Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The cloaked pilot, as with any other pilot in the game, experiences risk at the point where they shift from being a potential threat to an actual threat.

A logged out pilot, possibly in a group of similar pilots working together, is also a threat.
They appear after logging in, and unless locked in place by a timer, vanish from the game when logged out.

A docked pilot also represents a potential threat.
A pilot in a POS, similar.

The docked and POS'd pilot, however, can be active in other ways.
While I am sure it will be changed at some point, a POS sitting pilot can boost other pilots for improved combat and PvE performance.
A pilot in an outpost can purchase and fit items, manufacture, resell, etc.
A pilot in a cloaked vessel... not so much. I am sure they can access the market to a limited degree, but that can be done anywhere the market exists.

The question you seem to be avoiding, is why the PvE pilots should not need to deal with risk beyond trivial levels?
Why should their play be elevated to consensual regarding combat?

Note: In case people missed it I am snipping the quotes above to save space. Original post here.

Regarding the Threat concept:

I prefer to use the term probability vs. Frequency. This might seem like a trivial distinction, but bear with me. Probabilities can be both objective or subjective. An objective probability is based on facts, like a coin flip with a fair coin and given the laws of physics. We'd asses this probability as 0.5 heads, 0.5 tails.

A subjective probability on the other hand can be used when you don't have the luxury of stating the initial conditions "fair coin and given the laws of physics." For example, I could make a subjective probability estimate of getting ganked when flying a freighter through Uedama. Further, via Bayes theorem I can update that initial assessment as I get more data (e.g. I go to eve-kill and look up freighter kills in Uedama, send in a scout and do some scanning, etc.).

For most players undocking in null is going to entail a subjective probability for being attacked. For example, if you log in and see nobody in local you'll asses a low probability of being attacked and will be more likely to undock. You might look at intel channels for a bit first, ask around in corp/alliance chat and revise that initial estimate down (you may not use Bayes theorem explicitly, but implicitly the effect would be similar). As the conditions change you'll keep changing that probability.

Your overall idea could be used for evaluating mechanics changes. We'd want to look at things like expected losses for people in null, in this case people engaged in PvE. Obviously we don't want the expected loss over some time interval to be greater than expected benefit of engaging in PvE. That is if:

E(B) < E(L), (simplifying tremendously here)

Then nobody would want to engage in PvE. We'd prefer for E(B) > E(L). This way PvE is going to be attractive. The larger E(B) is relative to E(L) the more people will want to engage in PvE and the more people we'll have in null.

Now one way to achieve this is to use game mechanics to set E(L) = 0. However, the problem with this approach is that it is in direct conflict with the very nature of the game (i.e. a sandbox where players create the most interesting content--e.g. sov wars, the metagame which has spawned their own websites such as Kugu).

We could write the above inequality as:

E(B)/E(L) > 1.

So when making a change to mechanics you'd look at that and make sure that the above is, at least, satisfied.

Another way to change the above inequality is to change the value of B. By increaseing B, all other things constant, E(B) increases and the ratio increases. So, if a mechanic change reduces E(B)/E(L) then increasing B could restore it to its original point. That is if the mechanic change increases risk, by increasing the benefits you will offset that increased risk of loss.

TL;DR: This, or something like it, could provide a framework to evaluate changes to the game in regards to null security space. Obviously this is very general right now and simplified, but with actual data (which CCP has) and with people who understand things like math (which I'm sure CCP has or could get access too) it could be done.

And I don't want to screw over PvE pilots. All PvPers (or a the vast majority) PvE at least occasionally. I PvE. I have in game friends and alliance mates who PvE. I want null to be someplace they can make isk and want to stay...yes...so the ones who aren't blue I can sometimes shoot. And sometimes they will escape (probably more often than they are caught). And maybe they'll reship and shoot me, and on occasion send me home via pod express.

You're delusional if you think CCP are going to ban people for mechanically repeating a button press.

Their entire point - something you yourself quoted - revolves around players gaining some benefit from it. I don't gain anything from tapping spacebar repeatedly.

It'd also be trivial, both with something like autohotkey or a mechanical device, to randomise the timing of the presses

Lucas, I have been in game quite a while now. Coming up on 6 years. This issue was a dead horse so badly beaten when I first checked out the forums it wasn't funny.

So, if I were to asses a probability of CCP making a change to just cloaks based on all that data over all that time, I'd make that probability very, very low. Especially since CCP's stated views on the game are basically: HTFU.

Show me their stated views.
The only thing I've ever seen on an official level is they need to find a balanced way of dealing with it. Same as the local issue.

just remove local and AFK cloaking will be gone, no need to afk cloak anymore

the problem is just created by people docking because they see you coming

Raising a ticket would be pointless because I a) know the answer and b) wouldn't be allowed to repost the response anyway.

And the entire point would be that whatever button you press wouldn't do anything except act as a heartbeat to the client. Sometimes when I'm reading things on my computer I hit a random key to stop the screen turning off for inactivity/power saving. This is the same thing. I'd not be getting anything

No, that's now what we've said at all you arrogant prick.
What we've said is that WH space has SEVERAL DIFFERENCES.
One is Cynos. In combination with WH sizes and WH classes, this means it's unlikely you'll have a 250 man fleet dropped on your head.
With thsoe sizes comes ship limitations. A chose of WH can restrict you to subcap only, or less than battleships, etc.
WHs also have less points of entry, as you can collapse the ones you don't want, in some cases, sealing it shut.
You can also see the amount that's poured into your wormhole by looking at it's state of collapse. If it's suddenly unstable, and you haven't used it, it's a good chance you are not alone.
WHs also mean you omnitank. Omnitanking in null is pretty much suicide and at the very less inefficient, as they hit hard on their chosen types every time.

Stop spewing out nonsense, accusing other people of saying things they have not said, just so you can force your crappy ideas on them.

Oh yeah, you know the answer. So what is it then?

In this instance you WOULD be getting something. You'd be bypassing your cloak timer.

Sure, mark it all you want. How many times do I have to say CLOAKING IN GENERAL I AM NOT AGAINST.
Here, I'll say it again since you seem to have reading problems.
THE ISSUE IS, AFK CLOAKERS CAN CREATE THE APPEARANCE OF THREAT WHILE REMAINING RISK FREE AND EFFORT FREE.
The fact that they may or may not later chose to engage in a risk is beside the point. I don;t give a **** what they do while they are active, whether it's risky or not, but when they aren't playing they shouldn't be there providing an appearance of risk to purposely lower system activity.