These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3221 - 2013-11-27 22:19:34 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
First, a straw man is an argument that is exaggerated to the point where it has flaws not necessarily present as originally presented. These new flaws can be beaten, but they are not actually a part of the original argument. Beating them holds no significance, but can create the perception that the argument is beaten to those not well informed.
So even by your definition, it's not a straw-man, since there's no exageration, it's a straight analogy.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
And no, I am not relating local to being a virus. That doesn't even make sense, in the context that it is pointed out this may not even exist at all, or could possibly be a mis-reported browser cookie.
No, the popup is local, and here it is reporting something that could be one of the following:
A. An actual virus (A cloaked player that is really active)
B. Completely false (A cloaked player that is not going to be active during your play session at all)
C. a misrepresented tracking cookie (A cloaked player gathering intel, with no capacity for violence)
How is the popup local though, the popup is the problem. You are stretching your analogy to be overly complicated, specifically so you can prove it = local therefore local = the problem. You, by your own definition, are creating a straw man argument.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
See, local is reporting something dangerous. The pop-up is reporting something dangerous.
Dangerous for local is a violent hostile in system that may be active. The pop up is claiming a virus is on your PC.
But what causes the popup? If the popup was a built in part of the system, then it wouldn't misreport anything. Local does not misreport anything at all. Much like your monitor doesn't misreport anything. In your analogy, the popup would be the virus, since you wouldn't be getting a popup out of nowhere, would you?

Since you seem to be having trouble, lets just drop the analogies and explain it this way.

Right now, you say local is the issue.

1. So OK, we remove local
- - AFK cloakers, no longer a problem.
2. Now, we implement just the intel part of your solution.
- - AFK cloakers are now a problem again
3. Now to get rid of AFK cloakers we need to implement your hunting module
- - AFK cloakers can no be hunted, not a problem

Now do you see, how in step 2, there is no such thing as local, but there is your effort based intel system. And yet with just that alone, AFK cloakers are still an issue as you can tell they jumped into the system, but you can't find them. It's not until you add the ability to hunt them that they go away.
This alone proves it's not local CAUSING the issue. Sure, local facilitates us being able to see them, but it is not the CAUSE.

So with that in mind, from a functional standpoint replacing local with your intel based system (steps 1 & 2) are redundant steps. If you skipped step 1 and 2, and just implemented step 3, it would be resolved in exactly the same way. So I would argue that the cause of AFK cloaking is the ability to remain safe while cloaked 24/7.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3222 - 2013-11-27 22:23:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Astroniomix wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:


First, if there is a station in system, do you really think there is a capital pilot who would not jump to a cyno on the station? NO! And capital pilots do not usually jump to systems without a station unless they are in a large capital fleet, at which point the presence of a single red is not the greatest of their concerns. What capital ship would have a second thought about a station cyno in an afk cloaky camped system? Please tell me.

Second, the effect of getting people to jump through a jump bridge once, while your account sits in the system afk cloaked for months stroking your imaginations of being important, is so minimal as to fall into the same category as a single click every 30 minutes. A single jump to another system for the next few months that an afk cloaky camps that system is far less effort than a single click every 30 minutes.

Leaves us saying, Having an effect? wth? Surely you are joking.

It varies from station to station, but most of them aren't large enough to light a cyno near them without the (however small) risk of either exiting the jump outside docking range, or worse, inside the station itself.

And yes moving one system over is a very minimal effect, but it is still greater than no effect.

First, I have never had an issue lighting a cyno so that the capital has any risk of landing outside docking range or being thrown out. Those who cannot place the cyno correctly 100% of the time have no business lighting cynos on station. The problem is not the afk cloaker or the risk of improper cyno placement, but instead of unskilled cyno lighting.

Secondly, the effect is so minimal that it really isn't even worth mentioning. AFK cloakers have essentially NO effect on the pve ops. There is nothing to cause this behavior except their own delusions in their own minds, let alone local. Nothing causes AFK camping and there is NO reason to protect or promote anyone disengaging from the game. People embrace Eve for what can be done, not for doing nothing.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3223 - 2013-11-27 23:55:56 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:

First, I have never had an issue lighting a cyno so that the capital has any risk of landing outside docking range or being thrown out.


Highly unlikely, especially because this is you we are talking about.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#3224 - 2013-11-28 02:28:44 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Let's just settle this argument that afk cloakers exist because of local nonsense once and for all.
Yes let's. What is the point of AFK cloaking, without the use of the local chat channel?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#3225 - 2013-11-28 03:54:50 UTC
Skipped the "I'm not exaggerating, you are..." part of the post.
Anyone reading the post can judge this for themselves.

Lucas Kell wrote:
But what causes the popup? If the popup was a built in part of the system, then it wouldn't misreport anything. Local does not misreport anything at all. Much like your monitor doesn't misreport anything. In your analogy, the popup would be the virus, since you wouldn't be getting a popup out of nowhere, would you?

Since you seem to be having trouble, lets just drop the analogies and explain it this way.

Right now, you say local is the issue.

1. So OK, we remove local
- - AFK cloakers, no longer a problem.
2. Now, we implement just the intel part of your solution.
- - AFK cloakers are now a problem again
3. Now to get rid of AFK cloakers we need to implement your hunting module
- - AFK cloakers can no be hunted, not a problem

Now do you see, how in step 2, there is no such thing as local, but there is your effort based intel system. And yet with just that alone, AFK cloakers are still an issue as you can tell they jumped into the system, but you can't find them. It's not until you add the ability to hunt them that they go away.
This alone proves it's not local CAUSING the issue. Sure, local facilitates us being able to see them, but it is not the CAUSE.

So with that in mind, from a functional standpoint replacing local with your intel based system (steps 1 & 2) are redundant steps. If you skipped step 1 and 2, and just implemented step 3, it would be resolved in exactly the same way. So I would argue that the cause of AFK cloaking is the ability to remain safe while cloaked 24/7.

Local is not a part of your system, any more than a website pop up is a part of your operating system.
In both cases, the server you connect to provides both, not any effort on your part.
Go ahead, suggest that is also an exaggeration, maybe your 15 fans who hit like on your post will believe you too.

Blink

As to having both sides of my solution being needed, that was explained from the start as a required point.

Seriously, this is a symptom of a complex and evolved set of circumstances.
Tagging people based on lack of key-presses is far from realistic, regardless of how simply it can be explained.

Players wanting to get better results will always put in more effort.

Will that be spoofing a system, which will probably evolve into an accepted meta game, or earning intel based on intended mechanics?
Which do you think makes more sense...

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3226 - 2013-11-28 07:46:34 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Local is not a part of your system, any more than a website pop up is a part of your operating system.
In both cases, the server you connect to provides both, not any effort on your part.
But local IS a part of the system. It's a designed mechanic. It's not something that has occurred through error. CCP designed it to exist. The popup you are talking about would be a third party popup designed to mislead you.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
As to having both sides of my solution being needed, that was explained from the start as a required point.
But both sides are NOT needed. Only the 2nd part is needed. Your effort based intel is want you want, not what is needed. There's is a huge difference between what you want and what is needed to fix the issue.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Seriously, this is a symptom of a complex and evolved set of circumstances.
Tagging people based on lack of key-presses is far from realistic, regardless of how simply it can be explained.
Oh yeah, because in a game about spaceships that fly around like submarines is ultra realistic. What we all want is 100% realism right? Wrong. What we want is a fun game. That's what it's for, having fun. A 24/7 cloaker is not providing fun.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Players wanting to get better results will always put in more effort.
Indeed, but forcing additional effort on people will not magically make everyone appreciate the game more.

Nice one for totally ignoring the point of my post though. The point of it was about disproving your ridiculous notion that local causes AFK cloaking, since you are using that to state that we must discuss your option and no other, (which is pointless, as CCP will never remove local). You are incorrect. Local not the cause and there are several options we want to and can discuss, yet every time anyone tries, you derail the post with your idea. We get it, you like your idea, but it's not the only one. 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.
#3227 - 2013-11-28 07:52:01 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
Let's just settle this argument that afk cloakers exist because of local nonsense once and for all.
Yes let's. What is the point of AFK cloaking, without the use of the local chat channel?
Correlation does not imply causation.

What that means is, the fact that removing local would stop the issue does not mean local is the cause of the issue. Not my ever loved monitor analogy (prepare to watch Nikk go all mental and replace this with convoluted nonsense). You can get rid of your monitor to get rid of popups. By your argument that would mean the monitor causes them, but we all know that is not the case.

The thing is, removing local is not a realistic option. CCP will not do that, since they actually prefer making changes that don't rage out half the player base. So with that in mind, some of us would actually like to discuss alternative options. But apparently, according to Nikk and Teckos, the only option is to nuke local, and discussion of anything else will be met with their usually mass trolling.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3228 - 2013-11-28 08:11:14 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Let's just settle this argument that afk cloakers exist because of local nonsense once and for all.

Let's assume that most players know to move pve ops to another system when a cloaky player camps a system for more than "x" minutes. The afk cloaker camps a mostly empty system, except those who have business to do in station, in pos, or on other accounts. The result is that the afk cloaker has little effect on the system or on any gameplay at all.

So now please tell me, what compels a player to afk cloak camp a hostile system when he is accomplishing nothing by doing it. No resource denial, no "getting players comfortable with him being there", nothing. How can local possibly promote an afk behavior which has practically zero rewards? And why do we think that promoting afk behavior, or log-off behavior is good for Eve? Ask CCP and I imagine their goal is to increase player activity, not decrease it. More active players means more people enjoying Eve more and that means more subs, stronger loyalties, and more fun. What good is an empty Eve Universe with no paying subs, except the ones afk cloak camping lol, anyway?

So there we have it. Neither local nor any other mechanic promotes afk cloaky behavior, and such behavior is the opposite of the good of the Eve Universe so it should be discouraged and not promoted.


If the AFK cloaker is accomplishing nothing...then what is all the fuss about.

You just killed every argument you've made in this thread.

Game over, you win Andy...you beat yourself.

"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
#3229 - 2013-11-28 08:14:05 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
Let's just settle this argument that afk cloakers exist because of local nonsense once and for all.
Yes let's. What is the point of AFK cloaking, without the use of the local chat channel?
Correlation does not imply causation.

What that means is, the fact that removing local would stop the issue does not mean local is the cause of the issue.



Uhhmmm...yes, it does. You've pretty clearly demonstrated cause and effect right there. 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
#3230 - 2013-11-28 08:18:17 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
My carrier was caught by a friendly giving a red the bookmark on my position over 100 km from the anomaly not in line with any celestial. I was trying out a stationary sentry fit at distance and if the red had not had that bookmark, there is no way that he would have been able to warp right on top of me as he did. That ship was not supposed to see pvp and even if it had been more prepared/better fit, the cyno fleet commander would have just sent more. At that time Red Alliance was crumbling and couldn't organize defenses with the English speakers and my corp was failing too, so there was no chance of getting any kind support to make any kind of fitting matter if it was caught. You made a good point with the warp stab, but in the end I determined that if the ship could be caught, it probably would have been a situation so far beyond my imagination that it wouldn't have mattered anyway. The stab would have mattered here, but I had not anticipated a blue staying off the kill mail by giving the bookmark to the red while out of system and the red actually landing from the far gate soon enough and close enough to actually catch me. It was a freak case of betrayal by a blue and nothing more. It demonstrates how op supers and cyno fitted stealth bombers are.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:

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.


Except no titan can bridge an infinite number of ships. I don't have a titan, I don't do titan bridges, haven't talked to titan pilots about this, but making an inference based on my experience in game, I think the grand total a titan can bridge is....254 ships. Two less than the maximum fleet size. Why 2 less...well the titan has to be in fleet and he can't bridge himself (he could jump after bridging though) and he can't bridge the cyno ship...it is already at the desto.

256 is not infinite. Its quite a large number, and for a lone ratter it would be a Bad Thing™ hvaing 254 ships bridge in on top of you, but I'm going to take a wild guess here and propose it is very rare for 254 ships to cyno in on a lone ratter.

Now, can a titan project overwhelming force? Sure. Can a BLOPs project overwhelming force? Sure. But that is what bridges are supposed to do by and large. I don't think too many use a titan's bridging capability to bridge in an underwhelming force.

Even if the limit is 254, that is still plenty to overwhelm any target. And even if the FC chooses to not send the entire blob on a lone ratter, you can bet that he will at least send enough to easily win without any losses or send NONE at all. So however you prepare, the cyno ends at best in a stalemate with you and a win in the next target chosen. If you can manage to allways be prepared enough to maintain a defensive fleet to handle up to 254 ships 24/7, then my hat off to you. How many groups do you know can sustain that kind of preparedness AND maintain effective PVE ops 24/7?! There may not even be a single group that does this or that could do this if they had to.

Countless threads have lamented the blue ball and the hotdrop, but forcing the blue ball tactic for mere survival is quite unreasonable. If the issue with blue balling hotdrops was resolved, a great many other problems with Eve would be resolved. Think about it, if an effective solution for cloaky cynos resolves the afk cloaky issue, then the problem we have is not with being afk, nor with being cloaked. If he were afk for months but could do no cyno, we could maintain preparations against a SOLO threat 24/7 easily enough. If he had no cloak, but could cyno, we could still hunt him out of the area with appropriate pvp ships and not have to maintain preparations for the massive cyno hotdrop 24/7. The issue is with the combination of cloak and cyno, and inactivity, because even an active cloaky cyno usually decloaks every now and then and can be engaged and caught.


My point Andy, is that it is very, very unlikely you'll ever hit that limit with a lone ratter. Hence your wild exaggerations of infinite ships is just silly.

And blue balling is not just because of "cyno". Blue balling happens, usually because the other side has:

superior numbers or fire power,
and a better position.

So, you get 1,000 guys in system ahead of the enemy chances are there will not be a fight....irrespective of cynos.

Now, if you have an issue with force projection, fine. Go start your own thread on that.

"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.
#3231 - 2013-11-28 08:20:37 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
Let's just settle this argument that afk cloakers exist because of local nonsense once and for all.
Yes let's. What is the point of AFK cloaking, without the use of the local chat channel?
Correlation does not imply causation.

What that means is, the fact that removing local would stop the issue does not mean local is the cause of the issue.



Uhhmmm...yes, it does. You've pretty clearly demonstrated cause and effect right there. Roll
Wow... This is just... Wow...
honestly, I don't really know how to explain how incredibly wrong that statement is in terms simple enough for you to understand.

Essentially what you've done is read "correlation does not imply causation", then you've read a line implying correlation and said "see, it DOES imply causation!". It's a well known fallacy. It means that when two things seem to be connected that does not mean one causes the other.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3232 - 2013-11-28 08:26:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
General Xenophon wrote:


This IS actually kind of hilarious. Let's upend the entire gameplay of Eve by removing local chat, but heaven forbid we add a way to counter .. I mean, ''nerf'', cloaking. It's so logical, I mean, why buy new rugs for your house when you can just set your house on fire so you don't HAVE to buy new rugs? Problem solved!


Ahhh, finally somebody with some honesty....amazing.

Finally, its out. Nerf cloaks...period. Not AFK cloaking...cloaks.

And anyone else who doesn't happen to input something into their client often enough.

Quote:
Since we're ''supposed'' to be ''honest'' about wanting to ''nerf'' cloaking simply by suggesting ANY change -except for local, but this while-whole-scale-game-changing, naturally isn't a nerf- then it is also fair to ask the OP to just be clear and say that his solution is to remove local and leave cloaking as it is and that no other idea or discussion except for this is acceptable.


Wow...that was a fail at reading comprehension. What I said was, that so far, every idea to "nerf AFK cloaking" ends up being a nerf to cloaking, or even worse, anyone who isn't "active enough". But hey, WTF, lets score some cheap rhetorical points.

BTW, nobody has suggested "simply remove local".

Quote:
Isn't there some ironclad rule that discussion about an idea should be in a megathread with like ideas? Can the forum admins please move the discussion about local to a 'no local' thread? It seems we're getting our discussions confused.


As Mag's pointed out, without local what is the point of AFK cloaking.

Oh wait, never mind Andy already proved AFK cloaking accomplishes nothing so therefore is not really an issue at all.

We can all just relax and enjoy Thanksgiving or if you don't observe that holiday, just try to have a nice Thursday.

"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
#3233 - 2013-11-28 08:38:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
Let's just settle this argument that afk cloakers exist because of local nonsense once and for all.
Yes let's. What is the point of AFK cloaking, without the use of the local chat channel?
Correlation does not imply causation.

What that means is, the fact that removing local would stop the issue does not mean local is the cause of the issue.



Uhhmmm...yes, it does. You've pretty clearly demonstrated cause and effect right there. Roll
Wow... This is just... Wow...
honestly, I don't really know how to explain how incredibly wrong that statement is in terms simple enough for you to understand.

Essentially what you've done is read "correlation does not imply causation", then you've read a line implying correlation and said "see, it DOES imply causation!". It's a well known fallacy. It means that when two things seem to be connected that does not mean one causes the other.


No dear Lucas.

Here is an example:

The rooster crows, the sun rises. Erroneously the farm concludes the rooster crowing causes the sun to rise. But then the farmer's wife kills the rooster to make dinner, and yet the next day the sun rises despite no rooster to crow.

That shows the correlation does not imply correlation.

However, in your example you argue the following:

Local does not cause AFK cloaking. But, removing local would stop AFK cloaking.

The second sentence implies causation.

And, for the record, while correlation does not imply causation...sometimes correlation and causation...they are both present. That is, you have correlation because there is correlation.

Edit:

BTW Lucas, that correlation =/=> causation thing, that is so that people don't make a few observations and then run off half-cocked thinking they've found the Truth™.

However, in this issue we aren't going from empirical observation to assuming a causal connection. We also can use our understanding of various game mechanics.

Is there a way to stay in a system at a safe and be completely undetectable to things like probes and d-scan. Why yes! There is! A cloaking device.

Could a player use that module to adversely impact the play of others. Why yes! They could fit said module to a ship and do things with it.

What if they just parked it in that system, would it have an impact on the players in that system (in null sec)? Why yes, it would!!

Why? Because everyone in that system would see that cloaked pilot in local. But since he is cloaked they wouldn't be able to find him. And that increased uncertainty would impact those players in that system...and mostly in an adverse way (i.e. they might stop ratting, mining, etc.).

We aren't like the farmer who is oblivious of celestial mechanics and thinks that his rooster's crowing causes the sun to rise.

But feel free to trot that correlation does not imply causation bromide out if you feel it is a compelling argument. It isn't though.

"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
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3234 - 2013-11-28 08:50:01 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
Let's just settle this argument that afk cloakers exist because of local nonsense once and for all.
Yes let's. What is the point of AFK cloaking, without the use of the local chat channel?
Correlation does not imply causation.

What that means is, the fact that removing local would stop the issue does not mean local is the cause of the issue.



Uhhmmm...yes, it does. You've pretty clearly demonstrated cause and effect right there. Roll
Wow... This is just... Wow...
honestly, I don't really know how to explain how incredibly wrong that statement is in terms simple enough for you to understand.

Essentially what you've done is read "correlation does not imply causation", then you've read a line implying correlation and said "see, it DOES imply causation!". It's a well known fallacy. It means that when two things seem to be connected that does not mean one causes the other.

Except that one of the things has been specifically identified as causing the other.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#3235 - 2013-11-28 08:54:58 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
Let's just settle this argument that afk cloakers exist because of local nonsense once and for all.
Yes let's. What is the point of AFK cloaking, without the use of the local chat channel?
Correlation does not imply causation.

What that means is, the fact that removing local would stop the issue does not mean local is the cause of the issue.
Do you shoot yourself in the foot often?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Carber
The Suicide Kings
Deepwater Hooligans
#3236 - 2013-11-28 09:24:46 UTC
Hey Guys and nice thread. sorry could not read all 162 pages. But here goes my simple suggestion..


Well as we see while we are cloaked our self. we can stil see our ship a little.

So make a new kind of probe to scan down "cloaked" Ships. It will be very hard.. This would ruin it alot for afk cloakers aswell.. But i like the idea of a way to Decloak cloakers without haveing to fly 2km close of them.


The second idae i saw in here which was quite nice just one flaw..

Make the Cloaking device consume something. like nanites/cap charges. sounds like an awesome idea. a low easy cycle time you can deactivate like normal cloak. But it consume X amount of charges. Just like a Siege/triage module. so the skill shuld work. Reduce the amount of "charges" used per cycle.. Ofc people could stil buy a iteron 5 and fill it with charges.

But i think we are getting closer to a good idea.. we just need put the idea's together in a new thread and only dicusss those and how to make them better. instead of a huge newer ending discussing like we got here :)
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3237 - 2013-11-28 09:33:05 UTC
Carber wrote:
Hey Guys and nice thread. sorry could not read all 162 pages. But here goes my simple suggestion..


Well as we see while we are cloaked our self. we can stil see our ship a little.

So make a new kind of probe to scan down "cloaked" Ships. It will be very hard.. This would ruin it alot for afk cloakers aswell.. But i like the idea of a way to Decloak cloakers without haveing to fly 2km close of them.


The second idae i saw in here which was quite nice just one flaw..

Make the Cloaking device consume something. like nanites/cap charges. sounds like an awesome idea. a low easy cycle time you can deactivate like normal cloak. But it consume X amount of charges. Just like a Siege/triage module. so the skill shuld work. Reduce the amount of "charges" used per cycle.. Ofc people could stil buy a iteron 5 and fill it with charges.

But i think we are getting closer to a good idea.. we just need put the idea's together in a new thread and only dicusss those and how to make them better. instead of a huge newer ending discussing like we got here :)

0/10 would not read again.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3238 - 2013-11-28 11:32:38 UTC
Astroniomix wrote:
Except that one of the things has been specifically identified as causing the other.

Has it, Really?
Do you understand the word "cause"? Local intel is a way of identifying a cloaker is in local, sure, but that does not mean it's the cause.

And as specifically pointed out to Nikk, his replacement for local would not even remove AFK cloaking. In his own idea a hunting module to hunt cloakers has to be added to do that.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3239 - 2013-11-28 11:39:30 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
No dear Lucas.

Here is an example:

The rooster crows, the sun rises. Erroneously the farm concludes the rooster crowing causes the sun to rise. But then the farmer's wife kills the rooster to make dinner, and yet the next day the sun rises despite no rooster to crow.

That shows the correlation does not imply correlation.

However, in your example you argue the following:

Local does not cause AFK cloaking. But, removing local would stop AFK cloaking.

The second sentence implies causation.

And, for the record, while correlation does not imply causation...sometimes correlation and causation...they are both present. That is, you have correlation because there is correlation.
That's great, and you've identified there is correlation. You've even identified that without local, the need for AFK cloaking would not exist, but that is not CAUSE. The cause of AFK cloaking is the ability to remain safe while cloaking.
What's hilarious is you have listed several ideas that DO NOT remove local, but WOULD fix the issue. That alone is enough to prove that the CAUSE is not local.

Teckos Pech wrote:
BTW Lucas, that correlation =/=> causation thing, that is so that people don't make a few observations and then run off half-cocked thinking they've found the Truth™.

However, in this issue we aren't going from empirical observation to assuming a causal connection. We also can use our understanding of various game mechanics.

Is there a way to stay in a system at a safe and be completely undetectable to things like probes and d-scan. Why yes! There is! A cloaking device.

Could a player use that module to adversely impact the play of others. Why yes! They could fit said module to a ship and do things with it.

What if they just parked it in that system, would it have an impact on the players in that system (in null sec)? Why yes, it would!!

Why? Because everyone in that system would see that cloaked pilot in local. But since he is cloaked they wouldn't be able to find him. And that increased uncertainty would impact those players in that system...and mostly in an adverse way (i.e. they might stop ratting, mining, etc.).

We aren't like the farmer who is oblivious of celestial mechanics and thinks that his rooster's crowing causes the sun to rise.

But feel free to trot that correlation does not imply causation bromide out if you feel it is a compelling argument. It isn't though.
You totally miss the point. Again and again. The point is, and I'll be as claer as possible - Removal of local is not THE ONLY SOLUTION. You refuse to accept that there are other solutions so the thread goes nowhere. You just troll and troll and troll, becuase you want to push your crappy "nuke local" idea, but that idea will never ever be implemented. Talking about it is a waste of everyone's time.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3240 - 2013-11-28 11:40:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Mag's wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
Let's just settle this argument that afk cloakers exist because of local nonsense once and for all.
Yes let's. What is the point of AFK cloaking, without the use of the local chat channel?
Correlation does not imply causation.

What that means is, the fact that removing local would stop the issue does not mean local is the cause of the issue.
Do you shoot yourself in the foot often?
Seriously? So you too read a clear statement of correlation and assume causation, then assume that means I'm wrong? Did you guys all get up on the stupid side of the bed this morning?

How can it possibly be the cause if fixes can be implemented without changing local?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.