EVE Search - A Proposed Compromise for the AFK Cloaking Debate (module)

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

A Proposed Compromise for the AFK Cloaking Debate (module)

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Elipsis Gallente The Mission Guys	Posted - 2007.09.10 01:32:00 - [1] Today I was considering a module which would pose a serious risk to AFK cloaked players yet be easily circumvented by players who were paying attention. This idea for a module was designed under the following premises: 1. As one camp says - cloaked ships are already restricted enough, and there is no reason to make them any weaker cloaked than they already are 2. As the other camp says - AFK cloaking in a system for days on end is not what cloaks were designed for. 3a. This module would have to be introduced alongside changes which somehow allowed scanners to get you within the relative vicinity of a cloaked ship OR 3b. This module would have to have a very large range (multiple AU) and provide some kind of directional support. Module: Cloak Emission Scanner Irrelevant Premise: The camouflaging of a ship may elude signature scanning accouterments, but the cloak's constant need to bend light and energy around the ship subtly erodes the texture and surface of the ship. This "ship dust" is far too granular to be detected by any probes searching for large bodies. And only the recently Cloak Emission Scanner is able to detect these emissions by shining a burst (aoe) or beam (directional) of light through the space and carefully scanning for abnormalities in which should be "empty" space. Usage: I haven't decided if this should be directional or just AoE yet so I'm looking for feedback on that. The primary feedback of the module use would be distance. It would return how far away it believed a cloaked ship was from your own. Optionally, it would also return a general direction. The reason I believe direction can be omitted is that if a ship is parked 20km from you, you can move in a random direction and see if it gets closer or farther away. Do this a few times and you'll have the position triangulated to just make a straight run to get within 2km of the cloaked AFK ship. Similarly, if the cloaked AFK ship was moving in a direction, you could move in a direction and see if its rate of moving away from you had changed. Impact: -This module would take a couple minutes or more to effectively narrow down the position of an AFK cloaked ship. -A player who is cloaked and half conscious could easily just change directions a few times and make it impossible to find them. -Going entirely AFK while cloaked would become a terrible idea. Ideas, thoughts, feedback? -... CEO and Founder of the Mission Guys
Elipsis Gallente The Mission Guys	Posted - 2007.09.10 01:36:00 - [2] Edited by: Elipsis on 10/09/2007 01:37:54 Oh, and if this discussion would be better off at the "Features and Ideas Discussion" board, my apologies... please move it there. I posted it here because I am also looking to hear not just about the module's effectiveness, but what whether or not the proposed solution addresses the majority of concerns from both sides of the debate about cloaked ships in general. I came up with the idea not because I want to make cloaked ships more or less powerful, but because I saw a situation where both sides of the argument had valid concerns and I wanted a solution that (I thought) would address all of them. -... CEO and Founder of the Mission Guys
Del Narveux Dukes of Hazard	Posted - 2007.09.10 01:42:00 - [3] Problem with this idea: Even changing directions, someone using a proto cloak and quite possibly a t2 improved cloak wouldnt be able to get far enough away that it would matter. They are after all awfully slow. But if cloaks let you fly faster or the margin of error was a lot higher, this would be a good solution. _________________ [SAK] Alumnus--And Proud Of It! -- aka Cpt Bogus Is that my torped sig cloaking your base? Originally by: Wrangler Well, at least we have forum PvP..
Elipsis Gallente The Mission Guys	Posted - 2007.09.10 01:59:00 - [4] Edited by: Elipsis on 10/09/2007 01:59:23 \ Originally by: Del Narveux Problem with this idea: Even changing directions, someone using a proto cloak and quite possibly a t2 improved cloak wouldnt be able to get far enough away that it would matter. They are after all awfully slow. But if cloaks let you fly faster or the margin of error was a lot higher, this would be a good solution. I suppose that's a fair point. I was assuming that people were doing most of their cloaking from ships designed for the covert ops cloak, but I suppose thats not a good assumption. I think you might be able to get away with it in the t2 improved cloak, but it would really depend on the cooldown / refire time of the Cloak Emission Scanner module. -... CEO and Founder of the Mission Guys
Terazuk Amarr Rogen's Heroes Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.09.10 02:20:00 - [5] Dear Op, Can I have your stuff? Originally by: "Johho Bulon" ...for god sake please inspire us instead of the seemingly constant downgrading of anything that works.
Ishmael Hansen No Quarter. Vae Victis.	Posted - 2007.09.10 02:52:00 - [6] Cloaked ships can't kill ya.
Surfin's PlunderBunny Minmatar Sicarri Covenant	Posted - 2007.09.10 03:53:00 - [7] The solution to the AFK cloaker problem is to shut up Originally by: Liz Kali Tic Toc Tic Toc , time is ticking Originally by: TheDagda click For the love of the jovians stops necroing
Bellum Eternus Gallente Blood Corsair's The Red Skull	Posted - 2007.09.10 04:29:00 - [8] We don't need any new modules. Just let non covert cloaks be probable. Problem solved. [Video]Blood Corsairs - Day One
Segge Bolled Caldari Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2007.09.10 06:40:00 - [9] Originally by: Bellum Eternus We don't need any new modules. Just let non covert cloaks be probable. Problem solved. /signed. (Or just don't let BS'es fit them.)
SiJira	Posted - 2007.09.10 08:07:00 - [10] there isnt a problem just a lot of whiners ____ __ ________ _sig below_ devs and gms cant modify my sig if they tried! _lies above_ CCP Morpheus was here Morpheus Fails. You need colors!! -Kaemonn [yellow]Kaem
Reem Fairchild	Posted - 2007.09.10 08:14:00 - [11] If one hostile/neutral in local is enough to harass you and keep you from your normal activities and you are unable to defend your miners and ratters from them, then you don't deserve to have 0.0 space.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Blood Corsair's The Red Skull	Posted - 2007.09.10 08:24:00 - [12] Originally by: Reem Fairchild If one hostile/neutral in local is enough to harass you and keep you from your normal activities and you are unable to defend your miners and ratters from them, then you don't deserve to have 0.0 space. It's not about people cloaked in local disrupting mining. It's about ISK farmers permacloaked and unable to be killed. [Video]Blood Corsairs - Day One
SiJira	Posted - 2007.09.10 09:13:00 - [13] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Originally by: Reem Fairchild If one hostile/neutral in local is enough to harass you and keep you from your normal activities and you are unable to defend your miners and ratters from them, then you don't deserve to have 0.0 space. It's not about people cloaked in local disrupting mining. It's about ISK farmers permacloaked and unable to be killed. oh is it now so lets get probes out and some scanning and variations thereof so regular players arent affected at all oh wait ____ __ ________ _sig below_ devs and gms cant modify my sig if they tried! _lies above_ CCP Morpheus was here Morpheus Fails. You need colors!! -Kaemonn [yellow]Kaem
Hugh Ruka Caldari Free Traders	Posted - 2007.09.10 09:21:00 - [14] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Originally by: Reem Fairchild If one hostile/neutral in local is enough to harass you and keep you from your normal activities and you are unable to defend your miners and ratters from them, then you don't deserve to have 0.0 space. It's not about people cloaked in local disrupting mining. It's about ISK farmers permacloaked and unable to be killed. How do the permacloakd isk farmers farm isk ? I was under the impression that you cannot target and shoot while cloaked. Man it's a psycho game. You treat them the same. Cloak an alt in the system and they log off. And move away when feeling threatened. If they get over confident, you get them on their errors. I don't see a problem, just a lot of whining. Originally by: Aravel Thon Originally by: Nith Batoxxx Hi my alt just leanred to fly the ferox............... I am so so terribly sorry...
Reem Fairchild	Posted - 2007.09.10 09:30:00 - [15] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Originally by: Reem Fairchild If one hostile/neutral in local is enough to harass you and keep you from your normal activities and you are unable to defend your miners and ratters from them, then you don't deserve to have 0.0 space. It's not about people cloaked in local disrupting mining. It's about ISK farmers permacloaked and unable to be killed. Actually, to the vast majority of people on these forums who complain about "afk cloaking" it is what I described that is the "problem" and not the cloaking ratting Ravens. Not that the latter is a real problem either considering they will just log off anyway when someone enters the system, if they can't cloak, and be just as impossible to catch in most circumstances.
Alski Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.09.10 09:56:00 - [16] Every module, ship, or tactic that can not be countered is overpowered and by definition needs to be nurfed even if only slightley. case in point: supercaps. I am a covops pilot, i like to have to work to keep myself alive, i don't want to feel completeley untouchable. But anyway, this is not a discussion about AFK cloakers, this is a discussion about the pro's and conns of the OP's idea, and i like it. You can make up all the "its too powerfull" / "its not good enouth" / "it needs to be directional/shorter range etc" stuff you want, if the devs like the idea they are free to use it and THEY will ballance it as they see fit. - (combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Blood Corsair's The Red Skull	Posted - 2007.09.10 09:56:00 - [17] Originally by: Reem Fairchild Originally by: Bellum Eternus Originally by: Reem Fairchild If one hostile/neutral in local is enough to harass you and keep you from your normal activities and you are unable to defend your miners and ratters from them, then you don't deserve to have 0.0 space. It's not about people cloaked in local disrupting mining. It's about ISK farmers permacloaked and unable to be killed. Actually, to the vast majority of people on these forums who complain about "afk cloaking" it is what I described that is the "problem" and not the cloaking ratting Ravens. Not that the latter is a real problem either considering they will just log off anyway when someone enters the system, if they can't cloak, and be just as impossible to catch in most circumstances. That's why you add a 15 minute agression timer to player's ships when they are attacked by NPCs. They log, they're stuck in space (at a safespot) for 15 min, just like PVP combat. Problem solved. They log, they get probed and die. They cloak, they get probed and die if they're not actively avoiding being caught. Simple. It's amazing really. I can't possibly be that much smarter than everyone else as to be the only one who could possibly come up with the simplest, most elegant solution to the problem. I don't see why hundreds of people haven't already thought of the same thing. [Video]Blood Corsairs - Day One
Del Narveux Dukes of Hazard	Posted - 2007.09.10 10:11:00 - [18] Epic bear solution to the AFK cloaker problem: AFK timer that ticks you in local and chat channels after 10 minutes of inactivity, then ticks off when you do something. Badda bing badda boom, AFK problem solved without even touching cloaks. Of course this wont placate those who 'zomg afk cloakers' as an excuse for wanting to nerf anything they cant ez gank, but itll fix the stated problem. _________________ [SAK] Alumnus--And Proud Of It! -- aka Cpt Bogus Is that my torped sig cloaking your base? Originally by: Wrangler Well, at least we have forum PvP..
Lord Zoran Caldari House of Tempers	Posted - 2007.09.10 10:51:00 - [19] Originally by: Ishmael Hansen Cloaked ships can't kill ya. cloaked ships can uncloak....... --------------------------------------------- no sig for you !!!
max bygraves	Posted - 2007.09.10 10:57:00 - [20] shut up nothing needs to be done crybaby.
Sleepkevert Paradox v2.0 Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.09.10 11:17:00 - [21] Euh, isn't there a fix coming soonÖ? Oveur stated (on eve-tv) that non covops cloaked ships will be made scanable. And the chance of finding them will be based on the range you are away from them. So a bs cloaking in a belt 30km of your probe will be perfectly scanable, but one 4 AU away will be a bit more difficult. Sign my sig
Gorefacer	Posted - 2007.09.10 11:25:00 - [22] If the module could guarantee zero compromise on active cloaks, but make AFK cloaking impossible or at least vulnerable, then I can't see how ANYONE would have any objection to it. The argument that AFK cloakers do zero damage to a system uses fallible logic (they're AFK, they can't DO anything). Suppose though, that we accept this argument as truth. If AFK cloakers truly have no effect, then why would a module that inhibits it be fought against? If we are expected to be OK with AFK cloakers, then we should feel the same about AFK macro miners. The effects of both activities are opposite sides of the same coin, and can both be done without being attentive to the game at all for long periods of time. So either: AFK cloaking is bad because it allows someone with no in-game effort to negatively affect a system = anti AFK-cloaking module a good idea or AFK has zero effect on anyone = anti AFK-cloaking module will have no effect other than removing unnecessary ships from a system that they are not affecting anyways or AFK cloaking does allow people to affect others through no effort or in-game presence for the cloaker but should be allowed and no module should be made to stop it = same as macro mining and according to the greater consensus of MMO players: your wrong Don't see why anyone would fight this unless they enjoy abusing cloaking mechanics and don't want that to go away. "You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus
Pan Crastus Amarr	Posted - 2007.09.10 11:27:00 - [23] Far too complicated "solution" ... all we need is a new type of Probe that finds cloakers, but increases the probing duration by a large factor (so that it takes 15 mins with very good skills e.g.). EVE Online: a cold, cruel world where (RL-)rich people replace their losses with GTCs sold to poor students who need to farm ISK to afford their play time ...
Gorefacer	Posted - 2007.09.10 11:30:00 - [24] Originally by: Del Narveux Epic bear solution to the AFK cloaker problem: AFK timer that ticks you in local and chat channels after 10 minutes of inactivity, then ticks off when you do something. Badda bing badda boom, AFK problem solved without even touching cloaks. Of course this wont placate those who 'zomg afk cloakers' as an excuse for wanting to nerf anything they cant ez gank, but itll fix the stated problem. This would probably work as well. I'd much rather see AFK cloaking stopped than see cloaks operationally change at all. "You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus
000Hunter000 Gallente Magners Marauders	Posted - 2007.09.10 11:31:00 - [25] Well mebbe do it this way. Introduce ur mod, but make it need something like cloak L5 or some other nasty skill req. Also, mebbe this mod only works in 0.0? dunno about this one though. and then. proto cloak - scannable but hard (mebbe take 5 to 10 min atleast and target has to sit still, aka afk cloak) T2 cloak - scannable but even harder (30 min or more and target has to sit still, aka afk cloak) CO cloak - NOT scannable, covert ops ships are not meant to be found impo. Just my own personal suggestion so if u got another opinion thats fine another solution would be to give the cloak a timer, make it go offline every hour so u will have to manually activate it again or someting. hm.. i just realized there might be an easy solution to counter ur mod though, warp to ur safespot then doubleclick somewhere in space and ur ship slowely moves into that direction but it would take years before it would get decloaked by anything so this could be savely done. CCP, let us pay the online shop with Direct Debit!!! Magners is now recruiting, evemail me or Dagazbo ingame.
SiJira	Posted - 2007.09.10 11:52:00 - [26] Originally by: Bellum Eternus That's why you add a 15 minute agression timer to player's ships when they are attacked by NPCs. They log, they're stuck in space (at a safespot) for 15 min, just like PVP combat. Problem solved. They log, they get probed and die. They cloak, they get probed and die if they're not actively avoiding being caught. Simple. It's amazing really. I can't possibly be that much smarter than everyone else as to be the only one who could possibly come up with the simplest, most elegant solution to the problem. I don't see why hundreds of people haven't already thought of the same thing. uh now i know this thread is just a troll dude lots of people thought of your idea and even more people dont like it ____ __ ________ _sig below_ devs and gms cant modify my sig if they tried! _lies above_ CCP Morpheus was here Morpheus Fails. You need colors!! -Kaemonn [yellow]Kaem
Aaron	Posted - 2007.09.10 12:12:00 - [27] great idea, i like the way your mind works. its very logical, maybe you could tweak one thing about your theroy if you dont mind me saying so, Perhaps another device could be "Thruster Emmision Scanner" that detects a trail of a cloaked ships thruster signature. but yes your ideas are cool.
Aaron	Posted - 2007.09.10 12:18:00 - [28] Another simple idea would be to set the eve client to log off after a period of 1 hour and thirty minutes of not reciving any mouse, keyboard, or voice data. I think its quite safe for CCP to assume the subscriber is not playing eve if they are afk for 90 minutes. cmon lets not kid ourselves here.
Selk Cantor Minmatar Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.09.10 12:24:00 - [29] Not a bad idea. I always liked the idea of destroyer class ships being the anti-cloaker ships (just like the modern era where they are anti-submarine ships). I think it would be cool to give them very low damage cheap bombs that they can use like depth charges to try and uncover cloakers. This of course wouldn't help if you couldn't probe them, so I am all for being able to probe non-covert ops cloakers too. The charges would still allow you to work around gates and stuff to try and uncover covert cloakers when you know roughly where to look. Even covert ops cloakers deserve some modicum of danger, where they at least have to maneuver around to avoid detection, instead of being able to stick an alt at a random spot 150km-300km off a gate and only get detected by an interceptor 1 out of 1,000,000 times.
Drizit Amarr Lonely out here Black Sun Alliance	Posted - 2007.09.10 14:34:00 - [30] Any device that allows scanning of a cloaked ship renders a cloak almost useless except as a short term device to get past bored gatecampers. Anyone alert would see the ship warp in. Covert ops and Recon ships are specialized ships designed for spying, surprise attack or deploying Cyno fields and should never be scanned down or they may as well be removed from the game altogether. Therefore Covops cloaked ships and Covops bomber should be invulnerable to any scan. AFK cloakers will switch to Recon ships if normal cloaks can be scanned. This means that a mining op is still not safe as a recon ship can easily pop a barge. The problem will not go away, it will merely give a little time while the AFK cloakers re-train for Recon ships if they don't already have that skill. You will effectively achieve nothing by allowing scanning of non Covops cloaked ships, except for making a cloaking device another one of those mods that might have been useful at one time. It will also hyper-inflate the cost of the Covops cloak as it will be the ONLY cloak in the game. The standard cloak would have been reduced to no more than a toy to play games with, similar to the snowball launcher. --

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.