These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mag's
Azn Empire
#4441 - 2015-12-13 14:18:35 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Mags
Ok. Feel free to disagree for reasons of your own. It is noted.
You mean you'll carry on ignoring arguments that prove you wrong.

How about you get back on topic and stop fudging the subject matter?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4442 - 2015-12-13 14:30:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Mag's wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Mags
Ok. Feel free to disagree for reasons of your own. It is noted.
You mean you'll carry on ignoring arguments that prove you wrong.

How about you get back on topic and stop fudging the subject matter?


I am on topic.

The problem is not afk, cloaky camping. The problem is implicit risk derived from afk cloaky camping and other things. To mitigate the perception of afk cloak camping as an issue - reduce implicit risk.

How is implicit risk reduced in wh space where cloaky camping is not perceived as a problem? What would the wh mechanisms that reduce implicit risk and the perception of afk cloaky camping as an issue look like in null-sec?

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4443 - 2015-12-13 14:36:14 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
What would the wh mechanisms that reduce implicit risk



There's no such thing, that's the whole point. Your entire premise is false.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4444 - 2015-12-13 14:40:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
What would the wh mechanisms that reduce implicit risk



There's no such thing, that's the whole point. Your entire premise is false.


Feel free to substitute implicit risk with "pretty big psychological effect" if you prefer the term used by a CCP developer.

I know the logic is not completely linear, but geeze...

Edit
Or you could use the term "feel safer" instead of "lower implicit risk" if you want.

For example:
Do you see how having an omni tank might make a ratter feel safer?
Do you see how collapsing wormholes or closing gates might make a ratter feel safer?

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4445 - 2015-12-13 14:42:40 UTC
You cannot accept the reality that certain groups of players are simply more risk averse than others.

This is not something CCP should be dealing with, peoples own mental blocks are their own to deal with.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#4446 - 2015-12-13 14:43:38 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Mags
Ok. Feel free to disagree for reasons of your own. It is noted.
You mean you'll carry on ignoring arguments that prove you wrong.

How about you get back on topic and stop fudging the subject matter?


I am on topic.

The problem is not afk, cloaky camping. The problem is implicit risk derived from afk cloaky camping and other things. To mitigate the perception of afk cloak camping as an issue - reduce implicit risk.

How is implicit risk reduced in wh space where cloaky camping is not perceived as a problem? What would the wh mechanisms that reduce implicit risk and the perception of afk cloaky camping as an issue look like in null-sec?
No, you're not. You're trying to fudge the topic. Rats do not and haven't ever stopped pilots AFKing. They are not the cause of psychological warfare and they are not the reason AFKing doesn't work in WH space. It's been explained in detail.

The reason AFKing doesn't work in Wh space, is because of the lack of local. Your mental gymnastics, do not change that fact.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4447 - 2015-12-13 14:45:10 UTC
Mags
Lets run with that. Its on the list anyway.

How exactly does not having local make ratters feel safer?

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4448 - 2015-12-13 14:46:02 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Mags
Lets run with that. Its on the list anyway.

How exactly does not having local make ratters feel safer?



It doesn't. They just have a spine.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4449 - 2015-12-13 14:50:17 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Mags
Lets run with that. Its on the list anyway.

How exactly does not having local make ratters feel safer?



It doesn't. They just have a spine.


Yes, they do. They have a spine

And a lot of mechanisms that protect them and make them feel safer.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Mag's
Azn Empire
#4450 - 2015-12-13 14:50:56 UTC
Maybe it's time you started reading those posts you've avoided. Blink

But you won't, because they prove you wrong. As they are logical and yours is just lots of mental gymnastics. You as much as admit it.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4451 - 2015-12-13 14:51:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
Except they do not have any such protection.

Again you simply fail to understand that certain people have a certain level of risk they'll accept. Half these nullbears would be better served in highsec.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4452 - 2015-12-13 14:54:18 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Except they do not have any such protection.

Again you simply fail to understand that certain people have a certain level of risk they'll accept. Half these nullbears would be better served in highsec.


Do wormhole ratters collapse wormholes because they have a spine, or because doing so makes them feel safer?

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4453 - 2015-12-13 15:04:14 UTC
That would be the primarily the former, given what is involved with it. The way holes work is a double edged sword, completely.

But I'm wasting my time. You have no idea how these things work. Frankly you're nothing more than a cast iron troll.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4454 - 2015-12-13 15:08:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
That would be the primarily the former, given what is involved with it. The way holes work is a double edged sword, completely.

But I'm wasting my time. You have no idea how these things work. Frankly you're nothing more than a cast iron troll.


We are actually looking at how things that reduce implicit threat in wh space might look in null sec.

Closing (and opening) gates with entosis links would seem to be an obvious thing that would reduce implicit threat (or in your words be primarily something that shows spine given that it is a double edged sword, completely).

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4455 - 2015-12-13 15:11:42 UTC
Again your lack of understanding blares loud and clear.

Seriously, go learn the mechanics before lecturing others ok?
Mag's
Azn Empire
#4456 - 2015-12-13 15:15:49 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
We are actually looking at how things that reduce implicit threat in wh space might look in null sec.
No, you are. No one else thinks this is relevant.

You've yet again ignored posts that prove you wrong.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4457 - 2015-12-13 15:22:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Morrigan and Mags
Oh, I think the people that understand my points understand them perfectly well. They are the choir I am preaching to mostly anyway.

What I am doing is offering the opportunity to provide meaningful input.

1/8 Wh type rats reduces implicit threat.
2/8 Closing/opening gates reduces implicit threat.

Nothing said so far has changed that.

You would see this much clearer if you just let go of the conception that some groups of pilots are morally superior to others. It is not particularly convincing and is also pretty unhelpful (future game development emphasis should obviously be weighed heavily towards PvE content and PvE ships if your conception is correct. The morally superior group is simply too small to warrant much attention).

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4458 - 2015-12-13 15:26:28 UTC
There's nothing "moral" about it, it is reality.

Your ideas are 1) wrong and 2) quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

I don't expect you to understand, you're sat there lecturing like you're the oracle of delphi whereas up until I pointed out your folly, you thought wormholes had gates.

Your input is worthless as it is ludicrous, worse than putting concord into nullsec levels of bad.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4459 - 2015-12-13 15:38:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
1/8 Wh type rats reduces implicit threat.
2/8 Closing/opening gates reduces implicit threat.
3/8 Natural phenomena

3/8 Wormhole space has system effects that impact significantly on doctrine and tactical efficiency. This allows residents of specific systems to fine tune doctrine, skills, and tactics optimally adapted to their specific ecosystem. Visitors to that system must either fight at a serious disadvantage, or enter with a high degree of planned premeditation.

Giving sov holders access to infrastructure modules that allows them to tailor combat environments in systems they control duplicates that effect and could be combined with expanding wormhole star effects to more types of stars (in weaker or different incarnations).

Implicit threat is reduced by giving visitors the option of either fighting at a disadvantage, or by preparing sufficiently. In effect reducing the level of opportunistic predation a PvE player need worry about.

Any comments to that?

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4460 - 2015-12-13 15:47:10 UTC