Assembly Hall

Well I wouldn't recommend bots obviously. But I think having the game on and not being there is completely legitimate.



My guys do it often: http://haha.eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=23134169



Subs couldn't be found actually. They just sort of dropped mines and hoped. Maybe a structure module with really low EHP that can be used to probe/scan bombers within 50 KM? That way bombers can blow them up (interaction) but they can be used to sort of find where the bomber is within 50KM.

No kill id found, the few I did find did not have what I consider a decent tank, in fact most did not have many tank modules at all or what they did have was not sufficient. As such deserved what they got.




Ok cat out of the bag, while I cannot go into details, I am former USN and a Sonar tech who did anti sub warfare, Yes I could find and pinpoint location of subs and did so on a regular basis, since it was not war at the time we did not blow any up. however there exists many tools besides mines and depth charges to do so and my knowledge is from over 20 years ago. However this is a game where the technology is very advanced past what we have in the real world, SO I am confident it would not be too hard to find and achieve a missile lock on passive emissions from a cloaked ship. Difficult yes Impossible No, Shooting in the dark would be nice too if we could passively see a distortion in the star field. current mechanics do not allow for that.

As to your first statement, I agree that getting up to go to the head or to go fix a sandwich should not be worried about as far as afk or not. However someone who is able to log on whilst doing something else becomes a non active participant. A non active participant should not be able to affect the gameplay of an active participant.
so In this you and I have a large difference in opinion.

its plane and simple a cloak should use a fuel and have a time limit its that simple there is a counter for everything in eve but this at the very least you should be able to probe them down will a third tear of probes

You are assuming that AFK play is either unintended, or not balanced.

Maybe you would not word it this way, but the result of your change would reflect this view more than any other.

I must point out, that holding SOV grants LIMITED but significant leverage, NOT OWNERSHIP of the space itself.

1. You have the ability to control access to all the outposts. This is HUGE, since players cannot mount combat operations without a staging area to launch them from.
2. You have already defined the ability to remove non friendly POS locations, denying even their limited staging ability.
THESE TWO points force hostile players to travel from their staging areas, or carry everything with them with risk of exposure.
When they need to travel to where you are, YOU have the leverage to place combat forces at the bottlenecks needed by the majority of fighting craft, blocking them convenient access.

Your alliance is never relieved of duty, in needing to prevent access by those who would shoot at you.

The entire existence of jump drives, as well as stealth cloaking, is to bypass the gate camp bottlenecks, so noone can be safe if someone is willing to make the extra effort.

It's a game, we DON'T want winners, or the game ENDS.

Summary: Blocking AFK play as you suggested would result in the balance shifting towards sov holders, by making access to their space harder to maintain by hostiles.
We don't want BLOB or GTFO game play, and I feel this would push null in that direction.

Interesting, I would suggest you go back a few pages and read what Nikk has been posting. He merely suggests that your idea would create more imbalanced play than it would correct. I agree with Nikk in that.
You will find on those pages several suggestions that include a way to find cloaked vessels. However I think we all wish for it to be balanced so that both sides have a reasonable chance to succeed in what they want to do. This is of course should follow the rules laid out in one of my post in respect to afk game play.
Please read up, then make informed suggestions, please keep in mind that we need balanced game play for all, regardless of if we like how the other side plays.

Nice I wish there were more interaction like this, also the other way as I was referring to exhumer kills.



agreed



This is a delicate matter, as you stated there are many aspects of the game that allows for interaction while not at the computer. on this I totally agree with you. I think the problem lies in defining what is active game play. Communication and notifications out of game is a standard set by CCP, (eve gate for example) however how much should a person not in game be allowed to affect someone who is in game.

For instance I get a notification that someone is hitting one of my towers. Im at work I cant leave but I can text a corp mate and have them go defend the pos, while this communication allows me to defend my pos, it does take time and eventually requires someone In game to react to the threat. This is different than if I was in game when the pos was first attacked.

Using the above example, both the out of game and ingame players have a means to interact with each other. However if I am away from the game, logged in, afk, cloaked and just sitting while I go to the store or in your case a three day trip, I may not be able to attack anyone but I am still affecting the gameplay of active players as they have no way to tell if I am there or not.
In that respect I believe the active players should have a way to interact with me. Current mechanics do not allow that.
This is different than be getting into a system, cloaking up then logging off for a few days and coming back logging in and then active camping. That sort of thing I expect and I am ok with.

While I agree with you what he said is wrong. However what you Said is Just as wrong, There is a problem. If you are cloaked there is No way possible to tell if you are At KeyBoard or Away from Keyboard. That is why most do not undock with a neut in local. And it is not just because that one neut is in local, That one can become Many instantly.
Herein lies one aspect of the problem. Instead of spouting "you cowards!"
why do you not suggest viable solutions to the issue that would encourage people to undock?
If you care to read many previous post we have many arguments good and bad on both sides of the issue with several propositions that would have merit.
You sir give appearance that you want Easily defeated ships to undock under your guns so you can get easy kills, If that is so you are looking for the Theme park Version of EVE. I hope it never comes to that.
Most of us that have been regular posters to this thread are seeking more interaction and more challenge.
If I wanted easy kills I would be sitting off the undock in jita or many other gank places and pop red pods all day.
I like the challenge of the fight, win or lose. I believe that both sides should have a reasonable chance of success.

PVE ships can all fit a decent tank and tackle. Then they call their PVP friends (or mains) to finish the job.

If PVE ships could fit tank, tackle AND guns, they would be PVP ships.

I see what you mean, but... mining ships able to take on a T3 cruiser??? Seems too much...



I admit not being familiar with blops dropping miners, but couldn't the miners just have a noobship with a cyno standing by? Wouldn't a single carrier jumping in within 30 seconds or so be enough to keep them alive enough time for some other friends to join the party?

as to the subject of T3 cruisers.
If you fly one you know that putting a cloak on it nerfs not only the damage and lock time but also the fit,
and it is a cruiser after all, A well fit cloaked t3 and a well fit skiff should be interesting.