These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 Collection Thread

First post First post
Author
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3181 - 2013-11-26 07:25:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Andy Landen wrote:

Your example in the Arazu is indeed impressive, though bookmarks on grid would have enabled you to get a breather under the 30 minute cycle timer idea in that particularly stressful and a highly unique (and dangerous) situation. [And I never doubted your claim. I just noted that it would have been a LOT of flying cloaked.] And players with scouts would have to give the smallest attention to them .. what good is a scout that is ignored anyhow?


Why should I have to do that? I'm an active player. Why should I periodically have to warp out? When I'm active? So you can nerf AFK cloakers? You got the wrong target. You keep trying and missing.

Quote:
I spent good effort writing what I did only for you to say, "read it? meh. No thanks." I, on the other hand do read your posts and always respond after reading them. If you read them but it was just so long ago, I would dig it up and repost, so that the details could be discussed with clarity and accuracy. But this is a case intentionally not reading them. I will of course not repost for those who decline the first opportunity. If "pompous" means feeling so much more important than everyone else that their ideas are not even worth reading, it would be wise for you to not use that word. Go back and actually read what I wrote, because it is deep stuff and absolutely essential to this discussion .. and I want to know your feedback on it. Indeed, I am sure that many of us are all interested in your response.


Let me see, you imply I'm suddenly accepting something I have already accepted....100+ pages back. You claim my preferred solution leave NPC null without intel...something I addressed. And yet, I'm suppose to feel bad that you are upset that I stopped reading your post. Spare me.

Quote:
But if it is too much effort for you to promote the specific details of your ideas, then by all means then we will all be happy to cease consideration of your ideas upon your request. I, on the other hand, actually feel that your ideas merit serious consideration of the details for implementation. Tell us or don't. I am happy either way.


I have made dozens of posts on my preferred solution. I've been quite willing to discuss my ideas, but it is you that is just running around and being very misleading. I mean look at one of your earlier posts. What hyperbolic bravo sierra. Infinite cyno threat. Or this one where you come in going on about dropping local...you couldn't even be bothered to read previous posts where you'd realize it wasn't simply dropping local. This one where you pretty much called everyone a liar, classy move. This was a nice one too. Gee that one sounds alot like the recent exchange. You come in, make an inaccurate statement, I correct you and 90 so pages later...you make similar inaccurate statements.

But since you asked...here is a link to the my preferred solution. No I didn't write it, I actually found it via another website and liked the idea. Note: It has a number of counters to cloaking, local is no longer a source of intel, intel is no from anchorable and destructable sources, and even NPC null is discussed.

http://interstellarprivateer.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/unbreaking-local/

"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

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3182 - 2013-11-26 08:03:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Ooooh, nice try. I'm actively playing the game and I'm paying. Yeah, I think it is not reasonable for me to have additional burdens you don't simply because I'm not playing the same way your are.

Don't you get it? I am doing nothing wrong. I'm not even AFK camping, so yeah asking me to do additional stuff to play the game is just ridiculous. I should NOT have to do that so you can get a benefit.
See it's that. "Additional burdens". Cos clicking 4 times an hour is so ******* hard. How did they even get you to activate your guns? Why aren't you complaining that that's not done for you too?
Sorry bro, but this one is moronic. You outright object to 4 click per hour, while arguing for a change that requires everyone else to work their asses of for a handful of intel that we have always had. If you can't see how one-sided that is...


You keep insisting I have to do additional things so you can get a benefit.

I want something, so lets go nerf other player's game...player's that aren't even the intended target! Yeah...brilliant.

You familiar with type I and II errors? You potentially have huge problems with type I errors, false positives. Logging off or making additional hoops for active players to jump through. You'll even have issues with type II errors for things like bots. I know it is not directly related, but your suggestion is just bad. When a test potentially has both a high type I and II error its bad.

I know, I'm crazy...demanding that I not have to jump through additional hoops to prove I'm not AFK when I am AFK so you can have enhanced certainty regarding you isk generating activities.

Sheesh...
Are you serious?
Do you realise that what I ask for would have the additional effect of meaning a player that doesn;t currently click every 15 minutes would either have to... or could not, since it would NOT require a logon to get back to where they were. Once they return, they would simply be warped from safety to where they were.

But on the other side YOU WANT TO REMOVE LOCAL.

So what you are saying is I am being the unreasonable one? Because I expect you to click once every 15 minutes, while you expect everyone to totally change their way of playing. Dude you are a joke. Get over yourself.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3183 - 2013-11-26 08:06:53 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
http://interstellarprivateer.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/unbreaking-local/

I think I'll just take a page from your book

Bad solution.
It means I have to do more stuff and I don't want to do anything more. I have the right to not have to do any more than I do now, even if it's as trivial as clicking, cos I dunno, entitlement or whatever excuse you wanna use.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3184 - 2013-11-26 13:57:01 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Ooooh, nice try. I'm actively playing the game and I'm paying. Yeah, I think it is not reasonable for me to have additional burdens you don't simply because I'm not playing the same way your are.

Don't you get it? I am doing nothing wrong. I'm not even AFK camping, so yeah asking me to do additional stuff to play the game is just ridiculous. I should NOT have to do that so you can get a benefit.
See it's that. "Additional burdens". Cos clicking 4 times an hour is so ******* hard. How did they even get you to activate your guns? Why aren't you complaining that that's not done for you too?
Sorry bro, but this one is moronic. You outright object to 4 click per hour, while arguing for a change that requires everyone else to work their asses of for a handful of intel that we have always had. If you can't see how one-sided that is...


You keep insisting I have to do additional things so you can get a benefit.

I want something, so lets go nerf other player's game...player's that aren't even the intended target! Yeah...brilliant.

You familiar with type I and II errors? You potentially have huge problems with type I errors, false positives. Logging off or making additional hoops for active players to jump through. You'll even have issues with type II errors for things like bots. I know it is not directly related, but your suggestion is just bad. When a test potentially has both a high type I and II error its bad.

I know, I'm crazy...demanding that I not have to jump through additional hoops to prove I'm not AFK when I am AFK so you can have enhanced certainty regarding you isk generating activities.

Sheesh...
Are you serious?
Do you realise that what I ask for would have the additional effect of meaning a player that doesn;t currently click every 15 minutes would either have to... or could not, since it would NOT require a logon to get back to where they were. Once they return, they would simply be warped from safety to where they were.

But on the other side YOU WANT TO REMOVE LOCAL.

So what you are saying is I am being the unreasonable one? Because I expect you to click once every 15 minutes, while you expect everyone to totally change their way of playing. Dude you are a joke. Get over yourself.


If you are going to discuss my idea do it in a fair manner please.

Talk about trolling. Roll

And yeah, if I'm not AFK, I should not have to prove, I'm not AFK. Even if I don't provide client input within some relatively short interval of time. What if I'm chatting with corp/alliance/coalition members on jabber or talking no TS/Mumble. What if I've formed up with the rest of the fleet on a titan and the FC is off doing Stuff™ and I'm watching Netflix while waiting for him to give us order? No, I should not have to prove I'm not AFK when I'm not AFK so you can have some benefit you don't even deserve. Its a ridiculous demand.

"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
#3185 - 2013-11-26 14:03:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
http://interstellarprivateer.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/unbreaking-local/

I think I'll just take a page from your book



And you can't even do that right. Roll

How about this, since botting is an issue...we have PvE pilots have to type in a captcha while ratting, mining or any type of PvE anywhere in game or else you get logged off.

Personally, I think its a ridiculous idea and given how captchas have to change and evolve to keep ahead of the bots they've become practically unreadable....but seems only fair right? You could be a botter with your 8 accounts and so we need to be sure and check, right? So instead of targeting just botters (or trying to) we'll just make a blanket inconvenience for just about every player in the game.

"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

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#3186 - 2013-11-26 15:36:05 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
But since you asked...here is a link to the my preferred solution. No I didn't write it, I actually found it via another website and liked the idea. Note: It has a number of counters to cloaking, local is no longer a source of intel, intel is no from anchorable and destructable sources, and even NPC null is discussed.

http://interstellarprivateer.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/unbreaking-local/

Hmmm... A few issues with this one.

It may sound perverse, but "realistic" and "good game play" do not have full overlap.
EVE routinely compromises actual realistic aspects in favor of game-play on a regular basis.

Specifically in areas where automation would have an advantage over manual performance, EVE blocks or penalizes automated performance to encourage the natural flaws found in manual efforts.
Auto-Pilot is a prime example. It is mind numbingly tedious, but for the capsuleer willing to push the buttons one at a time, it is faster than automated travel options.

I have doubts on the aspect referred to as the black ops pulse capability, on the cynosural system jammer.
It caters to the perception that covert ships with a covert cyno somehow need to be exposed.

I want an effort based solution, that I can put in the work now, and get the results now.
I also want to flip the coin, and know that if I were to put a covert ship together to harass my opposing miners, I could have a fighting chance based off of how good an effort they made.
I expect to have no realistic chance against someone who makes a better effort watching for me.
But if I encounter a half AFK miner who is soaking up my profits by flooding the market with ore, I want to have a decent chance should they forget to scan for me.
If they suddenly realize they need to pay better attention, then they won't mine as long as before, and my ore gains value. They don't have to lose a single ship, but that low effort play style needs to be gone.

Meh... starting to rant.

The idea has some potential, and I do like parts of it.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3187 - 2013-11-26 16:17:32 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
If you are going to discuss my idea do it in a fair manner please.

Talk about trolling. Roll

And yeah, if I'm not AFK, I should not have to prove, I'm not AFK. Even if I don't provide client input within some relatively short interval of time. What if I'm chatting with corp/alliance/coalition members on jabber or talking no TS/Mumble. What if I've formed up with the rest of the fleet on a titan and the FC is off doing Stuff™ and I'm watching Netflix while waiting for him to give us order? No, I should not have to prove I'm not AFK when I'm not AFK so you can have some benefit you don't even deserve. Its a ridiculous demand.
For all intents and purposes though, you ARE AFK. And it's a "ridiculous demand"? Really?

Please in all seriousness consider how much effort we are talking realistically. Then compare that to the extra effort you want other people to have to exert for your idea. Do you not see how what you ask, for a complete revamp of local, would be considerably more ridiculous a demand if you plotted them on a scale?
You can;t honestly be suggesting that a full effort based intel system would be less effort than a click every 15 minutes.

Further to this you do not have to click every 15 minutes, even under my idea. You will not be removed from the game, you will simply be warped to safety. When the "ready up" call is made, you will be warped back to where you are as soon as you x up, so it's quite literally ZERO extra effort.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3188 - 2013-11-26 16:20:26 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
http://interstellarprivateer.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/unbreaking-local/

I think I'll just take a page from your book



And you can't even do that right. Roll

How about this, since botting is an issue...we have PvE pilots have to type in a captcha while ratting, mining or any type of PvE anywhere in game or else you get logged off.

Personally, I think its a ridiculous idea and given how captchas have to change and evolve to keep ahead of the bots they've become practically unreadable....but seems only fair right? You could be a botter with your 8 accounts and so we need to be sure and check, right? So instead of targeting just botters (or trying to) we'll just make a blanket inconvenience for just about every player in the game.

How is that even remotely the same?
Seriously guy you are starting to get to utterly ridiculous levels of reductio ad absurdum now. You are taking a CLICK every 15 minutes and comparing that to a captcha system, because you can't justify why you feel your click every 15 minutes is unreasonable, while a complete revamp of local to an effort based system is not.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3189 - 2013-11-26 16:34:04 UTC
No wonder you are so hesitant to post the details. That link is a massive wall of text! And talk about re-designing Eve with even greater complexity. It's like the difference between the board game Axis and Allies and World at War expansion.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:

Your example in the Arazu is indeed impressive, though bookmarks on grid would have enabled you to get a breather under the 30 minute cycle timer idea in that particularly stressful and a highly unique (and dangerous) situation. [And I never doubted your claim. I just noted that it would have been a LOT of flying cloaked.] And players with scouts would have to give the smallest attention to them .. what good is a scout that is ignored anyhow?


Why should I have to do that? I'm an active player. Why should I periodically have to warp out? When I'm active? So you can nerf AFK cloakers? You got the wrong target. You keep trying and missing.
http://interstellarprivateer.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/unbreaking-local/

Technically, you don't have to warp out. You could always reset your cloak while on grid, or on a perch. Either way, I prefer the auto-log timer to the cloak cycle timer, tbph.

Quote:
Let me see, you imply I'm suddenly accepting something I have already accepted....100+ pages back. You claim my preferred solution leave NPC null without intel...something I addressed. And yet, I'm suppose to feel bad that you are upset that I stopped reading your post. Spare me.

Hey, I told you that I have had an issue confusing your position with Nikk's for some time now due to the great amount of synergy you two have had in directly supporting each other's posts. PS: I never made that claim about NPC null. I only asked how your solution would work in each kind of space. So maybe you could spare me a little and stop making incorrect inferences. It is reasonable to expect someone to take what you say at face value.

Quote:
What hyperbolic bravo sierra. Infinite cyno threat. Or this one where you come in going on about dropping local...you couldn't even be bothered to read previous posts where you'd realize it wasn't simply dropping local. This one where you pretty much called everyone a liar, classy move. This was a nice one too. Gee that one sounds alot like the recent exchange. You come in, make an inaccurate statement, I correct you and 90 so pages later...you make similar inaccurate statements.

There is nothing misleading about an infinite number of ships traveling through the Titan bridge. I have seen hundreds of ships jump through a bridge at a time. The other post, I didn't call everyone a liar, but instead just said that in Eve it is common to mislead and deceive. Also, very true indeed.

Just because there is a misunderstanding does not mean that there is any intent to mislead. Instead, it means that there are probably a lot of other people misunderstanding and that better communication is required in order to accurately convey your ideas.

Quote:
But since you asked...here is a link to the my preferred solution. No I didn't write it, I actually found it via another website and liked the idea. Note: It has a number of counters to cloaking, local is no longer a source of intel, intel is no from anchorable and destructable sources, and even NPC null is discussed.

It does appear like something you would have written. No, you should not imply that I am accusing you of actually haven written it. Yes, it is an overhaul of Eve. Personally, I prefer much smaller changes, more simplicity, more automation allowed, more content, less afk. Smaller changes makes it easier for the players to adjust and easier for the developers to implement in a timely manner at less expense and with less bugs. Simplicity avoids increasing the incredible learning curve already characterizing Eve Online. Automation allows us to create and implement more complex tactics because our time and attention is freed from the trivial processes; the less intelligent will only see the option to become more bored.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3190 - 2013-11-26 17:20:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
If you are going to discuss my idea do it in a fair manner please.

Talk about trolling. Roll

And yeah, if I'm not AFK, I should not have to prove, I'm not AFK. Even if I don't provide client input within some relatively short interval of time. What if I'm chatting with corp/alliance/coalition members on jabber or talking no TS/Mumble. What if I've formed up with the rest of the fleet on a titan and the FC is off doing Stuff™ and I'm watching Netflix while waiting for him to give us order? No, I should not have to prove I'm not AFK when I'm not AFK so you can have some benefit you don't even deserve. Its a ridiculous demand.
For all intents and purposes though, you ARE AFK. And it's a "ridiculous demand"? Really?

Please in all seriousness consider how much effort we are talking realistically. Then compare that to the extra effort you want other people to have to exert for your idea. Do you not see how what you ask, for a complete revamp of local, would be considerably more ridiculous a demand if you plotted them on a scale?
You can;t honestly be suggesting that a full effort based intel system would be less effort than a click every 15 minutes.

Further to this you do not have to click every 15 minutes, even under my idea. You will not be removed from the game, you will simply be warped to safety. When the "ready up" call is made, you will be warped back to where you are as soon as you x up, so it's quite literally ZERO extra effort.


I am not AFK, I at my keyboard. I am waiting to do something. That is totally valid and should not be restricted.

Edit: added a "not".

"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
#3191 - 2013-11-26 17:21:42 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
No wonder you are so hesitant to post the details. That link is a massive wall of text! And talk about re-designing Eve with even greater complexity. It's like the difference between the board game Axis and Allies and World at War expansion.


WTF?

Dude I've posted that link like 3-4 times in this thread.

Maybe if you try paying attention you might get somewhere. Roll

Seriously you come off as a arrogant troll...because you can't be bothered to read other people's posts...which then you complain and whine about so bitterly.

"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

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3192 - 2013-11-26 17:31:53 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
I am not AFK, I at my keyboard. I am waiting to do something. That is totally valid and should be restricted.
And that's fine (yet ridiculous IMHO). But then you can't expect other people to simply accept your idea which forces them to have to exert CONSIDERABLY more effort, if you are unwilling to consider a change that would cause you to click once every 15 minutes.
If adding even a single click of effort is too much in your eyes, then how can you possibly say other people should have to do a whole range of extra stuff without being a hypocrite?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3193 - 2013-11-26 17:32:39 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Seriously you come off as a arrogant troll...because you can't be bothered to read other people's posts...which then you complain and whine about so bitterly.
?!?!?!?
Pot... meet kettle.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Kenpo
The Guardians of the Beam
#3194 - 2013-11-26 17:43:24 UTC
The arguements are becoming convoluted. What was the original gist of the issue? Oh yea AFK cloaking and the cyno boogeyman. Please continue and stay on topic Blink

Caution, rubber gloves and faceshield required when handling this equipment.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3195 - 2013-11-26 17:47:51 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
But since you asked...here is a link to the my preferred solution. No I didn't write it, I actually found it via another website and liked the idea. Note: It has a number of counters to cloaking, local is no longer a source of intel, intel is no from anchorable and destructable sources, and even NPC null is discussed.

http://interstellarprivateer.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/unbreaking-local/

Hmmm... A few issues with this one.

It may sound perverse, but "realistic" and "good game play" do not have full overlap.
EVE routinely compromises actual realistic aspects in favor of game-play on a regular basis.

Specifically in areas where automation would have an advantage over manual performance, EVE blocks or penalizes automated performance to encourage the natural flaws found in manual efforts.
Auto-Pilot is a prime example. It is mind numbingly tedious, but for the capsuleer willing to push the buttons one at a time, it is faster than automated travel options.

I have doubts on the aspect referred to as the black ops pulse capability, on the cynosural system jammer.
It caters to the perception that covert ships with a covert cyno somehow need to be exposed.

I want an effort based solution, that I can put in the work now, and get the results now.
I also want to flip the coin, and know that if I were to put a covert ship together to harass my opposing miners, I could have a fighting chance based off of how good an effort they made.
I expect to have no realistic chance against someone who makes a better effort watching for me.
But if I encounter a half AFK miner who is soaking up my profits by flooding the market with ore, I want to have a decent chance should they forget to scan for me.
If they suddenly realize they need to pay better attention, then they won't mine as long as before, and my ore gains value. They don't have to lose a single ship, but that low effort play style needs to be gone.

Meh... starting to rant.

The idea has some potential, and I do like parts of it.


There is some degree of automation in Eve, and probably always will be. For example, POS send out alerts automatically to relevant corp members regarding fuel, attacks, etc. I don't have a problem with this. And it wouldn't need to be automated in the sense of it sends out a warning to pilots. It could be something one has to check and maybe refresh much like D-scan.

And there is effort here in terms of putting the intel system in place, and even designing it. Which systems will get the best upgrades, which ones lesser upgrades. As well as maintaining it if attacked. Not to mention that some of the items on this list would need a higher level of sovereignty. It could even be tied to system indices, higher indices the better the allowable intel.

As for your half AFK miner, I think this would still work in that situation. If he is half AFK he is also likely doing a poor job checking the intel system to see if there is anything to worry about.

And it is an idea, not something that final and beyond discussion, but if people are going to discuss it...FFS, read it first and don't say, "Oh you just want to get rid of local for easy kills." That's lazy and dishonest (and that last isn't aimed at you Nikk.)

"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

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#3196 - 2013-11-26 18:01:40 UTC
Kenpo wrote:
The arguements are becoming convoluted. What was the original gist of the issue? Oh yea AFK cloaking and the cyno boogeyman. Please continue and stay on topic Blink

I like the idea of staying on topic.

That said, a few of us have pointed out that something that deals with this problem will also impact other areas, and this cannot be avoided.
CCP established other game aspects, or at least details of them, because of so-called afk cloaking's impact on the game.

Here is what it amounts to:
Local Chat: without this, you would never even know they were present at all.
If you leave local intact, pilots listed after a change will never be mistaken for being AFK, and it's warning will never be uncertain as a result.

The economy: It has been pointed out that afk cloaking results in loss of revenue, as well as depriving gameplay.
If you leave this untweaked, more ORE and ICE will come from null, although the limited belts will still act as a ceiling. Pilots with nothing worth their effort to mine will then complain about that.
Ratting will either increase, or pilots will be left twiddling their thumbs waiting for rats to spawn.

CCP could adjust them, or leave them as is and accept the shift of balance.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#3197 - 2013-11-26 18:11:56 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
There is some degree of automation in Eve, and probably always will be. For example, POS send out alerts automatically to relevant corp members regarding fuel, attacks, etc. I don't have a problem with this. And it wouldn't need to be automated in the sense of it sends out a warning to pilots. It could be something one has to check and maybe refresh much like D-scan.

And there is effort here in terms of putting the intel system in place, and even designing it. Which systems will get the best upgrades, which ones lesser upgrades. As well as maintaining it if attacked. Not to mention that some of the items on this list would need a higher level of sovereignty. It could even be tied to system indices, higher indices the better the allowable intel.

As for your half AFK miner, I think this would still work in that situation. If he is half AFK he is also likely doing a poor job checking the intel system to see if there is anything to worry about.


I find that automation which promotes activity is beneficial, while automation that grants opportunities to evade other players, is bad.

The POS alerts, these encourage group activity. When shields get reinforced, that is a call to action most null residents know about.
Autopilot, on the other hand, would have diminished capacity for group activity, except that they arranged for it's use to increase exposure & risk, which is a balance as to what a pilot chooses... safety with more effort, or risk with little to no effort.

Whenever you pit uncertainty with human flaws and efforts, you get an interesting game.

Teckos Pech wrote:
And it is an idea, not something that final and beyond discussion, but if people are going to discuss it...FFS, read it first and don't say, "Oh you just want to get rid of local for easy kills." That's lazy and dishonest (and that last isn't aimed at you Nikk.)

No worries, I wish I had that talent for presentation this fellow has.
A significant number of problems with my ideas track back to my explaining them poorly, not the idea itself so much.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3198 - 2013-11-26 18:28:03 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
No wonder you are so hesitant to post the details. That link is a massive wall of text! And talk about re-designing Eve with even greater complexity. It's like the difference between the board game Axis and Allies and World at War expansion.


WTF?

Dude I've posted that link like 3-4 times in this thread.

Maybe if you try paying attention you might get somewhere. Roll

Seriously you come off as a arrogant troll...because you can't be bothered to read other people's posts...which then you complain and whine about so bitterly.

Posting a link is far different than posting the idea itself. I posted ideas while you posted links. Posting a general idea is not the same as posting the details of the idea. You posted general ideas and expected everyone to instantly understand all the details of how it is supposed to work in all areas of space and under all circumstances. Those expectations are not realistic. You really do have to put in the effort and post the details in the thread with clarifications as needed. Meanwhile, we will all pay attention to this complex, grandiose scheme which you claim will solve all our problems.

Meanwhile, I will continue emphasizing that the issue here is not the afk or the cloak, but the cyno and the supercaps. You may not get a cyno on your particular encounter with an "afk" cloaky, but if you do, you will not likely be prepared for it. And if you are hotdropped and prepared for the hotdropped, you may be "lucky" enough to have a supercap landed on you, and if you are, you will not likely be prepared or able to fight it. You see, cynos allow a vast number of ships of the attacker's choosing on the attacker's timetable and at the location of the attacker's choosing within seconds of lighting the cyno, while supers bring levels of ehp and firepower which make regular caps look trivial. If it were not for cynos and supercaps, the solo cloaky frigate issue would be dead.

PS: I read your posts. I just don't read links very often. If it were important to the thread, an excerpt or two would be directly posted in the thread.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3199 - 2013-11-26 19:13:45 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Here is what it amounts to:
Local Chat: without this, you would never even know they were present at all.
If you leave local intact, pilots listed after a change will never be mistaken for being AFK, and it's warning will never be uncertain as a result..
Except... this... will... never... change....
What is the point of derailing a thread into a solution that will never ever happen every 5 minutes?

Besides, Teckos has resolved all of this. No change should be made if it causes anyone any extra effort, regardless of how much effort that is. in that light, we should get onto looking at changes to add more automation.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#3200 - 2013-11-26 19:17:33 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Here is what it amounts to:
Local Chat: without this, you would never even know they were present at all.
If you leave local intact, pilots listed after a change will never be mistaken for being AFK, and it's warning will never be uncertain as a result..
Except... this... will... never... change....
What is the point of derailing a thread into a solution that will never ever happen every 5 minutes?

Besides, Teckos has resolved all of this. No change should be made if it causes anyone any extra effort, regardless of how much effort that is. in that light, we should get onto looking at changes to add more automation.

Not sure where you went here. Without proper context, the meaning of that quote is lost.

I was pointing out to Kenpo that we were on topic, as that topic includes local as well as the economy.