These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4181 - 2015-12-09 16:24:00 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Morrigan
The devs know cloaks are broken. The only reason it is interesting to discuss why they are broken is because that gives a chance to identify the least intrusive fix.

I think we are past the point where stonewalling will delay change. It just muddies the water and risks dev intervention being a bit hamfisted.

Linking local to cloaks is relevant insofar as any changes to local should not become a broken cloak surrogate.



Citations needed for ALL of that claptrap.

Last I heard from The Man™ they were working as intended


You may wish to take a note from those clamoring for rigs on freighters..."be careful what you ask for"

CCP Fozie wrote:
It's very important that it be possible to disrupt peoples' money-making in nullsec, and AFK cloaking is one of the most effective ways. We're not worried about cloaked ships being overpowered because cloaked ships do very little DPS.

But we understand it has a pretty big psychological effect. We would like to make some changes...it may not be the changes people are expecting, though. For instance, I can tell you that AFK cloaking is not an issue in wormhole space and there are pretty good reasons for that.


So, that's my source. Where's yours?
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4182 - 2015-12-09 16:48:26 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Morrigan
The devs know cloaks are broken. The only reason it is interesting to discuss why they are broken is because that gives a chance to identify the least intrusive fix.

I think we are past the point where stonewalling will delay change. It just muddies the water and risks dev intervention being a bit hamfisted.

Linking local to cloaks is relevant insofar as any changes to local should not become a broken cloak surrogate.



Citations needed for ALL of that claptrap.

Last I heard from The Man™ they were working as intended


You may wish to take a note from those clamoring for rigs on freighters..."be careful what you ask for"

CCP Fozie wrote:
It's very important that it be possible to disrupt peoples' money-making in nullsec, and AFK cloaking is one of the most effective ways. We're not worried about cloaked ships being overpowered because cloaked ships do very little DPS.

But we understand it has a pretty big psychological effect. We would like to make some changes...it may not be the changes people are expecting, though. For instance, I can tell you that AFK cloaking is not an issue in wormhole space and there are pretty good reasons for that.


So, that's my source. Where's yours?


That source is good enough for me. You missed "But". Its the biggest word in the English language.

The problem is and remains the enduring implicit threat (a pretty big psychological effect as Fozie called it).

It is recognized by the developers and they "would like to make some changes". Do not suppose that is limited to changing local in nullsec.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Estella Osoka
Cranky Bitches Who PMS
#4183 - 2015-12-09 16:54:04 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Morrigan
The devs know cloaks are broken. The only reason it is interesting to discuss why they are broken is because that gives a chance to identify the least intrusive fix.

I think we are past the point where stonewalling will delay change. It just muddies the water and risks dev intervention being a bit hamfisted.

Linking local to cloaks is relevant insofar as any changes to local should not become a broken cloak surrogate.



Citations needed for ALL of that claptrap.

Last I heard from The Man™ they were working as intended


You may wish to take a note from those clamoring for rigs on freighters..."be careful what you ask for"

CCP Fozie wrote:
It's very important that it be possible to disrupt peoples' money-making in nullsec, and AFK cloaking is one of the most effective ways. We're not worried about cloaked ships being overpowered because cloaked ships do very little DPS.

But we understand it has a pretty big psychological effect. We would like to make some changes...it may not be the changes people are expecting, though. For instance, I can tell you that AFK cloaking is not an issue in wormhole space and there are pretty good reasons for that.


So, that's my source. Where's yours?


That source is good enough for me. You missed "But". Its the biggest word in the English language.

The problem is and remains the enduring implicit threat (a pretty big psychological effect as Fozie called it).

It is recognized by the developers and they "would like to make some changes". Do not suppose that is limited to changing local in nullsec.


Why do you think AFK cloaking is not an issue in WH space?
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4184 - 2015-12-09 16:54:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Brokk Witgenstein
Jerghul wrote:

It is recognized by the developers and they "would like to make some changes". Do not suppose that is limited to changing local in nullsec.


Mmmm... that would fix it quite nicely, yes -- but while they're at it they may get rid of some other sources of intel (like ships/rats destroyed in the last hour) to throw of potential invaders. Or produce "false blues". Your guess is as good as mine.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4185 - 2015-12-09 16:59:40 UTC
I don't. But I do know that CCP have an elegant history of doing what the carebears ask whilst still not giving them what they want, or more often, downright nerfing them.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4186 - 2015-12-09 17:36:09 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Morrigan LeSante wrote:
I'm afraid not, but you cling to your edge case.

Lets recap, shall we?

You are:

• Unaware of how a fleet scout operates
• Unaware of how a generic scouting works and the importance of positioning
• Unaware of how wormholers work, live and scan in general
• Unaware of how real scanners operate in game when it matters
• Lacking appreciation of people needing to emergency afk where log off is not an option
• Quite happy to wreck all of these things mentioned in the name of making ratting safer
• Unaware of even HOW your ideas break the aforementioned things and when challenged the response is a mere handwave of 'that wont happen; because'
• Unable to see a link between a cloaked player and local
• Refusing to acknowledge the power of local whilst simultaneous resisting its removal
• Unable to frame the problem in a context relevant anywhere except ratting havens
• Utterly and complete unable to explain to any remote standard why this isn't a problem in lowsec, or NPC null
• Still somehow holding the belief it is "unreasonable" to do PvE in anything sub-optimal
• Claim a cloak is safer than being docked in highsec


But of course, it's me who has no idea what I'm talking about. I mean it's not like I've ever lived and battled in WH, or nullsec, or low and naturally I'm all about "increased safety" as the billions both killed and lost on my killboard can attest to. And you accuse me of being risk averse, the irony is staggering.


You are the one that brought up the edge case as a supposedly compelling argument for the *need* to leave cloaks 100% risk free. It's all about making sure your shiny ships stay shiny ships and don't turn into shiny explosions. You even posted 'chat logs' of some guy claiming he watched for 3 years just to pop your titan... which means either someone logged a titan in unsupported and sat still long enough for people to look it up on a 3 year old spreadsheet or run a locator on it, and get a fleet to it, or else you are claiming they camped that spot for 3 years 23/7 and whacked it before it could do anything. In the first case, that's clearly just incompetence, the second would be an epic case of they really deserved that kill. That second case would be even more epic if it wasn't possible to camp that particular spot in space for 3 years in complete safety.

That you also engage in PvP encounters willingly and lose stuff is irrelevant. That's consensual PvP.

The really tragic part is that you think I don't understand anything, and you want to make large lists of things that are vital to a number of different playstyles, and you think that any and all of that should be able to go on unchallenged by enemies, while I look at the list and think to myself--- if you are doing any of that, and at any point in the middle of it you are in a position to think "eh, I'm safe enough to go make a sandwich, have a smoke, and maybe go tumble the wife in bed for a bit...." then that is a situation that is too safe for the performance of such vital functions.

The more you say in defense of cloaks, the more it proves the cloak to be OP and in need of the introduction to some risk.


Sorry no dice. The reason caps and supers came up because in your ignorance, once again I might add, you tried to equate the act of hunting caps and supers with ganking a miner.

You cling to it so fervently because you have nothing else and well gosh that's just inconvenient.

I like this part "go unchallenged by enemies"...what? Did the big bad cloaker bump you? Because that's all they can do.

You've not been able to refute anything I've said, not even your peni..sorry...super envy is relevant.

And talking of compelling reasons, you're still to produce one which shows cloaks are broken. And no, but I MUST maximise isk/hour isn't one. It's literally the opposite of one.

My Ignorance?

I don't equate supercaps with miners, but neither deserves a button for perfect unbreakable safety. Your entire argument is your big shiny ship might get shot at, and so *needs* cloaking. Why? Because it's a high value target. I don't know which game you are playing, but that's a reason for more risk, not less, and certainly not unbreakable safety for all time. If we are choosing between a titan and a miner, and one of those two must have an entire fleet to operate safely, then the titan fleet is the one.

Your entitlement is so overwhelming that you think it's entirely reasonable that a single miner have a full defense fleet on standby at all times, but your titan should be just fine camped out under a cloak without support- and both ships in an empty system.

Brokk, you have misunderstood my position. My issue is related to implicit threat, but not the same way that Jerghul is concerned with. The Devs recognize that cloaked ships have an effect. My issue is that the ship has that effect, and an important one at that, with no chance of player interruption. I am not against things like defense fleets and such for those unwilling to pvp at all, but I feel that the option should be there for those that will. I don't feel it's reasonable to demand a full defense fleet for every ship that wants to operate at any time, especially when doing so completely undercuts the purpose of any pilot who has the goal of PVE. They can interrupt my ISK making, but I should be able to interrupt their interruption. It should be a contest, not varying degrees of win on one side, and varying degrees of loss on the other.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#4187 - 2015-12-09 18:25:42 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Jerghul wrote:


The problem is and remains the enduring implicit threat (a pretty big psychological effect as Fozie called it).



Sounds like a problem that can be cured with a hearty dose of HTFU.

A "pretty big psychological effect" is pretty much the very definition of, "Your ******* problem to deal with."

Anyway, it's pretty amazing that you can actually run effective PsyOps in Eve. There isn't another game out there that could claim that. Frankly, we need more of this. It's a little sad that AFK cloaking is pretty much the only way to instill terror in the fainthearted without ever actually doing anything to them.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4188 - 2015-12-09 19:11:38 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Morrigan LeSante wrote:
I'm afraid not, but you cling to your edge case.

Lets recap, shall we?

You are:

• Unaware of how a fleet scout operates
• Unaware of how a generic scouting works and the importance of positioning
• Unaware of how wormholers work, live and scan in general
• Unaware of how real scanners operate in game when it matters
• Lacking appreciation of people needing to emergency afk where log off is not an option
• Quite happy to wreck all of these things mentioned in the name of making ratting safer
• Unaware of even HOW your ideas break the aforementioned things and when challenged the response is a mere handwave of 'that wont happen; because'
• Unable to see a link between a cloaked player and local
• Refusing to acknowledge the power of local whilst simultaneous resisting its removal
• Unable to frame the problem in a context relevant anywhere except ratting havens
• Utterly and complete unable to explain to any remote standard why this isn't a problem in lowsec, or NPC null
• Still somehow holding the belief it is "unreasonable" to do PvE in anything sub-optimal
• Claim a cloak is safer than being docked in highsec


But of course, it's me who has no idea what I'm talking about. I mean it's not like I've ever lived and battled in WH, or nullsec, or low and naturally I'm all about "increased safety" as the billions both killed and lost on my killboard can attest to. And you accuse me of being risk averse, the irony is staggering.


You are the one that brought up the edge case as a supposedly compelling argument for the *need* to leave cloaks 100% risk free. It's all about making sure your shiny ships stay shiny ships and don't turn into shiny explosions. You even posted 'chat logs' of some guy claiming he watched for 3 years just to pop your titan... which means either someone logged a titan in unsupported and sat still long enough for people to look it up on a 3 year old spreadsheet or run a locator on it, and get a fleet to it, or else you are claiming they camped that spot for 3 years 23/7 and whacked it before it could do anything. In the first case, that's clearly just incompetence, the second would be an epic case of they really deserved that kill. That second case would be even more epic if it wasn't possible to camp that particular spot in space for 3 years in complete safety.

That you also engage in PvP encounters willingly and lose stuff is irrelevant. That's consensual PvP.

The really tragic part is that you think I don't understand anything, and you want to make large lists of things that are vital to a number of different playstyles, and you think that any and all of that should be able to go on unchallenged by enemies, while I look at the list and think to myself--- if you are doing any of that, and at any point in the middle of it you are in a position to think "eh, I'm safe enough to go make a sandwich, have a smoke, and maybe go tumble the wife in bed for a bit...." then that is a situation that is too safe for the performance of such vital functions.

The more you say in defense of cloaks, the more it proves the cloak to be OP and in need of the introduction to some risk.


Sorry no dice. The reason caps and supers came up because in your ignorance, once again I might add, you tried to equate the act of hunting caps and supers with ganking a miner.

You cling to it so fervently because you have nothing else and well gosh that's just inconvenient.

I like this part "go unchallenged by enemies"...what? Did the big bad cloaker bump you? Because that's all they can do.

You've not been able to refute anything I've said, not even your peni..sorry...super envy is relevant.

And talking of compelling reasons, you're still to produce one which shows cloaks are broken. And no, but I MUST maximise isk/hour isn't one. It's literally the opposite of one.

My Ignorance?

I don't equate supercaps with miners, but neither deserves a button for perfect unbreakable safety. Your entire argument is your big shiny ship might get shot at, and so *needs* cloaking. Why? Because it's a high value target. I don't know which game you are playing, but that's a reason for more risk, not less, and certainly not unbreakable safety for all time. If we are choosing between a titan and a miner, and one of those two must have an entire fleet to operate safely, then the titan fleet is the one.

Your entitlement is so overwhelming that you think it's entirely reasonable that a single miner have a full defense fleet on standby at all times, but your titan should be just fine camped out under a cloak without support- and both ships in an empty system.



No. My position is you break EVERYTHING listed in my post. You know, the one you're quoting, but apparently still not actually reading.


You're one to talk about entitlement, when you're ranting and raving that it's "unreasonable" to bear in anything but the most optimal, paper tanked piece of trash ever to undock. Oh the horror of fitting a ship in nullsec that can bite back.

Highsec is over there, and guess what, cloaking isn't the boogieman either, off you pop now.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4189 - 2015-12-09 19:15:45 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Jerghul wrote:


The problem is and remains the enduring implicit threat (a pretty big psychological effect as Fozie called it).



Sounds like a problem that can be cured with a hearty dose of HTFU.

A "pretty big psychological effect" is pretty much the very definition of, "Your ******* problem to deal with."

Anyway, it's pretty amazing that you can actually run effective PsyOps in Eve. There isn't another game out there that could claim that. Frankly, we need more of this. It's a little sad that AFK cloaking is pretty much the only way to instill terror in the fainthearted without ever actually doing anything to them.


Yah, we should petition to remove jump fatigues to again strike terror into the hearts of fainthearted capital pilots. And whats up with hat arbitrary jump limit through wormholes? I am sure those faint-hearted wormhole denizens would learn to deal with the threat of their assets being raped regularly by fleets of the bigger ships in Eve.

But as we see, enduring implicit threats are a problem in the game's design and are being systematically removed gradually, while new game elements take care not to be vulnerable to enduring implicit threats.

Brokk
Getting rid of local compounds the enduring implicit threat problem. Hence all kinds of devises used in wormhole space to counter implicit threat issues.

Look at the other wh oddities to get an inkling on how the Devs are thinking in regards to reducing the "pretty big psychological effect".

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4190 - 2015-12-09 19:21:31 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Look at the other wh oddities to get an inkling on how the Devs are thinking in regards to reducing the "pretty big psychological effect".



Keep in mind, you're not happy in null with a neut. I doubt you'd even install if it was all like WH space Blink
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4191 - 2015-12-09 19:31:42 UTC
Jerghul wrote:

The solution to their problem as you phrase it is think: "meh", log off, then play something else in their Steam Library. Which turns the issue into a whole different kind of problem.


This is a load of rubbish. There are other things you can do. You keep saying this, but it is simply false and due only to your own limited mindset. “I can’t log in and do X, therefore I’ll log off.” That is indeed one option, but there are also activities A-Z (less X). Pick something else to do.

Quote:
50 supers and 60 titans with the potential to zip across the galaxy in 10 minutes or less represented the same kind of perpetual implicit threat. Though that problem was of course relevant to a much smaller group of highly invested players.


But the problem wasn’t the cloak, especially a guy sitting in a cloaked ship while AFK. It was the jump drives. The ability of those ships to cross the universe so quickly and to be able to get out just as quickly.

Quote:

You know as well as I do that winter is coming.


You keep writing this, but here is what I’m sure of.

1. I’ll adapt to the new environment.
2. You’ll still be the kind of player who logs off when he sees something he doesn’t like in local.
3. In the end, I’ll be fine. You and those like you will still be whining about something that that so “unfair/unbalanced”.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4192 - 2015-12-09 19:33:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Jerghul wrote:

The devs know cloaks are broken.


Fozzie has stated explicitly that he thinks cloaks are quite balanced. I posted a link back upstream you should educate yourself instead of doing an impression of the Amazing Kreskin.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4193 - 2015-12-09 19:36:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Look at the other wh oddities to get an inkling on how the Devs are thinking in regards to reducing the "pretty big psychological effect".



Keep in mind, you're not happy in null with a neut. I doubt you'd even install if it was all like WH space Blink


I am not happy that players think: "meh", then go play some other game in their Steam Library. I am an invested stakeholder, so am not particularly susceptible to in-game adversity (as I think my endless rehashes of a point shows).

"Local spatial phenomena may cause strange effects on your ship systems" is probably a good place to start.

My stab at what the devs may be thinking of is giving sov holders the ability to DYO system that can deploy a great range of installations that mirror wh spatial effects. With entosis links being the on-off switch for these things.

This impacts on enduring implicit threats in the way you might imagine: How likely is it that a afk cloaky camper is in a particular system with a fleet of ships lined up and fitted to be able to operate in that system? If it gets close enough to "thats silly", then the implicit threat is gone.

Any threats that are, must be actual and explicit.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4194 - 2015-12-09 19:43:47 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Morrigan
The devs know cloaks are broken.


Fozzie has stated explicitly that he thinks cloaks are quite balanced. I posted a link back upstream you should educate yourself instead of doing an impression of the Amazing Kreskin.


You too forgot the biggest word in the English language: "But".

Cloaks in isolation are fine. The problem is that they can be used to create an enduring implicit threat.

You don't have the change cloaks to remove the ability to generate enduring implicit threats (see my above post) Blink

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#4195 - 2015-12-09 20:20:27 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Quote:
I am sure those faint-hearted wormhole denizens would learn to deal with the threat of their assets being raped regularly by fleets of the bigger ships in Eve.


...Er... you think that doesn't happen?

That's... that's adorable.

It does happen. They HAVE learned to deal with it.

That's EXACTLY the conditions that pretty much everyone in a WH is playing under. All the time. Even when they think they're the "hunter".

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4196 - 2015-12-09 20:24:57 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Morrigan
The devs know cloaks are broken. The only reason it is interesting to discuss why they are broken is because that gives a chance to identify the least intrusive fix.

I think we are past the point where stonewalling will delay change. It just muddies the water and risks dev intervention being a bit hamfisted.

Linking local to cloaks is relevant insofar as any changes to local should not become a broken cloak surrogate.



Citations needed for ALL of that claptrap.

Last I heard from The Man™ they were working as intended


You may wish to take a note from those clamoring for rigs on freighters..."be careful what you ask for"

CCP Fozie wrote:
It's very important that it be possible to disrupt peoples' money-making in nullsec, and AFK cloaking is one of the most effective ways. We're not worried about cloaked ships being overpowered because cloaked ships do very little DPS.

But we understand it has a pretty big psychological effect. We would like to make some changes...it may not be the changes people are expecting, though. For instance, I can tell you that AFK cloaking is not an issue in wormhole space and there are pretty good reasons for that.


So, that's my source. Where's yours?


That source is good enough for me. You missed "But". Its the biggest word in the English language.

The problem is and remains the enduring implicit threat (a pretty big psychological effect as Fozie called it).

It is recognized by the developers and they "would like to make some changes". Do not suppose that is limited to changing local in nullsec.


And you demonstrate your ignorance. Go back to the source and keep lisntening. Fozzie also goes on to talk about local. The response from the people he is talking to, mainly PvP players, is that local is gone.

Quote:
At the 1:14:04 mark it gets interesting, all the people on that soundcloud heard the same thing I did...local in all of null is going to go bye-bye.

"I just heard Fozzie promise to remove local from all of null sec, is that what everyone else heard?"

"Yeah."

"Yes."

"Certainly sounded that way."

"I cannot confirm or deny that," CCP Fozzie.

Granted, not a post on the CCP forums. But good enough for me.--link to my first post on this


You are just totally wrong here.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4197 - 2015-12-09 20:32:22 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Morrigan
The devs know cloaks are broken.


Fozzie has stated explicitly that he thinks cloaks are quite balanced. I posted a link back upstream you should educate yourself instead of doing an impression of the Amazing Kreskin.


You too forgot the biggest word in the English language: "But".

Cloaks in isolation are fine. The problem is that they can be used to create an enduring implicit threat.

You don't have the change cloaks to remove the ability to generate enduring implicit threats (see my above post) Blink


And you can't check your sources. Seriously you are looking quite ignorant here. What Fozzie said is much more in alignment with my position than yours.

1. Cloaks are not "broken".
2. They'd like the change the current situation.
3. It wont be what most people expect.
4. Wormhole dwellers never complain about a lack of local.

So, my view is local is going to be a delayed chat. Further, based on CCP's statements about the OA there will be a way to hunt cloaked ships. Intel will be vulnerable as will as cloaked ships.

In other words, your ignorance is showing.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4198 - 2015-12-09 21:09:11 UTC
Teckos
Have I in any way been unclear about my issue with cloaks being entirely on how they are used to create enduring implicit threats?

So I repeat. They are fine in isolation, but broken in the context of the game.

Anything that removes implicit threat potential is fine in my books.

Removing local done in isolation creates different form of enduring implicit threat, so that is of course not the solution.

It could however be done (or rather create the possibility that player actions can turn local on and off) only in conjunction with other mechanics seen in wormhole space.

Allowing sovholders to tailor systems they control with mechanism that mirror "natural phenomena" in wormhole space would do it.

It just means ships need to be tailored to fight in a specific system depending on what choices the sov holder has made and what infrastructure modules have been deployed.

The implicit threat goes away once it becomes too silly to assume that a small fleet has been put together and is tailored only to target a player in a particular system.

The only thing that exists then is real and explicit threats.

As a final note; Does it seem as if much care about what you think of me? Its one of the reasons making things about the man instead of about the topic is so inefficient. You need someone who cares for it to work. And that friend, is a poor assumption to always make.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#4199 - 2015-12-09 21:18:21 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Jerghul wrote:

Removing local done in isolation creates different form of enduring implicit threat, so that is of course not the solution.



You keep repeating "enduring implicit threat" as if it is a phrase that has any actual meaning beyond being something you have an entirely subjective aversion to. You seem to think you can just hand-wave away the need to present any actual objective argument through repetition of that phrase - as if we're talking about reducing the rate of real-world terrorism, or pineapple on pizza or something.

Enduring implicit threat is ******* awesome, so now we just have two subjective opinions on the topic, neither of which is of any actual importance. Anyone could easily use the phrase just as often as you, but in the exact opposite context, and it would have just as much meaning.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4200 - 2015-12-09 21:26:41 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Jerghul wrote:

Removing local done in isolation creates different form of enduring implicit threat, so that is of course not the solution.



You keep repeating "enduring implicit threat" as if it is a phrase that has any actual meaning beyond being something you have an entirely subjective aversion to. You seem to think you can just hand-wave away the need to present any actual objective argument through repetition of that phrase - as if we're talking about reducing the rate of real-world terrorism, or pineapple on pizza or something.

Enduring implicit threat is ******* awesome.


Enduring Implicit threats causes the following: people log on, look at screen, think: "Meh", log off, and play something else in their Steam Library.

Perpetual content denial is another term. Or "a pretty big psychological effect" as Fozie termed it. Beloved children have many names:

"CCP Fozie wrote:
It's very important that it be possible to disrupt peoples' money-making in nullsec, and AFK cloaking is one of the most effective ways. We're not worried about cloaked ships being overpowered because cloaked ships do very little DPS.

But we understand it has a pretty big psychological effect. We would like to make some changes...it may not be the changes people are expecting, though. For instance, I can tell you that AFK cloaking is not an issue in wormhole space and there are pretty good reasons for that."

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1