Player Features and Ideas Discussion

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.