Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Oh yeah... This again. Killing a ship with a cloak mounted is not killing a cloaked ship. Killing a ship capable of cloaking when it can't use the cloak means nothing about the balance of the cloak, especially considering the pilot of the cloaking ship is 100% in control of putting himself in that position. There is no nonconsent there, just bad luck and poor choices.

Tell me again how you counter an active cloak out in open space?

Bubble gum isn't in the game. But saying that, it's far from outlandish or childish. But at least I'm talking about in game stuff, unlike yourself.

So what you are saying is, Eve is real?

That was delightfully civilised of you. Thank you.

Now... imagine cloaky probe launchers + DScan inhibitors (also coined as 'one of the possibilities') + local intact ..... that'd be carebear heaven, no?

Do you now see why some protest is in order?

And amazingly, no cloaked ship has ever killed another ship in game, ever. By this logic a cloaked ship represents precisely zero risk.

1. Move over a system.
2. Rat in a fleet.
3. Find out when the pilot is active, rat during the off hours.

Yes he is still there, but he is clearly not denying access to resources...strategy countered.

Oh yes, advertise you own foolishness.

1. Move cloaky ship over a system--Thanks for letting me know you ARE ATK.
2. Cloaky camp in a fleet of cloaky campers--Bahahahahaha
2. Find out when pilots with citadel permissions are active. Cloaky camp duing off hours.--Yes, please AFK cloak camp while I am in bed, at work, etc.

Try again, this time consider making it, oh I don't know, coherent?

And if being safe and being AFK is undesirable when do we get the "Force Undock" button from stations and outposts?

What, you said AFK and safety should not be compatible....but that is precisely what happens in a station and has been pointed out in NPC space, this represents the same type of "enduring implicit threat" as AFK cloaking.

Of course, people in NPC space rarely complain about AFK campers, it is usually sov PvE players, typically renters.

And the point is Mike can make himself safer the real issue is he refuses. Seriously, a good system can easily support 10 ratters. Why not form a standing fleet? Why not work together and kill anomalies together? Why not get on comms?

Why not move over a system? At the very least it will give you more intel....is the guy AFK or not. Here is how it works..

We want to know the following:

Prob(AFK|Stay)

That, what is the probability that the guy in system with Mike is AFK given that once Mike leaves system the guy does not follow. We can attempt to solve this via Bayes Theorem,

Prob(AFK|Stay) = Prob(Stay|AFK)*Prob(AFK)/Prob(Stay)

Mike is very wary of AFK cloaked ships, so his prior probability, Prob(AFK) is very high, lets say 0.1 (we don't want to set a prior probability to 1 or zero because those are dogmatic priors, no amount of evidence will get you to change your beliefs--e.g. the guy who owns the AFK cloaking account could be sitting right next to Mike with no computer access yet Mike would still assume the guy is actually ATK). We also need a probability for Prob(stay). Lets say it is 0.5. Now all that is left is, Prob(Stay|AFK). Since an AFK player cannot change systems this probability is 1. So now we have,


Prob(AFK|Stay) = Prob(AFK)/Prob(Stay)
=0.1/0.5
=0.2.

In other words, the fact that the guy did not follow Mike when he moved systems Mike can conclude that it is more likely the guy is AFK. Now, if we do it again, we'd use the same formula, but it would be,

Prob(AFK|Stay) = Prob(AFK|Stay)/Prob(Stay)
=0.2/0.5
=0.4.

This is actually a simplified approach, a more exact approach would yield the following results:

First time leaving system:

Prob(AFK|Stay) = 0.182

Second time leaving:

Prob(AFK|Stay2) = 0.304

Third time leaving:

Prob(AFK|Stay3) = 0.471.

On the seventh time of entering and leaving the system, the same gate, etc. we get,

Prob(AFK|Stay7) = 0.934.

A similar analysis could be done based on when the guy gets his kills.

But no, this is just silly nonsense...we should give Mike the means to hunt down and kill that AFK cloaker. Or more accurately, such a mechanics change will eliminate all risk from a guy cloaked in system....because they will stop doing it.

The logic of basic probability theory also tells us that overall Mike's risk level goes down.

So why should Mike get a reduction in his risk level? Why should Mike be allowed to gather resources with less risk...more easily.

Whatever, you are patently wrong on all counts, but cannot muster even the shreds of a decent argument. And in fact lying regarding rental alliances.

I have already shown that there is a solid method to determine if the guy is AFK. Yet these useless PvE players do not use it. Ever. They whine, cry and complain. That's it.

And no, back when renting was a thing it was not "perimeter" systems, but entire regions. On this point you are simply lying through your keyboard.

We see that the Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere were not "perimeter systems," but were parts or even entire regions. Similarly for the Brother's of Tangra and Northern Associates. Quite simply you are lying.

Renters complain because they cannot deal with AFK cloakers in any meaningful way. You can see it with posts about profit and how they should be allowed to pursue it unmolested.

Sorry, you are simply lying.

Good bye Jerghul, I don't like discussions with liars.

Oh, and if Mike can't take the time to figure out if a guy is AFK or not, he should not be in NS. It is just that simple.