Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Yes... I understand it was sarcasm about removing them, however comparing them wasn't.

Yes, putting an order up does. Once the order is up though another player can override it, and an AFK marketeer can't touch it. A cloaker continues to have a direct and unremovable impact, while a market order is simply the remaining impact of the old action, just waiting for someone to override it.

You know this too, you're just going to keep pushing this as if they have something in common, trying to make it so that for me to want AFK cloaking gone, I have to want offline market orders gone. And again, you still don't seem to want to address the fact that
AFK cloaking has a timezone bias too.

No, they can be avoided, and they can be prepared for, but the can't be neutralised.

Sure, plenty of people disagree with me.

Intelligent ones formulate coherent arguments with actual reasoning. You aren't one of those.

Balance entails nerfing or buffing Mike. If a ship is “too powerful” relative to other ships in its class it will get “nerfed” its power will be reduced. We saw this with the Ishtar. We say it with drone assist and carriers. We saw it with the Drake which was, IIRC, buffed then nerfed.

And most suggestions to nerf cloaks would have made slowboating considerably more problematic.

And I was moving a system over Mike. Jesus.

And thanks for confirming finally you want to nerf cloaks in general, whether the pilot is AFK or not.

They can be compared. And a market order does have an impact even if “over-ridden” it represents a price ceiling to the players who are actively trading. Let me run through a simple example. We have a market with 2 sellers, Lucas and Mike. Mike puts 100 units on sale for 100 ISK. Lucas wants to move his stuff sooner and doesn’t want to wait for Mike’s order to be bought out or expire so now he has a maximum price of 100 ISK that was set by Mike. So long as Mike’s order is there, Lucas cannot set his price higher than that and expect to sell anything until Mike’s stuff is all bought or the order expires. So that is a “lasting and unremovable” impact.

And you can want ever you want, but the notion of having an impact is pretty weak and inconsistent, given that there is another example of AFK or even logged off players having an impact on the game.

Not at all.

The overview only reflects intel as a result of actions performed by the pilot while logged in.
Beacons reflect system wide overview items, while other objects must be detectable by the ship's sensors to be included.
The pilot must get within range of an object or player, to see it on their overview.

If the pilot remains in one place, the only new intel they get is focused on pilots, who enter into the range overview covers.
This reflects effort contributed by other players, by intent or happenstance.
There are two specific exceptions to this:
If a pilot is cloaked, they are not shown on the overview so long as the cloak persists.
If a cynosural field is created, it will appear as a beacon on all overviews in the same system.

The overview, defined as such, only reflects items resulting from player action.
(Either maintaining a post at a location, or traveling to where they need to be)

The striking exception to this, which has not been demonstrated as an intended effect, is that the only source of intel while docked in an Outpost is by means of the chat windows.
No overview exists, but you can perversely see a list of all pilots in the system, regardless of status.

Actually, I'm pretty sure they'll get rid of AFK cloaking at some point. Most people would agree that AFK play is bad wherever it occurs (even if Teckos is going to be disingenuous about it), and the obvious timezone bias adds just another reason for it to go. I expect the OAs to do that. They may also get rid of local, but I think the amount of players they haemorrhage would make that a short-lived decision if it's made.

And there you nail the crux of the issue.

The side pushing to keep PvE grinding as painless as possible, want local to tell them even more than it already does.

This has two flaws:

1. Dumbs the game down even further
Maybe some have trouble reconciling the point, but I want to be able to play as a miner, and not have my most probable opponent pushed away.
That guy is another player, and I want the ability to play against him as part of PvE, rather than all or nothing results or a stalemate.

2. Makes PvE in this context something even more mind numbing, as more free intel will mean not only less effort, but less risk.
I can't tell if anyone noticed, but I doubt that the goal of this game aspect was to have players partially AFK while they grind through repetitive and tedious rocks or rats.

If PvE needs to be this safe, and this boring, just automate the grindfest up to the point where we may start to see other players again, as a welcome and content rich element.

If we are seriously going to call this an intended part of a game, it NEEDS to be as fun as the other parts.
Real life provides all the negative influence we need for balance, let's play EVE to enjoy ourselves, not work another job.

Sounds to me like your problem is that PvE mechanics need to be changed, which I agree. Keeping in AFK cloaking as if denying content to others while asleep/at work is a good thing isn't the answer though. And as Cidanel said, AFK cloakers pose no threat, therefore their removal doesn't make anyone safer.

For the love of God....Nikk has been talking about making changes because AFK cloaking is not good. You are wrong Lucas and instead of having an honest debate you have to make claims that are just flat out wrong.

If i'm ratting, i'm actually at the computer playing the game. If logging in at server up, cloaking and sitting there all day is "Gameplay" they may as well allow bots into the game.