These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#4241 - 2015-12-10 12:10:15 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Yah, no, I don't buy the special snowflake argument. The mechanics particular to wormholes have simply lowered enduring implicit threats (implicit threats are by their very nature a matter of perception) to levels that do not cause unneeded player attrition.


Except that's just not true. WH have merely trained HTFU beyond 0.

But of course you don't buy it, hell wasn't so long ago in this very thread you didn't even know there were no gates in them so you'll forgive me if I don't take you seriously when it comes to mechanics discussion.


Still on about what you think I should think about what you think of me? Like I said, its not a very efficient debating technique.


I'm simply suggesting that people who want to balance and by extension affect the entire game should at the very least actually understand it. You quite clearly do not, this invalidates your position.

This is not attacking "you", this is challenging your supposed knowledge about the topic which you profess to know so much about.

I do not judge you as a person on this basis, simply that your points are ill educated through a position of ignorance.

In a typical debate the qualifications of those making assertions are well established, this is healthy and sensible. Here though we do not have that luxury so must ascertain for ourselves the depth of knowledge and experience a poster may or may not have.


I'm reminded of a politician being caught out extolling the virtues of (appalling) public transport, yet when asked couldn't tell you the colour of the bus seats (they are all the same) or a typical fare cost (also all the same). Their credibility on that topic was challenged successfully and thoroughly shot and rightly so. A bit like yours on this topic.


The suggestion we should not call into question the credibility of a source is the hallmark of a charlatan, sir.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4242 - 2015-12-10 12:18:05 UTC
You last post was the hallmark of poor debating technique.

Look, its pretty clear what I am saying: Wormhole mechanisms the mitigate enduring implicit risks will be imported to null-sec. Wormhole local is not such a mechanism, but may be possible in null sec when or after mitigating mechanisms are introduced.

This is a very clear position that will be verified or dismissed with time.

Anything not directly related to the argument is simply not pertinent. Insisting this is about me, and that I should somehow waste valuable letters establishing a pedigree that may or may not satisfy you is silly. Hence the first sentence in this post.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4243 - 2015-12-10 12:31:32 UTC
And how would you know? It is apparent that a) you've rarely if ever even been in there and b) have been told by multiple people who have records which speak for themselves that your position is mistaken.

You'll have to forgive me if I (or anyone else for that matter) don't take lectures on wormhole mechanics from someone who thought there were gates in them very seriously....

You're the one making unsubstantiated statements. The onus is on you to prove it, no-one else.
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#4244 - 2015-12-10 12:36:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Wander Prian
Jerghul wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Yah, no, I don't buy the special snowflake argument. The mechanics particular to wormholes have simply lowered enduring implicit threats (implicit threats are by their very nature a matter of perception) to levels that do not cause unneeded player attrition.


Except that's just not true. WH have merely trained HTFU beyond 0.

But of course you don't buy it, hell wasn't so long ago in this very thread you didn't even know there were no gates in them so you'll forgive me if I don't take you seriously when it comes to mechanics discussion.


Still on about what you think I should think about what you think of me? Like I said, its not a very efficient debating technique.

The Devs are pretty clear that they think there are good reasons enduring implicit threats are less of a problem in wormhole space, and of course you may feel free to think CCP was talking about wormhole denizens' superior moral fibre. However, I doubt they are weigh the special snowflake argument very heavily if they think of it at all.

Incidentally, I am stupefied that most everyone leap to the conclusion that local is a fix. Wormhole local is possible because other mechanisms degraded enduring implicit threats to acceptable levels. Sheep say: baa. That is obvious.





The devs are ON RECORD in saying that cloaks and afk-cloaking are fine. At no point have they mentioned at "fixing" an issue that seems to only occur in deep sov-null. And if you now bring out the "but jump fatique" that was an issue to ALL of new eden, not just a small number of pilots who haven't gotten the message of HTFU

And the reason people go to local for fixing afk-cloaking, is because local created that "threat" People going AFK in your system is a direct counter to the 100% info you get from local


Cloaks and afk-cloaking are fine when seen in isolation. What is not fine is enduring implicit threats (which the devs are also *ON RECORD* in saying they want to change).

Removing local creates an enduring implicit threat more powerful than the one afk-cloaky camping generates because it is enduring even without the afk player initiated cloaky camper.

So cannot be part of the reason for why implicit threats levels are acceptably low in wormhole space.

The "good reasons for that" are other mechanics particular to wormhole space. Mechanics that can, should and will be mirrored in null sec.



Can you find me actual quote that devs think there is an issue with AFK-cloaking? And what are those mechanics you are talking about?

Wormholer for life.
ISD Fractal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#4245 - 2015-12-10 12:59:00 UTC
Quote:

Forum rules

2. Be respectful toward others at all times.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.

4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.



I have removed a post and those quoting it for failing to discuss ideas in a respectful manner.

ISD Fractal

Lieutenant

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4246 - 2015-12-10 14:48:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Wander Prian wrote:

Can you find me actual quote that devs think there is an issue with AFK-cloaking? And what are those mechanics you are talking about?


I am not arguing there is a problem with cloaky camping. I am arguing that enduring implicit threats are a problem that is derived from (but not only from) afk cloaky camping. Enduring implicit threats are a problem only because they decrease player retention (others posters may find them problematic for other reasons).

Enduring implicit threats are by their very nature matters of perception. Mechanisms do exist that lower implicit threats to acceptable levels. The showcase arena where that is true is wormhole space.

Wormhole space has a number of unique characteristics that contribute to lower player attrition. I do not believe it to be the special snowflake argument, nor do I believe it is wormhole local. The law of averages erase the outlier elitist argument on the one hand, and, on its own, "no" local is an enhanced version of the implicit threat derived from enduring afk cloaky camping.

So other mechanisms should be looked at. I am currently focusing on "natural phenomena" giving systems unique ecosystems as the probably reason for why implicit threats are at acceptable levels in wormhole space.

Real and explicit threats are great game design that seem to flourish in wormhole space if we pay heed to posts in this thread at least.

Its good to replace implicit with explicit whenever possible.

Here is a post relevant to my line of thinking:

Quote:
"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
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4247 - 2015-12-10 14:53:34 UTC
Is anyone else laughing at the fact that he linked a post wherein Fozzie hints at the intent to delete local from nullsec?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4248 - 2015-12-10 14:58:08 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Is anyone else laughing at the fact that he linked a post wherein Fozzie hints at the intent to delete local from nullsec?



Yes. This is how I see it at this stage.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#4249 - 2015-12-10 14:59:31 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
What is not fine is enduring implicit threats (which the devs are also *ON RECORD* in saying they want to change)
You have proof of course?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4250 - 2015-12-10 15:01:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Is anyone else laughing at the fact that he linked a post wherein Fozzie hints at the intent to delete local from nullsec?


I am sorry that my points are not coming across clearly.

Deleting local in nullsec (or rather letting entosis links turn them off and on) is of course entirely possible after other mechanisms that lower enduring implicit threats to acceptable levels are introduced.

A careful reader will however understand that no local would spawn an enhanced version of the afk cloaky camping derived implicit threat if it were to be introduced in nullsec without the balancing mechanism found in wormhole space.

Mags
"But we understand it has a pretty big psychological effect. We would like to make some changes"

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4251 - 2015-12-10 15:03:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Is anyone else laughing at the fact that he linked a post wherein Fozzie hints at the intent to delete local from nullsec?


I am sorry that my points are not coming across clearly.

Deleting local in nullsec (or rather letting entosis links turn them off and on) is of course entirely possible after other mechanisms that lower enduring implicit threats to acceptable levels are introduced.

A careful reader will however understand that no local would spawn an enhanced version of the afk cloaky camping derived implicit threat if it were to be introduced in nullsec without balancing mechanisms found in wormhole space.


Mags
"But we understand it has a pretty big psychological effect. We would like to make some changes"

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Mag's
Azn Empire
#4252 - 2015-12-10 15:03:38 UTC
At work on my phone atm, so a posting nightmare. But did he just suggest that because Wh don't have local, that it can't be the problem?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4253 - 2015-12-10 15:05:57 UTC
Mag's wrote:
At work on my phone atm, so a posting nightmare. But did he just suggest that because Wh don't have local, that it can't be the problem?


No mags. I am saying pretty clearly that something that increases implicit threat levels cannot be something that lowers it to acceptable levels.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4254 - 2015-12-10 15:06:11 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
the balancing mechanism found in wormhole space.


You've still not explained this.

I await with glee as to what this "balancing" is. Enlighten us, oh wormhole guru.

Please say it's "no cynos", go on, give us all a chuckle at the implication J space works on a geographical level like k-space.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#4255 - 2015-12-10 15:06:36 UTC
Jerghul wrote:

Mags
"But we understand it has a pretty big psychological effect. We would like to make some changes"
So not only did you cherry pick a part of that statement, it doesn't say what you claimed. Good going.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#4256 - 2015-12-10 15:11:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Jerghul wrote:
Mag's wrote:
At work on my phone atm, so a posting nightmare. But did he just suggest that because Wh don't have local, that it can't be the problem?


No mags. I am saying pretty clearly that something that increases implicit threat levels cannot be something that lowers it to acceptable levels.
So local increases it, but removing local wouldn't lower it?

It gets clearer by the minute, thanks.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4257 - 2015-12-10 15:21:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
I should probably head "mass limits" off at the pass too as a typical hole will allow through 50-250 plated proteus hulls and believe me that's five to ten times more than it takes to ruin your day.

Edit: And "mad wormhole income" as there are holes lower than class 5. Let's also mention the non-instantly respawning nature of the sites, unlike anomalies.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#4258 - 2015-12-10 15:23:25 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
I should probably head "mass limits" off at the pass too as a typical hole will allow through 50-250 plated proteus hulls and believe me that's five to ten times more than it takes to ruin your day.
You could always use a gate. Straight

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4259 - 2015-12-10 15:24:27 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
I should probably head "mass limits" off at the pass too as a typical hole will allow through 50-250 plated proteus hulls and believe me that's five to ten times more than it takes to ruin your day.
You could always use a gate. Straight


Oh man,+1. You had me snorting my coffee
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4260 - 2015-12-10 15:32:21 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
the balancing mechanism found in wormhole space.


You've still not explained this.

I await with glee as to what this "balancing" is. Enlighten us, oh wormhole guru.

Please say it's "no cynos", go on, give us all a chuckle at the implication J space works on a geographical level like k-space.


I am saying that I believe giving sov holders the means to tailor system environmental conditions would lower implicit threat levels in null sec to acceptable levels.

Anyway, I am preaching the choir, and not really to you.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1