Player Features and Ideas Discussion

You can achieve nearly the same results with a perma MWD interceptor.

Ah Reductio ad absurdum. Haven't had that for at least two pages.

You have that many POS in your ratting systems? Either they are there doing something important and having an AFK hictor/dictor with cynos would really make things uncertain. Is he there watching local? If he thinks he has a shot at something he'll merely click on his client and warp to the spot he went AFK at--i.e. a spot he wanted to go AFK at. Drop bubble, see if he gets anything. Edit: and pop the cyno too. Did I forget, they all came in with those mobile depots, and took off the cloaks and put on regular cynos.

Andy by your own logic, "you never know when he'll comeback so you have to treat as he is always there" you can't undock.

Oh, and who cares how many alts it takes.

Costs us nothing, right?

That was the narrative right?

Or does that narrative....not work now?

See, personally...I found the extreme risk aversion arguments weak. Yet you guys hung your hats on them. Now...not so much.

Then you hung your hat on the "it costs you NOTHING!!!!" narrative. But now...now that isn't quite so convenient. So what are you now doing, shifting gears and running home to the opportunity cost argument.

Of course, we could just cut this crap out.

Allow a cloaked ship in game, AFK, to stay precisely where it is. Do not AFK tag him or anyone else. After all AFK hauling in freighter is not an issue. Even semi-AFK mining isn't really an issue despite Lucas and NightmareX's fits of apoplexy over it.

Instead...we institute a method of scanning that guy down.

You are going to scan anyways, right. After all under your method using scanner probes will tell you what ship he is in. You'd be an idiot not to use scanner probes. If you start the scans and he sits there with his thumb up his bung...he is probably AFK. When you get a lock, warp in and kill the guy. No more AFK cloaker.

In fact, you could also scan to see if there are non-AFK cloakers. The latter will just be harder to catch. But you'll know he isn't AFK.

In terms of outcomes we get to the same place. You'll know when a cloaker is AFK. You'll know when he is not. You can even remove the AFK guy for the duration of him being AFK (i.e. he'll wake up in a station somewhere when he does come back from being AFK and will pose zero risk at that point as well cause he isn't even in a pod and has only an alpha clone).

Really, I don't see the objection at this point.

A bit late for you to be worrying about the logical underpinnings of another person's posts Lucas.

How many times did you say Nikk and I want to remove local and leave it at that? Prbably at least once on just about every page of this thread....that's alot.

Maybe you should shore up the logic you use first.

Again, you just proves that it's more excuse talks in here rather than talking about the main problem that is afk cloaking.

Effectively, that is what you want. You just want to dress it up as something it's not.

No dilemma. the answers are No, and Yes.

I argue for the removal of AFKness as it's a way for people to put in zero effort but achieve a goal with no counter. It empties space and removes content, but it does not make PVE harder. The rat's don't hit any harder next door.
I believe cloaking itself is balanced as is. Cloakers are able to achieve what they are designed to do. This is why I'm not campaigning for the removal or change of cloaks, just the removal or change of AFKness.

I did answer it, but not in a way you wished obviously.


So yes, local needs to be a part of the any change to remove the reason for AFKing and removing cloaks would not remove the reason for AFKing in this regard.

As far as that other post is concerned, it was a joke. Lighten up a little.

:D

But seriously, that's not an answer. I'm asking you functionally. You are responding by telling me what you feel is needed.
On a functional level, the answer to question 2 is "Yes". Think about it. If a cloaking module did not exists, it's impossible for AFK cloaking to exist.
If the answer to 2 is yes, then the answer to 1 MUST be no, since it's impossible for it to be the only way if there clearly is another way.

The whole point this is to make is that it's a whole discussion where all sides are feasible and should be discussed. But because people like Nikk, Teckos and now yourself are so adamant, not that you prefer a way, but that it is the ONLY way, it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion.

And what you've done here is precisely prove the point. I've asked you at least 3 times now for a functional response, providing questions that effectively answer themselves, and you've come back with your preference stated as fact on each occasion. That is why this will never end and it will keep going in circles. What you are doing now is what Nikk and Teckos have done from the beginning.

Now I'm fully willing to and have on many occasions agreed that removing local would solve AFK cloaking, but I strongly believe it would put in more issues, and is a highly unlikely course of action for CCP to take. The discussion has occurred numerous times over the years and there's a strong community bias against it.

With that in mind, and with this being the only place we're allowed to discuss AFK cloaking, I'd like to see other options get a fair share of discussion. But that won't happen, since local will just get dragged back into it, and boom, we're in the same cycle again. This is what happens when you get in discussions with unreasonable people who are unwilling to consider other views. So are you reasonable? Are you able to discuss alternative solutions, or will everything have to be boiled back to local by you too?

No, I did not take part in the interdiction.

And running the numbers I get 2 guys (minimum) to gank a Mackinaw with minmal tank.

For my tank, minimum, 3 guys.

Which is what I ******* said for **** sake.

I said I fit a tank so I don't have to worry about 2 guys trying to suicide gank my Mack. Would 3 take it down? If they over heated, I didn't over heat..they'd have a good shot at it.

Did I say it was an uber tank that would save me against gankers? No. I said it reduces my risk...I don't have to worry about 2 guys. 3, yeah I should worry, overheating would be good.