Player Features and Ideas Discussion

And this is the whole point of this on why we want an afk timer. Those who are not playing the game should be treated as not playing the game.

Those who doesn't understand what Lucas says here is only a troll and are here to destroy the balance in this game.

END OF STORY.

One could also make a case against PvP, using this logic.

After all, blowing up ships has a demonstrated effect of reducing gameplay options severely, shouldn't this be changed?
We could instead stick to those snowball launchers, a solution already in game even!

With no ships lost, we can all fly whatever we like, and fit it however we like.

Why must we subscribe to this culture of worshiping violence, when we can be space pacifists instead? Fan sites featuring kittens and rainbow farting unicorns could dominate this game, if only....

Uhh not really, no. PVP is content creating. It creates gameplay. AFK cloaking does not.

What is the point here, it is a total non-sequitur. You say I want benefits to being AFK, I reply I'm not AFK and then you come up with the above....okay, what is the point? None of the above makes any sense.



1. I'm not scoring cloak kills.
2. You accept those risks going to null.
3. If you could nerf AFK cloakers and not anyone else you might have a valid argument.
4. Players who are "low input" and not AFK cloaking don't deserve to have their game nerfed...at all.
5. Players in high sec, given my preferred solution, would not be impacted at all.

Again, nice try but no points here at all.

Let me give you an example:

Bob is mining ice. Its kinda boring, but he he likes carebearing up in high sec. Not my usual thing, but hey he keeps the market supplied in his own small way, so more power to him. Your change is implemented. He gets an AFK flag in local, now the suicide ganker entering system knows who will be the easier target...Bob with his AFK flag. He isn't paying attention and can get bumped until suicide ganking buddies arrive and he is killed.

Even with your warping to a deadspace option he could end up walking right back into the waiting arms of a gank squad since he is no longer aligned.

Or, no suicide gankers are there and he just has his mining and isk/hour take an additional hit.

All so you can have additional safety in null. A place you knew was risky. But now, Lucas doesn't want that risk, so he'll take a little bit from every "low input" player to buff his game.

That is might big of you Lucas.



Not even close to an answer. Trying to say, "Oh you get it too!" when in fact that is not true it not an answer. A guy mining ice is not scoring cheap cloaking kills. What about the guy who wants to autopilot his freighter, he isn't involved at all, but he deserves a nerf to his game? Why? Because he uses an existing mechanic, assumes additional risk, and goes AFK...in high sec? What did this guy ever do to deserve that kind of a nerf?

Nerfing Bob's game while attempting to nerf Joe's game so you can get a benefit is not an improvement from Bob's or Joe's perspectives, and you don't appear to care about Bob at all. In this stylized example you want to nerf 2 players' game play so 1 player (you) can get a benefit.



No, I'm not. If I'm at my keyboard and waiting for something to happen and not inputting anything to the client, however I am not AFK. You just want to arbitrarily start re-defining terms. Such players are low input players, and there is nothing wrong with that. And since they pay a sub, just like you, they shouldn't be made to jump through extra hoops you don't.

[quoteUhhh... pot, kettle, black...
You want to REMOVE LOCAL. That's essentially using a nuke to slice a loaf of bread.[/quote]

No, I don't. This is just simply not true at all.

Good on the auto-log timer. Still not a fan of it. For example a guy trying to do exploration might want to "go AFK" to try and out-wait a gate camp. He could be at his computer, but the auto-log feature could make him vulnerable if auto-logging deactivates his cloak. And I don't see why a guy who is at his keyboard put maybe only checking his client intermittently but not AFK cloaky camping in the classic definition should have his game nerfed.

This is why I prefer the scan down the cloaker some how. It gives an option to really make AFK cloaking difficult to say the least, and wont have as much impact on typically low input user, or will make them shift over to high input--i.e. they'll be clicking the client to avoid being decloaked...in other words it gets us to the same place without hassle of having to log back in.

As for supers...I don't know we just killed a titan and 2 supers last night. Granted they also blapped alot of dreads in the process.

Not being obtuse at all. I am simply extending your logic beyond the convenient limit of your perspective.

If you are talking about AFK Cloaking simply to deny resources, then they are not a threat beyond simply being listed in local.

If you are talking about AFK Cloaking as a genuine PvP tactic intended to get kills, then you are referring to an active play aspect requirement at minimum of the duration to observe a target, decloak, and subsequently engage. If this tactic never yields any targets due to being avoided, then it is effectively not a threat beyond simply being listed in local.
They cannot kill a target behind POS shields or docked in an outpost.

Short of seeing if they engage, it is not possible to know which tactic is being used, and rewards in null are balanced to consider this.

If they could anchor a POS in the hostile SOV space, or use the outpost, NPC space provides the example that this is exactly what they do. As this is not an option where they are considered to be AFK cloaking, neither can they check on outpost residents to see who is actually docked, rather than sitting cloaked at a belt with a cyno prepared to counter drop.

I don't disaggree on the domi comment....now if you had 4 more guys in such fits, and with MJDs....what then? A small BLOPs gang is out of luck. Even a medium one might have issues with such a group depending on their tactics (i.e. not too close together so that only one domi can be tackled, and the rest could just use sentries to blap the SBs). In other words, that tactic can work even against a "cyno threat".

Granted if a super comes through the cyno you are screwed, but again we have to look at the probabilities here. How frequently does that occur? I'm going to guess it isn't that frequent.

Yes, they could bridge in 100 guys too. All in the new SoE cruisers and just wipe the floor with you. Again, probably not that likely.

And also we have to have that AFK cloaker being active. If you got 4 guys along with you burning through anomalies and he is AFK, even better.

My basic point is, the same tactic that can work against a solo cloaker can work against a larger BLOPs gang. And when we consider the various probabilities involved it is, IMO, a viable counter.

For example, if the probability that the guy is not AFK is 0.8 and that he has a big BLOPs gang is also 0.8, then the actual probability you'd use is 0.64. If the probabilities are 0.5 and 0.5 then probability of you getting dropped is now 0.25. And use the in-game map, is there are suspicious looking orange circle on the map indicating a possible BLOPs team? How many pilots in that system on average? Would sending a scout there be a good idea? (Yeah probably). This could mitigate your risk even more. Even to zero (i.e. there is a sizable orange dot, the map says an average of 20 pilots...time to send the scout...uh-oh 23 guys in system and nobody showing even with probes). You know that guy in local in your ratting system is most likely active (why else have 23 guys one cyno out) and best strategy at this point is to not undock unless you can get even more guys in your ratting fleet.

I don't find any of the above unreasonable. And this is with the current mechanics. Can you know for certain that he is active? No, but you can get additional information (as above) that allows you to refine your initial probability assessments.

Or you could just assume the worse, stay docked, log off and go watch something on television.

1. I don't think I've used the word carebear, at least not that frequently. And when I do I don't intend it to be a pejorative term.
2. You do want the game to be easier. Removing people who are AFK will reduce your uncertainty...which makes your game easier.

What this has to do with low input non-AFK mining, I don't know.

But glad it makes you happy....or whatever.

Eve is not an FPS...comparison's are rather dubious as a result.

Doesn't change the fact that it can still be change to make the game better.

And that's what we want. We want to have more balance in the game.