Player Features and Ideas Discussion

You are purposefully asking this because you know it is impossible for me to prove it - none of this is relfected in killboards or other things players have access to. Even CCP would not be able to "prove" this as it is a result of a players judgement. If a player thinks to himself "this guys been here all day, I'm gonna undock" and ends up getting killed neither I nor CCP have any way to differentiate that from a player who undocked for any other reasons (for example, he didnt check local before undocking). Neither I nor CCP are privy to the thoughts of the players, so we cannot "prove" it was a result of cloaking.

Get a better argument, because asking me to prove something that is unprovable is pointless - it isn't a valid argument for you to make. It's like a child coming up with what he considers an unbeatable logic, but it is evident to everyone that it's just empty and pointless.

Even if we could read the minds of every person ever killed in EVE, and even if our omniscience revealed that no one has ever fallen for it... that is not a reason to remove it. The ability to try that should still be there - even if it is extremely unlikely to succeed, it should exist. It's a sandbox friend, we should be allowed to try these things.

It is not balanced because as I say, it removes abilities for the active players to attempt to do certain things. As for AFK players denying resources... they're not. They cannot deny resources to anyone because by definition they cannot do anything. If you CHOOSE to cease activities on the ASSUMPTION that they might be active, thats up to you. They are not forcing your hand, you are simply choosing the most cautious response. If anyone is denying resources, it is you. You are denying it to yourself because you are crippled by the fear that a threat may exist.

I am not entitled to deny you resources with zero effort, so it's a good job that isn't possible. As for your ability to combat me... why are you entitled to fight me when I, while in the state of being cloaked OR afk, have literally zero ability to combat you. You have yourself repeatedly stated that afk players are no threat... but you're asking for the ability to "combat" them? That's not balanced, bro.[/quote[I'm not asking to combat you as in PvP, combating AFK cloakers requires nobody to die. But an AFK cloaker can perform his role with zero effort while he's not at his PC. Why should that be allowed? Give them something to do to maintain their playstyle rather than being able to leave the house while their character does their job.

[quote=TheGunslinger42]Please do not lie about my position on these mechanics. I have never once asked for direct benefits, or demanded things be changed to guarantee me kills. In fact I am strongly in favour of just leaving things as are, despite you - by your own admission - having perfect safety already.

For the fiftieth time, I am merely asking that all sides have equal abilities and chances, and that one sided changes not be made.

I lost interest in replying to you when you acted as if my inability to prove the unprovable meant anything at all. It's exactly as I expected you'd do: come up with a reason that cannot be known, and then when I didn't know it you have your "aha! Gotcha!" moment. It's a childish tactic, and not a valid argument. It's meaningless.

The long and short of it is people try prolonged cloaking because they think it might give them a chance to influence residents somehow - whether it's to try and trick them into thinking it's safe so they can kill them, or trick them into thinking it isn't safe and docking up.

I think people should be allowed to do this, as both those goals are valid, and the only reason these are the methods used is because of the way local works - you yourself have stated that you have near perfect safety thanks to local, after all.

If they are truly AFK, then they cannot kill anyone, and cannot prevent them from doing anything. It's up to you to make a judgement call - if you don't like the judgement you make, then that's on your head.

I'll give you a tip though, you can look at their killboards, history, etc to determine the likelihood of them being a real threat. You can also slightly change up your fits, or run in a fleet.

If you don't want to do any of these things, thats up to you.

This is EVE, you have to make judgement calls, you have to sometimes compromise.

The hunters, cloakers and AFKers do already - they dedicate their time to sitting doing nothing in system, whether they are AFK or not they are still dedicating their characters/time to doing it, they may get kills or cause someone to stop PVEing, or they may not.

They put in effort for a fairly small chance at achieving their goals. Now it's your turn.

You yourself have said that people go to neigboring systems, not "take their chances" in a camped system. No AFK does not get more kills. It does not, by definition, do ANYTHING. And for those who interact in anyway with their client on at least an hourly basis, neither does an auto-logoff.

For the sake of sanity, Teckos, will you please stop telling Lucas what he wants and thinks.

When you first mentioned this idea, it was out of the blue, for he never said he should have it. You assumed that when even after an hour, the most anyone could know is whether the interactions for the previous hour were greater than or less than 1 click or key press; far from instant or accurate intel, the delay is about an hour which is far worse than the time delay on the Eve map stats.

He never claimed that. I have been quite clear that I could care less about what a player is doing. In fact, much of the time I would rather not know what each player is doing at their keyboard (if you catch my drift).

Lastly, many points have been made against your local changes proposal, chiefly the complete destruction of pve wherever the changes may occur. Also, I have no interest in any of the gimps to cloakies that has been proposed; except my proposals to prevent the simultaneous fitting on both the regular cyno and any kind of cloak.

As we consider the primary reason why anyone cares about that solo cloaky camping an entire system owned by someone else with impunity, that reason falls directly to the cyno. While I have avoided discussing or addressing changes that affect the covert cyno, it is clear that regular cyno brings the greatest threat of all to any fleet, alliance, or even coalition (depending on what is on the other side, which cannot be known either). Simply addressing the cyno threat would be enough to resolve this thread and many other concerns of hostiles traveling deep through space owned by others with seeming impunity as if the ownership of space meant NOTHING. The auto-logoff resolves the afk cloaky issue but not the cloaky cyno issue. The cloaky cyno solution resolves both the afk cloaky issue and the cloaky cyno issue and many other cyno issues.

!!! So if there is any interest in resolving the afk cloaky issue, then the solution should be directed at something which addresses the auto-logoff, the cloaky-cyno/cyno, or both. Solutions based on changes to "Local" address neither of those subjects and will not bring any real resolution of these core issues. I must admit that the complete disconnection (both ways) from local by the cloak does seem interesting so long as local records all disconnects and catches even brief periods of being uncloaked, but it will not fix anything. !!!

For the sake of sanity, Teckos, will you please stop telling Lucas what he wants and thinks.

So I think there's an imbalance in this mechanic. We have to have some ways to force him to fight not only when he wants that.

P.S. We petitioned all these characters as possible bots but you know, AFK cloaking is not a botting yet :)

And this is what it comes down to. Methods to force non PVP ships to fight.
Every time I get a PVP ship out to fight a cloaker, the cloaker refuses to engage. This is because a cloaking ship, a scout ship is not tailored for combat,. Yet you want to force miners and PVE players into combat, since they are the targets you can take down.
If you want PvP, just get into a combat ship and you'll get fights. If you want to "gank carebears", then null is not going to be fruitful, since we purposely avoid any hostiles.

AFK cloaking is an exploit of a bad mechanic, If you were at the receiving end of an exploit of a bad mechanic, you'd soon be complaining about it too. Perhaps it's not comparable to botting, but it is comparable to the current drone-pos situation.

Because their cloaked? Which also means they can't activate any modules or do any harm to you.

Yes, yes I know CYNO and they get to choose when to engage. So, that is how it is for most PvE players (except for the unlucky and the inexprienced) and they always choose not too.

How about this, you can find them, but now cloaked ships can target you, shoot you, and activate all modules while cloaked? Sound good?

When can we get a method to force carebears to fight? No more running and docking or the like.

I stand corrected and I apologize. This seems to not have been the first time I have mistaken Nikk's comments as yours, and I think it may be the similarity of the two views which may be confusing me. I have made the corrections to the post.

And this is what it comes down to. Methods to force non PVP ships to fight.
Every time I get a PVP ship out to fight a cloaker, the cloaker refuses to engage. This is because a cloaking ship, a scout ship is not tailored for combat,. Yet you want to force miners and PVE players into combat, since they are the targets you can take down.
If you want PvP, just get into a combat ship and you'll get fights. If you want to "gank carebears", then null is not going to be fruitful, since we purposely avoid any hostiles.

AFK cloaking is an exploit of a bad mechanic, If you were at the receiving end of an exploit of a bad mechanic, you'd soon be complaining about it too. Perhaps it's not comparable to botting, but it is comparable to the current drone-pos situation.