Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Forcing you to change your arguments means my thrust quite effective indeed.

You see I now get to point out that Cloaky camping (and not AFK cloaking which you are contradicting yourself on, again, by saying first it isn't a problem but then saying that you want to change other things when AFK cloaking gets fixed) doesn't have a counter, local/d-scan doesn't counter it, probes don't counter it, gate camping doesn't counter it, etc. When something doesn't have a counter other then not playing Eve, it is obvious where the issue is.

Changing a definition is meanful, Cloaking doesn't change anything think about Local, thus I can remove it from the argument(Modus Tollen, the proper usage, if the P implies Q but Q is false then P is false).

1.Went back and re-read, mis-read the quote you replied to, I do apologize for that.

2.The contradiction is about AFK cloaking both being and not being a problem. Not being able to be hurt by someone who is cloaked and all that.

3.It doesn't counter Cloaky camping at all as the goal with cloaky camping is to be known but un-catchable as to disrupt the enemy and/or provide intel on enemy movement. Local is an even two way street, just as local lets the defenderknow a hostile is in system it lets the camper know there is still targets in system. And as determined, cloaking counters D-Scan but has no affect on Local.

4.As you commented before "So you're saying that, if AFK cloaking disappeared, you'd keep ratting if you knew there was a hostile active in your system? Funny, because that's never been my experience when hunting ratters who have half a brain." And as has been admitted is the as the defender you don't know if someone cloaked is active or not so you'd need to treat them as an active hostile. And as many have cynos of some type you have to assume that as well. Its as you yourself said, anyone with "half a brain" is going to simply safe-up.

Then Cloaking doesn't change anything about d-Scan, as you can't know that there's someone to scan for, therefore cloaking doesn't affect anything, so there's no problem with it. See, I can do that too.
Neither Local nor D-Scan exist in a vacuum. You only know there's someone there because of Local, and you only know that they're cloaked because of D-Scan. Their combination does not tell you the hostile's activity status definitively (though being uncloaked and in local should be a clue) and that's only true so long as it is possible to cloak while AFK.
Lumping D-Scan and Local into the same term is perfectly reasonable.

You are quite right. It is not a Modus Tollens, and might not actually be a valid argument. My bad. I was trying to be fancy and failed. In this case, however, both premises and the conclusion are true (though the premises may not entail the conclusion).
I could restate it in a valid MP argument

IF You can be AFK while Cloaked(P), THEN Local(+D-Scan, for the pedants) does not tell you whether there is a hostile in system AND whether said hostile (if present) is active(Q).
You can be AFK while Cloaked(P)
_______
Therefore Local(+D-Scan, for the pedants) does not tell you whether there is a hostile in system AND whether said hostile (if present) is active.(Q)


2. I never said AFK Cloaking is a problem. Quite the opposite. And you cannot be hurt by someone who is Cloaked or who is AFK. The mechanics of being cloaked mean that you cannot activate any modules while cloaked. The prohibition against bots means that you cannot activate modules while AFK.

3. You know they're active, so it should be trivial for you to set a trap.

4. Then you didn't read (or are ignoring) the conversation that gives it context. He was suggesting that IF AFK cloaking didn't exist, the presence of Cynos would somehoe magically counter the newfound ability of the defender to determine (through whatever combination of Local, D-Scan, Probing, or Divination tickles you, from here on out I'm lumping it into Local) if the attacker is ATK (in the system and cloaked or not cloaked = ATK if AFK cloaking doesn't exist). I pointed out that virtually all ratters safe up the moment they know that there is an ACTIVE hostile in Local. His proposal guarantees that knowledge.
Most Ratters do not stay safed up when an AFK cloaker comes to town. They eventually come back out because they no longer know if the Cloaking guy is ATK, and are willing to take a bet.
They do, on the other hand, safe up when a roam comes through because they know the hostile is ACTIVE.

^ Yeah i kind of agree with that point.

I have always wanted a black ops ship but i feel its combat ability is lacking so i have never bothered investing the training time. The only time i've seen black ops ships is when someone used their alt to portal our fleet from HS to null sec and i don't think that is a worthwhile job to expect an eve player to train for.

Existing black ops

Like many others in here, i don't feel like the increased jump range is needed but the jump fuel cost should be reduced even further. A black ops worth should be in the number or size of ships they can portal. If you need to jump further then you should just be expected to do multiple jumps using multiple Black ops ships.

New black ops hull

If the current ships are going to stay (for the most part) the same, then i think a second Black ops hull (hyperion, rokh, maelstrom & abaddon) should be added to the game that can do the following:

* Warp cloaked
* T2 tank
* Reduced mass (added benefit of making the ship viable for wormholes)
* light a covert cyno
* can fit jump portal (but bonus is not as good as the original hull)

I really think this would make the black ops profession a lot more fun because after all, isn't that what we're here for?

You see though, your premise is lacking where as mine isn't. Local simply tells who is in system, nothing more, nothing less(information that can be, to an extent seen through the star map). D-scan on the other hand provides you a wealth of information, where in system someone is, whether they are cloaked and what ships they are in if they aren't. It also tells you of structures is space such as POSes, if the POses are off-line or not and what it equiped to those POSes. My premise also has validity due to the real world example of wormholes, cloaking isn't reduced by the lack of local in wormholes, if anything it is increased and use of D-scan is also increased. This shows that removal of the current local would simply aggravate the problem(and this doesn't include all the other things that removal of local damages/kills).

2. Thus why I refer to it as Cloaky camping because as I point out in #4, cloaked hostile in system requires the assumption of hostile active and likely cyno fit, thus why AFK cloakies are considered a problem.

3. You have to assume their active, you can't say for sure so setting a trap can be ineffective for many reasons.

4. I didn't take your comment out of context at all, your comment is that when a hostile or possible hostile anyone with half a brain is going to safe up, and I simply pointed out that anyone with half a brain knows that they have to assume hostile cloakies are a) active as to assume otherwise is stupid, b) fit with cyno of some type as to assume otherwise is dangerous and generally thought of as stupid. These mandatory assumptions mean that a) any sign of a hostile, cloaky or otherwise in system is results in safeing up, b) they aren't going to try to take the cloak on solo/pvp fit while running anoms. I personally know that my corp doesn't run anoms with a red in system, we move to a system w/o a red or just leave it be and don't bother doing anything, esp solo.

Edit: I should note here that I don't think cloaking itself needs to be changed, I do think there needs to be a way(a long and arduous way) to get on grid with a cloaky.

Local really needs a major overhaul to function much more like it does in wormhole space.

It's far too much of an unrealistic crutch and makes carebears, fleet commanders, etc. lazy with their intel gathering efforts. Intelligence should be moved into the hands of the players and not some magical tell-all device.

Local should still exist, but as a chat channel. Intelligence ought to be gathered from other players who are flying for that purpose.

No, it really doesn't. WH-Style local would not work at all in K-Space. The player distribution's different, the potential for escalation is different, the presence of fixed, limitless connections between systems is an enormous difference, and numerous other game mechanics are different.

So, No thanks. I don't want any possibility of a real farms and fields ideal to be wiped out with the removal of Nullsec Local (Higher Risk than WHs for less reward. Sounds Great! ), and I don't want the Cloaking Nerfers claim of uncounterability to actually become true.

(I would delay local by ~2-3 seconds so that a newcomer loads grid at the same time he appears in local, but that may be straying a bit far from the topic.)

How would a slighty delayed local make the system better?

Wormholes are the reason that people seriously consider the removal of local and therefore make a good case study as to what happens with the lack of local and what makes that lack of local work. You seem to forget there are many more ways then local to know if there are hostiles in system.

2. Again #4 applies here.

3. Assumed doesn't mean they are as we have gone over, and when they are they rarely fall for the bait(At least for us). And then there are other reasons such as they aren't looking a target at the time for a variety of possible reasons.

4.I never said we shutdown all econ, I am starting to think you need more reading comprehension practice. And a possibly active hostile is the same thing as an active hostile for risk/reward comparisons. Gambling ships that a hostile might not be active isn't a gamble that pays off. Plenty often those who do gamble lose their ships, it is rarely a case of if rather then when.

MT again, if P implies Q but Q is false then P is false.
Lets say that we go with your crude example of only having to run a timer, obviously it wouldn't be a short timer. So now you have to come back and check in on your ship and move it, re-cloak it etc every hour, hour 30 or w/e. Well now your like a high-sec miner, set timer unload cargo every X minutes to make sure things working fulling. Is that miner still considered to be AFK? yes, for most of his time he is but for short periods of time he actually has to be active to keep things rolling.

And come on it is easy to design a system that is much less crude, that discourages AFK cloaking for unreasonable amounts of time. One possibility is a module that using 'tachyon' emissions to trace cloaky ships. Isn't too accurate due to back noise, it'll get you within XXXkm before turning off. Due to the way the system works can't be equipped on ships with cloaks and take XXseconds/minutes to warp you XX.X Au/% of system size.



To simply remove local from null-sec and low-sec would kill the game end of story. And to remove local without killing the game would require a complete revamp of the whole game. Where as to fix the issue that is AFK cloaking have much much smaller requirement of resources.

Why are you removing the ability to fit a covops cloak to an avatar?