Player Features and Ideas Discussion

There are vast stretches of space where there are no stations, or one does not have docking rights, or even a friendly POS.

So, in those instances it is a hindrance.

I am not asking for proof that people quit over AFK cloaking. My request has been, when/where has this tactic been used?

First off, sov defense levels are only recently a thing. Prior to jump fatigue and to a greater extent Fozzy sov many systems would be devoid of pilots for hours if not days on end, let alone actual PvE activity. All you needed really was to plant the TCU and Ihub and then set your timers. Any attack generated a series of timers that could be fought over. Prior to dominion sov it sov was based on how many POS you had on the moons. Neither of these systems depended in the slightest on PvE activity levels. Not at all. In fact, sov levels were determined by how long you held the system. Capital systems in the old POS system were a tough nut to crack, generally speaking, and had literally nothing to do with PvE in anyway at all.

So, you come and park your deadly ventures in a bunch of systems. The residents think...ah-ha imminent attack. So they stop ratting....and wait for the attack that has to come. Yeah, they might stop logging in, but so what until you actually attack sov structures you gain nothing regarding sov. And when you do attack, and the pings go out...hot damn! PvP, get in fleet and hope you don't get any wife-aggro.

So, here is me saying...you do not know what you are talking about. Or demonstrate I am wrong, show me a successful sov campaign which started out with AFK camping that lead to people leaving an alliance, and then losing their space.

Teckos
You are really not understanding this. Increasing player attrition does not in itself win wars, and cannot in itself avert defeat.

I am quite tempted to give you the name of, if not the architect, at least the alliance leader who formulated that the goal of afk cloaky camping was to get the enemy to stop logging on (I remember the TS moment quite well). I have long parted ways with that person, but I am still uncomfortable sharing that information.

As to what wars...well, you have my character information. When and where do you think it was?

Recharging is meant to cause a window of vulnerability every now and then. I was thinking a recharge time measured in seconds, not minutes. But perhaps an out of the way POS shield would be a better recharge spot, than a heavily trafficked gate? Up to the fellow flying the cloaked vessel and the calls he makes I suppose.

I think you were still training T2 guns, looking forward in awe at ISIS to maybe, some day, pilot a Huginn, and wondering where to get the ISK from to indulge in your very first Navy Omen.

That's where I think you were.

Oh for the love of God....

First off, it is averse, not adverse, see risk averse.

Second all, risk aversion is, generally speaking a desirable trait. Using the term as some sort of insult or way of denigrating another poster is just foolish. It is like saying, you are an idiot because you are prudent and sensible.

Risk aversion is part of what makes the game interesting by making things challenging.

Brokk
It is often considered good form to debate the topic, and not the man.

Mags
Describing it as a psy-ops covers it nicely. Local conveys the information. Removing local is a bit outside the scope of this thread I think.

Teckos
It was a contextual response to a poster who had numerous times rather unpleasantly commented on the risk averse (thank you - feel free to ask me any time you need help with your Norwegian) nature of some types of PvE players.

But you are right, I should have refrained from making that snide remark.

Edit
Again:

"You are really not understanding this. Increasing player attrition does not in itself win wars, and cannot in itself avert defeat."

How in God's name are you reading this to mean tip of the spear?

Its just a technique used to diminish activity levels. Nothing more, nothing less. Its used in most sov wars; usually understood as a means to limit isk generation, but its actual impact rests in player attrition. Which some people understand better than others.

It impacts too widely on too many things to be considered part of this thread imo.

But noting that removing local may resolve issues is of course valid.

Discussing it in length would be a side track.

I certainly did not take it personally. I am not here to tutor people on the finer points of Eve after all. I do understand that I risk losing people by the wayside any time the word "implicit" is important to the argument :).

Let it suffice to say that Eve is a complex game that can be understood on many levels.

Its not a credibility issue, nor a force of personality one. Opinion based on anecdotal evidence can be verified as you should know; I have mentioned it several times.

Striking fear in the hearts of your adversaries is a valid strategy.

And yes, it is a credibility issue. I cannot take the word of a newbro over the voice of experience.