carebear population.

Mag's wrote:
It was an idea for fuel usage, which is a nerf to cloaks no matter how you try and spin it. It also didn't address the cause for AFKing.

That was one variant of it. I don't really give a flying **** what it was, as long as it was something which made camping a system for an extended period of time something you actually worked at.

And I'm saying this as someone who's actually been doing this myself.

Mag's wrote:
In other words, conjecture.

And this, right here, is why I'm saying "**** it, let's remove it then and see if my 'conjecture' is right".

Mag's wrote:
I wouldn't know, I don't have all the facts to base any conclusions on. We don't have any idea what package of changes, would replace local.

I would say Ingvar Angst's idea is probably the most balanced idea yet on the subject of AFKing. How it would work in principle, is again hard to predict. But as far as AFKing is concerned, it ticks all the right boxes.

Ingvar Angst's idea? The remove cloaked ships from local idea?

Lord Zim wrote:
Cloaker-less local will definitely make every roaming gang a cloak-capable ship, and will take a toll on carebear population.


Ok.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Sphit Ker
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#95 - 2011-12-18 21:47:57 UTC
RE: "Anti-Cloaking Probes"

Cloaking have a purpose and that's to be cloaked. Please, "get" that much. Scanning down "afk cloakers" sitting at a safespot can never happen. You have to wear the AFK clocker's shoes to understand. If one can't safe up and cloak, only logging out remain an effective way of staying alive. The psychological impact of sitting cloaked in system needs to stay. It does ~things~ to resident's minds and that ~thing~ can be quite significant. It need to stay what it is. Meanwhile, being cloaked is obviously overpowered. An invisible and all seeing eye is too much. Great benefit? Great risk!

Such anti-cloaking probes are best served if limited to on-grid detection only. They'll provide a distance on overview. No ship type, no bracket, no alliance, no corp, no velocity of any kind. Nothing but distance. You can't even so much as align/approach it. You want direct eye on the hostile fleet? You expose yourself to possible detection. The end.

This means on-grid "eyes" can be triangulated by a coordinated group. AFK clockers will be limited to directional scanner reports, which is rather weak intel when it gets down to it.

AFK cloaked at a safespot? Nothing but d-scan for you.
You are cloaked and watching the hostile gang? You can be nailed.

That's how it needs to be.

It knows what you think.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#96 - 2011-12-18 21:55:50 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
People are ******* lazy.
Which isn't a basis for balance.

Lord Zim wrote:
I don't really give a flying **** what it was, as long as it was something which made camping a system for an extended period of time something you actually worked at.
Then look at fixing the cause, local.

Lord Zim wrote:
Ingvar Angst's idea? The remove cloaked ships from local idea?
Yes.

Lord Zim wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Cloaker-less local will definitely make every roaming gang a cloak-capable ship, and will take a toll on carebear population.


Ok.
So you say.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Gizan
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#97 - 2011-12-18 22:01:24 UTC
Scout: RED FLEET INBOUND
FC: How many?
Scout: i dont know they were moving fast and i could only count 20 before they warped, could be 100-500 people
FC:CCP fail removing local
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#98 - 2011-12-18 22:04:05 UTC
Not only so I say, so it will be. If you haven't noticed, this is a game in which every ******* kind of leverage that can be used to gain the upper hand, can and will be used. Not showing up in local is a huge ******* advantage, and that will be abused to **** and back.

This is so predictable it's not even funny. And your attitude is precisely why I say "ok, remove local/remove local for cloaked ships then", just so I can point to these threads and say "hey, guy, so you remember when I said something would happen if these changes happened? Yeah, what up, *****."

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#99 - 2011-12-19 03:46:39 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Huh? Deactivating doesn't take long, and if you're activating the modules then you still want to let people who are actually paying attention to get some sort of warning. Or are you saying that this is once again giving carebears too much power?


What I'm saying is precisely what you're not listening to...

You're breaking wormhole covert intel gathering, where even the knowledge of a cloaked ship in the hole changes behaviors.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#100 - 2011-12-19 04:00:52 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Where's the logic in that? They're cloaked and they don't show up in local, so how should they be destroyed?
By being shot at.

Because they're in a roam, and thus they have to use the gates and attack targets — otherwise they won't even be able to leave their own system. The longer they dilly-dally, the more time they give to the enemy to get an estimate of how many of them there are and to set up a trap to kill them when they uncloak. Stop assuming that just because the attacker stops appearing in local (for certain periods, but not forever (as long as he chooses to use very flimsy ships (and/or foregoes a whole lot of damage output))) he has all the advantages.