These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4061 - 2015-12-08 06:37:12 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

But it won't break them to make safety more of an active effort, and that effort would be evenly spread, not placed upon just one or another.



Well great, let’s apply the same thing to ratting and local intel.

Looking forward to Mike’s post: more safety for me, but not for thee reply.


We already have that balance. Local works for everyone equally.


Nope, not true. Local provides an early warning for the person already in system. This is a known fact.


Beautiful how you had to snip my post in your quote to make it seem like I didn't suggest a change in your favor to make that tiny loading delay not be a factor.

Very honest and upfront of you.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4062 - 2015-12-08 06:51:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Teckos Pech wrote:
And not all players are subject to unsolicited PvP when in space. For example, being inside PoS shields renders one completely invulnerable to attack. A fast moving interceptor rolling safe spots is pretty much invulnerable. Sitting outside a station within docking range makes me pretty much invulnerable (you’ll have to alpha me off the field before I dock up and for a variety of ships that can be problematic). So being “invulnerable” at a safe spot while cloaked strikes me as not that outside the bounds of other ways of being “extremely” or even “totally” safe


POS Shields- Nope. Structures aren't modules. Bumping, bringing down the shields, bringing down the POS. Granted, not trivial, but since we are comparing to a threat that has no real time limit, but it's definitely not as immune as a cloaked ship standing 30k away, much less at a safe.

Interceptor- Pretty good example... Except that this is very similar to what I am suggesting for cloaks with degradeable safety as well. While that interceptor is pretty safe, it's not an afk activity to be sustained while they are asleep and at work. Even just burning at max speed would make it hard to catch, but the difference between hard and impossible/immune is very important.

Docking Ring- Structures aren't modules. Bumping, Alpha, and being forced from the field into a station.

In each case, the 'safety' comes either from a structure specifically in game to provide safety, or active players participation, and usually both. Cloaks are neither, and safer than each of them when used to their potential, and allow greater freedom of movement and action- with the exception of the POS guns, but again you can shoot that stuff. In each case apply the "chance of afk explosion" test- only POS comes anywhere near it, and that was what it was put in game for in the first place...and still more vulnerable than the cloak.


Mike,

The point is there are ways to be very safe while undocked. You write tripe like "structures aren't modules" as if that is some key insight. Problem is nobody has made that kind of statement. Heck if anything structures are better. They don't take up a high slot. POS can have guns so both offense and defense.


And my point is all of your examples depend on player effort and input to be effective, unlike cloaks, and all of them are still less effective than cloaks at providing safety.

Structures should be better. They represent a far greater investment of time, isk, effort, and ongoing costs to maintain than a module. They are far more costly to lose and remain either vulnerable, or beyond anyone's control and are then available equally to all. You keep bringing them up as if they were at all equivalent. They aren't. No matter how much you want to treat them that way, Structures are not modules.

Which leaves us with you and those others protecting cloaks purely because it keeps your ships from exploding instead of your targets. You think that's ok because too much isk, Karrous is terrified someone might direct hostility in his direction, we got the "but think of the returning titans" argument... All of it just to protect assets in space, just so long as it's your assets being protected.

Let's break it down.... It's none of your business what goes on in a solar system you aren't in. When you are in space you deserve to be at the same level of risk as everyone else. Covert game play is all well and good, but indefinite immunity while remaining effective in your intent is not balanced.

If in doubt, apply the "afk explosion test". If it can be exploded while afk then it's defense is active and appropriate, not 100% safe. If it cannot be harmed while outside a dock and left afk, then it's not in keeping with the core design of EvE.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4063 - 2015-12-08 07:25:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

But it won't break them to make safety more of an active effort, and that effort would be evenly spread, not placed upon just one or another.



Well great, let’s apply the same thing to ratting and local intel.

Looking forward to Mike’s post: more safety for me, but not for thee reply.


We already have that balance. Local works for everyone equally.


Nope, not true. Local provides an early warning for the person already in system. This is a known fact.


Beautiful how you had to snip my post in your quote to make it seem like I didn't suggest a change in your favor to make that tiny loading delay not be a factor.

Very honest and upfront of you.


But that claim it works exactly the same is completely false and you knew it....so spare me your indignation about honesty. 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
#4064 - 2015-12-08 07:27:01 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Teckos Pech wrote:
And not all players are subject to unsolicited PvP when in space. For example, being inside PoS shields renders one completely invulnerable to attack. A fast moving interceptor rolling safe spots is pretty much invulnerable. Sitting outside a station within docking range makes me pretty much invulnerable (you’ll have to alpha me off the field before I dock up and for a variety of ships that can be problematic). So being “invulnerable” at a safe spot while cloaked strikes me as not that outside the bounds of other ways of being “extremely” or even “totally” safe


POS Shields- Nope. Structures aren't modules. Bumping, bringing down the shields, bringing down the POS. Granted, not trivial, but since we are comparing to a threat that has no real time limit, but it's definitely not as immune as a cloaked ship standing 30k away, much less at a safe.

Interceptor- Pretty good example... Except that this is very similar to what I am suggesting for cloaks with degradeable safety as well. While that interceptor is pretty safe, it's not an afk activity to be sustained while they are asleep and at work. Even just burning at max speed would make it hard to catch, but the difference between hard and impossible/immune is very important.

Docking Ring- Structures aren't modules. Bumping, Alpha, and being forced from the field into a station.

In each case, the 'safety' comes either from a structure specifically in game to provide safety, or active players participation, and usually both. Cloaks are neither, and safer than each of them when used to their potential, and allow greater freedom of movement and action- with the exception of the POS guns, but again you can shoot that stuff. In each case apply the "chance of afk explosion" test- only POS comes anywhere near it, and that was what it was put in game for in the first place...and still more vulnerable than the cloak.


Mike,

The point is there are ways to be very safe while undocked. You write tripe like "structures aren't modules" as if that is some key insight. Problem is nobody has made that kind of statement. Heck if anything structures are better. They don't take up a high slot. POS can have guns so both offense and defense.


And my point is all of your examples depend on player effort and input to be effective, unlike cloaks, and all of them are still less effective than cloaks at providing safety.

Structures should be better. They represent a far greater investment of time, isk, effort, and ongoing costs to maintain than a module. They are far more costly to lose and remain either vulnerable, or beyond anyone's control and are then available equally to all. You keep bringing them up as if they were at all equivalent. They aren't. No matter how much you want to treat them that way, Structures are not modules.

Which leaves us with you and those others protecting cloaks purely because it keeps your ships from exploding instead of your targets. You think that's ok because too much isk, Karrous is terrified someone might direct hostility in his direction, we got the "but think of the returning titans" argument... All of it just to protect assets in space, just so long as it's your assets being protected.

Let's break it down.... It's none of your business what goes on in a solar system you aren't in. When you are in space you deserve to be at the same level of risk as everyone else. Covert game play is all well and good, but indefinite immunity while remaining effective in your intent is not balanced.

If in doubt, apply the "afk explosion test". If it can be exploded while afk then it's defense is active and appropriate, not 100% safe. If it cannot be harmed while outside a dock and left afk, then it's not in keeping with the core design of EvE.


What it takes no effort to get to the target system and set up a safe? Your claims keep having a funny way of turning up false.

"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
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4065 - 2015-12-08 07:39:57 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
[
And my point is all of your examples depend on player effort and input to be effective, unlike cloaks, and all of them are still less effective than cloaks at providing safety.


You're still lying. Going into a POS shield takes less effort and gives you far, far more functionality, whereas cloaks restrict you from using any modules of any kind.

Quote:

Structures should be better.


"more effort for thee but not for me"

Carebears are always hypocrites.


Quote:

They represent a far greater investment of time, isk, effort, and ongoing costs to maintain than a module.


You mean like a capital ship does, which you said should have no right to any evasion tactics of any kind?

You absolute, backflipping hypocrite.



Quote:

we got the "but think of the returning titans" argument... All of it just to protect assets in space, just so long as it's your assets being protected.


Ah yes, but your assets in space are totally not part of the discussion, because they took isk and time and such to maintain.

Roll

Again, hypocrite. You are wholly without merit, as a player, poster, and person.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4066 - 2015-12-08 07:45:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
So, let's play the "Completely contradictory claims of Mike Voidstar Game!"

I'll start.

Number one, he says that POSes should not part of the discussion because they cost isk and time and effort to maintain. But that capital ships absolutely should not be able hide themselves using cloaking devices.

Roll

Number two. He says that a cloaked player that is not generating assets into the game world should have more risk... while afk ratters and other bloated carebears should have much, much less risk.

Roll

Number three, he says that local chat absolutely is not part of the argument despite the incredible, free, instant, 100% reliable intel it provides, but it's the only reason why he's even cowering about the cloaked player to begin with.

Roll

Number four, he says cloaks are not balanced right now despite not letting the cloaked player actually activate any modules... but he claims that cloaks would somehow be balanced if there was a button you could push to de-activate any cloaks withint 20km.

Roll

Anybody got anything else?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4067 - 2015-12-08 08:08:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
Careful Karrous. Thinking is hard for you and it would be unfortunate if you hurt yourself.

1. False. POS are structures and as such an entirely different set of standards in play. They represent a far greater investment of every kind other than fitting to obtain and maintain. In a discussion about the balance of a type of module they have little to no place.

2. False, again. I support balanced risk. Even with my suggestion the cloak offers protection, though it must be actively maintained to remain effective, with similar means that others maintain their own safety- by being awake, aware and ready to move. The cloak would restrict the type of ship capable of locating it, and still have to be picked out from the false positives, giving it more defensive options while not being immune to player interaction.

3. False, yet again... If removed, local chat would be replaced by other Intel that does the same thing. The net effect on the balance of cloaks would be zero, and Intel has many more balance considerations than just cloaking. Still looking forward to that thread.

4. False, yet again and again... At no point did I claim there needed to be any kind of button to decloak anything. In fact I have argued against such things in the past. Providing a means to degrade a cloaks safety, along with the means to actively restore that safety is nothing like you describe me asking for.

Go wet yourself some more, you lieing coward.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4068 - 2015-12-08 08:19:16 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
In a discussion about the balance of a type of module they have little to no place.


If you want to restrict this just to the balance of the cov ops cloaking device module, then absolutely none of your arguments have any place here.

Cloaks in and of themselves are the most perfectly balanced module concept this game has.

Quote:

I support balanced risk.


You observably do not. All of your suggestions would do nothing but make blatant carebearing even more disgustingly safe than it already is.

You hate game balance more than anyone I've ever encountered on these forums.



Quote:
If removed, local chat would be replaced by other Intel that does the same thing.


No, it would simply be removed. That's the most balanced way of doing things. The intel available from local is not healthy from the game, and once removed, not if, it should not be compensated with anything, because D-scan already exists.


Quote:

At no point did I claim there needed to be any kind of button to decloak anything.


Again, you lie so much you don't even know what you said yourself.

When I mentioned that there already are ways of decloaking enemy cov ops ships, you poutily came in here and demanded a way that reliably decloaked all cov ops ships from 20km away.

That's what you want. To destroy game balance, and everyone here knows it.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Deukmans Fehrnah
Gaming Dutchies
#4069 - 2015-12-08 09:36:19 UTC
and D-scan is the same as local in what way exactly?


my problem with removing local is that every single veteran player has to relearn the entire game because you have no idea anymore of who is in system. there is no feeling of (false) security anymore. for any corp living in low/null sec will need a dedicated scouting group 24/7 to make sure not a single cyno ship sneaks in and hot drops the rest of the entire EVE playerbase, they have no idea of knowing if thats happening or not.

local is a powerfull tool for defenders but removing local tips the balance enormously to the favor of the attacker. i predict that if they remove local, ratting (everywhere for that matter!) will be gone within weeks and the alliances that depend on with it
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4070 - 2015-12-08 10:01:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
Deukmans Fehrnah wrote:
and D-scan is the same as local in what way exactly?


my problem with removing local is that every single veteran player has to relearn the entire game because you have no idea anymore of who is in system. there is no feeling of (false) security anymore. for any corp living in low/null sec will need a dedicated scouting group 24/7 to make sure not a single cyno ship sneaks in and hot drops the rest of the entire EVE playerbase, they have no idea of knowing if thats happening or not.

local is a powerfull tool for defenders but removing local tips the balance enormously to the favor of the attacker. i predict that if they remove local, ratting (everywhere for that matter!) will be gone within weeks and the alliances that depend on with it



That cuts both ways. They don't know what assets you have either.

How often do you see people dropping into uncertain outcomes? Wouldn't take many cloaky proteus ganks to teach people to quit dropping billion isk hulls on you in your (presumably) cynojammed ratting haven. Sure, they could drop bombers, but they'll lose a few every time, they're very soft targets.

Also, people could rat in a fleet, or in a PvP fit, or just keep min/maxing isk/hour and accept losses. I know of miners who do that, fit max yield as they have done the math and the rate of gank makes it more worthwhile after insurance.

It would certainly change a lot, probably need one or two other tweaks (for example they could put a single gate leading into an anomaly so that a dscanning pilot has a way to keep an eye out being active as it would FORCE a deloak but allow a cyno in there. tbh even that is overkill) but it wouldn't be a cataclysm.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4071 - 2015-12-08 12:45:18 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Jerghul wrote:

Its impossible to match the unmeasurable potential of an enduring implicit threat.



And it all comes down to this.

"Waah, I can't live with any uncertainty of any kind!"



Which seems to be the core argument for not wanting a mechanism that creates a small window where enduring afk cloaky campers are potentially vulnerable to unsolicited PvP.

Any mechanism could be very light-handed. The afk component of the implicit threat assures very limited potential vulnerability will have sufficient impact.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4072 - 2015-12-08 12:48:59 UTC
But what you are singularly failing to grasp is that anything that touches cloak length, duration, mechanics or similar has a knock on effect on other uses of the cloak. It's not something you can surgically touch in isolation.
RcTamiya
Magister Mortalis.
#4073 - 2015-12-08 13:00:28 UTC
As somebody who actively afk-cloak-hunts in some certain areas... it's the ONLY way to grab a carebear who's not afk or very unlucky with his warp (start warp to an anom i just warped to myself... in example) or a bot (however i recognized, that hey warp instantly out and instantly back in when you left local.... nice kills, indeed...).

So why is afk-coaking nessescary and one of few available tools of choice?!
Imagine this:

you are the rattlesnake in a haven (just as example :P), all you do is F1 + lock and watch local, if local +1 you click -> warp to 0 or dock, ~ 5-6 seconds later you're safe and MAYBE lost drones (or recall them first and stay aligned, warp out if you see something on d-scan, only for smart people....).

Now "our" POV:

i click jump -> appear in local while my grid is loading and anoms are getting synced in my scanner, even on my cpu it takes at least 4-5 seconds until i am ready to go, click on a anom and warp to it, hoping for prey, d-scan is done after warp has been initiated.
it takes in average ~ 6-9 seconds to get into warp (including loading of grid), then warp distance is something important and talso i need to lock the target, sometimes move towards it, to MAYBE tackle him (server lag :( )
that means beeing on grid and ready to tackle in less than 10-15 seconds even with interceptors is rare, impossible if your warp is longer than 5 au.

So, how do you want us hunters tackle you, if you have twice the time you need to escape?! Right, we only grab the dumb and unlucky people, so we developed solutions, our solutions are:
1. awoxing / spys
2. afk-cloaking
3. shotgunning of systems with several interceptors
(4. logoff-traps, however it's like gambling)

So if you remove any of those 3, the other 2-3 will increase, what do you guys prefer?! ;)


Regards
RC
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4074 - 2015-12-08 13:41:26 UTC
Not even interceptors are fast enough to catch a person watching local. Unless it's like a triple plated abaddon or something.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4075 - 2015-12-08 14:04:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
There is nothing that says you *should* catch a carebear, anymore than there is anything that says that carebear should be left alone. Time is on your side already, the carebear is operating for hours, and must remain vigilant that whole time. You operate for a few minutes and expect to win out every time. Assuming they are flying properly you should be catching the inattentive, not those staying on top of their game.

This thread has several suggestions. If you didn't show up in local until you broke the gate cloak, you would have your chance. If cloaks were initially very safe, but that safety degraded over time from active enemy effort you would retain all other uses of the cloak, just not indefinite.

There is absolutely no excuse for cloaks to be both extremely safe (currently 100% if used properly) and last indefinitely. Certainly not while also allowing mobility and scanning.

I completely agree that absolute timers are not the answer. EVE is about conflict and competition, and cloaks should be no different. A mechanic that allows an enemy to degrade the safety is the best compromise so far. Simply making them not work, or leaving them in perfect operation forever, are both unacceptable.
Deukmans Fehrnah
Gaming Dutchies
#4076 - 2015-12-08 14:09:50 UTC
but isnt that the whole point of EVE? players who are actually playing and paying attention should be relatively safe. players who are afk, be them cloaky or ratters, are not.

playing the game should yield rewards, doing something else while logged in....not so much.


i add a personal point here: dont you feel a real feeling of statisfaction after you catch a ratter who is too late to warp out because of your IRL skill, jumping quickly, get a tackle on him before he warps off etc etc. aint that much more rewarding than some lame ass dude who's afk. it sure is nice for your killboard but it doesnt make you a good pilot. me personally, i rather have 10 fails and 1 nice skill kill than 5 fails, 5 kills on dudes afk.

just my 2 cents
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4077 - 2015-12-08 14:16:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Mike Voidstar wrote:
There is nothing that says you *should* catch a carebear, anymore than there is anything that says that carebear should be left alone. Time is on your side already, the carebear is operating for hours, and must remain vigilant that whole time. You operate for a few minutes and expect to win out every time. Assuming they are flying properly you should be catching the inattentive, not those staying on top of their game.

This thread has several suggestions. If you didn't show up in local until you broke the gate cloak, you would have your chance. If cloaks were initially very safe, but that safety degraded over time from active enemy effort you would retain all other uses of the cloak, just not indefinite.

There is absolutely no excuse for cloaks to be both extremely safe (currently 100% if used properly) and last indefinitely. Certainly not while also allowing mobility and scanning.

I completely agree that absolute timers are not the answer. EVE is about conflict and competition, and cloaks should be no different. A mechanic that allows an enemy to degrade the safety is the best compromise so far. Simply making them not work, or leaving them in perfect operation forever, are both unacceptable.


You do understand that is still a timer, right? The timer just has conditional triggers.

I prefer PvE based conditional triggers (Jovians* checking out cloaked ships to see if they have entosis contraband on board. In a non-destructive way [unless there is contraband], but with ingame prompts so players can piggyback Jovian efforts...or simply scan down a ship the Jovians have decloaked if that ship is long term afk).

PvE based triggers are less intrusive and easier to tweak (as we dont know exactly what and how often Jovians do things allows for Devs to tweak the script as often as they like without uproar).

To me, the fix relates simply to creating the possibility of unsolicited PvP. The afk component of technique that removes access to content (and increased player attrition) assures that human error will give the measure sufficient impact no matter how slight the possibility of unsolicited PvP might be.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4078 - 2015-12-08 14:37:30 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
There is nothing that says you *should* catch a carebear, anymore than there is anything that says that carebear should be left alone. Time is on your side already, the carebear is operating for hours, and must remain vigilant that whole time. You operate for a few minutes and expect to win out every time. Assuming they are flying properly you should be catching the inattentive, not those staying on top of their game.

This thread has several suggestions. If you didn't show up in local until you broke the gate cloak, you would have your chance. If cloaks were initially very safe, but that safety degraded over time from active enemy effort you would retain all other uses of the cloak, just not indefinite.

There is absolutely no excuse for cloaks to be both extremely safe (currently 100% if used properly) and last indefinitely. Certainly not while also allowing mobility and scanning.

I completely agree that absolute timers are not the answer. EVE is about conflict and competition, and cloaks should be no different. A mechanic that allows an enemy to degrade the safety is the best compromise so far. Simply making them not work, or leaving them in perfect operation forever, are both unacceptable.


You do understand that is still a timer, right? The timer just has conditional triggers.

I prefer PvE based conditional triggers (Jovians checking out cloaked ships to see if they have entosis contraband on board. In a non-destructive way [unless there is contraband], but with ingame prompts so players can piggyback Jovian efforts...or simply scan down a ship the Jovians have decloaked if that ship is long term afk).

PvE based triggers are less intrusive and easier to tweak (as we dont know exactly what and how often Jovians do things allows for Devs to tweak the script as often as they like without uproar).

To me, the fix relates simply to creating the possibility of unsolicited PvP. The afk component of technique that removes access to content (and increased player attrition) assures that human error will give the measure sufficient impact no matter how slight the possibility of unsolicited PvP might be.


Actually, you didn't read any of the times I posted the mechanics of the idea. There is no timers, that's not how the safety degrades.

Part 1- A module restricted to the same ships that cov-ops cloaks is introduced that allows the scanning of cloaked ships. This module could further be restricted to a single ship, either a new one, or one of the existing line.

Part 2- Cloaked ships show up on these scanners as a generic name. "Unknown Anomaly" or something similar. Each system also generates several similar signatures per hour, each being 'debris' or empty cans and such. These dummy sigs despawn and are replaced every 2 hours.

Thus a cloaked ship is *not* immune to detection at any time. With luck you could hit it on the first try. Some systems could have more of these than you could reliably clear before they start respawning and require teams of hunters to eliminate all the false signatures.

If no one hunts the cloaker, he remains completely safe. If the cloaker stays aware of his surroundings and watches for the probes he could move before the hunter arrives and remains safe. Even if hunters arrive on grid, there is no guarantee they will be able to get a decloak--- The best chance will be on arrival, but careful observation and repeated scans would be required to get a heading if they don't land on you the first time. The safety degrades by eliminating the false sigs, and is restored by keeping clear of incoming warps, moving to a new safe, etc.

If you go back in the thread there were some suggestions for interaction with an observatory array, but until they are introduced and we know what they entail its all purest speculation.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4079 - 2015-12-08 14:45:18 UTC
Its still a conditional timer Mike.

If conditions A-X are met, then cloak ship detection likelihood becomes a function of time.

I am just making this point so that things remain conceptually clear.



Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4080 - 2015-12-08 14:48:54 UTC
See that's the thing. I know you've never lived in wormholes because the people who live there would be all over a new signature in moments. Literally, a matter of minutes, tops.

And people can be scanned in a single cycle.

This would also happen in K space over timer driver fights where the initial area is known.

Honestly, please stop trying to screw with mechanics you don't understand.