open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] AFK Cloaking Solution - New Module
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Author Topic

Gariboldi Phiron
Posted - 2011.05.20 21:27:00 - [1]
 

I think we should leave the cloaking device (and all the ships that use it) alone. Instead I propose creating a new module that can be fit into a high slot, which I would call the Cloak Disruption Generator. This would just be an iteration on the current cloaking system as scientists continue their hard work and research into new tools for us pod pilots to kill each other with.

The Cloak Disruption Generator would work much like a cyno gen: activating it would cripple the activating ship the same way (no movement, cloaking, jumping, etc.), but would cost strontium to run each cycle. It would show up on the overview like a cyno beacon as a cloak disruption field, which could be warped to by anyone in system.

The Cloak Disruption Generator would have a 10 minute cycle time, but it would not have any effect on cloaked ships until the very end of its cycle, at which point all cloaked ships in the system would have their cloaking devices simply deactivated (they could then be reactivated normally). The one exception to this would be any ship in warp when the CDG cycle ends would not be affected (minor buff for covert ops cloaks).

MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.05.20 21:34:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 20/05/2011 21:35:31
The only thing I would add to your suggestion is a mechanic that doesn't disrupt active cloakers. Active cloakers shouldn't be penalized. Other than that, I agree.

Edit: I like your idea. But just to add. Make it so an active cloaker can counter in some way the disruption, either by warping or some other mechanic. If the cloaker is not at the keyboard to counter the cloak disruption then he suffers the consequences.


Baaldor
Black Sail Anarchists
Yarr Collective
Posted - 2011.05.20 21:36:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
The only thing I would add to your suggestion is a mechanic that doesn't disrupt active cloakers. Active cloakers shouldn't be penalized. Other than that, I agree.




How exactly do you know the cloaker is active or not?

MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.05.20 21:42:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Baaldor
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
The only thing I would add to your suggestion is a mechanic that doesn't disrupt active cloakers. Active cloakers shouldn't be penalized. Other than that, I agree.




How exactly do you know the cloaker is active or not?
If a disruption signal goes up system-wide, and let's say it takes 30 minutes before it activates, the cloaker has 30 minutes to see and react to this signal. If he doesn't I think it's safe to assume he's either AFK or not paying attention. In either case, he's game to die, as it should be in 0.0.


Mars Theran
Caldari
EVE Rogues
EVE Rogues Alliance
Posted - 2011.05.21 14:58:00 - [5]
 

If you're going to suggest something like this, make it functional on grid only. There is no way any device could affect ships system wide, and there is also no way you could scan down a cloaked vessel system wide. It's completely rediculous and overpowered. Handicapping a vessel for 30 minutes is also rediculous, and just goes to show how little you are concerned about the cloaked vessels combat threat potential.

Any device that interacts with a cloaked vessel, (by disrupting the cloak or by allowing the ship to be detected by some means), should only function on grid or in a similar limited fashion. At any rate, any such device should be limited by the size of the vessel that activates it, as well as by the size of the cloaked vessel. Meaning non-covert op's ships, especially Cap's and larger have a greater chance to be detected/disrupted, and that chance is made higher when a Cap or Supercap, (even Titan), is cycling the module intended to defeat them.

Any device intended to provide system wide disruption of cloaked vessels is completely unrealistic, but it is possible that multiple vessels could scan down a cloaked ship in a system, and that an additional module could help them do it. The idea here would be that this additional module sets up a 'disruptive' energy wave that affects any cloaked vessel within a certain distance of it. I would say 1-2 AU at most.

Combined with Combat Scanner probes operated with precision, nearly any cloaked vessel could be scanned down provided it was in that 1-2 AU area while the combat scanners ran a high intensity scan there. Basically the module would up nearby cloaked vessels signature radius, (from zero) without decloaking them.

Another iteration on this idea, is to make that module the same one, that will disrupt cloaks on grid. Operating the module would restrict movement or other action, (similar to a cyno or cloak), and may require fuel, depending on how it's implemented. Cycle times would be short, allowing the vessel to change position, and actively search for cloaked vessels along with its fleet.

I'll support anything well thought out, and well balanced. No matter what your cycle time, nothing short of a Super-Nova is going to disrupt any cloaking device within 100 AU.

Aamrr
Posted - 2011.05.21 15:18:00 - [6]
 

Honestly, this simplest "solution" to the AFK cloak "problem" (if it really is one) is to build probes that can find cloaked ships. Have it take 15 minutes for them to perform a scan or some similarly ludicrous value.

Any active covops pilot can clearly see them on directional and simply has to warp to a different location safespot every now and again. (My God, the cloaker has to watch directional now? The horror!)

Whether or not this is necessary or even desired is up for debate, however.

Mars Theran
Caldari
EVE Rogues
EVE Rogues Alliance
Posted - 2011.05.21 15:31:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Aamrr
Honestly, this simplest "solution" to the AFK cloak "problem" (if it really is one) is to build probes that can find cloaked ships. Have it take 15 minutes for them to perform a scan or some similarly ludicrous value.

Any active covops pilot can clearly see them on directional and simply has to warp to a different location safespot every now and again. (My God, the cloaker has to watch directional now? The horror!)

Whether or not this is necessary or even desired is up for debate, however.


I think the problem with this solution, is it makes it so any non-cov op's vessel, (including Black Op's), is now 100% detectable, and all you have to do is sit and wait for the cycle to end.

Mystical Might
Amarr
The Imperial Fedaykin
Posted - 2011.05.21 15:37:00 - [8]
 

AFK cloakers don't harm anyone, apart from Botters who can't get their program to function as they'd like.
Only time an "AFK" Cloaker will ever harm you, is when that same "AFK" Cloaker isn't AFK.

Aamrr
Posted - 2011.05.21 18:22:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Mars Theran
Originally by: Aamrr
Honestly, this simplest "solution" to the AFK cloak "problem" (if it really is one) is to build probes that can find cloaked ships. Have it take 15 minutes for them to perform a scan or some similarly ludicrous value.

Any active covops pilot can clearly see them on directional and simply has to warp to a different location safespot every now and again. (My God, the cloaker has to watch directional now? The horror!)

Whether or not this is necessary or even desired is up for debate, however.


I think the problem with this solution, is it makes it so any non-cov op's vessel, (including Black Op's), is now 100% detectable, and all you have to do is sit and wait for the cycle to end.


Because uncloaking for 10 seconds to warp from one safespot to another is just too dangerous. Right, moving on...

Gariboldi Phiron
Posted - 2011.05.21 20:21:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Mars Theran
If you're going to suggest something like this, make it functional on grid only.

That would make it impossible to detect AFK cloakers, which is the whole point

Originally by: Mars Theran
There is no way any device could affect ships system wide, and there is also no way you could scan down a cloaked vessel system wide.

Why not? Scan probes can scan the whole system (and creating a new type of probe would be fine, this idea just makes finding cloakers bore expensive and dangerous.

Originally by: Mars Theran
It's completely rediculous and overpowered. Handicapping a vessel for 30 minutes is also rediculous, and just goes to show how little you are concerned about the cloaked vessels combat threat potential.

I proposed 10 minutes, just like a cyno, not 30 minutes. What does how much I'm concerned with their 'combat potential' have to do with eliminating AFK cloaking? It doesn't matter what ship their in, if they are afk for 23 hours in a red system they should be killable.

Originally by: Mars Theran
Any device that interacts with a cloaked vessel, (by disrupting the cloak or by allowing the ship to be detected by some means), should only function on grid or in a similar limited fashion.

Why? Is there something unbalanced about announcing in system that you're looking for cloaked ships and if the cloaked ship doesn't warp between safes or recloak they will then be detectable? Is there a situation where this will actually impede normal behaviour of 'active' cloakers?

Originally by: Mars Theran
I'll support anything well thought out, and well balanced. No matter what your cycle time, nothing short of a Super-Nova is going to disrupt any cloaking device within 100 AU.

Again, why this strange restriction? I honestly don't understand what your definition of 'realism' is that scanning probes, jump bridges, ihub detection arrays, and the new ship scanner that detects anomolies system wide can pass as realistic but this idea fails.

Thomas Phillippe
Posted - 2011.05.21 22:43:00 - [11]
 

i actually like this idea better than many of the others suggested

t'raq mardon
Posted - 2011.05.22 03:10:00 - [12]
 

Not sure how much i like this one since it would really only screw over those using cloaks to break gate camps, and they already have a weakness; being seen on overview for enough time to try and decloak them with a nice bump.

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.05.22 08:18:00 - [13]
 

I like the probe idea.
Nothing should uncloak a cloaked ship. It should be just that they become scannable with sufficient combat probe skills.

Abdiel Kavash
Caldari
Paladin Order
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2011.05.22 08:59:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
If a disruption signal goes up system-wide, and let's say it takes 30 minutes before it activates, the cloaker has 30 minutes to see and react to this signal. If he doesn't I think it's safe to assume he's either AFK or not paying attention. In either case, he's game to die, as it should be in 0.0.




If a cloaker enters a system and appears in local system-wide, and let's say it takes 4 hours before he comes back to his computer, the carebear has 4 hours to see and react to this signal. If he doesn't I think it's safe to assume he's either botting or not paying attention. In either case, he's game to die, as it should be in 0.0.

MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.05.22 09:26:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 22/05/2011 09:28:33
Originally by: Abdiel Kavash

Yes, because your enemies should have to react and remain reacting for 4 hours, 24 hours, weeks, and months, while the cloaker shouldn't have to react to any threat at all. God forbid an ounce of a threat should be presented to you Rolling Eyes. That would just be too harsh and cruel for you in 0.0.


Seamus Donohue
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.22 09:43:00 - [16]
 

I support the Cloak Disruption Generator with the 10-minute timer as originally proposed.

I'm not so sure about probes being able to find cloaked ships. Granted, any competent cloaker should be in motion, anyway, but with the recent probe interface changes, it's become really fast to find targets using probes. Even a cloaker who is at the keyboard most of the time might need to go AFK for a few minutes to go to the bathroom, for example.

Mars Theran
Caldari
EVE Rogues
EVE Rogues Alliance
Posted - 2011.05.22 10:18:00 - [17]
 

The probe idea is bad. If you want a new game mechanic to gank people, why don't you just say so?

All you're doing is suggesting ways that make it so you can solo or small gang gank cloakers. Cov Op's or otherwise. Now you've got a suggested mechanic that means that no cloaked vessel will be able to travel through Null or low security space, except through gate-to-gate means, and continuously warping around a system, which increases their chance of getting caught.

They will no longer have time to pause, assess system choke points, figure out how to get past a camp safely, or anything else. For Non-Cov Op's ships, this means that they are effectively sitting ducks, just like any non-cloaked ships. You've removed any functionality on Black Op's entirely, and made non-Cov Op's cloaks completely useless.

If you really don't see it, then take a non-Cov Op's cloaker through a dozen occupied systems in Null, or go smack talk some pirates in lowsec and see how long you can avoid them.

418,491,116,101,718,882,050,375,000,000 km^3 Arrow The approximate volume of our solar system, if I've got that right.

Now imagine finding a small asteroid, (that just happens to be invisible), somewhere out there. Or, try to imagine how much power it would require to flood that area with disruptive energy/radiation using the dispersion principle.

Anomalies are collections of various objects, (some quite large), that are potentially emitting varying degree's of energy and radiation, or simply have large masses wiuthin them, like gravimetric sites. This is why they can be scanned down. Scanner probes that could lock on to a Cov Op's vessel would have to be much better than Combat probes.

How hard is it to scan down a frigate? Mask any sensor and heat signatures, disrupt light around it, and effectively nullify any electromagnetic signatures on it, then move it slightly out of phase with normal matter, and you've got a cloaked vessel.

If you can't detect it with ship sensors, or the naked eye, from 3 km, how do you expect to detect it out there? On grid is the only thing that makes sense, or the cooperative use of modules and specialized scan probes to detect them. Too much work? Tough! It's balanced and doesn't completely wipe out the usefulness of Covert Op's.


Swynet
State War Academy
Posted - 2011.05.22 10:25:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
The only thing I would add to your suggestion is a mechanic that doesn't disrupt active cloakers. Active cloakers shouldn't be penalized. Other than that, I agree.

Edit: I like your idea. But just to add. Make it so an active cloaker can counter in some way the disruption, either by warping or some other mechanic. If the cloaker is not at the keyboard to counter the cloak disruption then he suffers the consequences.




I like the idea, however:

How can you define an active cloacker? -impossible to know who's behind his computer and who's afk you****.

Someone's idea about fuel requirements for cloaking devices was a pretty good idea coupled with some fuel bay.

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.05.22 12:34:00 - [19]
 

The only people AFK cloakers hurt is botters.

No way I will ever support anything that helps botters out and this proposal does nothing but help botters.

Swynet
State War Academy
Posted - 2011.05.22 12:41:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: Swynet on 22/05/2011 12:42:38
Originally by: Marlona Sky
The only people AFK cloakers hurt is botters


False statement.

Coming from someone of NC you should know since long time cloaked stuff: maybe hot drop, maybe intell maybe a lot of stuff, and at the bottom of all them, bots.

Unless you have too many in your systems but then you don't need new stuff, you need to better choose your corp/alliance members.

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.05.22 13:59:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Swynet
Edited by: Swynet on 22/05/2011 12:42:38
Originally by: Marlona Sky
The only people AFK cloakers hurt is botters


False statement.

Coming from someone of NC you should know since long time cloaked stuff: maybe hot drop, maybe intell maybe a lot of stuff, and at the bottom of all them, bots.

Unless you have too many in your systems but then you don't need new stuff, you need to better choose your corp/alliance members.


Well if the cloaker is gathering intel on you or getting ready to hot drop you; They are not AFK are they?

Amy Garzan
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.22 21:46:00 - [22]
 

Supporting the idea, not the implementation.

Ryan Starwing
Gallente
Cryptonym Sleepers
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.05.23 03:33:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: Swynet
Edited by: Swynet on 22/05/2011 12:42:38
Originally by: Marlona Sky
The only people AFK cloakers hurt is botters


False statement.

Coming from someone of NC you should know since long time cloaked stuff: maybe hot drop, maybe intell maybe a lot of stuff, and at the bottom of all them, bots.

Unless you have too many in your systems but then you don't need new stuff, you need to better choose your corp/alliance members.


Well if the cloaker is gathering intel on you or getting ready to hot drop you; They are not AFK are they?


The way it is done is enter system look around and try to catch someone not paying attention then drop them. Then go afk for a few hours so people will be meh afk and go back to ratting, and then drop them with a decent sized covert fleet or maby even a standard fleet by titan bridge depending on ship and if system is cyno jammed or not. The local spike will make people all like wtf and a standing fleet might not engage for they dont know what they are up against, and by the time they figure out what it is the ratters are dead and the gang is 10 jumps out. Then go afk again and repeat.

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.05.23 07:20:00 - [24]
 

Edited by: Marlona Sky on 23/05/2011 07:24:37
Originally by: Ryan Starwing
The way it is done is enter system look around and try to catch someone not paying attention then drop them.


Bolded the problem.

Originally by: Ryan Starwing
Then go afk for a few hours so people will be meh afk and go back to ratting, and then drop them with a decent sized covert fleet or maby even a standard fleet by titan bridge depending on ship and if system is cyno jammed or not.


Maybe don't rat by yourself? Have some gang members on standby to S.O.S. you? Falcon alt? Set a trap? Rat in a PvP ship? Bottom line is there is several ways to deal with cloakers. Your just be lazy.

Originally by: Ryan Starwing
The local spike will make people all like wtf and a standing fleet might not engage for they dont know what they are up against,...


Stop being such a ***** and fight.

Originally by: Ryan Starwing
...and by the time they figure out what it is the ratters are dead and the gang is 10 jumps out. Then go afk again and repeat.


And the reason they are all dead is because they have cowards for protection. Maybe try high sec ratting. Seems more of the game style you are looking for.

All in all, working as intended.

ArmyOfMe
Hysera.
Posted - 2011.05.23 11:22:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Mystical Might
AFK cloakers don't harm anyone, apart from Botters who can't get their program to function as they'd like.
Only time an "AFK" Cloaker will ever harm you, is when that same "AFK" Cloaker isn't AFK.

^^ see, this guy gets itVery Happy

MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.05.23 11:23:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 24/05/2011 11:57:49
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Edited by: Marlona Sky on 23/05/2011 07:24:37
Originally by: Ryan Starwing
The way it is done is enter system look around and try to catch someone not paying attention then drop them.


Bolded the problem.
Then you agree that someone not paying attention should be able to die? Because that's exactly what an AFK cloaker does when he walks away from the keyboard in the middle of 0.0; he's not paying attention.


MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.05.23 11:33:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: ArmyOfMe
Originally by: Mystical Might
AFK cloakers don't harm anyone, apart from Botters who can't get their program to function as they'd like.
Only time an "AFK" Cloaker will ever harm you, is when that same "AFK" Cloaker isn't AFK.

^^ see, this guy gets itVery Happy
But you see, he doesn't get it. He doesn't even know what an AFK cloaker is. He's using the literal definition to defend his position. It's like saying a guard dog doesn't bite because, according to the literal definition, it only "guards". Or it's like saying you can't take cough medicine on a teaspoon because a teaspoon only holds "tea".


Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2011.05.23 13:11:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: Ryan Starwing
The way it is done is enter system look around and try to catch someone not paying attention then drop them.


Bolded the problem.
Then you agree that someone not paying attention should be able to die? Because that's exactly what an AFK cloaker does when he walks away from the keyboard in the middle of 0.0.


Then stop relying on local, as an instant intel tool. AFK cloakers, are simply subverting locals intel power.

t'raq mardon
Posted - 2011.05.23 13:53:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Mag's
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: Ryan Starwing
The way it is done is enter system look around and try to catch someone not paying attention then drop them.


Bolded the problem.
Then you agree that someone not paying attention should be able to die? Because that's exactly what an AFK cloaker does when he walks away from the keyboard in the middle of 0.0.


Then stop relying on local, as an instant intel tool. AFK cloakers, are simply subverting locals intel power.


CCP got rid of local for WH systems, and then they felt that since there was no local they should also kill cynos in those systems and make their entrances limited and cause them to move constatly making it much harder for a group of players to organize an attack on those systems. CCP has never, however, created a situation where cloakers are anything but completely safe once in a system. they have clearly thought about your idea(getting rid of local) and felt that it was a poor one for the general population. A way to counter cloaking however has not yet been formally discussed by ccp.

Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2011.05.23 13:55:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: t'raq mardon
they have clearly thought about your idea(getting rid of local) and felt that it was a poor one for the general population. A way to counter cloaking however has not yet been formally discussed by ccp.
They are still thinking about it, they have yet to arrive at a suitable replacement. Wink


Pages: [1] 2 3 4

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only