Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
 

AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals

First post First post
Author
#9041 - 2017-03-18 02:55:35 UTC
Nope, don't care about atk at all. It *should* make them easier to shoot, and the mechanic that reverses that is borked in other ways as well.

You really don't have to talk about local to talk about cloaks, but you do have to talk in this thread to talk about cloaks. Any other thread will be locked and redirected here.

It's almost as if there was basically one major use of cloaks, and the others had little to no value or impact.
Goonswarm Federation
#9042 - 2017-03-18 05:54:23 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
You really don't have to talk about local to talk about cloak.....


Yeah, ya kinda do. How do you know a cloaked ship is in system? Local.

"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

#9043 - 2017-03-18 09:59:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Merin Ryskin
Mike Voidstar wrote:
It's almost as if there was basically one major use of cloaks, and the others had little to no value or impact.


So you concede that your entire cloak nerf is a solution in need of a problem. If AFK cloaking is the only major use and the other uses have little value or impact, and AFK cloaking only hurts bad players, then everything is working just fine and no changes are needed. If there's any balance issue it only hurts people who deserve zero sympathy for their incompetence, and should have the lowest priority for any developer attention. Somewhere below "rebalance shuttles to make all four factions equal" on the priority list would be appropriate, I think.
#9044 - 2017-03-18 13:04:29 UTC
No, I don't concede that at all.

For one, there is clearly a problem here that impacts many players. Just because you think they are third class citizens does not mean their concerns should not be given consideration. For over a decade new posters to the forums have been coming here to address this issue, and getting shouted down with the same tired rhetoric which is irrelevant to the concern by the same few vocal posters. Even now the new threads on cloaking pop up often, and at one point it was often several times a day. So the problem exists, despite your disdain.

Secondly, another major part of the pro-afk platform is that any changes cannot impact atk uses of cloaking in any way. It's balderdash of course, because cloaks are problematic no matter what you do with them so long as they are immune to enemy interference. However, the point is often raised, and it's inconsistent to argue that atk cloaking needs special specific protection and that it is so inconsequential that no other use but afk camps can even be talked about. If indeed the most problematic use of cloaks is the only one that is at all important, that speaks for a greater need for change, not a need to protect a problem because those most affected are third class citizens.
#9045 - 2017-03-18 14:24:43 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Nope, don't care about atk at all. It *should* make them easier to shoot, and the mechanic that reverses that is borked in other ways as well.

You really don't have to talk about local to talk about cloaks, but you do have to talk in this thread to talk about cloaks. Any other thread will be locked and redirected here.

It's almost as if there was basically one major use of cloaks, and the others had little to no value or impact.


Did...did you just really say AFK cloaking is the only major use of cloaks? Have you even played this game?
#9046 - 2017-03-18 14:28:59 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
No, I don't concede that at all.


You don't have any choice here. It's the inescapable conclusion of your statement that AFK cloaking is the only use of cloaks that has any significant value. If AFK cloaking is the only cloaking that is relevant then cloaks are fine as-is, because AFK cloaking is fine as-is.

Quote:
Just because you think they are third class citizens does not mean their concerns should not be given consideration.


I don't think they're third-class citizens. They aren't citizens at all. They are meat to be slaughtered, parasites that can only exist because those who are stronger than them have built a safe place to carebear. Their concerns are worthless, and their only contribution to the game is the enjoyment people get from killing them and taking their stuff.

Quote:
Even now the new threads on cloaking pop up often, and at one point it was often several times a day. So the problem exists, despite your disdain.


The bleating of failures does not become truth just because the failures stubbornly keep demanding more coddling from CCP. There is no genuine problem, only endless whining.
Goonswarm Federation
#9047 - 2017-03-18 18:32:11 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:


Secondly, another major part of the pro-afk platform is that any changes cannot impact atk uses of cloaking in any way. It's balderdash of course, because cloaks are problematic no matter what you do with them so long as they are immune to enemy interference.


They are not immune. They are only immune from this interference if they are at a safe, cloaked and do nothing thereafter. And of course, you are immune from interference from them in this case as well. Yes you don't know it, but uncertainty is part of the game.

"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

#9048 - 2017-03-19 05:36:57 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:


Secondly, another major part of the pro-afk platform is that any changes cannot impact atk uses of cloaking in any way. It's balderdash of course, because cloaks are problematic no matter what you do with them so long as they are immune to enemy interference.


They are not immune. They are only immune from this interference if they are at a safe, cloaked and do nothing thereafter. And of course, you are immune from interference from them in this case as well. Yes you don't know it, but uncertainty is part of the game.

No one should be immune outside of designated areas like a station, ever.

Difficult? Sure. Immune? No.

That immunity lasts purely at the users prerogative. With any care and basic intelligence applied it works fine on grid, too. Sell that snake oil to the gullible.
#9049 - 2017-03-19 05:46:21 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Nope, don't care about atk at all. It *should* make them easier to shoot, and the mechanic that reverses that is borked in other ways as well.

You really don't have to talk about local to talk about cloaks, but you do have to talk in this thread to talk about cloaks. Any other thread will be locked and redirected here.

It's almost as if there was basically one major use of cloaks, and the others had little to no value or impact.


Did...did you just really say AFK cloaking is the only major use of cloaks? Have you even played this game?

I have, which is why I know the statement is false. It's also why I maintain that cloaks are too safe, as anything worth doing should be subject to enemy interference, and cloaks aren't.

Those that can't stand the thought of a change and use that sort of logic to protect the bad mechanic. Any suggested change is painted as a afk camp whine, which is then dismissed in a circle jerk of whaaa local, whaaaa stations, whaaaa why interfere with atk to deal with afk, etc.

The core problem here is cloaks. Those that use them to afk aren't an issue. It's the parts where they are doing something, anything, that an enemy would want to disrupt and the cloak makes that not just difficult, but actually impossible.
Goonswarm Federation
#9050 - 2017-03-19 05:48:47 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Nope, don't care about atk at all. It *should* make them easier to shoot, and the mechanic that reverses that is borked in other ways as well.

You really don't have to talk about local to talk about cloaks, but you do have to talk in this thread to talk about cloaks. Any other thread will be locked and redirected here.

It's almost as if there was basically one major use of cloaks, and the others had little to no value or impact.


Did...did you just really say AFK cloaking is the only major use of cloaks? Have you even played this game?

I have, which is why I know the statement is false. It's also why I maintain that cloaks are too safe, as anything worth doing should be subject to enemy interference, and cloaks aren't.

Those that can't stand the thought of a change and use that sort of logic to protect the bad mechanic. Any suggested change is painted as a afk camp whine, which is then dismissed in a circle jerk of whaaa local, whaaaa stations, whaaaa why interfere with atk to deal with afk, etc.

The core problem here is cloaks. Those that use them to afk aren't an issue. It's the parts where they are doing something, anything, that an enemy would want to disrupt and the cloak makes that not just difficult, but actually impossible.


Yes you have played the game, but you have not used cloaks in a combat setting. Go do that, then come back here.

"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

#9051 - 2017-03-19 05:56:15 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
It's also why I maintain that cloaks are too safe, as anything worth doing should be subject to enemy interference, and cloaks aren't.


They are subject to interference, you're just too unimaginative to understand any interference other than "I activate module A to counter your module B".
#9052 - 2017-03-19 05:57:35 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
No one should be immune outside of designated areas like a station, ever.

Difficult? Sure. Immune? No.


Cloaking creates a designated area, at a high cost in fitting/damage/tank/etc just for having a cloak and a complete inability to activate modules while cloaked. That's the whole point of having one.
Goonswarm Federation
#9053 - 2017-03-19 06:48:17 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
No one should be immune outside of designated areas like a station, ever.

Difficult? Sure. Immune? No.


Cloaking creates a designated area, at a high cost in fitting/damage/tank/etc just for having a cloak and a complete inability to activate modules while cloaked. That's the whole point of having one.


Pearls before swine...pearls before swine.

Mike has never used a cloak to try an hunt anyone, so naturally he is talking out of his ass.

"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

#9054 - 2017-03-19 16:20:05 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
I have, which is why I know the statement is false. It's also why I maintain that cloaks are too safe, as anything worth doing should be subject to enemy interference, and cloaks aren't.

Those that can't stand the thought of a change and use that sort of logic to protect the bad mechanic. Any suggested change is painted as a afk camp whine, which is then dismissed in a circle jerk of whaaa local, whaaaa stations, whaaaa why interfere with atk to deal with afk, etc.

The core problem here is cloaks. Those that use them to afk aren't an issue. It's the parts where they are doing something, anything, that an enemy would want to disrupt and the cloak makes that not just difficult, but actually impossible.


Cloaks are subject to enemy interference. Just get close to the guy.

If you really want everything to be subject to enemy interference, then you would want local chat to go away, given it lets null PvE-ers escape 100% of the time, risk free. At least with cloaks you can't kill anyone or earn isk. That's not the case with local, making it a far bigger problem. You keep proving my point...
#9055 - 2017-03-20 05:10:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
Teckos, you should try to mix in some argument with the fallacies.

Merin, it does not actually. The only source for that stance is an old wiki statement that observes cloaks at safes are safe, but that's neither a statement of intent nor authored by a dev. If you want to make cloaks equivalent to stations then we need equivalent drawbacks too, like not being able to see space, and the exit point from a cloak becoming known, and in null a method to make them completely unavailable or only functional by sov holders. You know, like actual stations. Ridiculous I know, but I am not the one trying to draw equivalence between a module and a station.

Sonya, I had thought the conversation had moved past the notion that extreme edge cases and low probability events were a factor. Sure, you can drop a can and someone in a cloaked ship who lacked intelligence and warped to zero on your position could bump into it (that's their choice, not yours) or its possible given infinite time that a cloaked ship could be discovered by flying through every possible point on every grid in a given solar system. Neither event really qualifies as any sort of reasonable method for interfering with a cloaked ship's activities on a non-consensual basis.

...and again, please demonstrate 100% safety granted by local chat. In every instance I know of, those pilots were able to escape because they flew in a safe manner by keeping clear of obstacles, aligned, taking care of Npc tackle, and staying vigilant for long periods of time. That vigilance was enhanced by the combined effort of sometimes hundreds of people keeping hostile ships out of space, with ample evidence to support that it becomes difficult or impossible to rely on it at all without those efforts. So the butt hurt is caused because a single pilot got a wild hair to shoot a guy in a soft ship and could not defeat the efforts of whole alliances while solo on a whim to do it.

When local provides the means to opt in to danger, rather than opting in to safety, it can be a part of the conversation. Until then the idea of local providing 100% safety is just hyperbole used by entitled gankbears who want to be handed both risk free targets and unlimited safety.
Goonswarm Federation
#9056 - 2017-03-20 05:18:41 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Teckos, you should try to mix in some argument with the fallacies.

Merin, it does not actually. The only source for that stance is an old wiki statement that observes cloaks at safes are safe, but that's neither a statement of intent nor authored by a dev. If you want to make cloaks equivalent to stations then we need equivalent drawbacks too, like not being able to see space, and the exit point from a cloak becoming known, and in null a method to make them completely unavailable or only functional by sov holders. You know, like actual stations. Ridiculous I know, but I am not the one trying to draw equivalence between a module and a station.

Sonya, I had thought the conversation had moved past the notion that extreme edge cases and low probability events were a factor. Sure, you can drop a can and someone in a cloaked ship who lacked intelligence and warped to zero on your position could bump into it (that's their choice, not yours) or its possible given infinite time that a cloaked ship could be discovered by flying through every possible point on every grid in a given solar system. Neither event really qualifies as any sort of reasonable method for interfering with a cloaked ship's activities on a non-consensual basis.

...and again, please demonstrate 100% safety granted by local chat. In every instance I know of, those pilots were able to escape because they flew in a safe manner by keeping clear of obstacles, aligned, taking care of Npc tackle, and staying vigilant for long periods of time. That vigilance was enhanced by the combined effort of sometimes hundreds of people keeping hostile ships out of space, with ample evidence to support that it becomes difficult or impossible to rely on it at all without those efforts. So the butt hurt is caused because a single pilot got a wild hair to shoot a guy in a soft ship and could not defeat the efforts of whole alliances while solo on a whim to do it.

When local provides the means to opt in to danger, rather than opting in to safety, it can be a part of the conversation. Until then the idea of local providing 100% safety is just hyperbole used by entitled gankbears who want to be handed both risk free targets and unlimited safety.


What fallacy, you haven't killed **** in your entire EVE Career, let alone hunt with a cloaked ship. Doing this takes practice and learning how to do things faster and faster. You are quite simply talking out of your ass. When it comes to hunting with a cloaked ship your are ignorance personified.

"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

#9057 - 2017-03-20 13:34:23 UTC
I was going to quote you a snippet on logical fallacies about attacking the author of an argument rather than the argument itself. But then, you used to sound like an educated man capable of argument yourself. Then, in looking for the relevant quote, I realized you could benefit from a refresher course on logical fallacies anyway. Go look them up. Or don't. At this point you can just be ignored as you have nothing but red herrings and personal attacks to contribute.
Goonswarm Federation
#9058 - 2017-03-20 17:04:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Mike Voidstar wrote:
I was going to quote you a snippet on logical fallacies about attacking the author of an argument rather than the argument itself. But then, you used to sound like an educated man capable of argument yourself. Then, in looking for the relevant quote, I realized you could benefit from a refresher course on logical fallacies anyway. Go look them up. Or don't. At this point you can just be ignored as you have nothing but red herrings and personal attacks to contribute.


Pointing out a person is ignorant of what they are talking about is not a fallacy. You have not hunted in a cloak. You have not gone into systems with ratters and attacked another player. You do not know what it entails or the level of difficulty. And the reason for this is because you have not done it. And when those how have say, "No, you are wrong...." You discount what they say. You are a non-expert telling people who have actually done what you are pontificating on and telling them they are wrong. It is not a fallacy to point out your enormous degree of hubris.

Let me help you out.

Bob: Joe is ignorant of what he is talking about.
Mary: Hey, that is an ad hominem.
Bob: No, it is true and thus not an ad hominem.

Is being an active ATK hunter in a cloaked ship 100% safe? No. Any claim like this is flat out simply a lie. Is an ATK hunter always going to win? No. This is again a flat out lie. Anyone saying this is a liar. Does having the ability to pick and choose one's engagements convey and advantage, absolutely. But it is in no way a guarantee of a kill. Anyone making this claim is a liar.

Do cloaks convey an advantage? Yes, but they also come with costs to the hull they are attached too. Even for covert ops cloaks.

The bottom line for you is and always has been: the implication of reduced safety an AFK cloaker imposes on those in a given system. You made these arguments early on, realized they would get you nowhere and your arguments have evolved over time, but your core belief has not. And that core belief is that cloaks are bad. And you resort to any and all arguments to try and justify that belief. This is actually a bad form or reasoning. In fact, it is intellectually dishonest. The idea of forcing an AFK ship into combat is just laughable. It implicitly highlights the huge degree of risk aversion those making such statements have.

Here, let me ask you this: did you know a cloaked ship can be camped into a system? Not all cloaking ships are nullified, so a bubbled gate with cans and enough players in fast moving ships, can make exfiltrating from a hostile systm quite a challenge. Yes you can be "safe" sitting at your safe spot...[sarcasm]but those damn campers are denying me content.[/sarcasm]

"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

Goonswarm Federation
#9059 - 2017-03-20 17:23:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Merin, it does not actually. The only source for that stance is an old wiki statement that observes cloaks at safes are safe, but that's neither a statement of intent nor authored by a dev.


Are you sure about that Mike?

CCP Phantom wrote:

These are based on Akita T's Golden rules for new players, originally published on the old forums.

Be able to afford a loss

* Never fly something (or with something in the cargo) you can't afford to lose. Yes, not even in highsec. Meaning that you should not fly a ship you cannot afford to replace and refit.

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.


No, CCP Phantom did not write them, but he sure does seem to be endorsing them.

And is it now time for you to stomp off in a huff and quit again?

"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

#9060 - 2017-03-20 20:14:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
I was going to quote you a snippet on logical fallacies about attacking the author of an argument rather than the argument itself. But then, you used to sound like an educated man capable of argument yourself. Then, in looking for the relevant quote, I realized you could benefit from a refresher course on logical fallacies anyway. Go look them up. Or don't. At this point you can just be ignored as you have nothing but red herrings and personal attacks to contribute.


Pointing out a person is ignorant of what they are talking about is not a fallacy. You have not hunted in a cloak. You have not gone into systems with ratters and attacked another player. You do not know what it entails or the level of difficulty. And the reason for this is because you have not done it. And when those how have say, "No, you are wrong...." You discount what they say. You are a non-expert telling people who have actually done what you are pontificating on and telling them they are wrong. It is not a fallacy to point out your enormous degree of hubris.

Let me help you out.

Bob: Joe is ignorant of what he is talking about.
Mary: Hey, that is an ad hominem.
Bob: No, it is true and thus not an ad hominem.

Is being an active ATK hunter in a cloaked ship 100% safe? No. Any claim like this is flat out simply a lie. Is an ATK hunter always going to win? No. This is again a flat out lie. Anyone saying this is a liar. Does having the ability to pick and choose one's engagements convey and advantage, absolutely. But it is in no way a guarantee of a kill. Anyone making this claim is a liar.

Do cloaks convey an advantage? Yes, but they also come with costs to the hull they are attached too. Even for covert ops cloaks.

The bottom line for you is and always has been: the implication of reduced safety an AFK cloaker imposes on those in a given system. You made these arguments early on, realized they would get you nowhere and your arguments have evolved over time, but your core belief has not. And that core belief is that cloaks are bad. And you resort to any and all arguments to try and justify that belief. This is actually a bad form or reasoning. In fact, it is intellectually dishonest. The idea of forcing an AFK ship into combat is just laughable. It implicitly highlights the huge degree of risk aversion those making such statements have.

Here, let me ask you this: did you know a cloaked ship can be camped into a system? Not all cloaking ships are nullified, so a bubbled gate with cans and enough players in fast moving ships, can make exfiltrating from a hostile systm quite a challenge. Yes you can be "safe" sitting at your safe spot...[sarcasm]but those damn campers are denying me content.[/sarcasm]


It's irrelevant. The point isn't that cloaks don't come with any drawbacks. The point is that the equivalency you want to draw is false. You don't need a PhD in cloakology to know that a module that fits easily in a utility high isn't a station. It certainly deserves to work, but I am not seeing any case for it being 100% effective unless the pilot of the ship opts in to more dangerous uses.

You state that cloaks are linked to local. This is false, as demonstrated in every other part of EVE. Wormholes, low and high sec all have different, if less painful and visible problems with cloaks. It would seem, based on the evidence, that the larger factor interacting with cloaks are cynos, based on the nature of what gets complained about, but no, you want to talk about local.

You state and provide evidence that cloaks are needed as a check on the economy. While apparently true as far as it goes, it still does not meet the bar of providing evidence for 100% safety until the pilot chooses otherwise. Meanwhile, a dynamic where the cloaked ship would need to participate in it's own safety enhances the gameplay for all involved by creating an interactive experience for all involved instead of a stalemate where one side goes AFK and the other side either abandons the space or the game entirely.

You provide no evidence that a single module should be able to negate the combined efforts of an entire alliance on an effectively permanent basis. It is enough that you are in space and they want to hunt you, no other bar need be met to justify making that possible. It does not have to be easy, cheap or quick, but simply possible is the lowest bar that is reasonable.


And in the end the best you can come up with is an Appeal to Authority, from a source that isn't actually addressing the topic at hand, but is merely quoting an earlier statement from someone who wasn't even an authority. Once again, at best it's an observation of how things are now, not a statement of intent. This would be relevant if this was the "How Things are Now" forum instead of "Features and Ideas". The rules themselves are inconsistent, with first stating * You consent to PvP when you click "undock". followed by * 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.. Unless of course you are still confused as to the many differences between a module and a station. The wording of the quote is soft on that point as well, though in practice the cloak is far safer than the dock.
Forum Jump