Player Features and Ideas Discussion

In the context we are discussing, wrong. Risk from 2 options which may or may not be the case from a single source have to be graded as the highest risk of the two. Here we have a single input, 2 possible outcomes, but no way of telling which outcome is correct, so we have to mitigate at the highest level of risk.

It's not about "not bothering" to assess (yes, assess, not access), its about not being able to predict the outcome. Much like the Russian roulette example, you have no idea if the chamber is loaded or not, so you have to mitigate risk under the assumption that it will be. So you then have to decide if taking that risk is worth the reward. In the cloaker scenario, you don;t know if it is an AFK cloaker or not, but is losing your ship worth more than simply moving system? In most cases no, as the systems are much the same, so you should move system.

That attitude already does pass. I'm perfectly happy ignoring cloakers, but the endless complaint about how null is empty will continue to drag on. If AFK cloakers can introduce risk to null, and can do so 24/7, then expect null players to be more risk averse.
Think about it this way however:
The reason I move system is because I see a cloaker and automatically assume they intend to either cloak AFK until they find a 100% kill opportunity, or play cloaky games until they get a 100% kill opportunity. I have no intention of wasting my time with either of those types of players. They have absolutely nothing to add to my gameplay. So if you want to do that, continue to be sadly disappointed by the reaction of null players to you. If you want a less risk averse null, take away "boring risk".

Or... we keep it as is, and you can continue to cry "nullbears" every time you come to null expecting a defenseless miner to sacrifice himself to you and instead find everyone docked up. I find it truly amazing that you don't see the hypocrisy in calling us carebears, while you want fights against completely unarmed people.
Turn up in any non covops ship, so we don't have to spend hours watching you hide like a ******, and you'll get a fight. But you don't. Because you just want to gank miners and missioners. Just do it in high sec instead, it's easy and the there's better tears.

You may not be familiar with the mechanics, but in order to launch a bomb the ship must be decloaked. So to claim a cloaked ship killed anything is wrong. It wasn't cloaked initially. It couldn't have been. Therefore you could have caught and killed it, therefore it was facing plenty of risk itself.

I am not afraid CCP will take away that ability because that ability does not exist. I cannot attack someone in null without risking my ship. I have to decloak to do anything, and when I do I'm in a ship that is inherently weaker than most.

If anyone is the coward, it is you. You're the one asking that methods for players to attack you be removed.

What about this do you not understand, or are you just trolling?

Isn't that easy. To decide if undock your drake or not have to consider EVE is about mitigating risk. Of course, there are many ways to define and evaluate risk, and many subtle and substantial differences in the application of risk-related terms.

The most effective way is with this simple equation:

Risk = Threat x Vulnerability x Cost

Where:

Threat

Threat is the frequency of potentially adverse events. Since threat (by this definition) is always a frequency, it's always potentially measurable. And since the events are only potentially adverse, threat per se is not necessarily dangerous or detrimental.


Threat rates can be categorized into "global threat rates" and "local threat rates." A local organization's geography, status, political stance or any other factor may expose it to more or less threat than that of the global rate. The key to thinking about this is to determine--or at least estimate--the rate of whatever threats face your organization. Of course, many threat rates change constantly, particularly those driven by humans.

Vulnerability

Vulnerability is the likelihood of success of a particular threat category against a particular organization. Notice that if this were the likelihood of success of a particular attack (e.g., the Ping of Death) against a particular machine, the likelihood would be either 0 or 1 (0 percent or 100 percent). But since we are concerned about vulnerability at an organizational/alliance level to an entire class of threat, binary terms don't work. Instead, vulnerability has to be quantified in terms of a probability of success, expressed as a percent likelihood.

The likelihood of success is not easy to measure, but a related term, "vulnerability prevalence," is. Vulnerability prevalence is simply the number of ships of a particular type (say, mining bardge, ratting ships and so on) that exhibit a particular vulnerability.

Many factors work together to make some, but not all, ships vulnerable in their current environment--even if the software, hardware and data is identical across machines. Router rules, firewall configuration, proxy settings, NAT, location on a subnet, OS type, co-existence of other running processes, existence of data of certain types, existence of sample code or files, secondary connections of certain types-these factors and many others change the likelihood of success of a particular threat.

Cost

Cost is the total cost of the impact of a particular threat experienced by a vulnerable target. Hard-ISK costs are measured in terms of "real" damages to ships and assets, as well as quantifiable player time and resources spent repairing these damages. Semi-hard costs might include such things as lost business or transaction time during a period of downtime. Soft costs include such things as lost end user productivity, public relations damage control, a decrease in user or public confidence or lost business opportunities.

Risk

It's not threat, vulnerability or cost alone that really matters, but risk. As you can see from the risk equation, for there to be any risk there must be at least some threat and vulnerability and cost. The concept we all learned in sixth grade-that anything multiplied by zero is zero-means that if any one of the three components of risk is zero, then the risk is also zero.

This concept is handy when evaluating a vendor's or the media's suggestion that "XYZ risk" must be addressed. If you can determine that XYZ risk poses no threat to your organization-or if you determine that your organization is not vulnerable to it-or that if it is vulnerable to it, the cost of fixing or repairing the problem is zero -you automatically know that XYZ risk doesn't pose a risk to your organization.

In most instances, you won't be able to say for sure that any of the three risk factors is zero. Instead, you'll need to measure each component of risk. For instance, let's say you want to determine if your system is vulnerable to hotdrops attack, and if so, the level of the threat. To do this, you need to evaluate the threat rate in other systems, and determine how that translates to your system. What tools, knowledge and access are required to make it a threat? What human motivation is necessary? Who in your corp or alliance has all the ingredients (tools, knowledge, access, motivation) to exploit the vulnerability? By drilling down into each component, you'll very often conclude that there's no risk-or at least no imminent risk-because at least one component of risk is zero or near zero.

Vulnerability is often the first thing to address, since that's where you typically have the most control. There are always many places where you can at least partially reduce vulnerability, and do so easily and inexpensively. We call these partial solutions "synergistic controls." They are overlooked by almost everyone, but are exceedingly useful, especially when used together with other synergistic controls.

You should read the whole sequence of posts. I stated that when a ship is AFK and cloaked he is 100% safe...as is the cloaked ship. I was responding, admittedly somewhat badly, to the claims that cloaked ships are invincible.

Look at my killboard, I've lost like 14 of damn things (force recons) plus a few bombers. So his claims, like many of his claims are exaggerations (e.g. a cloaked cyno ship is "God mode"). Decloaking a recon, bomber, etc. at a gate camp is not impossible and running a gauntlet can indeed result in the loss of said ship, especially in null with dictors and hictors. Plus, I've killed 19 force recons, 19 stealth bombers, and 10 covert ops. Am I some sort of super awesome player, or is Vas Eldryn making wildly exaggerated claims? I think the latter is the best explanation, but feel free to tell me I'm awesome.

Getting into system is a risk, no? It is not risk free. Once the AFK cloaked pilot is no longer AFK and drops cloak he is vulnerable to being shot at. Yes, such a fight is likely to be one-sided if the target of the cloaked ship is fit poorly for PvP, but if you see a hostile in local and undock in a ****-poor PvP fit, that one is on you.



True, but currently they do not, you want to change it to benefit just you. At least have the intestinal fortitude to say, "I want such a change for my benefit, I realize it will adversely impact other players, but I don't care."



I still not sure such a macro would be a violation. Nothing is being gained in game. No currency, no skills, no status, no nothing. Of course, CCP could come along and rule it a violation, but that goes for just about anything in game. Right now cache scraping is technically a violation, but they allow it. So if you have used Eve Central, have the wallet settings on Eve Mon active, or implicitly use cache scrapping with some other currently allowed software you yourself could find yourself the recipient of the ban hammer. Technically speaking there is nothing to prevent them from banning you for mining in high sec other than they want your money.

Also there is the whole issue of detection, as I note a person with a timer would look alot like an open client using a macro.



Those are quite different. Various bots work quite differently than just a simple macro or person clicking the screen once every x minutes.

You are always free to stop reading and posting in this thread...wait, I thought you did that already.

Oh well, thanks for the bumps to the thread.

What can I say, I'm bored enough to watch you troll.

And I'm happy to bump.
You realise you are simply creating a pool to show CCP how many different people have complained about AFK cloaking right? You are doing it so you can laugh, but they will see it as a huge list of complaint threads all based on the same subject. So thanks I guess.

The point of that question in the first place was to demonstrate that cloakers cannot be both invulnerable and interact with others. The stealth bomber example only strengthens that point: A cloaked ship cannot kill anyone unless it at some point decloaks and exposes itself to risk.




I didn't say it was always weaker, I said it was weaker than most. Reading is fundamental, bro. Sure, against an iteron or a barge a cloaky ship is stronger, but compared to the majority of combat ships cov ops, stealth bombers and recons are pretty weak. T3s are decent though.

As for the invulnerability until I choose to engage, that's not strictly true either. Plenty of covert ships are caught unwillingly - things do decloak us, you know. Warping into sites, or even to towers and gates, can put us on top of things that decloak us - you, as a resident, can even do things to increase this possibility. Use drag bubbles, cans, or drones assisting a fast moving ship. The fact you don't do any of these things isn't my problem.

And with regards to choosing to engage only when I think it suits me... you do the same. When I jump into system, your reaction is "if he were to land on me right now, it wouldnt be ideal" and you run away - that's fine, you have that choice, but this is another instance in which balance must be maintained - if residents can effectively choose when to engage and when not to, then the other person must have the same ability too.

When it comes to AFK players having the same appearance as someone actively moving about and doing things... I don't see a problem with that, in all honesty. You are not entitled to know what I'm doing behind the keyboard, or what my motivations are. You're certainly not entitled to be told this for zero effort. Technically speaking, if you want to you can, within the current mechanics and tools available, do quite a bit to determine what I'm likely to be up to. Check my kills, who is on them, the times they occur, the ships involved, etc and use that to make a best guess. You know, actually put in the effort. You can already do these things, it is not my fault if you refuse to do them and therefor assume the absolute worst. You don't have to be ignorant and make uninformed decisions - you choose to.



Asking for afk players to be removed is asking for the removal of uncertainty, and that uncertainty is something that is used as an avenue of attack (to counter local, of course). Asking for the uncertainty to be removed is asking for that avenue of attack to be removed, which is a removal of risk to yourself.

hope this helps

I skimmed your post, it was way tl;dr.

But yes, there many factors in risk mitigation, I worked in it for years. But for our purposes most of it can be put aside. All that needs to be looked at is:
What chance do i have of dying and how much do I make VS how much would I make somewhere I'm sure I won't get attacked.
In null, the systems aren't all that much apart. Especially when you hold multiple upgraded ones. Moving will always be more efficient than risking the loss of your fleet.