These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals

First post First post
Author
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#2081 - 2015-04-21 17:34:03 UTC
Nasar Vyron wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
You never answered the question, but assumed details which were never involved.

Let's throw out a more detailed scenario, and restate.

Our PvE hero is controlling a ship which is ratting, and thanks to (insert changed mechanic here), they know they can take on a cloaked ship in a fight.
They won't be facing PvP fit hulls, as they have a gate camp catching those.
They won't be dealing with multiple hostiles, as they have intel warnings for that.

So, a lone cloaked ship penetrates to their ratting system.
(Hot dropping is not a threat, in this example, thanks to that changed mechanic from above)

What gameplay value is to be had, by standing their ground and being ready to fight?
What gameplay value is to be had, by evading the potential threat?


These arguments give me a headache...

You all are making assumptions before ever starting your arguments. Here, you're assuming some magical change is going to be implemented making hotdropping a non factor. You also assume people are going to take the time to gate camp every entry system at all hours of the day apparently.

Fact is you're wrong on all counts.
1) True gate camps rarely happen, they happen when people are bored out of their mind and would rather not fly around hunting -or- when they know an incoming gang is coming. Either way, gate camps typically last for a few hours at most leaving plenty of openings. Just use a scout and you can avoid them and come back later.
2) Hotdropping will always be a factor, as such a PvE player is not likely to take their billion+ isk ratting ship to kill the possible cyno which is specifically tanked for the local rats, armed against the local rats, and set up to optimally apply damage to BS and cruiser targets. If they are willing to handle the cloak themselves they will always reship to a PvP fit orthrus or other ship better suited to handle the situation as quickly as possible.


In the end, better gameplay will always be had if the PvE player is able to stand their ground. With current ratting mechanics this cannot be done in PvE hulls against a prepared attacker. Due to the value of these hulls, the pilot must assume at all times that the aggressor is prepared and not alone. Most will avoid a fight altogether, but some will stand and fight, you should be looking forward to that engagement not cursing the world that you didn't get your easy billion isk ship kill.

Advantage always goes to the defender, if they didn't why would anyone ever want to hold space? The best system is one that allows the aggressor to degrade that advantage through active preparation and planning. Then when you catch that billion isk ship it can come with a sense of accomplishment, not just another easy km to add to the pile.


I think Nikk is trying to get to this point with Lucas.

Quote:
In the end, better gameplay will always be had if the PvE player is able to stand their ground. With current ratting mechanics this cannot be done in PvE hulls against a prepared attacker.


Problem is Lucas doesn't want to have that discussion at all, so he obstinately refuses to let the conversation go there.

I think you are correct though, and we don't even need to drag in the issue of expensive hulls/modules (hey, no making assumptions there Smile ) because nobody likes going into a fight they know they can't win and current PvE leads to the following strategy:

1. Fit a rat specific tank (which means the PvE ship has huge holes in its tank and PvPers will know this and exploit it).
2. Because of this, evasion is always the best strategy--i.e. it is dominant.
3. With the current sov mechanics unless it is a very large gang, going to a safe and waiting out the hostiles.

In some instances if you have enough people logged on you might ping for a response fleet, but chances are by the time you get enough people and get them into fleet the hostiles will have buggered off because boredom.

Now, we could look at making changes so fitting an omni/PvP-esque fit for ratting is the norm. Problem is there is still the numbers issue. The hostile could be the scout and engaging him might just be courting disaster in many cases. Even if you have a PvP fit and ceptor warps into your anomaly you'd probably be best served by scooting to safety if you can. Chances are a ceptor by itself wont take down a reasonably PvP fit ishtar, domi, etc. So it is very reasonable to conclude there are more bad guys on the way. A T3 might be a match for said PvE pilot, so that might be reasonable to take that fight, but then even 1 or 2 more people showing up and the fight is a foregone conclusion.

So the idea of inducing the PvE pilot in the anomaly to stay and put up a fight might be problematic.

However, we also have 3 above. Instead of having mechanics set up so that waiting out the hostiles be a strategy with more consequences than are currently in game. Maybe that is where the focus needs to be. Hostile gang comes into your area, you spot them fairly early on thanks to the OA, and because of Fozziesov you have more people in your alliance so forming that response fleet is more of a thing. Now the hostiles can have the fun they were looking for as can the sov holders.

"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

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2082 - 2015-04-21 17:48:45 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
I think Nikk is trying to get to this point with Lucas.

Nasar Vyron wrote:
In the end, better gameplay will always be had if the PvE player is able to stand their ground. With current ratting mechanics this cannot be done in PvE hulls against a prepared attacker.


Problem is Lucas doesn't want to have that discussion at all, so he obstinately refuses to let the conversation go there.

...

Confirming that this is correct.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#2083 - 2015-04-21 18:04:45 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
You know I can't help but throw this out there. If player behavior is invariant even with changes in game mechanics then it is like....a super dominant strategy. P
No, because to be a dominant strategy, no other strategy must exist which would give a greater benefit. The fact is that better strategies exist, but players choose not to use them because it involves doing things they may not find fun. Those that choose to fight back can sometimes kill the hostile which will make them think twice about coming back.

Teckos Pech wrote:
I don't believe this, though. Change the mechanics (i.e. the rules of the game) and the player's strategies will also change, generally speaking.
True, but in this case you're talking about a cosmetic change. At it's core the basic principle of [Detect hostile arrival] -> [React] still exists, and that's the entire process required to make a decision for most PvE players. Changing how that detection is delivered changes nothing about their strategy.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Also, I think the discussion is too limited here. I'd be fine with a change to mechanics where when a hostile/hostiles come into an area and start causing trouble those doing PvE stop and form up to deal with the intruders. Currently the typical response is for people to ignore the hostiles if they are not in their system, maybe safe up if intel indicates they are on their way, and if they come into system absolutely safe up...and then wait for them to leave. Making some structures at least partially vulnerable outside of the prime time window may help accomplish this.
That would be nice, but the fact is you're talking about getting people who like to PvE to do PvP, something they don't necessarily enjoy, and you're expecting the hostiles to fight rather than playing hide and seek games for hours - something which is a serious problem right now. I can't even count the number of times people just dock up and tell those considering forming up a response fleet to stop simply because the player will hang around for eternity jumping in and out of cloak 100km away while warping and refusing to engage. Again, the problem is that most of the time the hostiles want to kill ratters, not fighters - and the ratters want to rat, not fight.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#2084 - 2015-04-21 18:13:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
Teckos Pech wrote:
Quote:
In the end, better gameplay will always be had if the PvE player is able to stand their ground. With current ratting mechanics this cannot be done in PvE hulls against a prepared attacker.


I think you are correct though, and we don't even need to drag in the issue of expensive hulls/modules (hey, no making assumptions there Smile ) because nobody likes going into a fight they know they can't win and current PvE leads to the following strategy:

1. Fit a rat specific tank (which means the PvE ship has huge holes in its tank and PvPers will know this and exploit it).
2. Because of this, evasion is always the best strategy--i.e. it is dominant.
3. With the current sov mechanics unless it is a very large gang, going to a safe and waiting out the hostiles.

In some instances if you have enough people logged on you might ping for a response fleet, but chances are by the time you get enough people and get them into fleet the hostiles will have buggered off because boredom.

Now, we could look at making changes so fitting an omni/PvP-esque fit for ratting is the norm. Problem is there is still the numbers issue.


The issue behind that is that the safe assumption is that you're only being engaged because the attacker feels they have an overwhelming advantage. After all, the attacker has the luxury of deciding whether or not they're able to take down your ship. They have the luxury of waiting until you're under heavy fire from rats, as you probably will be if you're not in the sort of mid-to-long-range sniping fit that PVE tends to encourage--and if you are, then anyone who lands close to you can take you apart, between your poor-tracking weapons and your fig leaf of a tank.

Getting the jump on someone is instinctively recognized as a powerful advantage. This is why if an unarmed man dives in the water behind a 15-foot crocodile, the crocodile will swim away as quickly as it can even though in a straight fight the man doesn't have a prayer. It's why a house cat can tree a bear.

So maybe Lucas is being obstinant, but he has a point: if you're ambushed, the first instinct at an animal level is to flee, because the position you're in is inherently disadvantageous. You re-engage once you're not in a position where you have to react to an unknown threat on its terms. This is not an insurmountable problem, but the actual challenge is to get people to internalize that what's really at risk is a little bit of time, and maybe some pride. Removing the rat-specific optimizations will help somewhat. Making PVE more dynamic and challenging will not, because a hunter can always wait until something dynamic and challenging spawns before choosing to reveal herself.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#2085 - 2015-04-21 18:25:17 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
You know I can't help but throw this out there. If player behavior is invariant even with changes in game mechanics then it is like....a super dominant strategy. P
No, because to be a dominant strategy, no other strategy must exist which would give a greater benefit. The fact is that better strategies exist, but players choose not to use them because it involves doing things they may not find fun. Those that choose to fight back can sometimes kill the hostile which will make them think twice about coming back.


You keep saying this, but then insist that no player will implement any other strategy. In short, all players must be irrational because they are not going with their best response. Given I doubt this conclusion, I have to doubt your insistence that there are better strategies.

Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Also, I think the discussion is too limited here. I'd be fine with a change to mechanics where when a hostile/hostiles come into an area and start causing trouble those doing PvE stop and form up to deal with the intruders. Currently the typical response is for people to ignore the hostiles if they are not in their system, maybe safe up if intel indicates they are on their way, and if they come into system absolutely safe up...and then wait for them to leave. Making some structures at least partially vulnerable outside of the prime time window may help accomplish this.
That would be nice, but the fact is you're talking about getting people who like to PvE to do PvP, something they don't necessarily enjoy, and you're expecting the hostiles to fight rather than playing hide and seek games for hours - something which is a serious problem right now. I can't even count the number of times people just dock up and tell those considering forming up a response fleet to stop simply because the player will hang around for eternity jumping in and out of cloak 100km away while warping and refusing to engage. Again, the problem is that most of the time the hostiles want to kill ratters, not fighters - and the ratters want to rat, not fight.


Yes I am. I'm saying that after such changes the idea of the dedicated PvE player in null will likely go the way of the dodo. If you are going to PvE in null you will also have to PvP in null, most likely not at the same time, but you'll have to wear both hats. And in fact, most PvP pilots do, do some PvE. But the notion of having just dedicated PvE pilots....nope. So, if they refuse...well there is a term for that, boot them from corp/alliance.

You forget a cloak will no longer ensure absolute safety. We don't know how the pin pointing will work, but the changes are supposed to make current tactics at the very least, less viable.

And at the end of the day, if it is just 1 guy in a cloaked ship well we know the following:

1. He wont be AFK.
2. He'll be active.
3. If you try to ignore him, he will likely do bad things to you.

Sounds like forward progress to me.

"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
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#2086 - 2015-04-21 18:29:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Quote:
In the end, better gameplay will always be had if the PvE player is able to stand their ground. With current ratting mechanics this cannot be done in PvE hulls against a prepared attacker.


I think you are correct though, and we don't even need to drag in the issue of expensive hulls/modules (hey, no making assumptions there Smile ) because nobody likes going into a fight they know they can't win and current PvE leads to the following strategy:

1. Fit a rat specific tank (which means the PvE ship has huge holes in its tank and PvPers will know this and exploit it).
2. Because of this, evasion is always the best strategy--i.e. it is dominant.
3. With the current sov mechanics unless it is a very large gang, going to a safe and waiting out the hostiles.

In some instances if you have enough people logged on you might ping for a response fleet, but chances are by the time you get enough people and get them into fleet the hostiles will have buggered off because boredom.

Now, we could look at making changes so fitting an omni/PvP-esque fit for ratting is the norm. Problem is there is still the numbers issue.


The issue behind that is that the safe assumption is that you're only being engaged because the attacker feels they have an overwhelming advantage. After all, the attacker has the luxury of deciding whether or not they're able to take down your ship. They have the luxury of waiting until you're under heavy fire from rats, as you probably will be if you're not in the sort of mid-to-long-range sniping fit that PVE tends to encourage--and if you are, then anyone who lands close to you can take you apart, between your poor-tracking weapons and your fig leaf of a tank.

Getting the jump on someone is instinctively recognized as a powerful advantage. This is why if an unarmed man dives in the water behind a 15-foot crocodile, the crocodile will swim away as quickly as it can even though in a straight fight the man doesn't have a prayer. It's why a house cat can tree a bear.

So maybe Lucas is being obstinant, but he has a point: if you're ambushed, the first instinct at an animal level is to flee, because the position you're in is inherently disadvantageous. You re-engage once you're not in a position where you have to react to an unknown threat on its terms. This is not an insurmountable problem, but the actual challenge is to get people to internalize that what's really at risk is a little bit of time, and maybe some pride. Removing the rat-specific optimizations will help somewhat. Making PVE more dynamic and challenging will not, because a hunter can always wait until something dynamic and challenging spawns before choosing to reveal herself.


Whoops...off equilibrium path play (hit post by mistake). P

I think the fundamental idea behind the OA with respect to cloaked ships is that people will reship to try and find the cloaked ship. So perhaps that is where we need to shift the discussion in terms of changing things up and creating content. If we can move the discussion to this area, we can get around the issue of PvE vs. PvP strategy in which evasion may always be a strong candidate strategy for the PvE pilot.

Depending on the exact workings of the OA, I think the idea of moving local over to being delayed should be a very real option. Things should be vulnerable, at least some of the time. The idea of invulnerability should be minimized in the game, IMO. Want to take away a cloaked ships invulnerability...fine. Can we talk about the invulnerability of local?

Keep in mind that based on not just this thread, but several others that one of the goals of Fozziesov appears to be to increase player density in sov null (e.g. Fozzie's post about the change to null ore anomalies and the BPO high end requirements very much appears to be aimed at making mining, building and so forth more viable in null sec than it is possibly ever been, so not only will people be out ratting you'll hopefully have people out mining as well). With higher player density, being a lone cloaking pilot trying to harass a system full of people might be more challenging than one would think and there might be a decent chance of catching the little bugger.

"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
#2087 - 2015-04-21 18:34:25 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
You keep saying this, but then insist that no player will implement any other strategy. In short, all players must be irrational because they are not going with their best response. Given I doubt this conclusion, I have to doubt your insistence that there are better strategies.
I don't insist no player will, I just insist that a majority won't, purely because if you are doing PvE, the chances are you enjoy PvE when playing EVE. Baiting out an aggressor and locking him down while your mates jump in an destroy him is a better option, but that requires you to actually want to do it. If you just want to shoot red crosses or laser rocks, that's probably not your cup of tea. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Yes I am. I'm saying that after such changes the idea of the dedicated PvE player in null will likely go the way of the dodo. If you are going to PvE in null you will also have to PvP in null, most likely not at the same time, but you'll have to wear both hats. And in fact, most PvP pilots do, do some PvE. But the notion of having just dedicated PvE pilots....nope. So, if they refuse...well there is a term for that, boot them from corp/alliance.
Why? At what point did CCP state "EVE is only about shooting each other". They are about to put in changes designed to increase PvE and self sufficiency in null, and you honestly think they want to kill off null PvE as a core gameplay path?

Teckos Pech wrote:
You forget a cloak will no longer ensure absolute safety. We don't know how the pin pointing will work, but the changes are supposed to make current tactics at the very least, less viable.
If we were in a system and I were in a T1 frigate with no modules, I could move in such as way as to ensure my total safety. I very much doubt that pinpointing cloakers will affect an active cloaker in the slightest. And it's not purely cloakers that evade when a defense fleet forms, that was just an example of a common reason we don;t bother forming up. Non-cloak ships also do the same thing. As long as you are moving nobody can scan you down and get to you. If you don't want to fight, you don't have to.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#2088 - 2015-04-21 18:51:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Yes I am. I'm saying that after such changes the idea of the dedicated PvE player in null will likely go the way of the dodo. If you are going to PvE in null you will also have to PvP in null, most likely not at the same time, but you'll have to wear both hats. And in fact, most PvP pilots do, do some PvE. But the notion of having just dedicated PvE pilots....nope. So, if they refuse...well there is a term for that, boot them from corp/alliance.
Why? At what point did CCP state "EVE is only about shooting each other". They are about to put in changes designed to increase PvE and self sufficiency in null, and you honestly think they want to kill off null PvE as a core gameplay path?


Look, alliances in null do not need dedicated PvE players, or at most they only need a very small number of them. Why? Because you can train alts to do the PvE stuff. A player who has a PvP main and 1 or more PvE alts is far more valuable to an alliance/corp than a player with just a dedicated PvE main. The player with the PvP main can help defend the alliance/corp, go on deployments, and keep things working and running back home. This is pretty much the null sec culture (rental space aside). Sov is going to become more vulnerable in a way, and it is possible that other structures will be even more vulnerable. So, increasing the number of players in a given system, constellation, region will help with that...so that there are more people to help with defense. If defense and offense are Things™ in null, then taking in the guy who can PvP and PvE is indeed better than the guy who insists on just doing PvE.

And nowhere have I suggested that CCP wants to kill of null PvE.

Edit:

And what good does a dedicated PvE player bring to a corp/alliance? A player who is going to get rich off the fairly significant number of man hours the PvP inclined players put in, then bugger off when the fit hits the shan. Thanks, but no thanks. Players like that, I'll shoot them myself if they are green, blue or even purple.

"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

Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#2089 - 2015-04-21 19:08:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Nasar Vyron
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Assumptions are exactly what you are making.
First and foremost, that the existing mechanics will always be present, made clear by your defense of them as things that will always exist.

1) gate camps are the most effective way for minimal defenders to use the leverage of a bottleneck to protect the most area.
These may not need to be in existence continuously, but if your alliance can't be bothered to meet this level of protection, it falls to the individual players to support.

2) Hot dropping. The idea this can't be reigned in, is a joke.
Add in a one minute cooldown between dropping cloak, and use of any cyno, and no cloaking ship can land a hot drop on a target without the target being capable of being warned.

Ultimately, my conditions were intended to confirm the intentions of the design, more than the basic mechanics.
We agree that encounters where the player can stand and fight are interesting, more so than needing to evade the opposing player by comparison.


You see I am making no assumptions at all in my reply. Yet again, you are mixing fact with fantasy.
1) Gate camps are most definitely the most effective way to shut people out at a bottleneck. Yet have you ever tried to convince people to sit at a gate for days on end? Obviously would need to be done in shifts, but try to convince people that they must take turns camping a gate for 4 hour shifts. Not to mention once people realize a choke point is camped they typically stop using it until the camp is clear, meaning your kills come very few and far between. IE- the gate camps you imagine would have to be done halfheartedly with alts

2) What? Everything can change with a patch, yes... but where did you ever get the idea that CCP would put a 1 minute delay on a cyno after decloaking? Please link me this. You have certainly pulled that one straight out of your ass. And it's not even good for a hypothetical example.
The only change I see happening is a reduction in normal cyno duration as most people already use self destruct rookie cynos so they only have to wait 2 minutes to the normal 10. The only changes actually mentioned are making the hunter actively hunt, rather than camp and wait for complacency/desperation.

Those are facts, no assumptions made at all. I understand where you're coming from. I'm simply saying hypothetical examples about none existent patches or playstyles really get us nowhere.


Teckos, I know what he wants to say. And I think you can gather by now that you and I are pretty much in agreement. But arguing with Lucas the way he isn't going to help his case. A cup with holes holds no water.

Lucas, you need to take a step back for a day or so and calm down and read what is being written more calmly. Nobody disagrees that the changes are making it so null is more sustainable, however, increased reward warrants increased risk. However, the game of hunter vs prey should never be a straight game of action -> counter. But rather preparation -> action -> reaction -> counter. We shouldn't have the ability to survive if the aggressor planned their actions ahead of time and we failed to take precautions outside of the normal align and warp. Likewise, a random roaming gang shouldn't be able to navigate our sov without notice just like the current system.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2090 - 2015-04-21 19:35:58 UTC
You are adding in pointless details, and implying assumption where none exists.

Nasar Vyron wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
...

1) gate camps are the most effective way for minimal defenders to use the leverage of a bottleneck to protect the most area.
These may not need to be in existence continuously, but if your alliance can't be bothered to meet this level of protection, it falls to the individual players to support.

2) Hot dropping. The idea this can't be reigned in, is a joke.
Add in a one minute cooldown between dropping cloak, and use of any cyno, and no cloaking ship can land a hot drop on a target without the target being capable of being warned.

Ultimately, my conditions were intended to confirm the intentions of the design, more than the basic mechanics.
We agree that encounters where the player can stand and fight are interesting, more so than needing to evade the opposing player by comparison.


You see I am making no assumptions at all in my reply. Yet again, you are mixing fact with fantasy.
1) Gate camps are most definitely the most effective way to shut people out at a bottleneck. Yet have you ever tried to convince people to sit at a gate for days on end? Obviously would need to be done in shifts, but try to convince people that they must take turns camping a gate for 4 hour shifts. Not to mention once people realize a choke point is camped they typically stop using it until the camp is clear, meaning your kills come very few and far between. IE- the gate camps you imagine would have to be done halfheartedly with alts

2) What? Everything can change with a patch, yes... but where did you ever get the idea that CCP would put a 1 minute delay on a cyno after decloaking? Please link me this. You have certainly pulled that one straight out of your ass. And it's not even good for a hypothetical example.
The only change I see happening is a reduction in normal cyno duration as most people already use self destruct rookie cynos so they only have to wait 2 minutes to the normal 10. The only changes actually mentioned are making the hunter actively hunt, rather than camp and wait for complacency/desperation.

Those are facts, no assumptions made at all. I understand where you're coming from. I'm simply saying hypothetical examples about none existent patches or playstyles really get us nowhere.


Teckos, I know what he wants to say. And I think you can gather by now that you and I are pretty much in agreement. But arguing with Lucas the way he isn't going to help his case. A cup with holes holds no water.

Lucas, you need to take a step back for a day or so and calm down and read what is being written more calmly. Nobody disagrees that the changes are making it so null is more sustainable, however, increased reward warrants increased risk. However, the game of hunter vs prey should never be a straight game of action -> counter. But rather preparation -> action -> reaction -> counter. We shouldn't have the ability to survive if the aggressor planned their actions ahead of time and we failed to take precautions outside of the normal align and warp. Likewise, a random roaming gang shouldn't be able to navigate our sov without notice just like the current system.


1) The likelihood of players being willing to do ANYTHING in the game has no point here.
The point was that a gate camp gives more leverage, than most other forms of defense which rely on securing an area.

2) CCP can do as they please. I am the source of the idea regarding cyno delay, as relating to cloaks.
The point is that this can be done, regardless of whether they will or not.

3) These are facts, but without the editorializing blanket statements regarding player willingness, as that is not a consistently known element. Maybe you are right, and player behavior will fit your expectations, but we don't know that with any certainty.

4) I am restating and repeating arguments, because of known elements of human psychology.
We adapt, and we accept things for which we have no opposing information about.
That is one of the basic tenets of marketing, which I happen to deal with on an all too frequent basis.
A claim which is repeated often enough, becomes accepted, unless countered.
I happen to stick with what I consider an objective foundation for my statements.
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#2091 - 2015-04-21 19:56:54 UTC
As a dirty cloaker I feel the problem is psychological, not mechanical. That said, the psychological fear seems to stem primarily from cynos, which are a largely broken mechanic (imo). Anywhere that cynos are not a threat, cloaky camping is not widely feared. Not a coincidence!

You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#2092 - 2015-04-21 20:28:49 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Look, alliances in null do not need dedicated PvE players, or at most they only need a very small number of them. Why? Because you can train alts to do the PvE stuff.
A vast number of null players spend the majority of their game time doing PvE, so you are incredibly wrong. Besides which, you are basically stating that people should not be allowed to be a PvE player in null. **** off. Stop trying to force the way you want to play on everyone else.

Chance Ravinne wrote:
As a dirty cloaker I feel the problem is psychological, not mechanical. That said, the psychological fear seems to stem primarily from cynos, which are a largely broken mechanic (imo). Anywhere that cynos are not a threat, cloaky camping is not widely feared. Not a coincidence!
What the effect comes from is irrelevant. Do you think it's OK for a player to be able to project an effect, psychological or not, while they are AFK and undocked while asleep with 100% safety? I have no issue with active players cloaky camping for as long as they want. If that's what they want to do as their form of attack, why not.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Mag's
Azn Empire
#2093 - 2015-04-21 20:38:12 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
What the effect comes from is irrelevant. Do you think it's OK for a player to be able to project an effect, psychological or not, while they are AFK and undocked while asleep with 100% safety?
Yes, while those in the system are 100% safe at the same time from them and know with 100% certainty that I am in the system.

Oh and where it comes from it isn't irrelevant, it's a part of knowing what to change in order to retain balance. Blink

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#2094 - 2015-04-21 20:38:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Look, alliances in null do not need dedicated PvE players, or at most they only need a very small number of them. Why? Because you can train alts to do the PvE stuff.
A vast number of null players spend the majority of their game time doing PvE, so you are incredibly wrong. Besides which, you are basically stating that people should not be allowed to be a PvE player in null. **** off. Stop trying to force the way you want to play on everyone else.


Not at all. I said nothing about the amounts of time spent doing PvE vs. PvP. So long as a player does PvP when needed, many alliances will let such a player stay in the alliance. You are now arguing quantity at this point. And a player can PvE in null, just not in sov space (rental alliances excepted...and those will likely disappear anyways). If you want to try and do nothing but PvE in NPC null...have at it. Try pulling that schtick in a sov holding null alliance....good luck.

"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

Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#2095 - 2015-04-21 20:47:00 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Look, alliances in null do not need dedicated PvE players, or at most they only need a very small number of them. Why? Because you can train alts to do the PvE stuff.
A vast number of null players spend the majority of their game time doing PvE, so you are incredibly wrong. Besides which, you are basically stating that people should not be allowed to be a PvE player in null. **** off. Stop trying to force the way you want to play on everyone else.

Chance Ravinne wrote:
As a dirty cloaker I feel the problem is psychological, not mechanical. That said, the psychological fear seems to stem primarily from cynos, which are a largely broken mechanic (imo). Anywhere that cynos are not a threat, cloaky camping is not widely feared. Not a coincidence!
What the effect comes from is irrelevant. Do you think it's OK for a player to be able to project an effect, psychological or not, while they are AFK and undocked while asleep with 100% safety? I have no issue with active players cloaky camping for as long as they want. If that's what they want to do as their form of attack, why not.


The effect is not irrelevant. I can affect you psychologically via market PVP without being online, let alone in your system. I can affect other corporations psychologically by revealing I have spies among them without being online. The fact that gankers exist can make miners fit stabs and shields preemptively. The fact that I record all my ops changes the kind of text messages people send me.

So I disagree with your assertion. There are thousands of ways to psychologically affect an Eve player. It does matter however if that player is under an actual military threat.

You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#2096 - 2015-04-21 20:48:00 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Look, alliances in null do not need dedicated PvE players, or at most they only need a very small number of them. Why? Because you can train alts to do the PvE stuff.
A vast number of null players spend the majority of their game time doing PvE, so you are incredibly wrong. Besides which, you are basically stating that people should not be allowed to be a PvE player in null. **** off. Stop trying to force the way you want to play on everyone else.


Not at all. I said nothing about the amounts of time spent doing PvE vs. PvP. So long as a player does PvP when needed, many alliances will let such a player stay in the alliance. You are now arguing quantity at this point. And a player can PvE in null, just not in sov space (rental alliances excepted...and those will likely disappear anyways). If you want to try and do nothing but PvE in NPC null...have at it. Try pulling that schtick in a sov holding null alliance....good luck.
Man I am so done arguing with you. Obviously you know everything about everything and are next in line for a job at CCP.

At the end of the day, some people like to PvE, and that's it. That's a valid gameplay style and I doubt CCP ever will, take that away. I get that you want everyone to be forced into a meat grinder with your playstyle unsurprisingly at an advatage, but EVE is more than that. Get over it.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#2097 - 2015-04-21 21:01:40 UTC
Chance Ravinne wrote:
The effect is not irrelevant. I can affect you psychologically via market PVP without being online, let alone in your system. I can affect other corporations psychologically by revealing I have spies among them without being online. The fact that gankers exist can make miners fit stabs and shields preemptively. The fact that I record all my ops changes the kind of text messages people send me.

So I disagree with your assertion. There are thousands of ways to psychologically affect an Eve player. It does matter however if that player is under an actual military threat.
There is not other way to have the same type of effect a cloaker has in any other AFK play. An AFK cloaker projects the exact same psychological effect that an active one does. There's a reason people go out of their way to AFK cloak as much as they do.

Honestly though I'm done going round in circles over this with people like yourself coming back and saying how it's not and blah blah blah etc. I really don't care. If AFK cloaking stay forever I don't care If CCP want to screw up null I'll go elsewhere whit the rest of the exodus. I trust CCP to act in the best interest of the entire playerbase which includes PvE and not cater to "PvP carebears". Maybe that trust is misplaced, who knows. All I know is I'm tired of the same arguments form the same trolls who seem to be exempt from forum rules.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#2098 - 2015-04-21 21:18:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Look, alliances in null do not need dedicated PvE players, or at most they only need a very small number of them. Why? Because you can train alts to do the PvE stuff.
A vast number of null players spend the majority of their game time doing PvE, so you are incredibly wrong. Besides which, you are basically stating that people should not be allowed to be a PvE player in null. **** off. Stop trying to force the way you want to play on everyone else.


Not at all. I said nothing about the amounts of time spent doing PvE vs. PvP. So long as a player does PvP when needed, many alliances will let such a player stay in the alliance. You are now arguing quantity at this point. And a player can PvE in null, just not in sov space (rental alliances excepted...and those will likely disappear anyways). If you want to try and do nothing but PvE in NPC null...have at it. Try pulling that schtick in a sov holding null alliance....good luck.
Man I am so done arguing with you. Obviously you know everything about everything and are next in line for a job at CCP.

At the end of the day, some people like to PvE, and that's it. That's a valid gameplay style and I doubt CCP ever will, take that away. I get that you want everyone to be forced into a meat grinder with your playstyle unsurprisingly at an advatage, but EVE is more than that. Get over it.


Sorry Lucas, seems reasonable to me. If you join a sov holding alliance there is almost always a PvP requirement. When not required do whatever you want and if that is PvE, fine. Heck alot of alliances do PvE if we define it broadly as non-PvP such as running mining POS, reaction farms, building fuel blocks to support those kinds of things. Moving a crap ton of material around to keep JBs going, and so forth. Nothing wrong with PvE...and many alliances will even help newer players with PvE. However, the issue isn't just PvE, but doing nothing but PvE. That is not a winning strategy for a sov holding alliance. So I don't want to force anyone to do anything. This is just the culture of the vast majority of sov holding alliances.

Quote:
There is not other way to have the same type of effect a cloaker has in any other AFK play. An AFK cloaker projects the exact same psychological effect that an active one does. There's a reason people go out of their way to AFK cloak as much as they do.


I don't think anyone is literally in favor of AFK cloaking for the sake of AFK cloaking Lucas. I'd rather change the game so that we get active play and player interaction of one sort or another. At the same time I think as few things as possible in game should be invulnerable. For me that includes both cloaking ships and local and given that the two are inextricably linked these days we should probably change both. Maybe that wont be sufficient, but it is a step in the right direction.

"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

Mario Putzo
#2099 - 2015-04-22 05:54:18 UTC
^ Or just safe log anyone who hasn't taken any action in a half hour (regardless if they are in station or in space in any capacity.)




Mario Putzo
#2100 - 2015-04-22 05:58:42 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Chance Ravinne wrote:
The effect is not irrelevant. I can affect you psychologically via market PVP without being online, let alone in your system. I can affect other corporations psychologically by revealing I have spies among them without being online. The fact that gankers exist can make miners fit stabs and shields preemptively. The fact that I record all my ops changes the kind of text messages people send me.

So I disagree with your assertion. There are thousands of ways to psychologically affect an Eve player. It does matter however if that player is under an actual military threat.
There is not other way to have the same type of effect a cloaker has in any other AFK play. An AFK cloaker projects the exact same psychological effect that an active one does. There's a reason people go out of their way to AFK cloak as much as they do.

Honestly though I'm done going round in circles over this with people like yourself coming back and saying how it's not and blah blah blah etc. I really don't care. If AFK cloaking stay forever I don't care If CCP want to screw up null I'll go elsewhere whit the rest of the exodus. I trust CCP to act in the best interest of the entire playerbase which includes PvE and not cater to "PvP carebears". Maybe that trust is misplaced, who knows. All I know is I'm tired of the same arguments form the same trolls who seem to be exempt from forum rules.


I love this argument though....oh wait another "going around in circles" post. Why do you even post in the forums if you can't handle people disagreeing with you. Not everything is a circular argument, and if you find it is, then it is you who is arguing in circles not others.

HTFU dude. For a guy who allegedly only undocks to PVP you seem to have a lot at stake against folks altering PVE play style by simply showing up in local.