Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Okay, to take this outside the game setting to make it a bit easier to see:

Threat 1: Full grown man threatens another full grown man--e.g. I'm going to beat you to a pulp.

Threat 2: 10 year old girl threatens a full grown man--e.g. I'm going to beat you to a pulp.

Are threat 1 and 2 equal? I think not.

Now back to the in game issue:

You are free to treat all AFK cloaked ships as having the same degree of risk, but that is just you.

For example, suppose I log in and see a guy in system and he is cloaked. I suspect he might even be AFK. I query alliance chat/TS/mumble/whatever and get the following: "yeah he's been there all day, but i saw him come in, he's in an imicus."

Now I might revise that threat level down substantially in light of this new information. Now he could be part of a fleet with a titan within bridge range, but I'd be skeptical. He could be part of a BLOPs gang, but I'd be skeptical.

Oh and I've said over and over, fine, lets leave it as is, both local and cloak. Since we can't agree, leave it as it's been working all along. It really doesn't cause me any issues beside the occasional need to jump to a backup system where I have a second set of ships for my whole fleet.
We'll make sure AFK mining stays in too though, don't want to add too much hard work to the game. I'll carry on ratting and mining, you can carry on hiding and crying that everyone docks up.

All good. Brilliant. Problem resolved.

If you insist, I will oblige.

All actions are chosen. Some are reactions to other events. Many could be considered to be mistakes, when viewed in hind sight.

In theory, a PvE pilot who undocks chooses to experience risk. Local simply tells them if the threat has imminent potential.

Any player not visible on grid, cannot be observed. Docked players in Outposts which reject your docking attempts are a very easy way to see this.
Are they cloaked and in space?
Are they at some POS?
Or are they sitting safely in that outpost?

They could be logged off, and hidden from local entirely.
There is your real nightmare. Someone spying behind a blue tag, never exposing themselves as a hostile, but providing intel for the ones you are threatened by.

They just tag your location, have their attack ship log off at that spot, and wait for you to come back and be distracted.

Maybe they'll post a link in alliance or corp for you to pop into a browser, and gawk at.
How silly, a kitten stuck in a bird cage! Wait, was that an explosion?

You need advance warning when hostiles log in, more than anti cloaking changes!

Not entirely true. This is one of those areas where your probabilities in question are more like the frequency concept--i.e. objective. That is:

Prob(bullet in chamber | first pull) = 1/6.
Prob(bullet in chamber | second pull, gun did not discharge on first pull) 1/5
Prob(bullet in chamber | second pull, gun did discharge on first pull) 0

We could keep going till we get:

Prob(bullet in chamber | second pull, gun did not discharge on first 5 pulls) 1
Prob(bullet in chamber | second pull, gun did discharge on first 5 pulls) 0.

Which is why statements that all threats are equal are dubious. It suggests you don't understand conditional probabilities or aren't thinking in terms of them.

That's not the tl;dr version at all. I think you have severe problems with reading comprehension, my friend :(

My point is as simple as it is stated: You are literally saying that because you interpret something to mean one thing (when it could mean something else as well, and many players do interpret it as meaning something else) then CCP should act as if your assumption holds true in every case and change the mechanics and remove players, risk, etc for you

It is a horribly, horribly dumb statement to make

Oh...so you get to speak for CCP. I'm detecting a fair whiff of hypocrisy here.



I know, and I've already noted this. My point is, it is CCP's game. The contents are theirs too. If they want to ban you because of your height, they could. If they want to ban you because you like a specific color or drive a specific car, they can. And they could decide tomorrow to ban people who cache scrap.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

As for the russian roulette analogy, this is how I see it:

Person 1 opens up the chamber, sees that there are six chambers and one bullet. He interprets this as the chances being in his favour and plays. That's just how person 1 rolls.

Person 2 opens up the chamber, sees that there are six chambers and one bullet. He interprets this as a high risk and doesn't play.

Both players are entitled to their own interpretations and judgements regarding the risk, they personally make different decisions and I wont fault either of them for their choices

But then Player 2 demands bullets be removed from the game russian roulette because he doesn't like it, and wont shut the hell up

Player 2 is now on my shitlist for being an imbecile

You are an imbecile. Even if that WERE the case, player 2 wouldn't be removing bullets, they'd be removing empty chambers, since in this analogy, the bullets would be active cloakers and empty chambers would be AFK cloakers.
And it's not about how you chose to act to the risk, it's about how you establish what the risk is. Having AFK cloakers means AFK players are able to help you lower your average threat. A player that isn't actually playing shouldn't be able to have an effect on the game like that.
You aren't very bright are you?

I am sorry about your kindergarten level reading skills. I have repeatedly stated over and over that I do not want easy kills, and want both parties - the locals and the hunters - to have the ability and opportunity to "win" an encounter. My argument throughout all these threads is that nerfing cloaks - but not local - does not maintain equal abilities and opportunities, it skews it one way.

Your statements demonstrate that you want to maintain the ability for the locals to win by noticing the change in local and warping off, but do not want to maintain the ability for hunters to be able to trick or catch locals.

You want something that is imbalanced.

I want balance.

You want removal of uncertainty and risk for one side.

I want uncertainty and risk for everyone.

This is clear to see.

Removing the empty chambers is the same as removing the bullet. You have now removed the uncertainty and chances entirely, the outcome is now certain. There is no room for personal interpretations, or the ability for one person to weigh a situation differently to someone else. Now it is identical, it is sure, it is stagnant. It is risk free because there is no possibility what so ever for the outcome to be different to what you expect.

In a word, it's moronic.