These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

AFK Cloaking Collection Thread

First post First post
Author
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2881 - 2013-11-13 16:46:54 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Not according to Lucas. He has claimed repeatedly that if he does it 100% right he'll get away 100% of the time.

Edit:

Oh, and you know very well that I advocate creating an intel system so the defender would get to see who is going through various gates. So this idea of being "blind" is extremely misleading....and you know it....which makes your post dishonest. And you know I also advocate nerfs to cloaking devices along with such changes to local/intel.

Really Andy, can't you post without using a bastardized version of my position...or Nikk's?

I suggest you try a more honest approach to posting. Roll

Lucas is not an authority. He just speaks from his experience of generally encountering less than highly skilled and intelligent pvpers. If the hostile is a completely lazy moron, then anyone is safe from him, otherwise the risk increases with his skill and smart tactics.

You speak of an intel system with notice to the pve player but you make personal attacks on them and on me for using that notice. Which is it? After you decide and commit to it, explain exactly how your system directly addresses afk cloaking, pve intel notice, and pvp interest in free, easy kills. What would a typical tactic be for a pve player to conduct pve ops and how much risk do you anticipate? How much of his time/ISK will be spent replacing lost assets and how much will be for profit? Please be specific and brief/simple about the details. The compare the complexity of your idea with the brevity and simplicity of my two ideas. What abuses might you anticipate with your proposal? Would your proposal resolve most issues with most players on the afk cloaky subject? Mine would resolve this issue for most of them and it is simple in concept. More fights, less blobs and avoidances of fights.


Ok, REAL game play aspects do not cater to the unlikely events at either extreme. Running into foolish players using foolish tactics is not the solid foundation for game play, and neither is the player with unlimited resources who has nearly supernatural awareness and can be lucky almost at will.

If you could even prep your defenses to PvE with a 90% probability that an encounter would not even have a CHANCE to threaten you, that would even be acceptable.
That player able to beat a 90% chance here, has to mount an overpriced ship together with superior numbers to even get on grid with you at all. The fact that it needs to be cost and manpower inefficient just to do this means you planned it well, as anyone foolish enough to go to such extremes is also unlikely to be able to come up with the tactics needed.
Your enemy cancels out when they realize you are simply not worth their effort, and they go looking for easier targets.

But, between the advance warning provided by local, and the proven ability to fit ISK making ships able to evade in the time available, nearly all halfway competent PvE players can achieve this degree of safety, and those willing to push themselves can actually be 100% with just a small amount of extra effort.

People asking to take the reality we have now, which is defined by the above paragraph, and make it more secure by removing the confusion sometimes created by hostiles unresolved in system, are asking too much.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#2882 - 2013-11-13 16:48:12 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
What part of chance of getting a kill do you not get? A number in the interval (0,1) most likely a number between (0.95,1), maybe even a smaller interval. That does not mean guaranteed kills like you claim. It means a chance, nothing more.

But thanks for the bumps!

Edit: By the way, if the risk is say 2% chance of being caught on any given attempt, then it will take about 50 attempts before you can reasonably expect to get caught.

That seems not that outrageous. And I'd bet that null income (for the individual pilot, not alliance income sources like moon goo) would get a good bump. After all, you'd be facing more risk than high sec missions so the rewards must be higher to compensate for that increased risk, or...now be patient...wait for it...wait for it....you are right, people would leave null.

The Devs are not stupid. Granted they on occasion make mistakes or don't see how certain changes can lead to certain outcomes (part of the reason here is that the number of options in terms of what you do with ships, modules and fitting are very, very high, and when you have a large number of people, and a large number of options, and a game [think game theory with that last term] where the duration of play is unknown you can get a huge number of equilibria and predicting which ones will obtain becomes nearly impossible), but they aren't dumb. If they make changes to make risk in null greater, and there is an exodus they will change the rewards. Heck they may change it before the exodus.

So your claims are just not true, at least for what Nikk is talking about. He (and I) are talking about risk vs. reward. We are saying the risk needs to be higher and that higher risk would justify higher rewards.
Seriously guy, get an education.

How do you not understand that EVE IS NOT RANDOM. Therefore, people will find THE BEST WAY. Therefore PVP players, once they learn how to catch a PVE players will ALWAYS CATCH THEM, as EVE IS NOT RANDOM. Nikk wants a change that forces PVE players to die to a PVP player if the PVP player does it right, which means, for all intents and purposes, PVP is mandatory.

And no, you are talking about forcing PVP risk on PVE players. PVP risk decreases for cloaked pilots while their reward substantially increases. I'm all for increasing risk and reward, but not stupidly favoured towards a single playstyle.

And yeah, bang on about your bumps. Honestly, I'm happy that more people get to read the giant list of threads opposing AFK cloaking, and what seems like just you and Nikk whining to no end that local is too free. CCP will not change local, no matter how many bumps this thread gets, especially when you are totally unable to even consider how unbalanced your ideas are.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#2883 - 2013-11-13 16:53:31 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Then you whine, moan and ***** for a nerf to just cloaks (and lets be clear almost all of these ideas nerf even active cloakers, especially fuel requirements, timers, and capacitor drain)
Wrong. Logoff, or warp to deadspace timers have no effect on cloaks.

Teckos Pech wrote:
And there are ways to handle situations where the guy is AFK:

1. Moving a system or two over.
2. PvE in a group in PvP fit ships (I'd love to see a KM where 5 guys in PvP ships were dropped and losses were incurred).
3. Note when guy obtains any kills and avoid PvE during those times.
4. Simply stay docked and wait them out (yes, a bad option hence its position in the list).
Just as there are many ways to deal with people knowing you are in system using local. The difference being, an AFK cloaker doesn't even have to be at his PC to do this 24/7. You clearly seem to be happy with AFK activities. So I can assume you'll be on board if someone raises an idea for freighter size ore holds on skiffs?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2884 - 2013-11-13 16:54:06 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Ah, your claim is lacking any context to the request for cloaked ships to be nerfed.

I too agree that it is working just fine.

But if our happy friends want changes to benefit themselves, then I see no reason to unbalance the game against my interests, particularly since they imply they are championing players like myself as their cause.
Balance dictates that the game maintains equal aspects, not shifting them.

That would be the case IF the game were already fully balanced. The argument this thread is about (you might want to read the thread title) is that AFK cloaking is NOT balanced. You want to "fix" that by smashing balance even further in favour of cloakers, not even stopping AFK cloakers, and destroying PVE.
Honestly bud, can you keep a straight face when writing this nonsense?

I accept the game is as balanced as the CCP devs can make it.

I am not a blind fanboy, but simply point out that it is in their best interest to do this, as a balanced game attracts more players, and creates more variety that further draws in players.

You imply the game is not balanced, and nerfing cloaked vessels is needed to fix this.

Even if I were to assume you were correct, (which I have no reason to do), then I would need to accept that the rewards in null are also in need of a change.
Either they are too low now, and will be proper after this nerf, or they will also be reduced to compensate.

At that point, the much referred to rewards in high sec will be even more competitive, shifting players to high sec.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#2885 - 2013-11-13 16:57:14 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Not according to Lucas. He has claimed repeatedly that if he does it 100% right he'll get away 100% of the time.
Yes, I get away 100% of the time. I GET AWAY. Notice the fact that's me, with 8.5 years of experience under my belt. And even then, I get to get away, I have to STOP my activity.
It's called a compromise. The PVP player doesn't get a kill, I don't get killed, but I don't get to do whatever activity it is I was doing.
You want it so that even a vet player, with vast amounts of skills and years of experience can still die to some pleb if the pleb tries hard enough and uses a cloak. If you can't see why that's a stupid idea, then there is no hope for you.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#2886 - 2013-11-13 16:58:14 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
No Lucas, it is all true.

People complain about AFK cloakers...then they point to an example where the guy is clearly NOT AFK.

So, these people are either:

1. Confused about how the game works.
2. Dumb.
3. Dishonest.

I'll go with 1 since it is the nicest possible way to read their comment and help them realize their mistake.

Seriously, lets go through a what if too see...

You log in. There is a neutral/hostile in local. You undock in your spiffy scanning ship that has a fast align time and warp off to an insta-undock point and cloak. You then go to a new safe, and launch probes....you check...and damn. Nothing on scan.

So the guy is almost surely cloaked.

But your buddies in corp/alliance say, "Oh he's been there for hours...."

So you dock and get out a ratting ship. You are happily ratting when that guy in local decloaks and scrams you and starts shooting you along with all the rats!

Now...at that point is the guy AFK or not AFK.

I argue that given game mechanics he is not AFK. He had to find you in a belt/anomaly. He had to get in postion. Deactivate his cloak. Target you. Activate his weapons and whatever tank he may have. All of those things are typically done by people at their keyboard.

So long as that cloak is active though...he can do none of those things.

Now, I realize you'll respond with:

But we have to assume HE IS ALWAYS AT HIS KEYBOARD!!! (Caps are for emphasis, I know.)

Which is precisely my point. You aren't worried he is truly AFK...you are worried he isn't and you want to nerf his game....for your benefit.

[note: bold, italics and underlining are for emphasis]

tl;dr

I'll assume it was most tears about local though.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2887 - 2013-11-13 17:01:24 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
What part of chance of getting a kill do you not get? A number in the interval (0,1) most likely a number between (0.95,1), maybe even a smaller interval. That does not mean guaranteed kills like you claim. It means a chance, nothing more.

But thanks for the bumps!

Edit: By the way, if the risk is say 2% chance of being caught on any given attempt, then it will take about 50 attempts before you can reasonably expect to get caught.

That seems not that outrageous. And I'd bet that null income (for the individual pilot, not alliance income sources like moon goo) would get a good bump. After all, you'd be facing more risk than high sec missions so the rewards must be higher to compensate for that increased risk, or...now be patient...wait for it...wait for it....you are right, people would leave null.

The Devs are not stupid. Granted they on occasion make mistakes or don't see how certain changes can lead to certain outcomes (part of the reason here is that the number of options in terms of what you do with ships, modules and fitting are very, very high, and when you have a large number of people, and a large number of options, and a game [think game theory with that last term] where the duration of play is unknown you can get a huge number of equilibria and predicting which ones will obtain becomes nearly impossible), but they aren't dumb. If they make changes to make risk in null greater, and there is an exodus they will change the rewards. Heck they may change it before the exodus.

So your claims are just not true, at least for what Nikk is talking about. He (and I) are talking about risk vs. reward. We are saying the risk needs to be higher and that higher risk would justify higher rewards.
Seriously guy, get an education.

How do you not understand that EVE IS NOT RANDOM. Therefore, people will find THE BEST WAY. Therefore PVP players, once they learn how to catch a PVE players will ALWAYS CATCH THEM, as EVE IS NOT RANDOM. Nikk wants a change that forces PVE players to die to a PVP player if the PVP player does it right, which means, for all intents and purposes, PVP is mandatory.

And no, you are talking about forcing PVP risk on PVE players. PVP risk decreases for cloaked pilots while their reward substantially increases. I'm all for increasing risk and reward, but not stupidly favoured towards a single playstyle.

And yeah, bang on about your bumps. Honestly, I'm happy that more people get to read the giant list of threads opposing AFK cloaking, and what seems like just you and Nikk whining to no end that local is too free. CCP will not change local, no matter how many bumps this thread gets, especially when you are totally unable to even consider how unbalanced your ideas are.


Jesus Lucas, do we need to go through the concept of subjective probabilities now too?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#2888 - 2013-11-13 17:02:14 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Andy,

No. I have explained how the system I advocate would eliminate AFK cloaking. If you want to know how it would work, go read those posts.
It in fact would NOT eliminate AFK cloaking. I've already gone over this.
If the cloaker were to set a trajectory and fly at a moderate speed (easily achievable by all cloak ships, with the exception perhaps of a blops), even if you could can them out, you would never decloak them. This would simply change how an AFK cloaker works. Grab some combat probes and a couple of fast frigates, and you can test this out on regular ships.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2889 - 2013-11-13 17:02:29 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Not according to Lucas. He has claimed repeatedly that if he does it 100% right he'll get away 100% of the time.
Yes, I get away 100% of the time. I GET AWAY. Notice the fact that's me, with 8.5 years of experience under my belt. And even then, I get to get away, I have to STOP my activity.
It's called a compromise. The PVP player doesn't get a kill, I don't get killed, but I don't get to do whatever activity it is I was doing.
You want it so that even a vet player, with vast amounts of skills and years of experience can still die to some pleb if the pleb tries hard enough and uses a cloak. If you can't see why that's a stupid idea, then there is no hope for you.


tl;dr: I can't do what I want because of another player. Roll

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2890 - 2013-11-13 17:06:00 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Andy,

No. I have explained how the system I advocate would eliminate AFK cloaking. If you want to know how it would work, go read those posts.
It in fact would NOT eliminate AFK cloaking. I've already gone over this.
If the cloaker were to set a trajectory and fly at a moderate speed (easily achievable by all cloak ships, with the exception perhaps of a blops), even if you could can them out, you would never decloak them. This would simply change how an AFK cloaker works. Grab some combat probes and a couple of fast frigates, and you can test this out on regular ships.


And you are simply wrong.

Why do people AFK cloak? Because of local. It lets everyone know you are there and a threat.

If local did not report pilots in system then AFK cloaking would not work.

And if we add in ways to hunt down and AFK cloaked ship, then that is doubling down on killing AFK cloaking.

You did raise a valid point that if the cloaked ship is fit for speed and has a covert ops cloak that might not be enough.

I then suggested we also go with Nikk's idea that when the scanning ship is on grid with the cloaked ship (i.e. you get close enough) then the ship becomes visible.

Active players could avoid this by warping to safes.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#2891 - 2013-11-13 17:09:30 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
If you could even prep your defenses to PvE with a 90% probability that an encounter would not even have a CHANCE to threaten you, that would even be acceptable.
That player able to beat a 90% chance here, has to mount an overpriced ship together with superior numbers to even get on grid with you at all. The fact that it needs to be cost and manpower inefficient just to do this means you planned it well, as anyone foolish enough to go to such extremes is also unlikely to be able to come up with the tactics needed.
Your enemy cancels out when they realize you are simply not worth their effort, and they go looking for easier targets.
What exactly makes up that 10%?

If I am out doing PVE, and I've studied all the mechanics, and I can make myself as safe as is possible. So I'm perfect in every skill (both SP and personal), I have the perfect fit, the perfect space, and the perfect choice of activity. Consider this position PERFECT PVE.

If a PVP player does the same, perfect every skill, every mechanic, perfect fitting, etc. Call this PERFECT PVP

Now if PERFECT PVP meets PERFECT PVE (we'll call this PERFECT OUTCOME), what happens? Does PVE die, or does he live?

Now with that outcome in mind, what possible element could be used to make that not 100% on one side or the other? There are no randoms, so you can;t have a 10% chance. Any and all times the outcome is not PERFECT OUTCOME, it means someone on one side or the other made a mistake.

Currently, PERFECT OUTCOME is that the PVE pilot does not get to complete his activity, but lives, while the PVP pilot does not get to complete his activity and lives. This I would consider a draw.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#2892 - 2013-11-13 17:12:59 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I accept the game is as balanced as the CCP devs can make it.

I am not a blind fanboy, but simply point out that it is in their best interest to do this, as a balanced game attracts more players, and creates more variety that further draws in players.

You imply the game is not balanced, and nerfing cloaked vessels is needed to fix this.

Even if I were to assume you were correct, (which I have no reason to do), then I would need to accept that the rewards in null are also in need of a change.
Either they are too low now, and will be proper after this nerf, or they will also be reduced to compensate.

At that point, the much referred to rewards in high sec will be even more competitive, shifting players to high sec.
Actually no, I'm not asking for a nerf to cloaks. I'm asking for a nerf to AFKness, cloaked or not. And most of the game I find is fairly well balanced, with the exception being how effective players can be while AFK. AFK ratting can still be effective and AFK cloaking is clearly effective. When you aren't playing, your character shouldn't be able to play either. I don't get how that's such a hard concept to grasp.
The existence of local as far as I am concerned is a totally separate issue.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2893 - 2013-11-13 17:19:43 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Then you whine, moan and ***** for a nerf to just cloaks (and lets be clear almost all of these ideas nerf even active cloakers, especially fuel requirements, timers, and capacitor drain)
Wrong. Logoff, or warp to deadspace timers have no effect on cloaks.


Other than warping you to a dead space and logging you off if you don't input something frequently enough...you're right no adverse impact to somebody sitting in a system and monitoring what it going on (I have done this in the past, sat there watching stuff, taking notes, and so forth...not touching the keybaord...much like an AFK player).

Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
And there are ways to handle situations where the guy is AFK:

1. Moving a system or two over.
2. PvE in a group in PvP fit ships (I'd love to see a KM where 5 guys in PvP ships were dropped and losses were incurred).
3. Note when guy obtains any kills and avoid PvE during those times.
4. Simply stay docked and wait them out (yes, a bad option hence its position in the list).
Just as there are many ways to deal with people knowing you are in system using local. The difference being, an AFK cloaker doesn't even have to be at his PC to do this 24/7. You clearly seem to be happy with AFK activities. So I can assume you'll be on board if someone raises an idea for freighter size ore holds on skiffs?


Yeah, the main way to use local to the disadvantage of the residents/defenders is to AFK cloak. Roll

And no, generally speaking I am not a fan of AFK activities. Roll

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#2894 - 2013-11-13 17:21:08 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
And you are simply wrong.

Why do people AFK cloak? Because of local. It lets everyone know you are there and a threat.

If local did not report pilots in system then AFK cloaking would not work.

And if we add in ways to hunt down and AFK cloaked ship, then that is doubling down on killing AFK cloaking.

You did raise a valid point that if the cloaked ship is fit for speed and has a covert ops cloak that might not be enough.

I then suggested we also go with Nikk's idea that when the scanning ship is on grid with the cloaked ship (i.e. you get close enough) then the ship becomes visible.

Active players could avoid this by warping to safes.
Oh OK, so you don;t want a nerf to AFK cloaks, you want a massive nerf to cloaks in blob null, and a massive buff to them everywhere else?
In exchange for essentially higher sov bills, and making NPC null useless?

It's really hard to keep up with your ideas, since you seem to change your mind about what they are and what they accomplish between each post, depending on what would best suit you.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2895 - 2013-11-13 17:21:35 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I accept the game is as balanced as the CCP devs can make it.

I am not a blind fanboy, but simply point out that it is in their best interest to do this, as a balanced game attracts more players, and creates more variety that further draws in players.

You imply the game is not balanced, and nerfing cloaked vessels is needed to fix this.

Even if I were to assume you were correct, (which I have no reason to do), then I would need to accept that the rewards in null are also in need of a change.
Either they are too low now, and will be proper after this nerf, or they will also be reduced to compensate.

At that point, the much referred to rewards in high sec will be even more competitive, shifting players to high sec.
Actually no, I'm not asking for a nerf to cloaks. I'm asking for a nerf to AFKness, cloaked or not. And most of the game I find is fairly well balanced, with the exception being how effective players can be while AFK. AFK ratting can still be effective and AFK cloaking is clearly effective. When you aren't playing, your character shouldn't be able to play either. I don't get how that's such a hard concept to grasp.
The existence of local as far as I am concerned is a totally separate issue.


Then nerf that which is causing the "AFKness".

About the only thing I can sympathize being AFK is using a freighter....my god that is boring. I don't have any good ideas on how to get rid of AFKing there, and simply requiring it by chaning a game mechanic...yeesh no thanks.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#2896 - 2013-11-13 17:24:36 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Then you whine, moan and ***** for a nerf to just cloaks (and lets be clear almost all of these ideas nerf even active cloakers, especially fuel requirements, timers, and capacitor drain)
Wrong. Logoff, or warp to deadspace timers have no effect on cloaks.


Other than warping you to a dead space and logging you off if you don't input something frequently enough...you're right no adverse impact to somebody sitting in a system and monitoring what it going on (I have done this in the past, sat there watching stuff, taking notes, and so forth...not touching the keybaord...much like an AFK player).

Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
And there are ways to handle situations where the guy is AFK:

1. Moving a system or two over.
2. PvE in a group in PvP fit ships (I'd love to see a KM where 5 guys in PvP ships were dropped and losses were incurred).
3. Note when guy obtains any kills and avoid PvE during those times.
4. Simply stay docked and wait them out (yes, a bad option hence its position in the list).
Just as there are many ways to deal with people knowing you are in system using local. The difference being, an AFK cloaker doesn't even have to be at his PC to do this 24/7. You clearly seem to be happy with AFK activities. So I can assume you'll be on board if someone raises an idea for freighter size ore holds on skiffs?


Yeah, the main way to use local to the disadvantage of the residents/defenders is to AFK cloak. Roll

And no, generally speaking I am not a fan of AFK activities. Roll
Erm no, the main way is to either be quicker (L2P basically) which most PvP pilots do, or reverse the situation by catching PVE pilots at their weakest point (in transit).
Clearly the fact that you oppose an idea that targets the AFKness of players and nothing more shows that you at least don't mind AFK activities.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#2897 - 2013-11-13 17:26:25 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I accept the game is as balanced as the CCP devs can make it.

I am not a blind fanboy, but simply point out that it is in their best interest to do this, as a balanced game attracts more players, and creates more variety that further draws in players.

You imply the game is not balanced, and nerfing cloaked vessels is needed to fix this.

Even if I were to assume you were correct, (which I have no reason to do), then I would need to accept that the rewards in null are also in need of a change.
Either they are too low now, and will be proper after this nerf, or they will also be reduced to compensate.

At that point, the much referred to rewards in high sec will be even more competitive, shifting players to high sec.
Actually no, I'm not asking for a nerf to cloaks. I'm asking for a nerf to AFKness, cloaked or not. And most of the game I find is fairly well balanced, with the exception being how effective players can be while AFK. AFK ratting can still be effective and AFK cloaking is clearly effective. When you aren't playing, your character shouldn't be able to play either. I don't get how that's such a hard concept to grasp.
The existence of local as far as I am concerned is a totally separate issue.


Then nerf that which is causing the "AFKness".

About the only thing I can sympathize being AFK is using a freighter....my god that is boring. I don't have any good ideas on how to get rid of AFKing there, and simply requiring it by chaning a game mechanic...yeesh no thanks.

I do want to nerf the cause of afkness, which is, the ability to afk.
You want to nerf the way afkness is seen, which doesn't stop afkness, it just hides it.
Remember? Turning off your monitor to get rid of a popup right?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Mirima Thurander
#2898 - 2013-11-13 18:10:42 UTC
CCP Explorer wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:


Alright. Would it be fair to say you are open to new mechanics for gathering intel and turning local into a chat channel, more or less?
As a tech person I would want local to be a chat channel, yes.




and there it is folks, LOCAL should NOT be a intel tool.

All automated intel should be removed from the game including Instant local/jumps/kills/cynos for all systems/regions.Eve should report nothing like this to the client/3rd party software.Intel should not be force fed to players. Player skill and iniative should be the sources of intel.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2899 - 2013-11-13 18:23:37 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
If you could even prep your defenses to PvE with a 90% probability that an encounter would not even have a CHANCE to threaten you, that would even be acceptable.
That player able to beat a 90% chance here, has to mount an overpriced ship together with superior numbers to even get on grid with you at all. The fact that it needs to be cost and manpower inefficient just to do this means you planned it well, as anyone foolish enough to go to such extremes is also unlikely to be able to come up with the tactics needed.
Your enemy cancels out when they realize you are simply not worth their effort, and they go looking for easier targets.
What exactly makes up that 10%?

If I am out doing PVE, and I've studied all the mechanics, and I can make myself as safe as is possible. So I'm perfect in every skill (both SP and personal), I have the perfect fit, the perfect space, and the perfect choice of activity. Consider this position PERFECT PVE.

If a PVP player does the same, perfect every skill, every mechanic, perfect fitting, etc. Call this PERFECT PVP

Now if PERFECT PVP meets PERFECT PVE (we'll call this PERFECT OUTCOME), what happens? Does PVE die, or does he live?

Now with that outcome in mind, what possible element could be used to make that not 100% on one side or the other? There are no randoms, so you can;t have a 10% chance. Any and all times the outcome is not PERFECT OUTCOME, it means someone on one side or the other made a mistake.

Currently, PERFECT OUTCOME is that the PVE pilot does not get to complete his activity, but lives, while the PVP pilot does not get to complete his activity and lives. This I would consider a draw.

There is no set outcome.

You will never match your opponents skills, combined with ship and fitting, perfectly.
Because this will never match, you will never have the same opportunities at the same time.
It will always be, on some level, rock / paper / scissors.
But the oversimplified version that is this childs game grows out in both directions, and loops back on itself.

Will your choices give you the advantage?
Will you fit an overpriced ship to give you even more advantage? You would be less likely to lose, but at a higher cost.
Will your opponent show up in a 2 billion ISK gankmobile, and try to pop your 200 million ISK ratting ship?

There is no perfect effort, as no effort meets all needs perfectly.
Neither for PvE or hostile, both must make assumptions about their opponent, and both can be wrong.

How far they will be wrong, is where the game becomes interesting, and worth playing.
But, it has to be up to the players, and not blocked out by mechanics which dumb it down.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2900 - 2013-11-13 18:43:38 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:

Andy,

No. I have explained how the system I advocate would eliminate AFK cloaking. If you want to know how it would work, go read those posts.

That is exactly what you said last time I asked. I already read them. They are not simple at all. They do not resolve the afk cloaky issue at all. Yet you continue to advocate them here. So I give you a chance to explain why, and you refuse by pointing to a couple of links. If you don't want to talk about the details, then don't keep mentioning it here. Will you focus on the afk cloaky topic or continue to point at your local idea links without justifying why they will address everyone's concerns about afk cloaking or going into detail about what it would look like tactically for each side?

We could always just acknowledge that no one cares about that solo cloaky camper unless it has a cyno on it. I think that would move the discussion forward in a big way.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein