These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3021 - 2015-09-03 04:08:17 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
I completely disagree. Each player is going to have different actions in the situation to take. For example, the PvE pilot can take actions a1-a5. Whereas the PvP pilot has actions b1-b5. It might be the case that if the PvP pilot takes the following actions:

(b1|a1) => kill
(b2|a2) => kill
…
(b5|a5) => kill.

But for all other action combinations the PvE pilot successfully evades. So now how many combinations are there? Now, just based on this (and assuming I calculated the number of combinations correctly) the chance of getting a kill by randomly selecting an action will be 20%. This is a highly abstract and stylized example, the it highlights how player actions determine the outcome where each side has a chance of obtaining their desired goal (kill/evasion). The current mechanics also depend on player actions, but the outcome is much more skewed. If the PvE player is playing “correctly”, they will almost surely get away. The PvP has to hope for a mistake on the part of the PvE player which mainly boils down to the player being distracted from playing “correctly” (e.g. wife/kid agro, watching porn, taking a dump, getting a drink, etc.).
So wait, what you're saying is that is you make up pretend actions and give them numbers then randomly decide that only a small subset of these undefined actions will win, that the PvP players has a 20% chance of a kill thus in all other situations the PvE pilot wins, even though the PvE pilot is prevented from doing his PvE too, thus hasn't really won.

Honestly, I don't even know where to begin on that one. How's this.

If PvP player A is ranked 7 and PvE player Q is an apple then PvP players have a 90% chance of winning while PvE players have a 12% chance of losing! Outrageous!

That's basically what I read from your post, it made that little sense. The fact is that where a PvP player doesn't score a kill, the PvE player doesn't get to do PvE so you can't claim the PvE player as having won.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas, what you wrote does not in anyway undercut what I wrote. Sure a player can get kill after kill that takes little or no skill other than dodging other PvPers and possible being somewhat quick with scanning. Why? Because there are a lot of people out there ratting in AFKtars. Catching an AFKtar is not exactly the pinnacle of PvP skill…because for all intents and purposes the player in question is AFK. It takes about as much skill as killing an AFK cloaked ship if they were to become scannable. Killing an AFK ship is not hugely dependent on skill. That a player can rack up such kills is not an indicator of skill.
Sigh... no, you really don't seem to understand what I'm saying, which is weird because it's ridiculously simple.

If the best PvP player goes against the best PvE player and the PvP player gets a kill, then that PvP player can kill EVERYONE. How is that hard to understand? If a PvE player who is above all other PvE players can't get away, then no other PvE player will ever stand a chance of getting away.

Right now, if it's best vs best, it's a draw. You guys seem to want best vs best = PvP gets kill, which guarantees the death of nullsec PvE. Honestly, if you still don't understand where I'm coming from them there's absolutely no way we can have a reasonable discussion. It's like trying to teach a squid basic math.

In fact, I'm done with you, lol. There's clearly no way this is getting anywhere. If and when CCP decide to nuke null PvE into the ground perhaps we can go back to the discussion. Until then, I'll leave you to grumble about how terrible local is.


No Lucas it is called probability theory. Not just making **** up. A player will have a number of possible actions they can take. The number of action is contrived for the example, but that players have actions is indisputable.

Yeah, I figured that example might go right over your head. Go google combinatorics. And to the ignorant, yes, it would make little sense. Good thing is you can cure yourself of ignorance via learning.

And yes, Lucas I understood what you said, unfortunately you did not realize the implications of what you wrote. Kill boards do not tell you much information.

And the notion that the "Best PvP player" can kill "everyone" is just stupid.

Stop posting. You said you would, and it is time you followed through on that threat.

"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
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#3022 - 2015-09-03 09:57:53 UTC
Lucas, the problem is that Techos defines evasion as a win condition for PvE. He refuses to admit that evasion is just losing less.

This is why I try to clarify the starting assumptions:
PvE guy wants to PvE. He isn't baiting. He may be in a compromised fit insofar as his skills and intended content will allow.
PvE guy must make profit at least equal to rewards available near the high end of high sec. He is motivated by profit, so while his fit may be compromised or income divided by the number of people keeping him safe, his share of the income much match high sec earnings.

You have 4 possible outcomes.
1 defense works, PvE guy remains uninterrupted and profits higher than high sec.
2 PvE guy evades, losing profits in that time but saving ship.
3 PvE guy does not evade, wins fight somehow.
4 PvE guy loses completely, suffering from several hours to several days lost time due to reship time and replacement costs.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#3023 - 2015-09-03 13:37:53 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Lucas, the problem is that Techos defines evasion as a win condition for PvE. He refuses to admit that evasion is just losing less.

This is why I try to clarify the starting assumptions:
PvE guy wants to PvE. He isn't baiting. He may be in a compromised fit insofar as his skills and intended content will allow.
PvE guy must make profit at least equal to rewards available near the high end of high sec. He is motivated by profit, so while his fit may be compromised or income divided by the number of people keeping him safe, his share of the income much match high sec earnings.

You have 4 possible outcomes.
1 defense works, PvE guy remains uninterrupted and profits higher than high sec.
2 PvE guy evades, losing profits in that time but saving ship.
3 PvE guy does not evade, wins fight somehow.
4 PvE guy loses completely, suffering from several hours to several days lost time due to reship time and replacement costs.

Maybe if the current system was not a frustrating grind fest, it would be worth defending.

I can define the PvE guy as winning ONLY if they can operate.
I can also define the PvP guy as winning ONLY if they get that kill.

Both sets of results need to be meaningfully better than the results from other areas, or the play style suffers as a result of players going to those other areas.

Both lose if they can't resolve their goal by avoiding each other in the same system.

So, unless we foolishly want to hand out winning to just one side, we need to balance these two against each other, so that player effort and skill become the determining factor.
Give them the ability and motivation to handle this directly.

And no, there is no BEST possible player on either side. Just the players who are clever, and prepared in the right way.
The guy who wins in one possible scenario, is the same one who loses in another, because there is no intended dominant pattern here.
Think of it like this, using oversimplified analogy here, like rock paper scissors.
If your opponent uses the strategy that you expect, you'll probably win. Otherwise, they out-anticipated you, and you lose.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#3024 - 2015-09-03 15:43:40 UTC
I agree that the outcome needs to be better than what's available elsewhere.

To that we need to discuss the motive for the PvP player. Just as the PvE guy isn't killing rats or shooting rocks just to watch the animation, so to should the PvP guy have an underlying goal. The only one put forth so far has been the disruption of PvE activities.

If that is the motive, then his victory condition was met the moment he entered the system. If his goal is a simple killmail and watching an explosion animation then rewards are as rich as can be asked for, leaving a serious imbalance in the potential of each playstyle when looked at together. Looked at another way the rewards are rich but the risk minimal while using the afk cloaking tactic, while operating under that threat is the exact opposite for the PvE player--- his profit is cut below high sec standards while under direct threat of immanent combat at all times while the cloaked camp is in system.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3025 - 2015-09-03 15:47:41 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Lucas, the problem is that Techos defines evasion as a win condition for PvE. He refuses to admit that evasion is just losing less.

This is why I try to clarify the starting assumptions:
PvE guy wants to PvE. He isn't baiting. He may be in a compromised fit insofar as his skills and intended content will allow.
PvE guy must make profit at least equal to rewards available near the high end of high sec. He is motivated by profit, so while his fit may be compromised or income divided by the number of people keeping him safe, his share of the income much match high sec earnings.

You have 4 possible outcomes.
1 defense works, PvE guy remains uninterrupted and profits higher than high sec.
2 PvE guy evades, losing profits in that time but saving ship.
3 PvE guy does not evade, wins fight somehow.
4 PvE guy loses completely, suffering from several hours to several days lost time due to reship time and replacement costs.



Mike,

You have stated repeatedly that under the current mechanic a PvE fit ship cannot beat a PvP fit ship generally speaking. As such, the best a PvE pilot can hope for is evasion. I have not disagreed with this. Call evasion a win, a draw or garunk, I don't give a crap. It is just semantics bullshit designed to distract from the issue.

And you are wildly off topic here in that the issue is AFK cloaking and to some extent local, not null sec income. There are other threads for that (example), so take your discussion there.

"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
#3026 - 2015-09-03 16:03:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Mike Voidstar wrote:
I agree that the outcome needs to be better than what's available elsewhere.

To that we need to discuss the motive for the PvP player. Just as the PvE guy isn't killing rats or shooting rocks just to watch the animation, so to should the PvP guy have an underlying goal. The only one put forth so far has been the disruption of PvE activities.

If that is the motive, then his victory condition was met the moment he entered the system. If his goal is a simple killmail and watching an explosion animation then rewards are as rich as can be asked for, leaving a serious imbalance in the potential of each playstyle when looked at together. Looked at another way the rewards are rich but the risk minimal while using the afk cloaking tactic, while operating under that threat is the exact opposite for the PvE player--- his profit is cut below high sec standards while under direct threat of immanent combat at all times while the cloaked camp is in system.


The goal of PvP is to have fun, then possibly to disrupt PvE. PvP is fun in that it can give you an adrenaline rush and is often quite exciting and when you defeat your opponent there is a sense of satisfaction.

Granted, shooting PvE pilots is not at all like fighting another PvP fit ship. In fact, aside from being quick at using probes, IMO, it takes little skill. For example, if you are hunting a guy ratting in null where there are Serpentis rats you can tank your ships agains the rats and against the PvE guy and since you aren't going to be shooting the rats can shoot into the PvE players resist hole(s).

And I disagree that disruption is satisfied by simply entering system. Yes, the PvE pilots will dock/POS/safe up, but as soon as the hostile leaves system PvE resumes in very short order. Getting a kill or 2 will likely have a longer lasting impact as people might not undock for a longer period and if there is no replacement ship on hand then it is even more effective.

And the rewards for AFK cloaking are not that substantial, calling them rich is a bit of a stretch. Denying another player access to resources, while that might be the intent, does not result in a direct reward. And it may even result in a cost. Yes, there is plenty of reason to believe that people will indeed do things to inflict harm/loss on others even at a cost to themselves.

And so what if profits are cut below HS standards. I really don't see a problem.

"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
#3027 - 2015-09-03 16:54:48 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
I agree that the outcome needs to be better than what's available elsewhere.

To that we need to discuss the motive for the PvP player. Just as the PvE guy isn't killing rats or shooting rocks just to watch the animation, so to should the PvP guy have an underlying goal. The only one put forth so far has been the disruption of PvE activities.

If that is the motive, then his victory condition was met the moment he entered the system. If his goal is a simple killmail and watching an explosion animation then rewards are as rich as can be asked for, leaving a serious imbalance in the potential of each playstyle when looked at together. Looked at another way the rewards are rich but the risk minimal while using the afk cloaking tactic, while operating under that threat is the exact opposite for the PvE player--- his profit is cut below high sec standards while under direct threat of immanent combat at all times while the cloaked camp is in system.

Let me put it this way.

Some of us find the traditional socialized style of PvP to be too simple.
It feels like tic-tac-toe, or perhaps checkers, to use comparisons to other games.
Shooting fish in a barrel also comes to mind.
The point is, despite much having been made of it, it takes very little skill and thus is not inherently satisfying to many.

Perhaps comparing it to a hunter, since that term is used here often enough.
For the experienced player, joining a roam often has good social interaction, but very little in challenge to actual player skill.
If you want a challenge, you need to up your game, and by necessity detach players unable to appreciate deeper challenges as being enjoyable.
Sadly, that often results in needing play to be solo or small group style.

So you are taking a more skill intensive ship, something to step past the defenses geared against brute force style direct frontal assaults.
You go into an opposing blue doughnut, demonstrating how your efforts can take you that far.
But, you need a prize... something to mount on your wall, and show others along with the story of how you went THERE, and did THAT.

So you hunt something difficult, that roams cannot reach, and that will simply leave before any blob gets too close.

Now, having shown that a specialized and skilled player is often needed to penetrate and threaten in such a manner, the corresponding let-down gives an anti-climactic ending.
The PvE players worth engaging never get caught, because the PvE ships are unfit for defense against even specialized covert ships.

We have grown emergent play into this, a great opportunity tor interaction.

Now it is up to the devs to nurture this opportunity, into the next great game dynamic.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3028 - 2015-09-03 16:59:18 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas, it was an example to show that having actions can result in outcomes that can be described by probabilities. I said probability and you jumped on the random number generator thing when I meant nothing of the sort. I then provided an example to show how you can have random outcomes without any initial randomness present or randomness imposed by the game. And I noted it was a stylized and abstract example, it was not meant to be taken as literally true. I was rebutting a particular point you made and you wildly over generalized a very specific and stylized answer showing why you were wrong.
And you failed, simply because you misunderstood the point I was making and went off on a tangent. At no point was I suggesting random should be added or that it existed and neither did I suggest there wasn't a plethora of options on both sides. All you did was basically say "people can choose to do different stuff" in a way that was so convoluted that it didn't even manage to say that.

Teckos Pech wrote:
And no it is not basic logic that the Best PvP player can kill everyone. That is just a bald faced assertion by you. You have nothing to back it up with other than, "Its logic mate." **string of personal attacks** I reject your initial assumption Lucas, and therefore I don't accept your conclusion either.
But it IS basic logic. Nothing is going to change that will prevent that PvP player being able to achieve a better position than the PvE player. If the PvP player can be the best PvE player there is, then anyone who is not as good as that PvE player (i.e. all other PvE players) will also lose to that PvPer. What you and Nikk want is a system where effort is rewarded, and any PvE player can be killed by simply putting in more effort on the PvP side. If there's no way for an excellent PvE player to get a draw against an excellent PvPer (like there is now if they are lighting quick, paying 100% attention and well prepared) then the PvP player will invariably win.

But seriously mate, if you are so enraged by this conversation that you have to resort to hurling insults around, maybe you should take a break. It's just a game.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Granted, shooting PvE pilots is not at all like fighting another PvP fit ship. In fact, aside from being quick as using probes, IMO, it takes little skill. For example, if you are hunting a guy ratting in null where there are Serpentis rats you can tank your ships agains the rats and against the PvE guy and since you aren't going to be shooting the rats can shoot into the PvE players resist hole(s).
If you're having to use probes you're doing it wrong. And it certainly does take skill. Again, this is part of the problem. You want to push for an unbalanced system because you don;t understand what successful hunters do to be successful, and you seem to believe that they just fall on all of their targets by blind luck.

Teckos Pech wrote:
And I disagree that disruption is satisfied by simply entering system. Yes, the PvE pilots will dock/POS/safe up, but as soon as the hostile leaves system PvE resumes in very short order. Getting a kill or 2 will likely have a longer lasting impact as people might not undock for a longer period and if there is no replacement ship on hand then it is even more effective.
Would you say that tracking disruptors disrupt your ability to track? Because they also stop having an effect when the hostile leaves the system, so clearly they don't disrupt anything.

Teckos Pech wrote:
And so what if profits are cut below HS standards. I really don't see a problem.
Shocked

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#3029 - 2015-09-03 16:59:43 UTC
I have removed two posts, both of which were slinging personal attacks. If you can't follow our rules please do not post. I understand discussions can get heated. Keep a cool head and think before you press that POST button.

Quote:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.

ISD Decoy

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3030 - 2015-09-03 17:49:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas, it was an example to show that having actions can result in outcomes that can be described by probabilities. I said probability and you jumped on the random number generator thing when I meant nothing of the sort. I then provided an example to show how you can have random outcomes without any initial randomness present or randomness imposed by the game. And I noted it was a stylized and abstract example, it was not meant to be taken as literally true. I was rebutting a particular point you made and you wildly over generalized a very specific and stylized answer showing why you were wrong.
And you failed, simply because you misunderstood the point I was making and went off on a tangent. At no point was I suggesting random should be added or that it existed and neither did I suggest there wasn't a plethora of options on both sides. All you did was basically say "people can choose to do different stuff" in a way that was so convoluted that it didn't even manage to say that.


No Lucas I did not fail because you have not shown where I am wrong. Simple as that. And no, I have not gone off on a tangent. I have been making the same point all throughout this thread. Outcomes should, whenever possible, be based on player actions. Further, if player actions result in the extreme results (i.e. a specific result 100% of the time) then that is bad and the underlying mechanics need to be revisited.

You on the other hand distort the statements and arguments of others. Recent example is how you keep running back to the simply removing local mis-characterization of other peoples writings. You have done it with me and with Nikk quite recently, when Nikk and I do not favor that simple approach and have not for probably 300-350 pages of discussion.

And my description was not that hard to follow, especially for somebody with a moderate familiarity with mathematics. And yeah, I randomly picked a number of actions, and gave them names that were simple. However, here are some of the things I was thinking of, one action could be warping to a safe spot. The other could be warping to a tower. Yet another could be warping to a perch on the station to see if the hostile went there and dropped a bubble. And there is the action of warping to an undock bookmark and trying to dock up immediately. We could even allow for doing nothing and hoping the neutral is going to simply pass through. There 5 possible actions that the PvE pilot could take. Some might be rather foolish such as the last one, but it is still a possible action.

Moreover, eliminating actions from the set of possible actions when looking at games can be foolish because you are going to quite possibly distort the equilibrium by assumption and give you the wrong answer than what might actually be occuring. Rather leave the actions in and eliminate them as viable actions via the interactions of players. Maybe, the PvE player will never select the wait and see strategy because of the actions available to the PvP pilot. Having that action "eliminated" by noting that it is not part of any viable PvE strategy is preferred.

Lucas Kell wrote:
But it IS basic logic


No it is not. You simply assumed what you wanted to prove. That isn't basic logic, it is simply wrongheaded thinking.

Quote:
If you're having to use probes you're doing it wrong. And it certainly does take skill. Again, this is part of the problem. You want to push for an unbalanced system because you don;t understand what successful hunters do to be successful, and you seem to believe that they just fall on all of their targets by blind luck.


Nonsense. And there you go again, distorting arguments and statements by others. I used the term "dumb luck" in reference to your example of dropping out of warp as an interceptor lands nearby. That is absolutely just dumb luck and is not at all a measure of skill.

However, I have argued that there is little "skill" involved in finding, for all intents and purposes, an AFK ratter. Lets flip it around?

Suppose cloaked ships become scannable. And Mike, a guy who avoids PvP as much as possible, can now scan down such ships and decloak them and shoot them. And he does. And he gets lots of kills for AFK cloakers not paying attention to the change in mechanics. Does this make Mike a "skilled PvP" pilot? Shooting a ship where the player is AFK and no defensive modules are active and no offensive modules can be activated or heck, where the ship will even have transversal? No. Mike would not be a skilled PvP pilot. Sorry Mike no offense. Mike would be shooting fish in a barrel.

Now, you are telling me that shooting a ship...where the player is AFK, has drones out and several kilometers away and while he has tanking modules activated he has huge resist holes (i.e. he might as well have not tanking modules on)...is some how more skilled than shooting another AFK player? Granted the ratting ship will have some transversal, but a web or 2 and that becomes minimized too. Sorry Lucas, just not buying that story at all. It is a load of errant nonsense.

As for my comment about NS profits. As usual you failed to grasp the implication. If you cannot earn sufficient rewards to justify staying in NS and have to run to Mommy CCP to have them pat your poo-poo then you have no business being in NS. HTFU and deal with the situation or GTFO.

Can't believe I had to explain that...but hey, baby steps I guess. Roll

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

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3031 - 2015-09-03 18:05:03 UTC
I'll add this too.

The current mechanics seem very much to create a bi-modal distribution of outcomes.

On the left hand side we have a huge number of "successes" where the PvE pilot successfully evades. At the other end we have a substantial number of "successes" where the PvP pilot was "successful" because he caught a player napping at the controls. And there is this gaping chasm in the middle where not much is likely going on.

I find this disappointing in that it is kind of boring an uninteresting.

I think CCP does too, and here is why? The new sov mechanic, love it or hate it, is linked to the various indices in each system which are how intensively players use their space. And those indices (well 2 of them) are based on players being in space. Players being in space have another name....targets.

My hope is that CCP are going to move intel completely into the Observatory Array (OA). Yes, including the functions of local. The nice thing about this is that it will be vulnerable to attack creating new possibilities that can maybe help put more outcomes in the middle of the distribution noted above. And eliminate AFK cloaking.

"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.
#3032 - 2015-09-03 20:14:43 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
You on the other hand distort the statements and arguments of others. Recent example is how you keep running back to the simply removing local mis-characterization of other peoples writings. You have done it with me and with Nikk quite recently, when Nikk and I do not favor that simple approach and have not for probably 300-350 pages of discussion.
No, you just want a way to be able to turn off local or hide yourself from it, which is effectively the same thing.

Teckos Pech wrote:
And my description was not that hard to follow, especially for somebody with a moderate familiarity with mathematics.
I followed what you were saying, it simply made no sense in the context of the situation. You should simply have said "Player have options". Sure, you can give them names, but let's be real. A PvE players options are generally Evade or die. You want to make it so that evade is only possible if the PvPer makes a mistake or doesn't work hard enough.

Teckos Pech wrote:
No it is not. You simply assumed what you wanted to prove. That isn't basic logic, it is simply wrongheaded thinking.
No, it's basic logic. How can someone worse at evading outperform someone who is better? He can't. thus if the best player can;t get away it stands to reason that no other player can. And that's what you and Nikk want, for the circumstances to always be beatable no matter how much effort a PvE player puts in, as long as the PvP player puts in as much.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Nonsense. And there you go again, distorting arguments and statements by others. I used the term "dumb luck" in reference to your example of dropping out of warp as an interceptor lands nearby. That is absolutely just dumb luck and is not at all a measure of skill.
You've said countless times throughout this thread that there is no skill in hunting down a player. If there's no skill, then the reason some players get kills and others fail is luck.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Suppose cloaked ships become scannable. And Mike, a guy who avoids PvP as much as possible, can now scan down such ships and decloak them and shoot them. And he does. And he gets lots of kills for AFK cloakers not paying attention to the change in mechanics. Does this make Mike a "skilled PvP" pilot? Shooting a ship where the player is AFK and no defensive modules are active and no offensive modules can be activated or heck, where the ship will even have transversal? No. Mike would not be a skilled PvP pilot. Sorry Mike no offense. Mike would be shooting fish in a barrel.

Now, you are telling me that shooting a ship...where the player is AFK, has drones out and several kilometers away and while he has tanking modules activated he has huge resist holes (i.e. he might as well have not tanking modules on)...is some how more skilled than shooting another AFK player? Granted the ratting ship will have some transversal, but a web or 2 and that becomes minimized too. Sorry Lucas, just not buying that story at all. It is a load of errant nonsense.
I've not suggested that AFK ships should be shot. I've suggested they should be safely logged out. And no, shooting an AFK ratter is not very skillful, but most kills in null aren't on AFK pilots. You are making the assumption that they are, but most pilots aren't.

I wont bother quoting your further attempts at trolling and insulting me, but NS income is terrible in comparison with HS. the risk/reward is miles off. Denying that just proves you have no knowledge of the fundamental concepts of balance in this game.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3033 - 2015-09-03 20:19:05 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
My hope is that CCP are going to move intel completely into the Observatory Array (OA). Yes, including the functions of local. The nice thing about this is that it will be vulnerable to attack creating new possibilities that can maybe help put more outcomes in the middle of the distribution noted above. And eliminate AFK cloaking.
No, the nice thing about this is like the sov mechanics it will help solidify groups like the Imperium and help us wipe out smaller groups when we roflstomp through their space. In addition, it will further push PvE in null into being an activity performed purely for indices.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3034 - 2015-09-03 20:28:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
My hope is that CCP are going to move intel completely into the Observatory Array (OA). Yes, including the functions of local. The nice thing about this is that it will be vulnerable to attack creating new possibilities that can maybe help put more outcomes in the middle of the distribution noted above. And eliminate AFK cloaking.
No, the nice thing about this is like the sov mechanics it will help solidify groups like the Imperium and help us wipe out smaller groups when we roflstomp through their space. In addition, it will further push PvE in null into being an activity performed purely for indices.


Bunk. First, the Imperium is not going to be expanding so wiping people out via wars of expansion will not happen for this reason. The Imperium might stomp all over a smaller opponent for :reasons:, but this will likely have little to no impact. But keep on claiming otherwise based on nothing but your say so. Roll

Complete load of garbage.

"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
#3035 - 2015-09-03 21:43:37 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
No, you just want a way to be able to turn off local or hide yourself from it, which is effectively the same thing.


Yes, essentially, intel infrastructures should be vulnerable to attack and/or subversion. But in your true and rather dishonest fashion you have quite a bit out.

Quote:
I followed what you were saying, it simply made no sense in the context of the situation. You should simply have said "Player have options". Sure, you can give them names, but let's be real. A PvE players options are generally Evade or die. You want to make it so that evade is only possible if the PvPer makes a mistake or doesn't work hard enough.


Options, actions a difference without a distinction. v0v And note, all of my "options" Roll were for evasion. So instead of writing evasion, I wrote different "options" for trying to evade.

Quote:
No, it's basic logic. How can someone worse at evading outperform someone who is better? He can't. thus if the best player can;t get away it stands to reason that no other player can. And that's what you and Nikk want, for the circumstances to always be beatable no matter how much effort a PvE player puts in, as long as the PvP player puts in as much.


See Lucas, I reject your assumption. I reject the idea that the very best PvP pilot can kill the very best PvE pilot all the time. So by logic, your conclusion no longer holds. You can keep insisting on it, but I think you assumption is completely unwarranted and assumes away the problem.

Quote:
You've said countless times throughout this thread that there is no skill in hunting down a player. If there's no skill, then the reason some players get kills and others fail is luck.


Lacking skill does not mean just dumb luck. Perhaps if you stopped jumping to conclusions and putting words in other people's keyboards you'd stop making these kinds of mistakes. Catching a guy who is asleep, on the toilet or in the other room getting another beer does not take skill. And generally, it wont take luck either.

Quote:
I've not suggested that AFK ships should be shot. I've suggested they should be safely logged out. And no, shooting an AFK ratter is not very skillful, but most kills in null aren't on AFK pilots. You are making the assumption that they are, but most pilots aren't.


Most ratting kills are on pilots who are, for all intents and purposes, AFK IMO. That is why there are so many of them. The guy was watching television, taking a dump, grabbing another beer, etc. Killing a guy who is at his keyboard and paying attention is, as you have repeatedly reminded us, going to be very hard. You have constantly made this argument. Then you point out there are plenty of kills on the kill boards. So, how can it be there are plenty of kills when these pilots are paying attention? Which of your narratives is the real one?

You keep wanting to have your cake and eat it too. You seem to just write stuff down refuting various points failing to realize you've contradicted yourself...repeatedly.

As for NS income, I was not saying that NS income is not in need of being re-worked and maybe in some ways boosted. There you go yet again creating a straw man and attacking it. This is a position you've invented and attributed it 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
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3036 - 2015-09-03 21:47:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Lucas Kell wrote:
You are making the assumption that they are, but most pilots aren't.


Wow, and you haven't? Let me find one of your whopper assumptions....oh here we go,

Lucas Kell wrote:
Even a minor failure results in their death, as the killboards show.


You don't know anywhere near enough to make that statement. At least I try qualify mine with things like, IMO--i.e. it is my opinion. For all we know those were major failures--i.e. the PvE player was engrossed in an episode of Game of Thrones.

"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.
#3037 - 2015-09-03 22:09:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Teckos Pech wrote:
Bunk. First, the Imperium is not going to be expanding so wiping people out via wars of expansion will not happen. The Imperium might stomp all over a smaller opponent, but this will likely have little to no impact. But keep on claiming otherwise based on nothing but your say so. Roll

Complete load of garbage.
Wrong. we may not expand, or at least not yet, but that doesn't mean we won't regularly wreck stuff. It will be much easier to do if we can shut off their intel when we first arrive. It will certainly hurt them more than us.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Yes, essentially, intel infrastructures should be vulnerable to attack and/or subversion. But in your true and rather dishonest fashion you have quite a bit out.
Nope. There's little to no gameplay benefit to making intel more tedious, which is what you are suggesting.

Teckos Pech wrote:
See Lucas, I reject your assumption. I reject the idea that the very best PvP pilot can kill the very best PvE pilot all the time. So by logic, your conclusion no longer holds. You can keep insisting on it, but I think you assumption is completely unwarranted and assumes away the problem.
I know you reject it, but you are wrong, so your rejection is irrelevant. And no, right now the bet PvPer can't catch the best PvEer. You want that to change to support your overpowered playstyle.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Lacking skill does not mean just dumb luck. Perhaps if you stopped jumping to conclusions and putting words in other people's keyboards you'd stop making these kinds of mistakes. Catching a guy who is asleep, on the toilet or in the other room getting another beer does not take skill. And generally, it wont take luck either.
LOL, so you don't claim it's luck, you just claim that all the people who get a decent volume of kills just happen to stumble across players who are taking a ****, asleep or getting a drink. So basically, luck.

You're wrong. Skilled players get kills, terrible players hiding behind cloaking ships thinking that they should be able to hunt people down more effectively don't. Stop being in the latter group and you'll do much better.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Most ratting kills are on pilots who are, for all intents and purposes, AFK IMO. That is why there are so many of them. The guy was watching television, taking a dump, grabbing another beer, etc. Killing a guy who is at his keyboard and paying attention is, as you have repeatedly reminded us, going to be very hard. You have constantly made this argument. Then you point out there are plenty of kills on the kill boards. So, how can it be there are plenty of kills when these pilots are paying attention? Which of your narratives is the real one?
Wrong. Most will not be AFK.

And no, I claimed that killing a player who is very well prepared, at his keyboard, paying 100% attention and has lightning fast reflexes is hard. That's the top tier PvE players. Someone who's even slightly lower skilled has a much higher chance of getting caught by a competent PvP player. I claim there is already balance there, you want that balance wrecked because you're not very good at hunting PvE players.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3038 - 2015-09-03 22:15:52 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
As for NS income, I was not saying that NS income is not in need of being re-worked and maybe in some ways boosted. There you go yet again creating a straw man and attacking it. This is a position you've invented and attributed it to me.
How is it? Now you're just backtracking. You even support changes which destroy NS income partially because they make it harder for the PvE player.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
You are making the assumption that they are, but most pilots aren't.


Wow, and you haven't? Let me find one of your whopper assumptions....oh here we go,

Lucas Kell wrote:
Even a minor failure results in their death, as the killboards show.


You don't know anywhere near enough to make that statement. At least I try qualify mine with things like, IMO--i.e. it is my opinion. For all we know those were major failures--i.e. the PvE player was engrossed in an episode of Game of Thrones.
Except of course that I've seen many of these kills, and the number of people AFK when killed is low.

I do love how you and Nikk do this though. The reason you two make up 27% of this entire thread is because you attempt to berate anyone that disagrees with you and post wall after wall of text until they go away. What do you really think you'll achieve by doing this?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#3039 - 2015-09-04 04:02:00 UTC
Give it up Lucas, Teckos is a troll, he isn't interested in actual discussion. He just wants to shout down any dissenting opinion by redefining your arguments instead of answering them as they stand.

He doesn't want local removed, he just wants a way to remove it himself, preferably without warning. Same outcome, but he will argue he is seeking a balanced solution despite local having jack all to do with the problem and in the end it will make zero difference as PvE focused players simply won't play in the absense of Intel.

He will claim that no effort goes into making the PvE player safe, when he has in fact taken several steps to insure his safety. Operating in an allied area, keeping watch on local traffic with Intel channels and local chat, ensuring his ship is aligned and ready to warp at a moment's notice at all times, and staying alert to threats coming from unwatched areas like logoffs and wormholes- in addition to running whatever content he is in space for in the first place. His problem is that those measures cannot be casually brushed aside by a lone hunter, despite the many manhours and effort put into maintaining that environment. His arguments that there is no effort involved in it fly in the face of the fact that the whole reason he needs AFK camping is because those efforts are otherwise effective. If no one was defending that space, he could do anything he wished in any ship he wished at any time he wished....and he is upset that he can't.

The thing is that the pro-afk camp want a narrative with themselves as the protagonist. The little guy fighting "the man" and winning out despite all odds to the contrary. That would be a fun game, except in this case " the man" are also players, and have just as much right to put them down like insignificant insects with their superior numbers and entrenched position as the little guy has to break off a piece and burn for home. Except that with the cloak the burn for home part doesn't happen, and the getting crushed is optional.

He likes to do the redefining thing with me too, claiming I want to attack AFK ships. To be clear, I don't. I don't want them there in the first place, and if they are I want to be able to force an active engagement with both parties at the keyboard. If they can be found, and choose to afk for several hours, then that's on them, they should just leave if they can't remain actively playing, just like the rest of us. He also claims that PvP has no reward in this scenario while getting everything he came for with every kill, yet PvE win by being unable to perform there function.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3040 - 2015-09-04 04:59:10 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Give it up Lucas, Teckos is a troll, he isn't interested in actual discussion. He just wants to shout down any dissenting opinion by redefining your arguments instead of answering them as they stand.

He doesn't want local removed, he just wants a way to remove it himself, preferably without warning. Same outcome, but he will argue he is seeking a balanced solution despite local having jack all to do with the problem and in the end it will make zero difference as PvE focused players simply won't play in the absense of Intel.

He will claim that no effort goes into making the PvE player safe, when he has in fact taken several steps to insure his safety. Operating in an allied area, keeping watch on local traffic with Intel channels and local chat, ensuring his ship is aligned and ready to warp at a moment's notice at all times, and staying alert to threats coming from unwatched areas like logoffs and wormholes- in addition to running whatever content he is in space for in the first place. His problem is that those measures cannot be casually brushed aside by a lone hunter, despite the many manhours and effort put into maintaining that environment. His arguments that there is no effort involved in it fly in the face of the fact that the whole reason he needs AFK camping is because those efforts are otherwise effective. If no one was defending that space, he could do anything he wished in any ship he wished at any time he wished....and he is upset that he can't.

The thing is that the pro-afk camp want a narrative with themselves as the protagonist. The little guy fighting "the man" and winning out despite all odds to the contrary. That would be a fun game, except in this case " the man" are also players, and have just as much right to put them down like insignificant insects with their superior numbers and entrenched position as the little guy has to break off a piece and burn for home. Except that with the cloak the burn for home part doesn't happen, and the getting crushed is optional.

He likes to do the redefining thing with me too, claiming I want to attack AFK ships. To be clear, I don't. I don't want them there in the first place, and if they are I want to be able to force an active engagement with both parties at the keyboard. If they can be found, and choose to afk for several hours, then that's on them, they should just leave if they can't remain actively playing, just like the rest of us. He also claims that PvP has no reward in this scenario while getting everything he came for with every kill, yet PvE win by being unable to perform there function.


Well if that isn't dishonest. Activating the entosis link on a structure will generally send a warning alliance wide. Roll

Yes, hacking would not necessarily do that, but as it would be based on a chance of success/failure you are still being dishonest.

You've said yourself you want to scan down and kill cloaked ships, and given the topic of this thread presumably the AFK ones.

Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link

"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