These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3881 - 2013-12-09 18:49:55 UTC
Mocam wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Dude you look really foolish coming in this late into a thread, not reading anything and making these kinds of statements. CCP will not simply remove local, they have said so. I do not advocate for it, Nikk does not. Neither does Mag's. Virtually everyone who thinks local is the root problem with AFK cloaking does not want to simply remove local.

But that does not meant one cannot change local so it is no longer an intel tool. CCP would like to do this.

Really, read back over some of the posts. Not all of them that would be silly. About as silly as coming in here and spouting off after having read none of them. The conversation here has moved beyond simply, "Remove local."


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3979513#post3979513


What is that link supposed to show? That I want to remove local? Sorry, I fail to see where I advocated simply removing local.

To be perfectly clear here, if you read my earlier posts you'll see I advocate decoupling intel from local...hence not removing local. Not leaving nothing for players to use to gather intel.

Mocam wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Now, it is possible to address two issues with one change....yes, to local.


ummm... Ok so you aren't for 'removing local' as the fix when the only 'fix' you are interested in discussing is changes to detection of cloaked ships is via changing local....

I guess that's a syntax change about local but no real "fix" discussion beyond local "changes"...

Silly of me to think that removal of the intel functionality to spot cloaked ships was the same as removal of local... How could I possibly come up with that kind of connection? I guess I need to get current with your choice of words - "changes to local".

So no real discussion of actual fixes to 7x23.5 style AFK cloaking - just don't let folks see it... Brilliantly original on your part!


No, what it means is the following:

Local no longer reports who is in system. In its place would be another mechanic that players could utilize to see who is in system. Even, hopefully, cloaked ships. You'd actually have to expend effort vs. getting the intel for virtually no effort at all.

And since local no longer reports who is there, AFK cloaking is pointless. If cloaks are nerfed in a reasonable way such as making scannable or such then that just makes AFK cloaking even less viable and even dangerous.

Basically you don't know what solutions I think might work for decoupling local and intel because you can't be bothered to go back and read what I've written. Instead you come in here with your assumptions and post even though it means your are constructing strawman arguments.

CCP's statment lines up largely with my position.

Local is OP as an intel tool.
Local should not simply be removed.
If a replacement mechanic for intel can be found, then decouple local from intel (i.e. have local stop reporting people in system automtically).

"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
#3882 - 2013-12-09 18:53:44 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:


It's simple bud. Just because two thing affect each other does not mean they are cause and effect. If you honestly don't get that, you need to get an education.
You are basically telling me that if two things are even remotely related they they must be cause an effect. That's honestly one of the dumbest things I've ever seen. You've literally had it explained to you countless times and still you harp on about it. I've explained it in terms a 6 year old could understand and still you don;t get it. There's simply no way it can be dumbed down any further. So let's just say you'll never understand, and leave it at that.


I'm sorry, but you too are implying cause-and-effect when you agree, "Yeah removing local solves the AFK cloaking issue..." or at least that the two issues are interconnected.

Basically you imply an interconnectedness, then you want to claim no interconnectedness.

I find this ability to hold mutually exclusive views as if both were true interesting.

"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
#3883 - 2013-12-09 18:59:29 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Mag's wrote:
As I don't think you can fix AFKing without including local, then my opinion differs from yours.
Then you are wrong.


Amazing!

On the one hand we have Lucas, insisting that every opinion is valid and yet, here we have evidence of him saying precisely the opposite.

So...either Lucas believes this and he is lying in the above. Or he never believed it lied before, and we can relegate opinions to being of various...qualities (good, bad, horrible, great, etc.).

I'm sure somebody will post I'm a mean old idiot who is high on drugs for noticing this apparent contradiction.

"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
S.N.O.T.
#3884 - 2013-12-09 19:01:17 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:


It's simple bud. Just because two thing affect each other does not mean they are cause and effect. If you honestly don't get that, you need to get an education.
You are basically telling me that if two things are even remotely related they they must be cause an effect. That's honestly one of the dumbest things I've ever seen. You've literally had it explained to you countless times and still you harp on about it. I've explained it in terms a 6 year old could understand and still you don;t get it. There's simply no way it can be dumbed down any further. So let's just say you'll never understand, and leave it at that.


I'm sorry, but you too are implying cause-and-effect when you agree, "Yeah removing local solves the AFK cloaking issue..." or at least that the two issues are interconnected.

Basically you imply an interconnectedness, then you want to claim no interconnectedness.

I find this ability to hold mutually exclusive views as if both were true interesting.
I never said they aren't connected. They are not cause and effect. You can remove AFK cloaking without removing local. If they were cause and effect, that would completely, totally and utterly, on a technical level impossible.

simple question: You realise it's possible for 2 things to affect each other without being cause and effect right?

What I am saying is that there are alternative solutions to AFK cloaking, this thread, being the only one seemingly allowed to discuss AFK cloaking, even though you made it specifically to take the **** out of the ideas you pointed to, is for discussing all of them.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3885 - 2013-12-09 19:08:05 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:


It's simple bud. Just because two thing affect each other does not mean they are cause and effect. If you honestly don't get that, you need to get an education.
You are basically telling me that if two things are even remotely related they they must be cause an effect. That's honestly one of the dumbest things I've ever seen. You've literally had it explained to you countless times and still you harp on about it. I've explained it in terms a 6 year old could understand and still you don;t get it. There's simply no way it can be dumbed down any further. So let's just say you'll never understand, and leave it at that.


I'm sorry, but you too are implying cause-and-effect when you agree, "Yeah removing local solves the AFK cloaking issue..." or at least that the two issues are interconnected.

Basically you imply an interconnectedness, then you want to claim no interconnectedness.

I find this ability to hold mutually exclusive views as if both were true interesting.
I never said they aren't connected. They are not cause and effect. You can remove AFK cloaking without removing local. If they were cause and effect, that would completely, totally and utterly, on a technical level impossible.

simple question: You realise it's possible for 2 things to affect each other without being cause and effect right?

What I am saying is that there are alternative solutions to AFK cloaking, this thread, being the only one seemingly allowed to discuss AFK cloaking, even though you made it specifically to take the **** out of the ideas you pointed to, is for discussing all of them.


So if they are connected, then we can discuss how to remove one by changing the other, right? You may not like my idea, or Nikk's, but they may indeed get the job done, right?

BTW, keep in mind this is a view shared by CCP, at least in regards to local as an intel source. Addressing that might also have the salutary effect of removing AFK cloaking from the game.

"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
#3886 - 2013-12-09 19:34:35 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Mag's wrote:
...
People don't AFK for hours in a cloak simply because it's safe. They may utilize a cloak for AFKing because it's somewhat safe nature, but that's not the reason to AFK for hours.
That argument is much like saying: 'I drove for 12 hours because my car was warm.' They may utilize that car because it's warm, but the reason they drove for 12 hours is left unanswered.

Mag, please try to understand that sometimes people don't understand and insult simply because they do not understand that what they really want is what you really want: An Awesome Eve Online.


Andy,

I'd find this defense of Lucas something other than a bit self-serving if you actually applied it evenly.

Kind of like Vas, chastises me for my rude posting, but everyone else gets a pass.

So, maybe you can save us the sanctimony.

"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
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3887 - 2013-12-09 19:52:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Teckos Pech wrote:

Local no longer reports who is in system. In its place would be another mechanic that players could utilize to see who is in system. Even, hopefully, cloaked ships. You'd actually have to expend effort vs. getting the intel for virtually no effort at all.

And since local no longer reports who is there, AFK cloaking is pointless. If cloaks are nerfed in a reasonable way such as making scannable or such then that just makes AFK cloaking even less viable and even dangerous.

Look Teckos, I think it is abundantly clear that the only reason we care about that solo frigate is because of his friends on the other side of the potential cyno. But if you insist on ignoring the cyno and pretending that local is the fix, then please address my ostrich analogy. Basically, whenever the ostrich sees a hostile, it puts its head into the sand. The predator does not disappear, except in its own mind. So while, the problem may appear to the ostrich to be solved, the threat has not decreased in the slightest.

While you may think that I am implying by this that you support removal of local, I am only showing that whatever you do support is surely not going to solve this problem so long as it focuses on local. If whatever you support decreases the ability of the ostrich to see the attacker, then its only effect is to put the ostrich's head into the sand. The threat remains just as strong. If on the other hand, your proposal increases the ability of the ostrich to see the attacker, then the ostrich will know to run sooner (i.e. Do we see the attacker before they activate the gates or what)? Everything aimed at allowing scanning of cloaked ships is entirely separate from local and so does not count.

Since so many pages have been dedicated to "local" fixing AFK cloaking, I'll say it one more time for emphasis:
!!! While you may think that I am implying by this that you support removal of local, I am only showing that whatever you do support is surely not going to solve this problem so long as it focuses on local. If whatever you support decreases the ability of the ostrich to see the attacker, then its only effect is to put the ostrich's head into the sand. The threat remains just as strong. !!!

If the proposals to change local sometimes make the threat harder to see, then the ostrich's head is being forced into the ground "sometimes" but again nothing is being solved.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3888 - 2013-12-09 20:08:54 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
So if they are connected, then we can discuss how to remove one by changing the other, right? You may not like my idea, or Nikk's, but they may indeed get the job done, right?

BTW, keep in mind this is a view shared by CCP, at least in regards to local as an intel source. Addressing that might also have the salutary effect of removing AFK cloaking from the game.
Yes. I've said SEVERAL time that removing local WOULD solve the issue. You've even quoted me saying it and commented on it, so I really don't know how you forget all this.

I simply don;t believe it's the only way and don't believe it's a good idea.

And sure, CCP have said about decoupling local, but I can almost guarantee that whatever they put in (if anything) you will be back here whining that it's not hard enough. There's no way they are going to cripple null sec just to make you whining cloakers happy.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3889 - 2013-12-09 22:56:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Lucas Kell wrote:

And sure, CCP have said about decoupling local, but I can almost guarantee that whatever they put in (if anything) you will be back here whining that it's not hard enough. There's no way they are going to cripple null sec just to make you whining cloakers happy.


This is where your post went horribly off the rails. If you had stopped there and not gone on to impugn my motives here you'd have had a good constructive post.

Why is it I can't just want a better game too? Not for me, but just in general?

Saying I want to destroy the game is not helpful at all. It is not the same as saying a suggested change will destroy the game, but that I WANT to destroy the game...as if I don't like or that people have fun playing it. It is, IMO, insulting and inflammatory.

Saying I just want to pad my KB and get easy kills, when a casual glance at my kill board would suggest I'm anything but an AFK cloaker. Again, needlessly inflammatory and insulting.

"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
S.N.O.T.
#3890 - 2013-12-09 23:13:24 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:

And sure, CCP have said about decoupling local, but I can almost guarantee that whatever they put in (if anything) you will be back here whining that it's not hard enough. There's no way they are going to cripple null sec just to make you whining cloakers happy.


This is where your post went horribly off the rails. If you had stopped there and not gone on to impugn my motives here you'd have had a good constructive post.

Why is it I can't just want a better game too? Not for me, but just in general?

Saying I want to destroy the game is not helpful at all. It is not the same as saying a suggested change will destroy the game, but that I WANT to destroy the game...as if I don't like or that people have fun playing it. It is, IMO, insulting and inflammatory.

Saying I just want to pad my KB and get easy kills, when a casual glance at my kill board would suggest I'm anything but an AFK cloaker. Again, needlessly inflammatory and insulting.
Because the change you are suggesting does not in any way improve the game. It widens the gap for blobs and smaller groups and it makes cloak ganking considerably easier. Beyond that all it does is introduce more work to achieve the same or less intel than we currently get. For the majority of the game, this is not a good thing.
KB stats mean nothing. What you do on this character may not be what you do on others. And I'm not suggesting you're an AFK cloaker. I'm suggesting you're an active cloaker that wants an easier time. If you aren't why are you campaigning so hard for a change which would be nothing but a bunch of extra stuff to do to achieve at best what we already get now?
Don't worry about answering that, I really don't care.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#3891 - 2013-12-09 23:22:38 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:

And sure, CCP have said about decoupling local, but I can almost guarantee that whatever they put in (if anything) you will be back here whining that it's not hard enough. There's no way they are going to cripple null sec just to make you whining cloakers happy.


This is where your post went horribly off the rails. If you had stopped there and not gone on to impugn my motives here you'd have had a good constructive post.

Why is it I can't just want a better game too? Not for me, but just in general?

Saying I want to destroy the game is not helpful at all. It is not the same as saying a suggested change will destroy the game, but that I WANT to destroy the game...as if I don't like or that people have fun playing it. It is, IMO, insulting and inflammatory.

Saying I just want to pad my KB and get easy kills, when a casual glance at my kill board would suggest I'm anything but an AFK cloaker. Again, needlessly inflammatory and insulting.
Because the change you are suggesting does not in any way improve the game. It widens the gap for blobs and smaller groups and it makes cloak ganking considerably easier. Beyond that all it does is introduce more work to achieve the same or less intel than we currently get. For the majority of the game, this is not a good thing.
KB stats mean nothing. What you do on this character may not be what you do on others. And I'm not suggesting you're an AFK cloaker. I'm suggesting you're an active cloaker that wants an easier time. If you aren't why are you campaigning so hard for a change which would be nothing but a bunch of extra stuff to do to achieve at best what we already get now?
Don't worry about answering that, I really don't care.

I would have thought the answer was obvious, as to why a PvE player would ask to play in the difficult part of the game.

The rewards are supposed to be better.

Now, we are finding the rewards to be less than expected. The comparison to efforts in high sec, and risks, are also unexpectedly similar.
Yes, the reasons you end up on a kill mail follow a slightly different cause and effect path, but the degree of risk vs reward is too close.
Null should have more of both.
Risk and reward.

Using the leverage provided by a group, you should be able to overcome the risk, and harvest a better reward than operating solo in high sec.
Operating solo in null, even in friendly space, should be a why bother kind of thing, with solo operation in high sec having greater appeal thanks to NPC support.

These ARE my opinions, and why I do expect changes in null resulting in greater risk plus reward to be good for the game.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Mag's
Azn Empire
#3892 - 2013-12-09 23:32:53 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Mag's wrote:
...
People don't AFK for hours in a cloak simply because it's safe. They may utilize a cloak for AFKing because it's somewhat safe nature, but that's not the reason to AFK for hours.
That argument is much like saying: 'I drove for 12 hours because my car was warm.' They may utilize that car because it's warm, but the reason they drove for 12 hours is left unanswered.

Mag, please try to understand that sometimes people don't understand and insult simply because they do not understand that what they really want is what you really want: An Awesome Eve Online. I did want to touch on why people AFK cloak in the hope that it would illuminate the cause of it and the solution as well.
There is no excuse for personal insults. Especially when the person they are insulting, has gone as far as to acknowledge the other side has differing views and said they'll agree to disagree. I see what his intentions are and will not rise to his poorly baited posts.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3893 - 2013-12-10 00:03:10 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:

And sure, CCP have said about decoupling local, but I can almost guarantee that whatever they put in (if anything) you will be back here whining that it's not hard enough. There's no way they are going to cripple null sec just to make you whining cloakers happy.


This is where your post went horribly off the rails. If you had stopped there and not gone on to impugn my motives here you'd have had a good constructive post.

Why is it I can't just want a better game too? Not for me, but just in general?

Saying I want to destroy the game is not helpful at all. It is not the same as saying a suggested change will destroy the game, but that I WANT to destroy the game...as if I don't like or that people have fun playing it. It is, IMO, insulting and inflammatory.

Saying I just want to pad my KB and get easy kills, when a casual glance at my kill board would suggest I'm anything but an AFK cloaker. Again, needlessly inflammatory and insulting.
Because the change you are suggesting does not in any way improve the game. It widens the gap for blobs and smaller groups and it makes cloak ganking considerably easier. Beyond that all it does is introduce more work to achieve the same or less intel than we currently get. For the majority of the game, this is not a good thing.
KB stats mean nothing. What you do on this character may not be what you do on others. And I'm not suggesting you're an AFK cloaker. I'm suggesting you're an active cloaker that wants an easier time. If you aren't why are you campaigning so hard for a change which would be nothing but a bunch of extra stuff to do to achieve at best what we already get now?
Don't worry about answering that, I really don't care.


Okay, but consider that CCP has already said the local as an intel tool is too much.

This raises the following questions:

1. To they want to destroy the game?
2. Do they want more blob warfare?
3. Do they want the big null blocks to be the norm in null sec?

Based on your answers above I don't see how you can answer in any way other than, "Yes."

Right now you should be mighty worried that CCP has not only voiced support for moving in a (general) direction I favor, but that based on things I've seen and linked here may very well be revealing something about it in the not too distant future.

Recall...that Eve Vegas comment? Cat-and-mouse? Now we have CCP Fozzie's comments. Then there are the, admittedly, cryptic comments by Malcanis in the linked thread back up stream. Those comments and their context suggest that maybe changes to local are closer than we think. Maybe.

And nice job implying I am a liar there. Again, you were doing fine, but you just can't resist sneaking the implications that other people in this thread have less than pure motives...and heaven forbid they question yours (Right Vas?).

As for why I want it gone...the same reasons that Nikk does...oh wait, yeah I know he must be a liar too, right?

Sheesh.

"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
S.N.O.T.
#3894 - 2013-12-10 00:18:44 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:

And sure, CCP have said about decoupling local, but I can almost guarantee that whatever they put in (if anything) you will be back here whining that it's not hard enough. There's no way they are going to cripple null sec just to make you whining cloakers happy.


This is where your post went horribly off the rails. If you had stopped there and not gone on to impugn my motives here you'd have had a good constructive post.

Why is it I can't just want a better game too? Not for me, but just in general?

Saying I want to destroy the game is not helpful at all. It is not the same as saying a suggested change will destroy the game, but that I WANT to destroy the game...as if I don't like or that people have fun playing it. It is, IMO, insulting and inflammatory.

Saying I just want to pad my KB and get easy kills, when a casual glance at my kill board would suggest I'm anything but an AFK cloaker. Again, needlessly inflammatory and insulting.
Because the change you are suggesting does not in any way improve the game. It widens the gap for blobs and smaller groups and it makes cloak ganking considerably easier. Beyond that all it does is introduce more work to achieve the same or less intel than we currently get. For the majority of the game, this is not a good thing.
KB stats mean nothing. What you do on this character may not be what you do on others. And I'm not suggesting you're an AFK cloaker. I'm suggesting you're an active cloaker that wants an easier time. If you aren't why are you campaigning so hard for a change which would be nothing but a bunch of extra stuff to do to achieve at best what we already get now?
Don't worry about answering that, I really don't care.


Okay, but consider that CCP has already said the local as an intel tool is too much.

This raises the following questions:

1. To they want to destroy the game?
2. Do they want more blob warfare?
3. Do they want the big null blocks to be the norm in null sec?

Based on your answers above I don't see how you can answer in any way other than, "Yes."

Right now you should be mighty worried that CCP has not only voiced support for moving in a (general) direction I favor, but that based on things I've seen and linked here may very well be revealing something about it in the not too distant future.

Recall...that Eve Vegas comment? Cat-and-mouse? Now we have CCP Fozzie's comments. Then there are the, admittedly, cryptic comments by Malcanis in the linked thread back up stream. Those comments and their context suggest that maybe changes to local are closer than we think. Maybe.

And nice job implying I am a liar there. Again, you were doing fine, but you just can't resist sneaking the implications that other people in this thread have less than pure motives...and heaven forbid they question yours (Right Vas?).

As for why I want it gone...the same reasons that Nikk does...oh wait, yeah I know he must be a liar too, right?

Sheesh.

Oh absolutely, I'm sure we we'll see ideas of what they have in mind soon. I seriously doubt it will be anywhere close to the level of effort and change you want though. That's the difference between them and you. You want huge changes that leave massive imbalances. I'm fairly sure they will be pretty damn delicate with their changes if they indeed change anything at all.

TBH though mate talking to you is starting to be a ******* chore. Every single one of your posts is filled to the brim with sarcasm and bullshit. This whole thread was built for you to take the **** out of people and you've done nothing but troll since the beginning. Everything said you've argued against often contradicting, and no matter whether we agree or disagree with you, you argue again. There is simply no talking to someone like you since all you want to do is argue.
So we'll just see what they do yeah? Until then, and probably after then I have nothing to say to you.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3895 - 2013-12-10 00:30:30 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:

And sure, CCP have said about decoupling local, but I can almost guarantee that whatever they put in (if anything) you will be back here whining that it's not hard enough. There's no way they are going to cripple null sec just to make you whining cloakers happy.


This is where your post went horribly off the rails. If you had stopped there and not gone on to impugn my motives here you'd have had a good constructive post.

Why is it I can't just want a better game too? Not for me, but just in general?

Saying I want to destroy the game is not helpful at all. It is not the same as saying a suggested change will destroy the game, but that I WANT to destroy the game...as if I don't like or that people have fun playing it. It is, IMO, insulting and inflammatory.

Saying I just want to pad my KB and get easy kills, when a casual glance at my kill board would suggest I'm anything but an AFK cloaker. Again, needlessly inflammatory and insulting.
Because the change you are suggesting does not in any way improve the game. It widens the gap for blobs and smaller groups and it makes cloak ganking considerably easier. Beyond that all it does is introduce more work to achieve the same or less intel than we currently get. For the majority of the game, this is not a good thing.
KB stats mean nothing. What you do on this character may not be what you do on others. And I'm not suggesting you're an AFK cloaker. I'm suggesting you're an active cloaker that wants an easier time. If you aren't why are you campaigning so hard for a change which would be nothing but a bunch of extra stuff to do to achieve at best what we already get now?
Don't worry about answering that, I really don't care.


Okay, but consider that CCP has already said the local as an intel tool is too much.

This raises the following questions:

1. To they want to destroy the game?
2. Do they want more blob warfare?
3. Do they want the big null blocks to be the norm in null sec?

Based on your answers above I don't see how you can answer in any way other than, "Yes."

Right now you should be mighty worried that CCP has not only voiced support for moving in a (general) direction I favor, but that based on things I've seen and linked here may very well be revealing something about it in the not too distant future.

Recall...that Eve Vegas comment? Cat-and-mouse? Now we have CCP Fozzie's comments. Then there are the, admittedly, cryptic comments by Malcanis in the linked thread back up stream. Those comments and their context suggest that maybe changes to local are closer than we think. Maybe.

And nice job implying I am a liar there. Again, you were doing fine, but you just can't resist sneaking the implications that other people in this thread have less than pure motives...and heaven forbid they question yours (Right Vas?).

As for why I want it gone...the same reasons that Nikk does...oh wait, yeah I know he must be a liar too, right?

Sheesh.

Oh absolutely, I'm sure we we'll see ideas of what they have in mind soon. I seriously doubt it will be anywhere close to the level of effort and change you want though. That's the difference between them and you. You want huge changes that leave massive imbalances. I'm fairly sure they will be pretty damn delicate with their changes if they indeed change anything at all.

TBH though mate talking to you is starting to be a ******* chore. Every single one of your posts is filled to the brim with sarcasm and bullshit. This whole thread was built for you to take the **** out of people and you've done nothing but troll since the beginning. Everything said you've argued against often contradicting, and no matter whether we agree or disagree with you, you argue again. There is simply no talking to someone like you since all you want to do is argue.
So we'll just see what they do yeah? Until then, and probably after then I have nothing to say to you.


First, I never said that it HAD to be my preferred method (to be quite honest, I don't think you could find a post of mine even close to that). I advocated something along the lines of a sov based system that includes upgrades. Most of the effort would be set-up costs and when in place not that extensive afterwards. I also liked part of Andy's proposal regarding local. I have not, contrary to your claims, said if it was not my preferred solution it was horrible. Such claims are nothing short of lies.

Here is what would make me happy with possible changes from CCP.

1. Local stops reporting system residents automatically.
2. There is a way to gather intel in-game that doesn't rely on some guy having to play scout for hours on end.
3. There is a way to find cloaked ships that are in a given spot for an extended period of time.

That's it. The method I favored had all those things. That is why I liked it.

And you just can't resist the insults can you?

"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
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#3896 - 2013-12-10 04:18:42 UTC
Removed some off topic posts.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department
Vas Eldryn
#3897 - 2013-12-10 04:25:04 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Vas Eldryn wrote:

lets get back to AFK cyno camping, as the name of the thread implies... If you really wanted to talk about redesigning EVE, that really has very little to do with AFK cyno camping maybe you should have called the thread "techo's and nicks plan for the future of EVE"

the Elephant in the room is that PVE players make up a majority in EVE and all the benefits of Null are PVE (ABC's, sites and the like) and i know for a fact that CCP would like more people to populate null and any plan for a redesign would have to address this as well... your plan does not. As I have said before the more PVE in null the better... as getting kills is easy... just add more targets!


Wow, talk about some disconnect there....

"Lets talk about AFK cloaking. So CCP wants more people in null...."

Uhhh what? What does the second part have to do with the first? I can only see a tangential connection. For example, removing AFK cloaking might make null more attractive to PvE players. Of course more null PvE players will reduce the rewards (on average) one can derive from null.

Other than that I see this whole, "CCP wants more people in null, as a rather tangentially related issue." Really, if you guys are going to get upset with me for not sticking 100% to AFK cloaking, then run off and talk aobut non-AFK cloaking issues it really smacks of hypocrisy.


actually its absolutely relevant and here is why, AFK cyno camping is used to halt the PVE in the system that is camped, thats why most people use it... to cripple PVE, they don't AFK cyno camp to catch PVP pilots. The removal of Local would also not go well with the PVE in null.... and yes yes ive read your plan... and it will not be popular with PVE or semi PVE players, adverse to one of CCP's goals.

so how is this a disconnect to the issue? Unless you fund an empire buying PLEX, you have to PVE in null and the attraction of Null for PVE and PVE/PVP pilots is paramount to the future of EVE in my opinion, this is where your plan fails on so many levels.... Yes I agree that the current system is not perfect, I know that local is annoying at times, but there is a reason that no other system has replaced it... because balancing PVE and PVP... with invisibility thrown on top is problematic because no solution will satisfy to both sides, so the status quo is maintained.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3898 - 2013-12-10 05:40:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Vas Eldryn wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Vas Eldryn wrote:

lets get back to AFK cyno camping, as the name of the thread implies... If you really wanted to talk about redesigning EVE, that really has very little to do with AFK cyno camping maybe you should have called the thread "techo's and nicks plan for the future of EVE"

the Elephant in the room is that PVE players make up a majority in EVE and all the benefits of Null are PVE (ABC's, sites and the like) and i know for a fact that CCP would like more people to populate null and any plan for a redesign would have to address this as well... your plan does not. As I have said before the more PVE in null the better... as getting kills is easy... just add more targets!


Wow, talk about some disconnect there....

"Lets talk about AFK cloaking. So CCP wants more people in null...."

Uhhh what? What does the second part have to do with the first? I can only see a tangential connection. For example, removing AFK cloaking might make null more attractive to PvE players. Of course more null PvE players will reduce the rewards (on average) one can derive from null.

Other than that I see this whole, "CCP wants more people in null, as a rather tangentially related issue." Really, if you guys are going to get upset with me for not sticking 100% to AFK cloaking, then run off and talk aobut non-AFK cloaking issues it really smacks of hypocrisy.


actually its absolutely relevant and here is why, AFK cyno camping is used to halt the PVE in the system that is camped, thats why most people use it... to cripple PVE, they don't AFK cyno camp to catch PVP pilots. The removal of Local would also not go well with the PVE in null.... and yes yes ive read your plan... and it will not be popular with PVE or semi PVE players, adverse to one of CCP's goals.

so how is this a disconnect to the issue? Unless you fund an empire buying PLEX, you have to PVE in null and the attraction of Null for PVE and PVE/PVP pilots is paramount to the future of EVE in my opinion, this is where your plan fails on so many levels.... Yes I agree that the current system is not perfect, I know that local is annoying at times, but there is a reason that no other system has replaced it... because balancing PVE and PVP... with invisibility thrown on top is problematic because no solution will satisfy to both sides, so the status quo is maintained.


Vas,

Ok, let me first say, I'm sorry for being snarky. And second, I agree with you...I want more people in null too.

So before you say, "Oh your idea is crap because *more people in null*" keep in mind we share that vision of null.

Somewhere in the last 195 pages I'm pretty sure I've said I want more people in null. More PvE people, more PvP people, more industry, more of pretty much everything. Don't ask for a link because it is like looking for a needle in a hay stack now. But either you accept that I hold thise view or you don't. So if you don't let me know and I'll just stop talking to you.

So, if you accept I want more people in null it is logical to conclude I don't think this change will drive people from null. Now, such a change might, but it would be a good idea to explain why and not just say, "IT WILL DRIVE PEOPLE FROM NULL!!!!!" Repeating that does not make it true.

Here is how I see it now...why should a mission runner decide to up and leave hi sec for null? If the payouts are about the same, why not stay were you don't have to worry about AFK cloakers and so long as you train your fitting skills and fit T2 you can even largely ignore gankers too. So why move?

Edit:

Okay, I'm still hoping we can maybe try to turn this around to an interesting a constructive discussion. So lets cover some old ground that may not have been noticed:

AFK cloaking who likes it:

Mag's.

That's it. And let me say that Mag's likes it because he is fine with the status quo. Fine, I accept that view point. I agree the status quo is balanced, but sub-optimal...so I don't see this view as a bad thing--i.e. not trying to slag on Mag's here. And to be fair, Mag's has said if one is going to address AFK cloaking, do it via local changes.

Who does not like AFK cloaking:

I don't.
I feel pretty sure in saying the following don't either: Andy, Lucas, Vas, NighmareX and Nikk (probably more, but sorry...*effort*).

Now we may all not like it, but possibly for different reasons.

But the point remains...we share this in common.

Lucas had and idea both Nikk and I liked: a person jumping into system does not show in local until after the gate cloak drops. Andy's idea on local--i.e. not showing so long as you were never on grid with an intel infrastructure item (gate, station, mobile intel structure, etc.) was also a nice variation on some of the ideas presented.

I've been punting on the cyno issue Andy keeps raising (mainly because cynos have uses beyond just hot dropping on PvE assets and any discusson of cynos needs to factor that in which I am not convinced Andy has given adequate consideration).

Now given various sources indicating CCP might actually be doing something to local...is it possible to have a discussion without calling each other morons, idiots and drug addled poopie heads? For example how exactly did Andy see his mobile intel structure working? Can we discuss swapping out the log off timer/warp off timer for scanning down cloaked ships?

Now if I have misrepresented anyone's views let me know...I'll change the post.

"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
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3899 - 2013-12-10 07:08:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Teckos Pech wrote:

Lucas had and idea both Nikk and I liked: a person jumping into system does not show in local until after the gate cloak drops. Andy's idea on local--i.e. not showing so long as you were never on grid with an intel infrastructure item (gate, station, mobile intel structure, etc.) was also a nice variation on some of the ideas presented.

I've been punting on the cyno issue Andy keeps raising (mainly because cynos have uses beyond just hot dropping on PvE assets and any discusson of cynos needs to factor that in which I am not convinced Andy has given adequate consideration).

Now given various sources indicating CCP might actually be doing something to local...is it possible to have a discussion without calling each other morons, idiots and drug addled poopie heads? For example how exactly did Andy see his mobile intel structure working? Can we discuss swapping out the log off timer/warp off timer for scanning down cloaked ships?

Now if I have misrepresented anyone's views let me know...I'll change the post.

I am not convinced that CCP will actually do anything to Local, despite the casual interest in gathering ideas by a couple of CCP. That said, this discussion isn't really about what CCP will or won't do, it is about what the problem is exactly and how we feel it is best resolved.

While my idea brings an interesting twist on reporting ships in Local as they appear at designated areas like gates and PI structures and stations and mobile intel structures to name a few, it does nothing to address the cyno issue and thus neglects the AFK cloaky issue. I know you are worried about changes to cynos having unforeseen consequences (queue Half Life 2 scene), but the best way to evaluate it is to think of all likely cyno scenarios, tactical variations that allow accomplishment of the mission without significant advantage to one side, and counter tactics. If it is exceptionally difficult for one side to counter the other, or easy for one side to blob the other, then we are unbalancing Eve.

My idea is that:

  • Entrance via wormhole or via cyno to a place in space without a mobile intel structure leaves the pilot free from being included in the Local list.
  • That freedom should be double-sided, so that pilots listed in local are not available to those not listed in it. Also, only friends of those who hold sovereignty should have access to the Local list. Positive standing in pirate space to the pirates there would be required. Positive standing with empire factions would be required in each empire space and with Concord, too.
  • The mobile intel structure would launch probes (non-destroyable) which warp to regular cynos in system and report what they see when they arrive. While there would be a brief delay of a couple of seconds for the probe to arrive, the presence of the regular cyno on the overview would immediately raise flags until the probe reported the players on grid.
  • Covert cynos are not seen in system overview and therefore would not attract the attention of the mobile intel structure probes.
  • The best way to enter a system covertly would be either with a covert cyno or with a wormhole before the local residents discovered it.
  • Also, if a resident is blue to the sov holder and sees a ship on its overview, that ship is listed in local. So if a ship decloaks for the covert ops cyno and a sov holder's friend scans the ship down and lands on grid before the first wave of ships enter, then all the ships would be recorded on local without their knowledge of it because they would likely not have blue standings with the sov holder to see the local listing.
  • Ship types would be reported as detected.


I again strongly caution against any cloak scanning system. Cloaks should bring a large degree of safety. The AFK auto-logoff timer seems adequate for most clients where any kind of interaction is naturally taking place and resetting the timer constantly. If cloak scanning is to be allowed it most certainly should be harder than normal combat scanning, should require extended presence on a single grid to accumulate cloaking emissions, and should not have any kind of mechanism for being locked/decloaked while cloaked. Cloaked ships should have the advantage as they pass through gates and camps.

Added: Remember that just because a threat is not visible does not mean that it will just go away. Being hidden will probably embolden the threat substantially. Remember the ostrich and why any change to local will do nothing to resolve the AFK cloaking threat issue.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Vas Eldryn
#3900 - 2013-12-10 07:31:16 UTC
sorry i don't want to quote that much text (no offence), but the point i am trying to drive at is that do draw more people to null, it has to be PVE in nature as it is now... however AFK cloaking starves systems causing people to get frustrated with null and leave.

I do understand the whole local thing... but... it's just so hard to allow for PVE in null without it, I'd agree to do away with local as well, as long as reward outweighs risk for isk, PI and ice mining needs for PVE ships to support PVP and alliance needs. I just feel, with the plan you propose the risk outweighs reward...

I just hold the position that yes local is bad... but to date, cant be replaced without driving PVE from null... I'm fairly sure that the best minds in CCP have been on this for years... and no solution has been found acceptable. Any solution would have to attract PVE into null imo though, not give them another reason to stay in high.

and lastly I'm not immune to being "snarky" myself, I'm sure you can find a posts from me that are just damn nasty... I'm just getting tired of it, I'm sure you can understand.