Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Because it's a counter-argument for your suggested "remove AFK" idea, isn't it? As a negation of disbalance caused by your intended mechanics fix, no? I failed to see many topics about removing cloakies from local, but I've seen so many about "removing cloakies" be they AFK or not... You seem a bit lost on the chain of events here.


From a guy with that many asterisks in his posts, it's almost amusing =)

In your opinion, how many of these miners are active? Wouldn't a hulk with 2 stabs be able to warp out and avoid a ship loss without too much problems?

We kind of went over it like a dozen pages ago.
I solemnly believe (and willing to argument) that it's within my abilities (and within the abilities of someone tech. savvy on basic level) to override whatever "non-AFK{" enforcement without possibility of detection at all. Making this rule unenforceable, thus dumb in the first place.
So i claim that if implemented, cloakies problem won't go away at all, since the fear levels of the terror victims will rise - there's a cloaky in the system and he's not AFK! (probably, eh?)

No, it's not even remotely comparable. AFK players not havign any aeffect is completely different from a change that would make covops the sole ship of choice in solo null combat, and break null fleet battles.
Bearing in mind this whole threa is for AFK cloakers, NOT for removal of local, I think it's fair to expect "remove local" to be kept out.

I currently have 3 people purposely reading what I am writing, then posting something completely different, stating that's what I'm saying. We're 86 pages into a topic that I don't really care about enough to sit here quoting, yet I feel I need to defend myself against what is essentially libel. And they are only doing it because it's trolling that is just about within the rules, and they know it.

So in that situation, you're ok with the "appearance of risk" despite there being none whatsoever. You'll react the same way (which is fine, arguably an understandable thing to do), but you don't mind that in truth, the interpretation and reaction you make in this situation is "wrong" since there was no actual threat to respond to.

That was my understanding of your position so far, let me know if I've misunderstood anything at this point.

If that understanding is correct, then... I have trouble understanding something: What is the trouble with AFK players? You seem willing to accept that an "appearance of risk" may not actually be a risk, and that your reaction may result in you doing things you didn't need to. So what difference does it make if the player is out walking his dog, or if he's sitting at the client but, like in the examples I suggested, doing something else and not a real threat?

Their appearance (that is to say, a potential risk) is the same to you.
The actual risk they pose is the same (none)/
Your reaction is the same to both of them.

So... whats the issue?

It seems very much comparable to me. both will grotesquely alter the existing status-quo.
I'd like many things kept out, but you keep repeating them, so... =)


And yet they're rather civil, while you seem to loose your cool telling them to be civil, funny thing, eh?

They won't be able to do it, and even if though they will - it will drive server population down BIG TIME, which is something noone is interested in the first place. Man, you're stubborn, aren't you.

WEll I don;t think it's comparable, but I can;t be bothered to argue the point. To be honest it's such a tiny thing I don't know why I ever bothered with this thread at all. Other than convincing me that local should definitely stay (whereas before I was for the global removal of immediate local) this thread is simply taking up time I could spend doing other things. And at the end of the day it doesn't really bother me if I move my isk makers to high sec and null population decays and dies.
At the end of the day the forums will always be inundated with the guys that want the mechanics I'm generally against, since they are generally filled with people that want to put in as little effort as possible. Id rather gravs had stayed the old way. I'd rather ice mining timers had stayed the same (though I'm happy with the limited ice volumes). It seems we're moving more and more towards a game style that requires as little actual effort as possible. Diaspora went that way, and it didn't end well.

Just because their attack don't get filtered doesn't make them any more civil.

It only means they manage to refrain form obscenities, which usually makes things more civil =)
Still waiting for that argument regarding "Indies move to highsec and null will die"
I share some space with indies... make'em gone and I won't notice, except less people in local.
They won't even get pvp ships to that space, so they have AN OPTION of putting out a fight. SO i think you're giving yourself an overrated value regarding the impact your presence has on nullsec PVP.

Null markets stock themselves do they?
And I have PvP and PVE/mining ships. The difference being if I moved isk making to high sec, I'd only keep one PvP guy and my logi guy in null, and purely for CTAs.

I like this idea that because I'm and industry guy, I don't fight. I'm happy to engage if the target is able to be engaged. I even engage when the odds are massively against me. What I don't do is sit in space begging a cloaker to fight. Since it's entirely his choice, I will not waste my time trying to bait him out. A lot of people are the same.