Player Features and Ideas Discussion

There is a fundamental breakdown here that needs to be addressed.

The concept that the AFK cloaker can have no real affect because he is AFK, and the real problem is nullbear cowardice. This is patently absurd.


That cloaker (afk or otherwise) represents the threat of violence. If he takes no action at all, he is still projecting that threat by being online and present in system. It's not about what he is doing, it's about what he can do.

EvE is about decisions. To make the decision to undock, I must consider my risks in doing so. In order to have any profit of any kind (this need not be isk, but merely a goal) in my actions I must be online and actively performing my chosen task---unless my chosen task is to disrupt activity in a system by the threat of potential violence.

Because of Cyno, that threat is potentially limitless, which means my only counter is to not undock. By projecting his threat by going afk, I must now counter his threat by also going afk. Without Cyno it is entirely reasonable to tell the Nullbear to grow some curly hairs and learn to play EVE.

The afk cloaker has a real, definable, concrete effect that cannot be countered by the active actions of an entire alliance, while not even playing at all, because threat projection is a real thing.

I am wiling to listen to any arguments as to how threat projection is not a real thing, but it had best be good. If it cannot be proven to not really be a thing, then the cloaker, afk or not, has profited by his non-action.

As soon as we establish that threat projection is a real thing that must be accounted for in any potential operations, the ability to do it indefinitely while afk in perfect safety is a problem.

Are you implying that something that requires you to not be AFK in a wormhole breaks wormholes? If so, that probably needs looking into as a separate issue, as wormholes should not require afk 'activity' to be functional.

Absurd. The AFK pilot is projecting threat that must be accounted for in the decision to undock. Failing to do so is simply being stupid. In the case where all you are accounting for is a ship with a cloak waiting for a chance to strike, this threat is not known as the cloaked ship could be anything from a stealth bomber to a battleship and anything in between, but at least an educated guess can be made.

He is not simply an annoyance. He is a clear and present danger. The value of that is determined by the pilot that is cloaking. If his goal is simply to get some kills, then the issue of having to race to pin a target and being known as soon as he enters the system is a problem. That is his choice, and the challenge he accepted when choosing to play that way. Going AFK, or simply stalking the system for long periods of time can still net him results, and I honestly have zero issues other than the conceptually bad reality that he is uncountable in space until he chooses to act. I won't say that situation is unbalanced, broken or in need of a fix, it's just counter to the design principals of EVE.

However, kills and ISK are not the only rewards a pilot may choose to seek. If his goal is the disruption of system activities, then his simple presence does that. If not for the potential for him to have a cyno on his ship, this would still be an accountable risk--providing a barrier to entry for PvE activities in the system, but not shutting it down completely as educated risks can still be calculated. This is still not really a problem, until you add the potential for a cyno. Then the risk he represents, and therefore the barrier to entry on operations in the system, becomes infinite. No activity can be considered possible unless the potential rewards can outstrip the value of the ships performing the activity in a fairly short period of time. This runs into issues with the disparity in the cost between effective PvE fits and competitive PvP fits, and the fact that only seriously goofy expensive ships can outstrip their own value in short periods time in PvE, and that only with luck.

The projection of threat is a real, concrete benefit to the afk pilot that he may achieve with very little skill, cheap fits, and perfect safety deep within enemy territory while not having to do anything other than exist. When you add the effect of a cyno to that threat, it is clearly and deeply unbalanced. The afk pilot need not even have the skill for the cyno or have it on his ship, as there is no way to even gain information on the afk pilot to judge the level of threat he may pose.

Ok, I can point out a flaw to the logic here, that denies consideration of any points subsequent to it.

For there to be a legitimate threat, the AFK aspect must be false. If it is known to be false, then precautions can be taken to block the threat.

To operate in a properly prepared manner, ALL such threats should be considered active. Have a primary and a backup plan both, capable of handling the warp in / decloaking of a hostile onto your grid.

The often foolish gamble that a cloaked pilot is AFK results in most of the limited number of PvE losses experienced in this context.

But let's consider replacing this threat to PvE activity in null.

As it is already explained how a null pilot can use local to evade unwanted PvP 100% of the time, assuming lack of pilot error, how would you provide risk instead of this?
if you would claim risk already exists, please explain or provide an example of this.
Do not assume this to be common knowledge, as I am claiming no such risk to exist in absence of a reply explaining otherwise.

Now, that is simply not true.

You can be prepared for an event, without the event occurring.

If you ever worked in an industry with hazardous materials, you don't schedule accidents. But you are prepared for accidents, and you have a plan of action that takes into account possible events, and therefore limits the actual risk to those operating in that environment.

If a cloaked pilot is genuinely AFK, then the threat is false. But in order to have any impact, this cannot be known by the potential targets. So the cloaked pilot avoids revealing this information if possible.

Since the PvE pilot cannot reasonably be certain which threats are genuine, they should be prepared in the event a threat should demonstrate itself to be real.



A pilot may evade a threat by simply staying aligned at a minimum 75% speed. If a threat decloaks or warps in from off grid, they can hit warp and leave.
Assuming they picked a smart location to warp to, the hunter can have no way of knowing it, and therefore cannot anticipate or counter this exit.

But a hunter can use a sensor booster! Yes, and a PvE pilot can fit stabs. The venture mining frigate already has a default +2 warp strength, so pointing it is simply not a reasonable expectation.

So, to review, ratting should always be aligned, the rats tend to accommodate players by getting into range politely.
The mining characters can use a venture, or other prepared mining vessel designed to avoid being pointed.

These are options for SOLO play, which is supposed to be inconvenient at best in null. If you operate in a group, your options expand as a result.

Does this leave risk for the PvE player, if they use these or similar tricks?

Not enough to be meaningful. The hunter doesn't have a realistic chance short of pilot error.
Forewarned is forearmed.

this is such an empty, dishonest response.

In order for me to shoot you while you're AFK, you want me to bring a giant fleet, grind structures, face the automatic defenses on the tower, then wait out a timer that is a day+ long (in which you can run way to another pos, station, or system, form a defense fleet of your own, etc) and then topple the tower.

But when I'm AFK and you want to shoot me, CCP should implement mechanics that allow you to sit on your ass doing nothing, then after a mere ten or fifteen minutes I become completely vulnerable - no powerful automatic defenses, no huge HP that requires grinding, no day+ long grace periods where I can run away, etc - you want me to be instantly and completely defenseless so you can kill me.

Do you not realise how disgustingly hypocritical you are, how cowardly you sound? How you keep demanding huge huge huge benefits to yourself, while wanting massive penalties to others?

You are terrible at EVE, biomass yourself.

Well put Gunslinger.

Thats all these threads ever boil down to! They cry that AFK is bad, but the real reason for the thread is they want to nerf all cloaks rather than address the AFK issue, so they can zerobear in safety with the ultimate intel of locals all seeing eye!

Pick one. He cannot be a "clear and present danger" and "afk" at the same time. He's a potential danger. He's an uncertainty. He might be afk, he might be an active solo hunter, he might have a blops gang behind him. You can do things to try and determine what exactly he is, and make decisions based on that. You can just immediately assume the worst and prepare for that - whether that means just docking like a coward, or fitting in a way that gives you a better chance, or forming your own fleet, etc.

Asking CCP to just flat out remove that uncertainty, that potential, and tell you outright exactly what the situation is doesn't make sense. Like the comparison on the other page - it's asking to be told in advance whether the other person is going to pick rock, paper, or scissors.

So no, lets not do that.

Nope.gif

I'll shorten the reason for you:
No local = no intel for ratters
No intel for ratters means they would die far more often
Ratters dying far more often means they would move to highsec
Ratters moving to highsec means there is no longer anyone to gank
The lack of anyone to gank makes removing local pointless

No local works for wormholes, but wormholes are different from Nullsec.
The end.

Cloaks should use AFK whine threads as fuel. Then they would never have to refuel their cloaks. So then if people stop whining, they would no longer be able to cloak.