Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The only ships he might get are those stupid enough not to check where the guy with the AFK tag was located in order to avoid those anomalies. I would be quite open to having the warp back from AFK sending the ship to a random place in space, tbph. Serves him right for trying to take advantage of an AFK mechanic or for simply allowing his ship to go AFK for half an hour.

So let's see. No, I never used the phrase "costs us nothing," so not sure what you are on about there. Never mentioned risk aversion, either. I know that you think any argument to remove AFK from the game is risk aversion, but to be totally honest, any attempt to keep AFK cloakies in game is a direct argument in favor of RISK AVERSION for the AFK cloaky cyno and friends.

Skip .. skip .. ah right, "AFK hauling in freighter" doesn't present the remotest potential for a cyno or a cloak, the key ingredients in our AFK cloaky concerns. semi-AFK mining. Let's see, probably not cloaked if you are mining, and not likely to be projecting a cyno threat into a hostile system.

Now for the scanning part. To be honest, I was not aware that someone in deadspace could be scanned down and warped to directly. Thought there had to be a series of gates to follow just to get into and move around deadspace. Additionally, I thought ships in deadspace could be seen on dscan, so not sure why anyone would bust out the probes just for the guy with the AFK tag. Maybe you want to enlighten me there. My idea is just to take AFK cloaky cyno threats out of the equation, not to have them taken out for good.

The cyno is the only objection here. Arguments focusing away from the cyno are a distraction, for sure. For emphasis, read that last sentence again and pretend I said it again, and again, and again. The cloaky cyno is the primary issue, the cyno itself is the base of that issue.

Just to make a point, not to interrupt beyond that.

Lucas, you are criticizing play choices that Teckos sees as reasonable.
Teckos expects a return on investment, that is acknowledged to be trading yield efficiency for extended time on the field.
In basic math, he is less likely to meet a threat capable of taking down a mack with his fitting, meaning he is that much less likely to lose it at all.

You must accept that all play styles have a value, and a cost.

Invalidating a defensive fit, by making a defense meaningless after the threat is removed, also invalidates any play style not matching your own on these aspects.

Your maximum yield efficiency play style should have more risk, simply because it has less precautions. Dumbing down the risk to make it effective under all possible conditions is not a good answer here.

Hot Dropping: Bridging is intended to bypass reinforced blockades and travel time. Here, it has been fine tuned to avoid advertising the presence of a fleet to the free intel tool as well by delaying the easily recognizable population spike till the last possible moment. The intention is to deny the warning local provides, although it still reports the presence of the cyno boat enough to be associated with AFK Cloaking instead.
Quite simply, while PvE pilots would never resume regular activities with a hostile fleet present, they are sometimes willing to gamble over whether a cloaked vessel represents that level of threat at a given time.

Translation:
When a large group of players is looking to actually hurt an opposing force, and not simply have a token battle with expendable ships being sacrificed... but actually target the opponent's more needed assets, hot dropping has proven necessary.

Is it always necessary?
ONLY when the targets have demonstrated the ability to evade other tactics, or simply put: If that is the only thing that works, then it get's used.
Example: If your desired targets are chosen based on your opponents need, and difficulty to replace, it is expected they will not simply volunteer them against the next roam to show up. You need to make the effort to bypass your opponent's defenses before they can take them off the grid.
Since automated warnings are omni-present in EVE systems, this leaves opportunity to only exist where it has gaps.

Gaps only exist at gates, and by hot dropping.
The gates are exclusive to the target traveling through them, for practical reasons, and you must establish a gate camp in their travel path.
Since most high valued targets travel behind protection, gates are generally ineffective as a result. Such soft targets only hit gate camps by mistake, virtually all of the ones who arrive and find PvP ships regretting that last jump they made.

That leaves hot dropping, limited as it is by common awareness that this is used to find the very targets who often know to expect such tactics.
It is used because it is effective. It is pointless to debate how effective, since it has been repeatedly established that kill mails do not include what tactics were used.

Like fishing, people do it because they figure they have a chance to catch something, and they are patient.

You can call them risk averse, simply because they do not wish to waste their ammunition against the gate camps and the expendable targets being offered up.

I suspect, however, they would describe themselves rather, as being shrewd.
Why should they waste ammo, targeting what their opponent has obviously decided it can afford to safely lose? This does not further their goals, since their opponent can afford these losses.
Target instead, where the opponent is vulnerable, where ships operate that cannot be so easily discarded.

As to


I already answered, with this:

Don't you find it amusing when people assume they know more about the game then you do? Oh sure they may actually have more knowledge, but the arrogance is so thick its cloying.

Well, the annoying part is that I've participated in some of the gank threads...I want to say Lucas did as well, although my memory could be wrong.

I actually went through the numbers on over-heating one's tank and pointing out that it is not only not a bad idea, but a damn good one as it can save your butt. In that case it wasn't a mining thread, but a ratting one.

I also pointed out that training up your fitting skills had a rather salutary effect of allowing your to go with cheaper and therefore less gank enticing, T2 modules with virtually no loss in isk making efficiency...especially if you take into account things like opportunity cost. Opportunity cost of your isk being tied up in expensive modules vs. being used in the market to make isk. Not to mention that if you lower your chances of being ganked, your expected losses are dramatically lower. Sure you might not clear a mission quite as fast, but that is NOT the only consideration. Ideally one should be looking at their stream of income as well as the stream of costs and even more importantly the difference--i.e. your "profit" stream.

Yes, not working as fast lowers your income stream, to be sure. But if you get that boost to your income stream via an expensive gank inducing fit, then you are also increasing your cost stream as well. You could end up with a lower "expected" profit stream overall.

But...I'm a moron.

Certainly, but he is choosing to say things like "Do you even play the game?" and "Really...when was the last time you logged in?" and "Tell me again how brilliant you are at this game.". All I'm doing is pointing out that he's gaining nothing by fitting an extra couple of k tank (which will in most cases change nothing about a gank) at the expense of about 30% yield, which hardly puts him in the position to be all high and mighty.
At the end of the day he's an AFK miner and wants to protect that. That's his choice but he will get no respect from me. Removing AFK players, miners included, I think is a good idea. The only notable exception is a freighter pilot, which is a simple caveat: jumping between gates should count as activity. This way autopiloting 60 jumps can still be done, freighter autopiloting can still be done and the world remains in balance.

To say he is gaining nothing, by choosing his fit over one more yield oriented, is subjective.

If he encounters an overwhelming force, then yes, he gains nothing, as they would beat any possible fitting.

However, if he should encounter someone who tries to min max their return on ganking, as you do on yield, then they will save the ISK on clone costs by not training skills, and not fit the more expensive DPS boosters or ammunition. They obviously will use the minimum number of pilots to get their goal as well.
Since Teckos is a harder target, going after him at all is a then poor choice, once they understand it will cost them more ISK to succeed. They will look instead for easier kills, with yield intensive fits.

A strategy can approach a problem from a different direction, and still solve it. The extra time he needs to mine ice, in theory, he will have.

I was responding to NightmareX who has been extremely nasty in this thread. Constantly distorting what others write, calling them names and so forth. Frankly, ISD should give NightmareX a posting time out, but that is just my opinion.

And you have to keep the context of that comment in mind...it was in reference to semi-AFK mining which is how most high sec miners mine, IMO. And yes, in a way you had a point regarding skills, but probably don't realize it helps MY ARGUMENT against NightmareX:

A newer player just getting into an exhumer might have bad skills and can't (yet) get below the 30 minute criteria for getting an AFK tag and wapred off/logged off. Such an occurrence is a buff to older players and a nerf to newer/less skilled players. I don't see how that is in any way a good thing.

And lastly it isn't a couple of extra K in tank, it is not quite double the tank (and with overheating shield modules more that 2x the tank) of a Mack with a DCU II.

But you are basing your argument and therefore questions, on your premiss that local is not the cause. I know you do not agree that local is the cause, but I do. Therefore the reason for AFKing, no matter what method is used, always includes local as I see it. Therefore to remove the reason, one must include it.

So as I am fully aware of your stance, why are you not able to see mine? I've even read your locked thread on exactly that. Do we have to go through this charade, of asking questions based on your theory, in an attempt to place me into a corner of your making? It's bloody obvious that no cloaking at all could take place with the module removed, but the point is meaningless and rather hollow. This is because I still see the reason for AFKing in this regard remaining, even after removing cloaks.

So no it's not what I feel should happen, because I feel nothing should happen. But I am answering functionally, based on how I see the mechanics being used. It just so happens you don't see it that way. I said neither side will agree and this is why you don't think I answered your questions. I did, but based on how I see it.