These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals

First post First post
Author
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#361 - 2015-01-20 01:43:12 UTC
Delegate wrote:

You are repeating this empty argument again, even though it was refuted few pages back. But ok, lets waste few dozens of words to state what's obvious and what was already mentioned in this thread.

You see, I could take your wording and use it – as is – in whatever I'm currently arguing about null. Or I could replace “null” with “low-sec” and here I have an omnipotent argument against changes in low-sec. Don't like d-scan changes to recons? Go take this template add "low-sec" after "null" and you are done. Perhaps you aren't satisfied with bubble mechanics? Here you have a ready-made argument, no need to change even a letter.
Why is this argument so omnipotent (read: devoid of merit)? Because there is nothing in it but two obvious truths about pretty much every game out there:
- if you have >40,000 players at peak hours, statistics say many dozens will screw-up, this way or the other, and and will end up on a kill board,
- humans aren't perfect; they may not react optimally, they may not pay attention, etc.

Does this mean no balance change should ever be made to any game? For you know: what's written above is statistics and basic truths about human attention. They hold whatever game and whatever balance changes you are considering...

So what brought us to this fallacy?

Balancing game is about weighting certain mechanics against other mechanics on the basis of their merits. Its not about denying the need for changes by invoking the law of truly large numbers – and that is what Bullet is doing here(*). Its also not about denying the need for changes by invoking shortcoming of human attention. Whatever stupid mistake you imagine, its likely to be happen dozens of times daily, because – you see – a lot of players are logging in every day. What does those basic statistical facts tell us about d-scan, recons, cloaking, jump fatigue or sov mechanics? Not much. Not much indeed. Because they simply aren't arguments in balance debate.

I pointed this out before, albeit within two sentences – which seemed more than enough, given how pathetic the argument is in the first place. But hey... we're wasting words in this thread, aren't we?

(*) Of course Bullet is invoking that law in a very one-sided way. One could easily say that there couldn't possibly be any balance issues behind afk cloaking, when so many asteroids are mined every day. So why we are reading this fallacy one way but not the other way? ... Because some players will never accept any possibility that the game mechanics may let them be ganked. We know that since like... page 10.

Yes you are asking for risk to disappear by advocating a change that make local a perfect early warning tool. And please don't repeat again how 40,000 players will still generate kills or how someone may not pay attention while ratting. You are confusing risk with ineptitude.


None of what you indicate here gives us any reason why a developer wouldn't include the ability of a person to react to an event in the game as a factor in balance considerations. You don't think that devs are aware of human factors when they design or consider how ships might be used in a fleet fight with logistics as an example? Or differentiating the warp speeds of different classes of ships? Reaction time and other squishy factors like human behavior has been mentioned in dev blogs and posts as part of their considerations and has been cited in this very thread.

Quote:
Of course Bullet is invoking that law in a very one-sided way. One could easily say that there couldn't possibly be any balance issues behind afk cloaking, when so many asteroids are mined every day. So why we are reading this fallacy one way but not the other way?


This isnt a case of a=b and a=c so b must therefore equal c. Just one case of a player losing a ship despite having warning invalidates the statement 'local is a perfect intel tool.' One. That's it. The converse, that there's too much mining therefore there isn't a balance issue revolving around AFK cloaking can't be shown to be inaccurate. The former can, that's the difference.

Quote:
Yes you are asking for risk to disappear by advocating a change that make local a perfect early warning tool. And please don't repeat again how 40,000 players will still generate kills or how someone may not pay attention while ratting. You are confusing risk with ineptitude.


Local already exists and I'm not advocating any changes to it at all, any I really haven't said how I actually feel about it other than trying to show that you and others have a fixation on local when my own original arguments against cloaking centered on the risk associated with the cloaked ship itself, which is, no matter how much you want to deny it, not exclusively tied to local.
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#362 - 2015-01-20 01:47:09 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Bullet Therapist wrote:
The issue that I have is that it is a powerful tool that has very few drawbacks right now and that a player can remain in a ship, cloaked in space indefinitely.



Its the only counter to the insta intel that is local.


Or interceptors, other fast frigates, interdictors, logoffs, or awox alts. It's not the only counter, it's a counter, and again, for the thousandth time, I'm not asking for it to be removed, or even that local not be changed. The argument here is that local isn't perfect and that cloaking should have a limiting factor.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#363 - 2015-01-20 02:02:56 UTC
Bullet Therapist wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Bullet Therapist wrote:
The issue that I have is that it is a powerful tool that has very few drawbacks right now and that a player can remain in a ship, cloaked in space indefinitely.



Its the only counter to the insta intel that is local.


Or interceptors, other fast frigates, interdictors, logoffs, or awox alts. It's not the only counter, it's a counter, and again, for the thousandth time, I'm not asking for it to be removed, or even that local not be changed. The argument here is that local isn't perfect and that cloaking should have a limiting factor.


All of those ships and tactics show up in local the instant they enter the system. They are not a counter to it.

AFK cloaking is the only thing that can mess with this instant intel.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#364 - 2015-01-20 02:09:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
baltec1 wrote:
Bullet Therapist wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Bullet Therapist wrote:
The issue that I have is that it is a powerful tool that has very few drawbacks right now and that a player can remain in a ship, cloaked in space indefinitely.



Its the only counter to the insta intel that is local.


Or interceptors, other fast frigates, interdictors, logoffs, or awox alts. It's not the only counter, it's a counter, and again, for the thousandth time, I'm not asking for it to be removed, or even that local not be changed. The argument here is that local isn't perfect and that cloaking should have a limiting factor.


All of those ships and tactics show up in local the instant they enter the system. They are not a counter to it.

AFK cloaking is the only thing that can mess with this instant intel.

If your using the literal sense, then absolutely nothing that is legal is a counter since you can't remove yourself from local. AFK cloaking would be a counter to something the other pilots assess from that Intel. The Intel hasn't been fooled or changed.

I should clarify that if your going to use the literal sense then there are very few imperfect things in eve.
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#365 - 2015-01-20 02:11:22 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Bullet Therapist wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Bullet Therapist wrote:
The issue that I have is that it is a powerful tool that has very few drawbacks right now and that a player can remain in a ship, cloaked in space indefinitely.



Its the only counter to the insta intel that is local.


Or interceptors, other fast frigates, interdictors, logoffs, or awox alts. It's not the only counter, it's a counter, and again, for the thousandth time, I'm not asking for it to be removed, or even that local not be changed. The argument here is that local isn't perfect and that cloaking should have a limiting factor.


All of those ships and tactics show up in local the instant they enter the system. They are not a counter to it.

AFK cloaking is the only thing that can mess with this instant intel.


If they catch anything they are. That's the point right?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#366 - 2015-01-20 02:12:32 UTC
Rowells wrote:

If your using the literal sense, then absolutely nothing that is legal is a counter since you can't remove yourself from local. AFK cloaking would be a counter to something the other pilots assess from that Intel. The Intel hasn't been fooled or changed.


If you have something sitting in local doing nothing for hours to days at a time thats defeating the intel.



baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#367 - 2015-01-20 02:14:55 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Bullet Therapist wrote:


If they catch anything they are. That's the point right?


No.

That vast vast bulk will be watching local and will scamper at the first sign of something hostile entering the system. AFK cloaking defeats this intel system, its the only thing that can defeat this intel system. You cannot remove AFK cloaking and leave local as it is.
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#368 - 2015-01-20 02:24:51 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Bullet Therapist wrote:


If they catch anything they are. That's the point right?


No.

That vast vast bulk will be watching local and will scamper at the first sign of something hostile entering the system. AFK cloaking defeats this intel system, its the only thing that can defeat this intel system. You cannot remove AFK cloaking and leave local as it is.


Yeah, I think it is. If you're catching them, you've circumvented or used local to your advantage (i.e. caught fleeing ships in bubbles on the station.)

Quote:
That vast vast bulk


Not everyone.

Quote:
its the only thing that can defeat this intel system


No, it isn't.

Quote:
You cannot remove AFK cloaking and leave local as it is.


Yes, you can actually, but I'm not even asking for that anyhow.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#369 - 2015-01-20 02:25:03 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Rowells wrote:

If your using the literal sense, then absolutely nothing that is legal is a counter since you can't remove yourself from local. AFK cloaking would be a counter to something the other pilots assess from that Intel. The Intel hasn't been fooled or changed.


If you have something sitting in local doing nothing for hours to days at a time thats defeating the intel.




Nothing that local does tells you that he is inactive. The assumption as to whether or not the pilot is active or inactive is exactly that. An assumption. You can choose to treat him as AFK or as active. Local doesn't give you that.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#370 - 2015-01-20 02:29:18 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Bullet Therapist wrote:

Yeah, I think it is. If you're catching them, you've circumvented or used local to your advantage (i.e. caught fleeing ships in bubbles on the station.)


At what point do they not show up in local? People not paying attention does not mean you have circumvented or used local to your advantage. It simply means some idiot wasn't using their tools.

Bullet Therapist wrote:

Not everyone.


Just damn near everyone.

Bullet Therapist wrote:

No, it isn't.


I just rubbished all of your last argument for this.

Bullet Therapist wrote:

Yes, you can actually, but I'm not even asking for that anyhow.


No, you cant. You would have an unfallable intel system with no counters if you remove AFK cloaking.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#371 - 2015-01-20 02:30:49 UTC
Rowells wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Rowells wrote:

If your using the literal sense, then absolutely nothing that is legal is a counter since you can't remove yourself from local. AFK cloaking would be a counter to something the other pilots assess from that Intel. The Intel hasn't been fooled or changed.


If you have something sitting in local doing nothing for hours to days at a time thats defeating the intel.




Nothing that local does tells you that he is inactive. The assumption as to whether or not the pilot is active or inactive is exactly that. An assumption. You can choose to treat him as AFK or as active. Local doesn't give you that.


Nevertheless this is the only thing we have that can beat local intel.
Delegate
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#372 - 2015-01-20 02:32:41 UTC
Bullet Therapist wrote:
None of what you indicate here gives us any reason why a developer wouldn't include the ability of a person to react to an event in the game as a factor in balance considerations. You don't think that devs are aware of human factors when they design or consider how ships might be used in a fleet fight with logistics as an example? Or differentiating the warp speeds of different classes of ships? Reaction time and other squishy factors like human behavior has been mentioned in dev blogs and posts as part of their considerations and has been cited in this very thread.


So I showed you how you fall to a trivial fallacy when trying to make an “argument”, and your answer is... that devs may look at statistics when balancing the game. Of course they may. Does it make what you call an "argument", a “proof” even, less of a trivial fallacy? No it doesn't.

Bullet Therapist wrote:
This isnt a case of a=b and a=c so b must therefore equal c. Just one case of a player losing a ship despite having warning invalidates the statement 'local is a perfect intel tool.' One.That's it. The converse, that there's too much mining therefore there isn't a balance issue revolving around AFK cloaking can't be shown to be inaccurate. The former can, that's the difference.


Its a case when a fallacious "argument" can be used to support "A" as well as "not A" - because it's not really an argument. I can spin status-quo to say that local is ok (kills are made) or to say that afk cloaking is ok (mining is made). But of course you came up with some contorted “too much mining” and “A=B”.

Bullet Therapist wrote:
Local already exists and I'm not advocating any changes to it at all, any I really haven't said how I actually feel about it other than trying to show that you and others have a fixation on local when my own original arguments against cloaking centered on the risk associated with the cloaked ship itself, which is, no matter how much you want to deny it, not exclusively tied to local.


The balance issue involves both cloaking and local. I don't know where you came up with this "exclusively tied to local": for example its tied to cyno too, which – again – was pointed in the first 10 pages.

Either way, I don't see a point in refuting trivial fallacies.
Delegate
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#373 - 2015-01-20 02:35:46 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Bullet Therapist wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Bullet Therapist wrote:
The issue that I have is that it is a powerful tool that has very few drawbacks right now and that a player can remain in a ship, cloaked in space indefinitely.



Its the only counter to the insta intel that is local.


Or interceptors, other fast frigates, interdictors, logoffs, or awox alts. It's not the only counter, it's a counter, and again, for the thousandth time, I'm not asking for it to be removed, or even that local not be changed. The argument here is that local isn't perfect and that cloaking should have a limiting factor.


All of those ships and tactics show up in local the instant they enter the system. They are not a counter to it.

AFK cloaking is the only thing that can mess with this instant intel.


Now go to page 10 and read few top posts there. Surprise!
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#374 - 2015-01-20 02:36:48 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Rowells wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Rowells wrote:

If your using the literal sense, then absolutely nothing that is legal is a counter since you can't remove yourself from local. AFK cloaking would be a counter to something the other pilots assess from that Intel. The Intel hasn't been fooled or changed.


If you have something sitting in local doing nothing for hours to days at a time thats defeating the intel.




Nothing that local does tells you that he is inactive. The assumption as to whether or not the pilot is active or inactive is exactly that. An assumption. You can choose to treat him as AFK or as active. Local doesn't give you that.


Nevertheless this is the only thing we have that can beat local intel.

That's the thing, it can't beat it. You are essentially working against the intelligence of the other person. Which is how most other ways around it work.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#375 - 2015-01-20 02:42:21 UTC
Rowells wrote:

That's the thing, it can't beat it. You are essentially working against the intelligence of the other person. Which is how most other ways around it work.


After sitting in local for a few days/weeks they ignore you. Its as close as we can get to not showing up in local.

Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#376 - 2015-01-20 02:49:45 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Bullet Therapist wrote:

Yeah, I think it is. If you're catching them, you've circumvented or used local to your advantage (i.e. caught fleeing ships in bubbles on the station.)


At what point do they not show up in local? People not paying attention does not mean you have circumvented or used local to your advantage. It simply means some idiot wasn't using their tools.

Bullet Therapist wrote:

Not everyone.


Just damn near everyone.

Bullet Therapist wrote:

No, it isn't.


I just rubbished all of your last argument for this.

Bullet Therapist wrote:

Yes, you can actually, but I'm not even asking for that anyhow.


No, you cant. You would have an unfallable intel system with no counters if you remove AFK cloaking.


Weren't you the one chastising people in a battleship thread for not being able to invent new fits to ride along with harpy gangs in their megathron? Now, here you're telling me that you can't fit up an interceptor to catch an afk isktar at an anomaly or you can't catch one floating into a station with a dictor? That using local to bring potential targets to a central location isn't using local to your advantage? Sorry, it's not the only tool or the only counter, even if you're not able to see other potential solutions.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#377 - 2015-01-20 02:57:17 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Bullet Therapist wrote:


Weren't you the one chastising people in a battleship thread for not being able to invent new fits to ride along with harpy gangs in their megathron? Now, here you're telling me that you can't fit up an interceptor to catch an afk isktar at an anomaly or you can't catch one floating into a station with a dictor? That using local to bring potential targets to a central location isn't using local to your advantage? Sorry, it's not the only tool or the only counter, even if you're not able to see other potential solutions.


Feel free to show us an intercepter that can be fitted to not show up in local. Same for a dictor.

Incidentally, people are told to not warp to a station. Once again, idiots are not the norm, damn near everyone warps to a POS or safe.
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#378 - 2015-01-20 03:14:10 UTC
Delegate wrote:

So I showed you how you fall to a trivial fallacy when trying to make an “argument”, and your answer is... that devs may look at statistics when balancing the game. Of course they may. Does it make what you call an "argument", a “proof” even, less of a trivial fallacy? No it doesn't.

Its a case when a fallacious "argument" can be used to support "A" as well as "not A" - because it's not really an argument. I can spin status-quo to say that local is ok (kills are made) or to say that afk cloaking is ok (mining is made). But of course you came up with some contorted “too much mining” and “A=B”.

The balance issue involves both cloaking and local. I don't know where you came up with this "exclusively tied to local": for example its tied to cyno too, which – again – was pointed in the first 10 pages.

Either way, I don't see a point in refuting trivial fallacies.


Quote:
So I showed you how you fall to a trivial fallacy when trying to make an “argument”, and your answer is... that devs may look at statistics when balancing the game. Of course they may. Does it make what you call an "argument", a “proof” even, less of a trivial fallacy? No it doesn't.


Wrong. You implied that devs shouldn't consider human factors in their consideration of balancing game mechanics; that instead they should look at only the merits of the mechanics themselves. My statement was intended to show you that this assertion is incorrect.

Quote:
Its a case when a fallacious "argument" can be used to support "A" as well as "not A" - because it's not really an argument. I can spin status-quo to say that local is ok (kills are made) or to say that afk cloaking is ok (mining is made). But of course you came up with some contorted “too much mining” and “A=B”.


You and others have made the claim that local is perfect intel. A statement like this is disprovable and has been proven to be false. Your own analogous argument was intended show that my statement was ambiguous, which it is not. Perfection is a binary condition, either a system is or it isn't. Even one flaw (of which there are many with this statement) shows it's inaccuracy.

Quote:

The balance issue involves both cloaking and local. I don't know where you came up with this "exclusively tied to local": for example its tied to cyno too, which – again – was pointed in the first 10 pages.


You forgot the 'not' in the 'not exclusively tied to local,' which, it kind of changes the meaning of my statement.

Quote:
Either way, I don't see a point in refuting trivial fallacies.


Yet here you are.
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#379 - 2015-01-20 03:18:52 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Bullet Therapist wrote:


Weren't you the one chastising people in a battleship thread for not being able to invent new fits to ride along with harpy gangs in their megathron? Now, here you're telling me that you can't fit up an interceptor to catch an afk isktar at an anomaly or you can't catch one floating into a station with a dictor? That using local to bring potential targets to a central location isn't using local to your advantage? Sorry, it's not the only tool or the only counter, even if you're not able to see other potential solutions.


Feel free to show us an intercepter that can be fitted to not show up in local. Same for a dictor.

Incidentally, people are told to not warp to a station. Once again, idiots are not the norm, damn near everyone warps to a POS or safe.


Safes are scannable and a POS can still be bubbled.

No, most ratting ships don't fit a cloak, and most POSs aren't covered in guns and ewar.

Feel free to show me an isktar that can warp out of an anomaly in the time a 2 second aligning 11.3 au/s ares can land on grid.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#380 - 2015-01-20 03:25:40 UTC
Bullet Therapist wrote:


Safes are scannable and a POS can still be bubbled.


Yep, a dictor is going to instantly know exactly which of the dosens of POS the enemy will warp to and will instantly know where their safe spot is.


Bullet Therapist wrote:

No, most ratting ships don't fit a cloak, and most POSs aren't covered in guns and ewar.


Most ishtars do fit a cloak and near every single POS has guns

Bullet Therapist wrote:

Feel free to show me an isktar that can warp out of an anomaly in the time a 2 second aligning 11.3 au/s ares can land on grid.


All of them?

It takes longer than 2 seconds just to D-scan the right anom they are in.