Player Features and Ideas Discussion

To be neutral it must be objective.

To be objective, it must recognize the impact intel gained from local chat has, and how that defines the circumstances involved.

Therefore, no neutral proposal can address cloaking exclusively, as it is acting as a counter force in this context.

Indeed?

Then let us take a look at what you are objecting to.

Kind of a garbage dump thread where links various anti-AFK Cloaking suggestions can be linked. The idea is that this thread can used so that when somebody comes up with a super awesome fantastic idea on how to totally wreck part of the game it can be linked here and you can link this thread in the latest thread and they can see that, no...it is not a great new idea, that somebody already posted it. Feel free to add to it if you like, I'll add more periodically.

Garbage dump?
It might seem a tad harsh, but any idea / proposal / concept that only addresses one side of this issue has no value, since it would unbalance the game in favor of PvE pilots like myself.
I don't want or need the help, not like that. I could have stayed in high sec and experienced more risk than I do now, while PvE playing.

The reward indexes reflect that.

No, that OP may not be kind, I agree it could be more polite too...

But an argument does not demonstrate bias when it reflects an objective opinion or perspective.

I myself have threads describing how to balance cloaking and local chat's intel. Ignoring local chat to address only cloaking is unbalancing, which makes it garbage.

It may be rude, sure, but it is still accurate.
More to the point, it reflects a passion to see the game keep it's balance, and not turn into a joke that shamelessly caters to only one play style.

You missed my point entirely, so i will attempt to clarify my objections to this post.

Post title: "AFK cloaking collection thread"

This title leads the reader to believe that the post is merely a collection of threads about afk cloaking. Had it merely been a collection of threads about afk cloaking, then i would have zero objection to its content.

Had this thread been labeled "I hate all arguments against current afk cloaking mechanics, here's a list of them", i would have no complaint about what the OP posted and quite honestly i wouldn't have wasted my time reading the post.

HOWEVER!

This is what the OP actually did:

OP: "All posts that suggest a change to current afk cloaking are garbage".

OP: Here are the rules under which you can discuss my opinion: "You MUST agree with me at all times".

OP: "Now let's argue!"

Me: But i dont agree with you, i would like to offer a counter perspective.

OP: To bad the rules say you can ONLY agree with me.

Me: but you never said i wouldn't be able to post a counter perspective when we started debating (because the title of this post gives no hint that it will contain restrictive posting instructions and a heavy bias)

OP: to bad i changed the rules after we started to debate (because of the restrictive posting instructions and heavy bias in his actual post)

This is what makes his post childish and riddled with cowardice, not his opinion that afk cloaking should be left as it is.

Show me EXACTLY where he says this.

I knew this was going to be a challenging logical point to make, I will give it one more try....

Thread title: "AFK Cloaking Thread Collection", this would lead the reader to assume that it is just what it says it is, nothing more than a mere collection of threads about afk-cloaking.

HOWEVER,

Summarizing what the OP actually says in his post:

"This is a listing of afk cloaking threads and they are all garbage, add yours"

There is a disconnect now between these two phrases "AFK cloaking thread collection" and "This listing is of afk cloaking threads that are garbage, add yours".

The problem here is that the OP has equated to unequal statements because one would be expected to contain threads both in favor of, as well as threads against such proposals (AFK cloaking thread collection), while the other CANNOT contain a single thread that states it is in favor of afk cloaking changes and not have its meaning changed into 'afk cloaking changes are garbage".

If you want this to be more clear make a post in favor of afk cloaking changes then attempt to list a link to it here, has not the intent of your support for afk cloaking changes been usurped by the OP saying all links here are garbage?

Your post will still say you are in favor of afk cloaking changes but by listing it here you must tacitly accept that your opinion is garbage.

Thus, regardless of what your opinion is regarding whether changes to afk cloaking need to be made or not, if you post here you MUST agree with the OP that the thread you post is garbage.

I hope it is now clear how manipulative and subtle the OP has been by having his title to his post say one thing and his actual post say another.

Yes, i realize that i am not forced to post a link here but i feel that the OPs manipulation and cowardice must be called out for what it is.

*** for those still confused about how the logic i put forth works I'm sorry but I do not believe I will be able to make my point anymore clear. The problem isn't my logic, it is that the OP has used a subtle and very devious posting technique that is not often seen and so people are not used to recognizing the manipulation the OP has utilized by making a "contextual shift" between title and actual post.

Where is the thread that discusses how to determine without question if someone is AFK as opposed to patient?

Any thread that deals exclusively with AFK cloaking is, to many of us, just garbage. The reason has already been explicated: local.

Nowhere did I say that there are rules to post in this thread. You are being rude for putting words in my post. What I would like is a balanced discussion on this issue. Not some nerd raging because he can't PVE in null in near absolute safety.



More words being put into my post. I intended this to be a place for people to find previous ideas, which are amazingly similar over dozens of threads, and as a way to minimize pointless discussion in just one aspect of the larger problem. I did not intend it to become a discussion thread on its own, Kreskin. It has at times become a discussion thread and I have not attempted to enforce any of these rules you claim I am demanding be followed.



Part of the purpose of this thread was to provide people with a way to check what ideas had been suggested again and again and again and again for the AFK cloaking "issue". Almost every single one has been horrible in that it focuses on just one aspect of the problem or more accurately doesn't consider why people AFK cloak in the first place. Mag's has explicated this reason very well. If a PVE player is going to use local to gain an advantage over those looking to hunt him down, don't be surprised when others use that very same mechanic to prevent you from PVEing as well. The very idea of then nerfing the second part while doing nothing about the first part is antithetical to very nature of the game.

Later in the thread I do link suggestions by others on how to resolve both issues. Note that these kinds of thread are few and far between. The typical post on this issue is a rage post by somebody who has an AFK cloaker in their favorite ratting system and wants CCP to deal with the problem solely to their benefit--i.e. the ideas are not balanced.



You flatter me with an over-abundant power on this forum that I simply do not have. And I never said you can only agree with me. Go ahead, disagree with me, but I'll still likely think you are boneheaded, short sighted, and ill prepared to discuss game balance issues in this thread or any thread dealing with local and cloaks.



As you can see by reading the thread other people have posted and disagreed.

In before the lock.

Its hard to take anyone seriously with such an ignorant sig.

As for this thread. What is it both sides want. And what are the current problems?

Cloakers want to not be seen in local to have a real cloaked experience.

Miners and ratters want to not be ganked/hotdropped randomly and constantly without being able to prevent it.

Currently the cloakers are in the position of power. Any change will flip that position completely and/or give either side a complete advantage over the other.

The fix to balance these things are definately going be in the form of an array of changes simultaneously,not just 1.

Here are some of the problems.
Local advertises the presense of any hostile. Adversly it also advertises to the hostile the presense of targets. With it cloakers can't really be hidden. Also without it roaming fleets would never find eachother.

Covert ops cloak ships can tackle and cyno/covert cyno. This means they can Find a target undetected, tackle it, and have it hotdropped all on its own. Too much power for one ship. But by nerfing this alone it takes away the viability of the strategy completely.

Another problem is the unlimited cloaking ability of ships. Someone can remain completely safe in a hostile system indefinately while cloaked. Nerfing this would allow pilots to pve in null sec at only the safest of times.(Is this really that bad?)

Starmap statistics show exactly what's happening in all systems including mining and ratting. Nerfing this though would hurt people trying to avoid camped systems.

What things are either side of this arguement willing to give up?

Well for starters you might consider that there are more accurately three sides to the issue, not two.

As for Nikk's sig, it is called hyperbole and it is used to highlight some of the dumber statements uttered by people who want to simply nerf cloaks, the most common being, "Nothing in Eve should be safe." Considering that a player is always 100% safe in station and can still do stuff, it is an unreasonable position that everything should encompass some sort of risk of destruction. So either let AFK station dwellers be kicked out to be killed or stop uttering such nonsense.



That is simplistic, probably because you are looking at the issue with only two sides and are ignoring the third group of players involved in this issue.



Currently the situation is in balance. PVE pilots have an excellent intel tool that allows to greatly minimize the risk associated with PVE. Cloaked pilots (both AFK and active) can use the same tool to disrupt isk/resource generating activities and even possibly generate possible kills.



So much is wrong here:

1. The current environment is balanced. It isn't very good, but it is balanced.

2. A covert ops cannot find a target undetected because as you have already stated they show up in local.

3. The set of possible solutions is not: Local or No Local. That is there could be other mechanics for gathering intel introduced into the game. Thus roaming gangs could "find" each other. Of course, depending on how it is done, the gang might have a home field advantage.



First off, yes a cloaked ship can be completely safe in a hostile system while cloaked, but everyone in that system is safe from that cloaked ship as it can't do anything until it decloaks, at which point the formerly cloaked ship is now rather vulnerable. Also, I've been in a hostile system and completely safe without a cloaked ship...heck I wasn't even in any kind of ship. I clone jumped to a station we had lost to throw up some trapped assets on contracts.

The starmaps intel qualities are much weaker than local, but it covers a wider area. There is a lag between wen a pilot is reported in system and when he leaves (IIRC it is about 30 minutes and it only reports the average number of pilots, and such).