These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1481 - 2013-09-18 17:32:21 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
But instead of a cloaked ship in high sec, you could have an out of corp alt, possibly a disposable one if a point is involved.
Then, your war target can land on you, and pop you.
(The point is expected to get popped, but it only needs to last until the real hostile shows, and he has permission to do anything)
Except most missions would always warp people to the warp in, not to the player they warped to. So if you've done it right, you've moved away from the warp in, so now he needs to get to you, before you align out while the point is being concorded. If a war target thinks he can jump into the system, warp to the warp in, then MWD over to you before the point is concorded/blown up by you and you've warped out, he's overestimated his ability. You will have aligned out while being pointed, it would take him at least 20 seconds to jump, and warp to the warp in, would then take a varying amount of time to slowboat to you. As soon as the point is gone, you're already aligned at full speed, and you are away.

You may have a point regarding activity INSIDE the mission.

However, at the entry point itself, is an ideal ambush spot.

I don't do a lot of missions where this happens, so maybe you know.
If you log out inside, when you log back in, are you dumped at the entrance, or where you were before?
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1482 - 2013-09-18 17:46:53 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
I know the discussions devolve into primarily two camps that become very ossified in their positions. But I can't help but look back over out last few posts and see a strong link between AFK cloaking and local.

And maybe the suggested quick fix is not good. Maybe its horrible, but it is something that could be put on the test server (maybe, IDK if it is even doable from a programming stand point) and tested.

Or we stick with the status quo for now. What?
Like I say though, I don;t at all disagree that local is the root cause. I don't disagree that changing local would fix the issue. I just think changing local would have too many other issues, most affecting the null blob playerbase which is pretty enormous, while providing no real benefit for the high sec player base. Core mechanic changes like this could take years just to reach a decision on how to approach them, then just as long to implement.
From my point of view, separating individual issues from local, 1 at a time, would make it easier to change. Put in a new type of intel now, alongside local. Make it all shiny and good to use, with it's own benefits to local reliance is not so strong. Once you've worked out all of the issues that rely on local, changing local will be like changing any other minor feature.

The problem regarding local, is that a few of us have worked around this issue for a VERY long time.

Before I became a miner, my goal had been to fly a Manticore. It had one more cruise launcher than the other races, so it was a sneaky and potent devil. So I thought.
Cross training into caldari from minmatar was not convenient, but I was not about to start over. So I learned the skills, and worked my way into one.

Huge disappointment. This craft was all hype, and no delivery. Any ship could be effective in sufficient numbers, so that was no up side to this.
(There were no bombs back then)

So, I made a second account happen, and prepped for mining. Now, I can have both accounts grinding, or grinding and supporting, as needed.

Since then, I watched things change, little by little.

For myself, I never gave up on an active cloaked attack concept. It was a waste of time, of course, as being a miner I knew how to avoid that threat, and it was pretty common knowledge.

From the few close calls, I knew mining was actually fun, if you were not always able to get away. And I would still like to use what I know as a miner to help my guerilla attacks.

(That is my desired play style, mining and the cloaked menace alternating, each teaching the other how to be better at both)
AFK Cloaking though, no thanks. I understand many like it, but it's just not a good fit for me.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1483 - 2013-09-18 18:57:35 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
But instead of a cloaked ship in high sec, you could have an out of corp alt, possibly a disposable one if a point is involved.
Then, your war target can land on you, and pop you.
(The point is expected to get popped, but it only needs to last until the real hostile shows, and he has permission to do anything)
Except most missions would always warp people to the warp in, not to the player they warped to. So if you've done it right, you've moved away from the warp in, so now he needs to get to you, before you align out while the point is being concorded. If a war target thinks he can jump into the system, warp to the warp in, then MWD over to you before the point is concorded/blown up by you and you've warped out, he's overestimated his ability. You will have aligned out while being pointed, it would take him at least 20 seconds to jump, and warp to the warp in, would then take a varying amount of time to slowboat to you. As soon as the point is gone, you're already aligned at full speed, and you are away.

You may have a point regarding activity INSIDE the mission.

However, at the entry point itself, is an ideal ambush spot.

I don't do a lot of missions where this happens, so maybe you know.
If you log out inside, when you log back in, are you dumped at the entrance, or where you were before?

Honestly, I've never logged out in a mission. Since you warp back to location though, I imagine you'd land on the warp in.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1484 - 2013-09-18 19:04:36 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
The problem regarding local, is that a few of us have worked around this issue for a VERY long time.

Before I became a miner, my goal had been to fly a Manticore. It had one more cruise launcher than the other races, so it was a sneaky and potent devil. So I thought.
Cross training into caldari from minmatar was not convenient, but I was not about to start over. So I learned the skills, and worked my way into one.

Huge disappointment. This craft was all hype, and no delivery. Any ship could be effective in sufficient numbers, so that was no up side to this.
(There were no bombs back then)

So, I made a second account happen, and prepped for mining. Now, I can have both accounts grinding, or grinding and supporting, as needed.

Since then, I watched things change, little by little.

For myself, I never gave up on an active cloaked attack concept. It was a waste of time, of course, as being a miner I knew how to avoid that threat, and it was pretty common knowledge.

From the few close calls, I knew mining was actually fun, if you were not always able to get away. And I would still like to use what I know as a miner to help my guerilla attacks.

(That is my desired play style, mining and the cloaked menace alternating, each teaching the other how to be better at both)
AFK Cloaking though, no thanks. I understand many like it, but it's just not a good fit for me.
Bombers aren't really designed for solo attack. The idea is they would go in groups and sneak attack, or bridge in. They were tiny cloaked ships firing torpedos, which are obviously face above their size bracket. Kinda like how the Tier 3 battlecruisers work.
Covops isn't just bombers though. T3s can covert ops cloak, and they are deadly when they appear on grid, fully capable of taking care of themselves solo.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1485 - 2013-09-18 19:07:56 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
The problem regarding local, is that a few of us have worked around this issue for a VERY long time.

Before I became a miner, my goal had been to fly a Manticore. It had one more cruise launcher than the other races, so it was a sneaky and potent devil. So I thought.
Cross training into caldari from minmatar was not convenient, but I was not about to start over. So I learned the skills, and worked my way into one.

Huge disappointment. This craft was all hype, and no delivery. Any ship could be effective in sufficient numbers, so that was no up side to this.
(There were no bombs back then)

So, I made a second account happen, and prepped for mining. Now, I can have both accounts grinding, or grinding and supporting, as needed.

Since then, I watched things change, little by little.

For myself, I never gave up on an active cloaked attack concept. It was a waste of time, of course, as being a miner I knew how to avoid that threat, and it was pretty common knowledge.

From the few close calls, I knew mining was actually fun, if you were not always able to get away. And I would still like to use what I know as a miner to help my guerilla attacks.

(That is my desired play style, mining and the cloaked menace alternating, each teaching the other how to be better at both)
AFK Cloaking though, no thanks. I understand many like it, but it's just not a good fit for me.
Bombers aren't really designed for solo attack. The idea is they would go in groups and sneak attack, or bridge in. They were tiny cloaked ships firing torpedos, which are obviously face above their size bracket. Kinda like how the Tier 3 battlecruisers work.
Covops isn't just bombers though. T3s can covert ops cloak, and they are deadly when they appear on grid, fully capable of taking care of themselves solo.

That was just a history lesson, and this predated the whole BLOPS thing.

Bombers back then did not fire torpedos, just cruise missiles. They could not warp while cloaked, but like todays blops got a speed bonus tied to skill while cloaked.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1486 - 2013-09-18 20:14:16 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
The problem regarding local, is that a few of us have worked around this issue for a VERY long time.

Before I became a miner, my goal had been to fly a Manticore. It had one more cruise launcher than the other races, so it was a sneaky and potent devil. So I thought.
Cross training into caldari from minmatar was not convenient, but I was not about to start over. So I learned the skills, and worked my way into one.

Huge disappointment. This craft was all hype, and no delivery. Any ship could be effective in sufficient numbers, so that was no up side to this.
(There were no bombs back then)

So, I made a second account happen, and prepped for mining. Now, I can have both accounts grinding, or grinding and supporting, as needed.

Since then, I watched things change, little by little.

For myself, I never gave up on an active cloaked attack concept. It was a waste of time, of course, as being a miner I knew how to avoid that threat, and it was pretty common knowledge.

From the few close calls, I knew mining was actually fun, if you were not always able to get away. And I would still like to use what I know as a miner to help my guerilla attacks.

(That is my desired play style, mining and the cloaked menace alternating, each teaching the other how to be better at both)
AFK Cloaking though, no thanks. I understand many like it, but it's just not a good fit for me.
Bombers aren't really designed for solo attack. The idea is they would go in groups and sneak attack, or bridge in. They were tiny cloaked ships firing torpedos, which are obviously face above their size bracket. Kinda like how the Tier 3 battlecruisers work.
Covops isn't just bombers though. T3s can covert ops cloak, and they are deadly when they appear on grid, fully capable of taking care of themselves solo.

That was just a history lesson, and this predated the whole BLOPS thing.

Bombers back then did not fire torpedos, just cruise missiles. They could not warp while cloaked, but like todays blops got a speed bonus tied to skill while cloaked.
The really old bombers :p
Still, cruise missiles are the large weapons, like the tier 3's they really aren't supposed to go it alone.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1487 - 2013-09-19 03:07:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Teckos Pech wrote:
Derath Ellecon wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
The AFK cloaky is NO ISSUE IF it can NOT FIT A CYNO at the same time as its cloak. In wormhole space, the fitting of a cyno on any ship is pointless because cynos are not allowed and thus there is no issue with the AFK cloaky.


Huh?

The whole no cyno in WH space is a pointless argument. In WH space you don't NEED to cyno in a fleet to pull of a successful gank.


And you don't need a cyno in K-space to pull of a successful gank. I don't get it either.

Andy, maybe you should start a thread on cynos and cloaks and how together they are overpowered.

By the way, I wasn't trying to be snide above. It seems a very serious issue to you Andy and it strikes me, at least, as smaller subset to the whole AFK cloaking issue. So perhaps it would be better having its own topic.

I agree that you don't need the cyno to be successful in either k-space or w-space, but the presence of the cyno greatly complicates the afk cloaky issue in k-space.

I actually find it quite interesting that anyone would suggest that the cloaky cyno issue was a separate issue from afk cloaky issue. To put it simply, if the only thing in my system was a solo cloaky, which I can never afford to assume to be afk no matter how long it resisted my baiting ops, and I KNEW that the cloaky could not light a cyno, I would have ZERO ISSUE WITH THE CLOAKY. The only time the cloaky becomes an issue for me is when the possibility exists that it may be able to light a cyno and that there may be a group of unlimited size on the other side able to jump through (I don't mind blob warfare when the mass has to travel through gates where they can be scouted). Most null sec people don't mind dealing with a solo stealth bomber or recon, so the afk cloaky issue is really about the fear of the blob hotdrop.

Since the afk cloaky fear appears only in the presence of the threat of blob hotdrops, I believe that it is reasonsable to re-focus this afk cloaky thread on cloaky cynos. TBPH, I really don't care if any player is afk, touching their input devices, or touching other things, because the only way to remove the possibility that the player is active is to auto-signout. So unless there is a proposal to auto-signout based on amount of time since last interacting with the client or based on multiple webcams covering the area around the client to determine if there is any person able to see or interact with the client, it doesn't make sense to take about "afk" and none of that addresses the issue of players avoiding at all costs the hotdrop threat by cloakies, only counterable when they de-cloak like when activating a stargate to move between systems.

So, in summary, to me, the cloaky cyno is not a subset by rather the entirety of the issue with afk cloakies: because no one can afford to assume they are afk and the only time we cannot deal with them engaging even our pve ships is when the cyno is a possibility. I hope that clarifies everything surrounding my focus and emphasis on the cyno part of this issue for you.

Added: The BLOPS cyno/bridge brings a similar issue, but the decreased range and dps makes it much easier to deal with. I am not sure if anything needs to be addressed regarding BLOPS cynos, but for now it is probably safe enough to neglect the covert cyno; any changes to the covert cyno would necessarily be quite different from treatment of the regular cyno. Since all cynos are really whs, a mass jump limit and total mass limit for each seems quite reasonable and helpful to these issues.

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

Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1488 - 2013-09-19 04:40:18 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
You have said yourself that if you do "everything right" - i.e. paying attention, being aligned, etc and hitting the button when local changes - that you are guaranteed to escape (barring bugs or oddities in the physics engine causing you to get stuck).

I am also not asking to be guaranteed a kill if I do everything right, I am merely asking that if I do everything right I be granted a chance at success, by your own admission I currently have no such chance.
How can you be given any more chance at success with out opening a gap that guarantees it. If I do everything right, and still get killed, then whatever method you used, you can simply repeat. Nothing I do, except staying docked would help. And you currently have a chance at success, you simply don't have a great chance at success against someone who does everything right to try to avoid you.

TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Additionally, there seems to be a bit of an inconsistency here - you're saying that if you, as the local of the system, do everything right you SHOULD be guaranteed success (where success on your side is escaping), while on my side, as a hunter, if I do everything right I SHOULD NOT be guaranteed success (which to me would be catching you) - even though that's not what I'm asking for, it's still a rather glaring inconsistency.

I believe that NEITHER of us should be guaranteed our respective successes when we do everything right. There must, for both of us, be the chance of losing some of the time, as well as the chance of succeeding. If either side has such a guaranteed result then there is no risk and no counter to that side, and that is imbalanced.
But it can't be both ways. You can't guarantee you can get some kills without guaranteeing you can always get kills. Unless they put some random timer on warp alignment or something, if you figure out a way that works, you can use it every time, while I would know that if you do that, it's unstoppable. If it's stoppable, I'll still be able to make myself safe every time. If I can't then that means I have no chance. If I do everything perfectly, and still die, then the only chance I had to live was if you did something wrong, exactly what you are complaining about from my side. It's simply not possible to have it both ways, and sadly for you, evasion generally trumps attack, especially when I'm already poised to escape, since if attack beat evasion, evasion would be pointless.

Also, I'm only safe while I'm performing that one task. I have to take other precautions the then ship the minerals. The job doesn't end in the belt. They've already made it harder and tightened up timing by making gravs automatically show up. If I'm not incredibly quick on the warp, an interceptor will have me. An interceptor will arrive on grid before I leave grid if they warp straight to the grav.
And if you have no chance, then how come people die daily in null?

I honestly can't understand why my ability to escape while mining is an issue, while so many other tasks have no risk and a higher reward.

Gunslinger, Lucas is not free of risk even if he does everything perfectly. He is just free of risk from you because you have not discovered how to catch him yet. Also, you still have this sense of entitlement as if you should have a chance to get him solo. This kind of thinking is not healthy. You want to pvp? Then bring a group and find others that want to fight or get smart about it.

If you are having a hard time believing me when I said that Lucas can easily get caught even if he is perfectly attentive, then consider the effect of bubbles on targets which may not be expecting them in certain key locations while cloaked blues signal the spiders to come in when the prey is caught.

The only thing worse than entitled pvp carebears (exclusive focus on pve assets and avoidance of pvp assets) is pvp carebears without imagination or ideas complaining about how they can't get what they want handed to them on a silver platter .. no offense ..

.. Just saying, engage a pvp asset every now and then, and get creative with your tactics in ways that don't merely waste tremendous amounts of your time .. and stop thinking that afk cloaking or removing local or whatever other mechanic is the ONLY way you can get what you want or that you can't just change what you want and get something else and adapt as the situation changes. Learn to lead groups of friends in complex tactics. Do not limit yourself to being only in deep red space, or only working solo, or only targeting faction battleships/pve assets, or only whatever other condition you are imposing on yourself. Seize the day. Accept the opportunities which are already within reach. Don't just fixate on the goals which are beyond your reach. Stop feeling entitled to even the "chance" of a pve kill. I know that I certainly do not feel entitled to a risk free environment, and I am sure Lucas and many others are fine with the null sec risk. My only gripe is the cloaky cyno, but I know how to mitigate that threat, so even there I can live with the lack of change to that mechanic which I feel to be a bit op.

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

TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1489 - 2013-09-19 09:46:52 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Let me interject something...

In theory would you agree with The Gunslinger? That is, as an abstract concept that both sides have a chance of success. You Lucas have a chance of escape, all is p and The Gunslinger has a chance of success, call it (1-p).

Now your worry, which is a good point, is that mechanically, trying to implement it means p could degenerate to zero. I agree, that is a concern and I think The Gunslinger would agree too.

Thus if such a mechanic were introduced and that did happen it would be bad and should either be removed, or if on the Test server, rejected. Yes?
Yes, I agree that both should have a chance of happening, but I don't see a method of it happening any more than it currently does.

Essentially the issue is that if both parties do their job perfectly, one has to win over the other, since there is no such thing as a draw in the scenario (either there is a kill, or there is not). Without the implementation of some kind of randomness, if both sides do their job perfectly, the same result will always occur, since there is nothing to vary the outcome.
Thus, without the implementation of a random element, there are only 2 choices:
1. When both are playing perfectly the miner always escapes (current).
2. When both are playing perfectly the miner always dies.

To me, option 1 is the only one that sustains null industry, and there's enough inattentive miners to ensure plenty of them get killed (see KB, in fact see the 28b isk BL drop on and FCON mining fleet). Bear in mind that the difference between life and death is literally a couple of seconds. It's a pretty thin line.
Option 2 would simply increase the number of covops attackers as they would realise that done right, they can always kill the miners, and secure a healthy green KB, making null relatively inefficient. Since industry players generally strive for efficiency, they would likely move elsewhere.


I disagree that it would require "randomness" to achieve this variation. I agree that it shouldn't be a dice roll as to who wins, but I believe such variation should - and can - exist, and could be tailored such that it comes from smarts, skill, diligence of the players involved. It wouldn't be "random", but would instead be based on the inherent differences between both individual players, and corporation and alliances.

In all honesty, I used to see a lot of that in wormhole space. I believe that the removal of local coupled with the much more limited ability to project force (200 capitals supers can't just be brought in if things go awry) are what allow for this to happen in wormhole space.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1490 - 2013-09-19 09:56:00 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
I disagree that it would require "randomness" to achieve this variation. I agree that it shouldn't be a dice roll as to who wins, but I believe such variation should - and can - exist, and could be tailored such that it comes from smarts, skill, diligence of the players involved. It wouldn't be "random", but would instead be based on the inherent differences between both individual players, and corporation and alliances.

In all honesty, I used to see a lot of that in wormhole space. I believe that the removal of local coupled with the much more limited ability to project force (200 capitals supers can't just be brought in if things go awry) are what allow for this to happen in wormhole space.
How?
If both you and I do our jobs perfectly every time, how is is possible to get a different outcome without adding an element of random? Explain that to me.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1491 - 2013-09-19 09:58:05 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Gunslinger, Lucas is not free of risk even if he does everything perfectly. He is just free of risk from you because you have not discovered how to catch him yet. Also, you still have this sense of entitlement as if you should have a chance to get him solo. This kind of thinking is not healthy. You want to pvp? Then bring a group and find others that want to fight or get smart about it.


Your childish attempt to smear me by simply saying I haven't figured out how to catch him means nothing to me, it demonstrates your own inability to argue your point. However, for the sake of argument... how about you tell me what ways there are to catch him? Prove your statement correct, friend. Remember though that Lucas himself has stated that if he does everything right under the current mechanics he can escape every time (discounting things like glitches).

It is not entitlement to ask that both players of a game have a chance to win the game, even Lucas agrees that those chances should exist.

Additionally, you keep suggesting that people should "find others that want to fight"... but that's not how eve works. It isn't a game where you enter a consensual PVP arena. The entire game is the arena, by signing up you agree to fight.

I've omitted the rest of your post because you again lied about my intentions and position: I am not asking for things to be served on a silver platter, only that opportunities actually exist.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1492 - 2013-09-19 10:04:50 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Your childish attempt to smear me by simply saying I haven't figured out how to catch him means nothing to me, it demonstrates your own inability to argue your point. However, for the sake of argument... how about you tell me what ways there are to catch him? Prove your statement correct, friend. Remember though that Lucas himself has stated that if he does everything right under the current mechanics he can escape every time (discounting things like glitches).
His suggestion was this:
Andy Landen wrote:
If you are having a hard time believing me when I said that Lucas can easily get caught even if he is perfectly attentive, then consider the effect of bubbles on targets which may not be expecting them in certain key locations while cloaked blues signal the spiders to come in when the prey is caught.
While it's a bit much to say infiltrate a blue corp to catch one player, he's right in the regard that if I get bubbled or pointed by a blue, I'm going to die. Chances of that are pretty slim though. Almost nobody would burn a spy for a single miner kill.
If you were in an interceptor, you jumped in, then warped straight to the right grav (it's not hard to figure out which grav I'm most likely to be in), I would have about a half second gap though. That's a pretty slim escape opportunity.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1493 - 2013-09-19 10:10:46 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
I disagree that it would require "randomness" to achieve this variation. I agree that it shouldn't be a dice roll as to who wins, but I believe such variation should - and can - exist, and could be tailored such that it comes from smarts, skill, diligence of the players involved. It wouldn't be "random", but would instead be based on the inherent differences between both individual players, and corporation and alliances.

In all honesty, I used to see a lot of that in wormhole space. I believe that the removal of local coupled with the much more limited ability to project force (200 capitals supers can't just be brought in if things go awry) are what allow for this to happen in wormhole space.
How?
If both you and I do our jobs perfectly every time, how is is possible to get a different outcome without adding an element of random? Explain that to me.


Well what if part of the "perfect" steps you had to take depended on things that inherently varied.

For example - and this is purely an example, I'm not suggesting this as part of a fix - if one of the steps, as a hunter or a local, was simply asking corpmates something: Have you seen anyone in the surrounding few systems in the last hour? How long as XX been sitting in system YY? Did anyone see what ship XX was in? If you ask at 4am when everyone in your corp is asleep, there will be less intel, and the outcome may then be different.

Or if, as another example, gathering intel used modules and skills (the same way probes do, but I don't mean probes in particular). In this case, the effectiveness of what you're doing is based on which version of the modules you bought and your skills. Perhaps you only took Relevant Skill to level 4, as thats good enough 90% of the time... but one day you encounter a hunter who has it at 5, and they have a slight advantage this time.

Of course, with that latter example you could then argue that you are not "doing your job perfectly" unless you have the skills maxed out and the best modules possible... but realistically thats fine, because people make those concessions all the time, otherwise everyone in wormhole space would have virtue set implants :p

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1494 - 2013-09-19 10:22:49 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Well what if part of the "perfect" steps you had to take depended on things that inherently varied.

For example - and this is purely an example, I'm not suggesting this as part of a fix - if one of the steps, as a hunter or a local, was simply asking corpmates something: Have you seen anyone in the surrounding few systems in the last hour? How long as XX been sitting in system YY? Did anyone see what ship XX was in? If you ask at 4am when everyone in your corp is asleep, there will be less intel, and the outcome may then be different.

Or if, as another example, gathering intel used modules and skills (the same way probes do, but I don't mean probes in particular). In this case, the effectiveness of what you're doing is based on which version of the modules you bought and your skills. Perhaps you only took Relevant Skill to level 4, as thats good enough 90% of the time... but one day you encounter a hunter who has it at 5, and they have a slight advantage this time.

Of course, with that latter example you could then argue that you are not "doing your job perfectly" unless you have the skills maxed out and the best modules possible... but realistically thats fine, because people make those concessions all the time, otherwise everyone in wormhole space would have virtue set implants :p
But in neither case I would be doing it perfectly. If it required intel external to my system, I'd run alts to gather that constantly. If it was based on a skill I'd have that skill maxed. You have to think that regardless of what the system entails, if there is any way to detect people you can be damn sure I'll be doing exactly that.
Without randomness, it's utterly impossible for us to both do our jobs perfectly and the outcome to ever differ. One will always win and one will always lose.

Also, if it was something that relied on alliance intel, you'd be punishing smaller alliances and timezone specific alliances unfairly. I don't ever need to worry about being alone. I don't think I've ever logged on and been the only one in my corp online, let alone in my alliance.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1495 - 2013-09-19 13:52:50 UTC  |  Edited by: TheGunslinger42
Lucas Kell wrote:
But in neither case I would be doing it perfectly. If it required intel external to my system, I'd run alts to gather that constantly. If it was based on a skill I'd have that skill maxed. You have to think that regardless of what the system entails, if there is any way to detect people you can be damn sure I'll be doing exactly that.
Without randomness, it's utterly impossible for us to both do our jobs perfectly and the outcome to ever differ. One will always win and one will always lose.

Also, if it was something that relied on alliance intel, you'd be punishing smaller alliances and timezone specific alliances unfairly. I don't ever need to worry about being alone. I don't think I've ever logged on and been the only one in my corp online, let alone in my alliance.


Say there were some modules or skills related to this, if you took the time to train them all to five, and are willing to buy the best version of the mods and have them fitted then I think that's good and at that point I have little problem with you being able to regularly escape. You've put in a substantial investment, or made a compromise with your fitting - as a result you should have better chances :)

I still don't think you should have absolute certainty, but I think new more involved mechanics could still allow for such variance. In the theoretical example where part of it may be relying on corpmates (or alts) to gather parts of the intel, the mechanics of this theoretical New Intel Gathering procedure could be such that doing it entirely yourself with alts makes it inherently less of a sure thing. A single person attempting to use four alts to watch - or even better, actually perform some intel gathering actions - is more likely to miss something than four separate people. And even if you could do it sufficiently, it acts as a considerable trade off for the result you want
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1496 - 2013-09-19 15:31:02 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:

Andy Landen wrote:
If you are having a hard time believing me when I said that Lucas can easily get caught even if he is perfectly attentive, then consider the effect of bubbles on targets which may not be expecting them in certain key locations while cloaked blues signal the spiders to come in when the prey is caught.
While it's a bit much to say infiltrate a blue corp to catch one player, he's right in the regard that if I get bubbled or pointed by a blue, I'm going to die. Chances of that are pretty slim though. Almost nobody would burn a spy for a single miner kill.
If you were in an interceptor, you jumped in, then warped straight to the right grav (it's not hard to figure out which grav I'm most likely to be in), I would have about a half second gap though. That's a pretty slim escape opportunity.


I'd argue that AWOXing is a result of the intel that Local provides. If that is Andy's sole suggestion, then he is actually arguing in favor of the point made by Mag's, Nikk, The Gunslinger, me, et. al. If there are other tactics, then providing examples would be a good idea.

As for the Grav site, keep in mind the probability you are discussing is:

Prob(Getting Caught | Warped to the right Grav site)

vs.

Prob(Getting Caught)

We need to be clear which probability we are talking about since the two are not the same unless we have:

Prob(Warped to the Right Grav site) = 1, i.e. a special case not the general case.

If The Gunslinger is talking about Prob(Getting Caught) and Lucas is talking about Prob(Getting Caught | Warped to the right Grav site) then both would in effect be "talking past each other".

"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
#1497 - 2013-09-19 15:51:32 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
I'd argue that AWOXing is a result of the intel that Local provides. If that is Andy's sole suggestion, then he is actually arguing in favor of the point made by Mag's, Nikk, The Gunslinger, me, et. al. If there are other tactics, then providing examples would be a good idea.

As for the Grav site, keep in mind the probability you are discussing is:

Prob(Getting Caught | Warped to the right Grav site)

vs.

Prob(Getting Caught)

We need to be clear which probability we are talking about since the two are not the same unless we have:

Prob(Warped to the Right Grav site) = 1, i.e. a special case not the general case.

If The Gunslinger is talking about Prob(Getting Caught) and Lucas is talking about Prob(Getting Caught | Warped to the right Grav site) then both would in effect be "talking past each other".
All i was saying is that people do get caught by fast ships jumping to the right grav, thus showing that the claims of having no chance to kill are not entirely accurate.

The bit we are talking back and forth which I'm still not sure is getting across is that any mechanic can be mastered. If both sides fully master their mechanics, there has to be a winner and a loser, and that result will not change. unless one side or the other makes some kind of error, the result will always be the same.
And that's what happens at the moment. If I make no errors, I escape, no matter how perfect the tackler. Note, that doesn't mean I effortlessly survive. It takes effort to ensure I am always positioned right, I'm watching local, I'm watching regional intel and I'm not looking away, ever. If using my hauler, I'm having to ensure there's sufficient clear systems around me to get an emergency warp out before taking him out.
If local were to go, but a new method of detecting an entry into the system were to come about, I'd master that, and the position would be the same. If they made it so it worked the other way, that a cloaker doing it right could always catch me, I'd find something else to do, since I would be losing material value for no reason.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1498 - 2013-09-19 16:06:33 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
I'd argue that AWOXing is a result of the intel that Local provides. If that is Andy's sole suggestion, then he is actually arguing in favor of the point made by Mag's, Nikk, The Gunslinger, me, et. al. If there are other tactics, then providing examples would be a good idea.

As for the Grav site, keep in mind the probability you are discussing is:

Prob(Getting Caught | Warped to the right Grav site)

vs.

Prob(Getting Caught)

We need to be clear which probability we are talking about since the two are not the same unless we have:

Prob(Warped to the Right Grav site) = 1, i.e. a special case not the general case.

If The Gunslinger is talking about Prob(Getting Caught) and Lucas is talking about Prob(Getting Caught | Warped to the right Grav site) then both would in effect be "talking past each other".
All i was saying is that people do get caught by fast ships jumping to the right grav, thus showing that the claims of having no chance to kill are not entirely accurate.

The bit we are talking back and forth which I'm still not sure is getting across is that any mechanic can be mastered. If both sides fully master their mechanics, there has to be a winner and a loser, and that result will not change. unless one side or the other makes some kind of error, the result will always be the same.
And that's what happens at the moment. If I make no errors, I escape, no matter how perfect the tackler. Note, that doesn't mean I effortlessly survive. It takes effort to ensure I am always positioned right, I'm watching local, I'm watching regional intel and I'm not looking away, ever. If using my hauler, I'm having to ensure there's sufficient clear systems around me to get an emergency warp out before taking him out.
If local were to go, but a new method of detecting an entry into the system were to come about, I'd master that, and the position would be the same. If they made it so it worked the other way, that a cloaker doing it right could always catch me, I'd find something else to do, since I would be losing material value for no reason.


I understand that Lucas, just making sure everybody is talking about the same thing so as to avoid...unnecessary disagreement and...ugliness.

As for randomnes as a mechanic, it is inherent in this game far more than is perhaps realized. I've looked up the turret damage mechanism and it is a random process (well okay, it maybe a psuedo random process). First, there is the chance to hit calculation, that number ranges between 0 and 1, and then it is compared to the result of a RNG process. That is the chance to hit is, C, the random number is X, if C > X you hit, otherwise you miss or no damage is done.

"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
#1499 - 2013-09-19 16:16:40 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
I'd argue that AWOXing is a result of the intel that Local provides. If that is Andy's sole suggestion, then he is actually arguing in favor of the point made by Mag's, Nikk, The Gunslinger, me, et. al. If there are other tactics, then providing examples would be a good idea.

As for the Grav site, keep in mind the probability you are discussing is:

Prob(Getting Caught | Warped to the right Grav site)

vs.

Prob(Getting Caught)

We need to be clear which probability we are talking about since the two are not the same unless we have:

Prob(Warped to the Right Grav site) = 1, i.e. a special case not the general case.

If The Gunslinger is talking about Prob(Getting Caught) and Lucas is talking about Prob(Getting Caught | Warped to the right Grav site) then both would in effect be "talking past each other".
All i was saying is that people do get caught by fast ships jumping to the right grav, thus showing that the claims of having no chance to kill are not entirely accurate.

The bit we are talking back and forth which I'm still not sure is getting across is that any mechanic can be mastered. If both sides fully master their mechanics, there has to be a winner and a loser, and that result will not change. unless one side or the other makes some kind of error, the result will always be the same.
And that's what happens at the moment. If I make no errors, I escape, no matter how perfect the tackler. Note, that doesn't mean I effortlessly survive. It takes effort to ensure I am always positioned right, I'm watching local, I'm watching regional intel and I'm not looking away, ever. If using my hauler, I'm having to ensure there's sufficient clear systems around me to get an emergency warp out before taking him out.
If local were to go, but a new method of detecting an entry into the system were to come about, I'd master that, and the position would be the same. If they made it so it worked the other way, that a cloaker doing it right could always catch me, I'd find something else to do, since I would be losing material value for no reason.


I understand that Lucas, just making sure everybody is talking about the same thing so as to avoid...unnecessary disagreement and...ugliness.

As for randomnes as a mechanic, it is inherent in this game far more than is perhaps realized. I've looked up the turret damage mechanism and it is a random process (well okay, it maybe a psuedo random process). First, there is the chance to hit calculation, that number ranges between 0 and 1, and then it is compared to the result of a RNG process. That is the chance to hit is, C, the random number is X, if C > X you hit, otherwise you miss or no damage is done.
Yeah, that's right. But beyond a certain point C=1 rendering the random element useless. There's also a part of it that deals with glancing hits, smashing hits and their damage dealt. But that's generally predictable enough to ignore the randomness beyond a per-hit scale. Things like speeds, acceleration, agility, scrambling, these things are all static. Everything that goes into the scenario of a cloaker jumping into system and catching a miner is static and predictable.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1500 - 2013-09-19 16:23:12 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
The bit we are talking back and forth which I'm still not sure is getting across is that any mechanic can be mastered. If both sides fully master their mechanics, there has to be a winner and a loser, and that result will not change. unless one side or the other makes some kind of error, the result will always be the same.
And that's what happens at the moment. If I make no errors, I escape, no matter how perfect the tackler. Note, that doesn't mean I effortlessly survive. It takes effort to ensure I am always positioned right, I'm watching local, I'm watching regional intel and I'm not looking away, ever. If using my hauler, I'm having to ensure there's sufficient clear systems around me to get an emergency warp out before taking him out.
If local were to go, but a new method of detecting an entry into the system were to come about, I'd master that, and the position would be the same. If they made it so it worked the other way, that a cloaker doing it right could always catch me, I'd find something else to do, since I would be losing material value for no reason.


I understand that Lucas, just making sure everybody is talking about the same thing so as to avoid...unnecessary disagreement and...ugliness.

As for randomnes as a mechanic, it is inherent in this game far more than is perhaps realized. I've looked up the turret damage mechanism and it is a random process (well okay, it maybe a psuedo random process). First, there is the chance to hit calculation, that number ranges between 0 and 1, and then it is compared to the result of a RNG process. That is the chance to hit is, C, the random number is X, if C > X you hit, otherwise you miss or no damage is done.

Actually, there will be a winner or loser, and it won't be due to randomized factors.

It will be due to happenstance.

If Player A is PvE'ing in a belt, and has a manual or automated scan going off every 30 seconds, (roughly as an example), then it really ends up being this:
Will the hostile enter right before, or right after, one of these scans?

If the PvE pilot scans more often, maybe the effective range is reduced due to sensor power needs. Maybe a more expensive booster can compensate for this range drop, but that ties up a low slot they want for boosting damage or mining production.
Will they fit to be safer, in exchange for reduced efficiency?

If they fit for better loot, then they create more opportunity for the hostile to show up when a scan is not going to happen in time to warn the PvE pilot.

No random, all CAN play best possible.

Now, on the hostiles side, I would make them compromise the same way. If they want to blast out a quick D-Scan, I would have that scan energy be detectable to the PvE pilot. (The PvE's scan would also be detectable)
The point is that knowing someone scanned only gives a direction, and relative scan strength. You have NO idea who it is, or what nature of threat is involved.

But a PvE pilot registering an unexpected scan from the direction of a gate, probably doesn't need to wait and verify it's hostile.

Winner: PvE pilot, IF they error on the side of caution.