Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I fit a tank Lucas. I don't fit for max yield.

Jesus, what a scrub.

Whatever, I don't fit for max yield, I go for max tank.

And I'm NOT AFK. Jesus. I fit a tank so a couple of dingbats in catalysts can't gank me. Will the tank stop any and all gank attempts, no. But if it stops the odd gank by a couple of yo-yos, great.

Oh, and please post a fit that fills up a 35,000m3 ore hold in 22 minutes.

So just because you fit your Mack with your type of setup, you can't play the game actively?

That's what you are saying to us. You say, baaaaaaah, i can't click or do anything while i mine so i can't click on something on my ship or anything else in the EVE UI. That's to much for making EFFORT to play the game. No, if you don't click anything within 30 minutes, you are taken as afk and so should the client take you aswell.

And you know what. You are horribly at EVE, seriously. Because if a freighter pilot actually are active playing the game and are jumping from systems to system, that will not deny you any more freighter kills than it does now because of the simple fact that if the freighter warps to 0 km (instead of 15 km as they do while they are afk) to the gate and jumps, you can still suicide it on the other side of the gate as you already knows his route and are ready waiting for him.

And also, it doesn't matter to any suiciders if the freighter pilot is active or afk. They will suicide it anyways at a gate no matter if he's slowboating afk in it or if he's active jumping to 0km on all gates as he will just get killed on the other side of the gate where he have to align out and stuffs if they have the intention to kill it.

Was that so hard, genius?

So yes, an afk timer will still make the game better while you still can suicide as many freighters as you would like to suicide and it will still make the game better if you actually make some effort to PLAY the game.

Another sad attempt to reference my idea, even after quoting me pointing out this was not about my idea currently.

Funny part, the topic being changed to my idea, now has a slant that I am favoring the defender by making their intel more advantaged.
Last week it was suggested I am aiming for more hostile kills.
I would hope it does both, and that the devs would tweak it for balance moving forward.

Realistically, the ability to hunt cloaked ships in exchange for an effort requirement to know about them has long been accepted as the deal to be made.

As for AFK people emptying systems for poo and giggles, how can they possibly do this if they can't kill anyone?
If removing them won't make the game easier, why bother?
Is it some kind of protest being made?

I lean towards world of warplanes myself.

Funny thing, you see plenty of AFK types over time, they are hilarious. Easiest targets in the game, if they aren't lucky enough to avoid detection.

You are having a hard time understanding how AFK players can control anything, and if it were possible to know that they really were AFK players without any possibility of affecting anyone in the near future then you would be right. But such knowledge is not yet available and so we cannot say that anyone is AFK and will remain AFK for any definite period of time. Furthermore, the extreme force projection of the cyno under the impenetrable cloak renders such control unassailable until they decide to engage on their terms and on their timetable.

Another thing has occurred to me: Ignoring everything else that has been said so far, what good would your AFK tag idea do? Even if the entirety of CCP was drunk for an entire week and decided to implement it, you should know very well that it would immediately be exploited to prey upon your newfound sense of security. Almost immediately we'd be right back here with people complaining that they don't actually know if someone tagged as AFK is really AFK or just feeding intel/waiting in ambush to gank someone who's made themselves vulnerable.

I can fit my mack however I want...that is the point of fittings...to give players choices. I choose tank so I don't have to be paranoid about ganks. I'm fine with it and as a paying customer it is my right.

I mean really, if a player wants to go with Lucas' max yield fit that is their choice, they'll be far, far more vulnerable to being ganked than me.

Also it is my right to tell you to get lost you arrogant presumptious know-it-all for telling me how to play the game.

And if there is no point to clicking the game why should I? Why not work on something else. What if, arrogant snob, I'm playing on a second client? How can I be AFK if I'm busy in one client for 35-45 minutes (or more) and not in the other client. I am clearly NOT AFK. I'm just not active in that client. So now we have a clear cut case where your idiotic notion is just...well idiotic.

For example, I park an alt in a cyno beacon system so he can check that the system is clear. I don't need to touch that client. I just need to look at it when I get ready to jump in. Totally valid, I am NOT AFK, not by any definition except the most ret@rded definitions.

And look the people who fit a tank come here and do what you do. Whine, "Oh boohoo...somebody blew me up...yeah I sat there in the belt stationary, with no tank, and when I saw somebody warp in to the belt not in a mining ship I still sat there....fix it, fix it, make ganking even harder to do!!!" They can't be bothered to make ganking harder, they are lazy entitled jerks who think CCP should do it for them.

As for freighter kills you just thinking, again. The AFK tag, assuming they aren't logged out (and if they are they might as well remove that feature) will tell suicide gank squads which guys almost surely have low value cargoes and which ones have high value cargoes. It will be a buff to suicide ganking. Not a nerf. So again, my question, why does suicide ganking deserve that buff, why do you deserve a buff, and why should autopiloting freighters get a nerf? Because having freighter pilots actually at their keyboards hating what they are doing will somehow make the game better.

That is the most ret@rded notion.

Also AFK, all those scouts that PvE pilots park in a system or two out to watch for hostiles and give advance warning. Even though that pilot is active in another client, he is actually AFK...because in another client he didn't click...even though he doesn't have too.

See that is the problem with the AFK timer. It can't tell when a person is really AFK. All it can tell is when a client is "low input" maybe even zero input for an extended period of time, but that player may very well be sitting there at his keyboard and be active in the game in another account/client.

Bad idea is a bad idea.

Oh, and sorry Andy, not going to go with the auto-log either for the above reason. Some parts of your idea is not too far from mine, and things like item 2 I could see as possibly working being an alternate variation if say simply removing cloaked ships from local is too OP for cloaks. Or a player built/destructable intel system is too cumbersome/complicated. But the auto-log feature I just don't like at all. Maybe if we had issues with tidi even in low population systems, but we don't so I don't (like it that is).

As for cynos, that is a seperate issue to some extent as it encompasses not just AFK cloaking but also things like fleet warfare. Sometimes you need a cyno and to be able to jump to it and to get it into a "hot" system. Using a cloaky for that is reasonable.

Here is how I'd do it, go to an anomaly and wait for the AFK tag to take effect. Then I'd come back to my computer and periodically d-scan that anomaly and warp back to it. If a ratter is there, I scram him and light the covert cyno bringing in my buddies (who I pinged before hand to have them get ready--they'd be logged off so as to not show on the in game map). If I landed and nothing there, wait for AFK, have my buddies log off and wait for the AFK tag/thingy to kick in and come back later and do it again. Eventually I'd get lucky and I have a strong feeling the butthurt player who just lost a blinged out ship would be here complaining...and we'd start round two.

Now, we'd have to log these players off or maybe offline their modules or something, because thinking outside the box and making null sec dangerous is going to destroy the game or something like that.