Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I should not have to wait until they are ready.

They should feel threatened 100% of the time too, instead of being confident that a 20 hour afk won't result in death.

You want a double standard, and that's not balanced.

I disagree, having CCP save your bacon is not an optimal solution.

Either save your own bacon or let it burn.

Well I think it is probably going to happen. That is one of the few things they have mentioned in regards to the OA. Pinpointing cloaked ships.

Frankly, I don't know why you are so butthurt about CCP Mike. They have pretty strongly hinted that you'll get your wish. Their hints about local have been much more oblique. If either of us has reason to worried, upset it's me and the people on "my side" of the debate.

What is it with the logoff timer? How about you get logged off while ratting? You can log back in.

CCP has already acknowledged the following:

1. Disrupting NS resource acquisition is very much a reasonable Thing™, and the best way to do that is via AFK cloaking.
2. AFK players, especially ones who are cloaked, do a shockingly low amount of DPS.

Get rid of local then, if you have to be responsible for yourself.



This would be a major pain in the ass for those of us who go weeks at a time without being in systems with dockable stations.

Right, so all market orders should be removed when people log off, after all can't have them impacting players while they arent' even there. And station traders get a log off timer too.

So, we have a system where one set of players can benefit while AFK, but we are not to allow another form of AFK that does not benefit the player engaged in it.

Your inconsistency is duly noted.

Apparently the smilie indicating sarcasm was, as usual, totally lost on you Lucas (here is a hint for you, I don't want to remove market orders, nor AFK cloaking, at least not without some other changes to the game regarding the latter). Sheesh, can't believe I had to explain that one.

And yes, I know there is a difference between market orders and AFK camping. The former makes ISK for a player, the latter does not. Both have an effect on people. When a player puts up a market it order it influences other players who have put up market orders and those who will put market orders. Also, it influences people who are buying from market orders as well. Heck, it even has secondary and tertiary effects as well in that it can have effects that carry over to input markets as well. For example, if a player puts up a market order for good 1, and good 2 is a substitute that new price will impact both the buys and sellers of goods 1 and 2. Plain old standard neoclassical economic theory. So to say that AFK camping affects players, but market orders do not is just plain wrong.

And yes, an AFK cloaker can be neutralized (see Mag's post back up stream and posts by others) Mike, et. al. just don't like those options.

Yes, and to get to the system they want to camp they have to be active and can be countered/neutralized. As Mag's said, these might be insufficient in your opinion, but that does not mean they do not exist.

Similarly you can do things even if they make it that far to render their camping less effectual as has been discussed a number of times. Again, you may not like these solutions or find them lacking, but to deny they exist is just simply dishonest.

And yes, there is an inconsistency here. You find one form of "AFK play" find and dandy, the other you don't. So either be up front and honest that you are being inconsistent or stop trying to pretend there is no inconsistency. Oh, and that passive effort thing...sell orders on the market are passive income if good sell and the player who set them up is AFK or logged out.

And just to be clear since people often run to the absurd here...I think sell orders are fine...I think AFK cloaking is fine (given current mechanics)....so I have no inconsistency.

And if you don't periodically long in to reset your cloak, down time will take care of the AFK cloaker.

Cloaks have lots of purposes in the game, and there are many times when extended periods of cloaking are necessary. I gave one example as I was slow boating to the far side of a gate camp (a side with no celestials). Why should such play be nerfed so yours can be buffed? I have pointed out that nerfing active play to get to the in active "play" is bad game design. I have seen this time and again. People do not like bots so they want to nerf active play to get to the bots, typically with mining and those horrible captchas. There was a thread about people who multi-box all day at PvE so the solution was to nerf PvE in general with a fatigue type of effect for PvE. I thought that was horrible because if I wait all week to log in for 4-5 hours and do stuff I should be allowed. Trying to solve a problem by nerfing a larger group of players when your target is a sub-group of players that is just simply bad.

Oh, and my initial comment about AFK regarding sell orders, that was aimed at Lucas, not you. You felt compelled to shove your nose into the discussion and try to argue a false equivalency. If AFK isn't your problem, then shut up.

Oh, and trust me, if you had an alliance that wanted to deal with an AFK cloaker...it wouldn't be a problem.