Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Well...this all could be couched in probability language using subjective probabilities...which are totally valid (i.e. we use this all the time, e.g. a sporting event, a fan might asses this teams chances of winning and upcoming game).

For example, based on his experiences of mining in a given part of Null, on a given day, etc. that the probability of a "hostile" jumping into system is 0.1. He could say, 0.5 for before and after the scan. So the probability of a hostile jumping in after the scan is 0.1*0.5 = 0.05. And off he goes making additional evaluations and coming up an expected loss, relative to expected benefits and whether or not to undock and mine.

Or he could do it via trial-and-error/learning-by-doing as well. Or even something of a mixture, he could watch the system he wants to mine in for "awhile" arrive at the conclusion that hostile entry is not that frequent, and then go from there. He could use other things like Dotlan as well. See "how far off that system is from the main thorough fares" for that region.

It is still "random" in that it is not deterministic, but it doesn't rely on an in-game random number generator.

Yeah, I guess I'd prefer a "randomness" due to player actions which have some degree of unpredictability vs. a hard coded randomness. So even when a player becomes adept, he would have some issues predicting outcomes in all cases.

Your process is self defeating, if you maintain that the effort must be cost effective to match an expectation of efficiency.

Of course, with enough support, anyone is safe. That reflects effort.
If someone opposed you with a similar mindset, they would simply run enough alts to counter yours.

It is the superior effort that should win the day, be it through quality or quantity in effect.

You don't need alts.

The mining ships can scan just fine on their own.

If you want to put in more effort, you can counter a better effort made by a determined opponent. There should always be room to improve.

Just keep in mind, with enough ships on either side, it starts to be called a fleet.

A full fledged mining op, as it were, can be run by a single person. (I know a guy who does this sort of thing)

With player based intel gathered by effort, you actually need less effort to defend than a hostile needs to attack, simply because you will likely be using an intel channel, and be in your own sov space.

I also described structures that could be placed in sov space that enhanced sensors for friendly ships. You would not need alts in your home territory, the only thing broken is the hostile's free ride.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1356826#post1356826

The need was anticipated.

It's null. Having multiple accounts present is supposed to be the means to achieve better results.

That being said, you don't NEED alts for this to be functional.

Remember, if the hunter needs to look for you, the less of you to be found means the less chance he has to find you.

If you are in sov space, with the beacons I described in the link, you would not need to be actively broadcasting, just listening passively while the beacons did the broadcasting.

1 miner or 100, noone needs to be revealing their presence except the hunter, since the beacons won't help a hostile.

Except the time between scans means it would be hit and miss if you were solo.
If the scans were instant, then what's the point in having them? Nothing will have changed.
Sorry, but you are trying to break the system, then jam a bad idea into that broken system, and the only people that benefit are solo cloakers. There's no benefit to anyone else. Everyone else has to get more alts put up more structures and put in even more effort, while the cloaker puts in less, and the end result is, the people that you are trying to gank (primary null occupiers like me) already have the alt structure in place. You will simply kill off smaller groups and single account players in null.

And somehow we're back on the subject of trashing local with your idea.
This is why these converstaions never stay civil, because you keep forcing your same broken idea into every discussion, arguing with anyone that's opposed to it. Surely the fact that you have to make up so many caveats with your idea is evidence that the idea itself is flawed?
Here's my stance:
I already think covops cloakers have it too easy. Any idea that makes their lives easier at the detriment of other players is a bad idea. Any idea to puts this level of uncertainty into a null will break fleet combat, which is a key part of EVE.
This entire discussion is supposed to be about whether a player should be able to affect the game while AFK, and solutions to that. While YES, trashing local will do that, it's an impossible idea that will break other mechanics, and so it's out of the discussion. Go make a "Removal Local" thread.

Claiming to understand the intent of CCP, very nice.

You are playing it right now. It is not a stretch to conclude the game is as they accept, if not intend, it to be.

You are also supporting a one sided change to it.

Hypocrisy detected?

Lucas I don't understand how you can maintain both the claim that cloakers have it too easy and that you yourself can escape 100% of the time barring glitches, physics oddities, or doing the wrong thing

They contradict each other

Because cloak is a defense, not an offense. You are saying because you can't jump into my space and kill me when I am ready for exactly that scenario, that cloakers should be given vast amounts of power to engage me with a heavily reduced risk of being seen, and at the same time keep your 100% defense.
Your cloak provides you with MORE ability to avoid death than my ability to evade. You don't even need to warp, you just click a button and you're safe. Your defense works perfectly.

EDIT: If anything, the fact that you can't catch me calls for faster interceptors, not reduced ability to spot cloakers.

And yet you can get away perfectly, if you do it right.

Meanwhile, the cloaked pilot, can be stopped by any gate camp they must pass to reach you.