These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4421 - 2015-12-13 09:42:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Wander
The same thing that would stop you from omni tanking in wormhole space if rats there did specific damage types.

Asharoth
My position is more that if you have compensating mechanisms, then the price of information provided by local does not matter.

Surrender
Did you have any feedback that might suggest that changing null sec rats would not change null sec ratting fittings?

Teckos
So nothing more then on the ratting point I presented?

=========

If we are about done with the ratting point, then I suggest we move on to point 2/8.

"2. Closing gates
Collapsing wormhole strategy lesson:
Allow gates to be closed and opened using entosis links.
A visual prompt on opposite side of gate to indicate if gate is currently being entosised (open or shut)

Simulates intentional wormhole collapses used to control access into a wh-system."

I trust it is rather self-explanatory that closing gates reduces implicit risk.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#4422 - 2015-12-13 10:06:15 UTC
That's a stonewall troll right there. Closing gates....lol

What an absolute nonsense. A child of 5 could see why.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4423 - 2015-12-13 10:36:09 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
That's a stonewall troll right there. Closing gates....lol

What an absolute nonsense. A child of 5 could see why.


You see why closing gates in nullsec (mirroring the ability to collapse wormholes in wh space) decreases implicit threat I trust. Which was the only question at hand.


Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#4424 - 2015-12-13 10:54:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Wander Prian
Jerghul wrote:
Wander
The same thing that would stop you from omni tanking in wormhole space if rats there did specific damage types.


So basically what you are trying to not tell is that you could already omni-tank the ratters, but won't because isk/hohour.

It's starting to look like the reason AFK-cloakers are an issue is because of entitlement and greed

Wormholer for life.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#4425 - 2015-12-13 11:02:39 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Mags
Then you see how the wormhole type rats reduce implicit threat. Its not exactly rocket science as you said :-)
No. Plus it bears no relevance, to someone who is AFKing. When talking about rocket science, it's a good idea not to mix it up with magic. Blink

You can attempt as many mental gymnastics as you like, you are still wrong. As can be seen by your avoidance of posts, facts and the editing out of text to suit your point.

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
#4426 - 2015-12-13 11:04:31 UTC
Wander Prian wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Wander
The same thing that would stop you from omni tanking in wormhole space if rats there did specific damage types.


So basically what you are trying to not tell is that you could already omni-tank the ratters, but won't because isk/hohour.

It's starting to look like the reason AFK-cloAFK-cloakers are an issue is because of entitlement and greed
That's why he suggested changing all rats to omni. It means they can keep their Isk p/h level high.

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
#4427 - 2015-12-13 11:09:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Wander Prian wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Wander
The same thing that would stop you from omni tanking in wormhole space if rats there did specific damage types.


So basically what you are trying to not tell is that you could already omni-tank the ratters, but won't because isk/hohour.

It's starting to look like the reason AFK-cloAFK-cloakers are an issue is because of entitlement and greed


Or it could be because EvE is generally about optimizing whatever you are doing. There is a reason people in engineering are shall we say a bit over-represented in Eve. The game appeals to our oh so slightly autistic inner engineer.

From your post perspective we could say that perhaps wormholes need a pass to rebalance net isk/hr rates.

We would not want it be said that wormhole mechanics should remain static because of some feeling of entitlement and greed after all, would we?

Edit

Mags
Still not about me and any ulterior motive you might think I have. I am looking at mechanisms in wormhole space that reduce implicit risk in 0-sec if mirrored there.

We seem to have a consensus that omni rats as described would indeed reduce implicit risk in 0-sec.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#4428 - 2015-12-13 11:58:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Wander Prian
The only consensus we've reached is that your ideas are bad for multitude of reasons, which you choose to ignore.

It doesn't matter what kind of a change you make, the only thing that would satisfy the people who have an issue with a neutral in local sitting cloaked somewhere, is a magic wand that would make the rattimg risk free surrounded by Intel-channels and the early warning system that is local

Wormholer for life.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4429 - 2015-12-13 12:03:32 UTC
Wander Prian wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Wander
The same thing that would stop you from omni tanking in wormhole space if rats there did specific damage types.


So basically what you are trying to not tell is that you could already omni-tank the ratters, but won't because isk/hohour.

It's starting to look like the reason AFK-cloAFK-cloakers are an issue is because of entitlement and greed


Starting? That's been the reason for years and years.

"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.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4430 - 2015-12-13 12:31:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Wander Prian wrote:
The only consensus we've reached is that your ideas are bad for multitude of reasons, which you choose to ignore.

It doesn't matter what kind of a change you make, the only thing that would satisfy the people who have an issue with a neutral in local sitting cloaked somewhere, is a magic wand that would make the rattimg risk free surrounded by Intel-channels and the early warning system that is local


Geeze, Get a real life McJob for 500 mill/isk hr equivalent (or whatever) after you plexed it into Eve if you want to maximize your isk/hr.

People like to optimize in Eve is all. And like to feel there is optimizing balance.

We seem to have reached a consensus that wh space omni rat types reduce implicit risk.

I have seen no feedback that suggest disagreement on that point that has not been discussed sufficiently.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#4431 - 2015-12-13 12:43:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Wander Prian
Jerghul wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
The only consensus we've reached is that your ideas are bad for multitude of reasons, which you choose to ignore.

It doesn't matter what kind of a change you make, the only thing that would satisfy the people who have an issue with a neutral in local sitting cloaked somewhere, is a magic wand that would make the rattimg risk free surrounded by Intel-channels and the early warning system that is local


Geeze, Get a real life McJob for 500 mill/isk hr equivalent (or whatever) after you plexed it into Eve if you want to maximize your isk/hr.

People like to optimize in Eve is all. And like to feel there is optimizing balance.

We seem to have reached a consensus that wh space omni rat types reduce implicit risk.

I have seen no feedback that suggest disagreement on that point that has not been discussed sufficiently.



Bumping the difficulty would result in a bump of value, which would result in an increase of risk, since you'd have to put more isk on the line to kill the rats, which would mean you wouldn't undock with a neutral in local since "he might have a cyno"

Net result of the change= more isk flowing into the game and the same amount of whining about AFK-cloakers.

GJ fixing the issue! Roll

Wormholer for life.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#4432 - 2015-12-13 13:00:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Jerghul wrote:
Mags
Still not about me and any ulterior motive you might think I have. I am looking at mechanisms in wormhole space that reduce implicit risk in 0-sec if mirrored there.

We seem to have a consensus that omni rats as described would indeed reduce implicit risk in 0-sec.
It's about that fact you are ignoring posts and are unwilling to face arguments that show you are incorrect.

What you are doing is a lot of mental gymnastics, in an attempt to fudge the issue. Your stance regarding implicit risks and omni rats is irrelevant. They do not and haven't ever stopped pilots AFKing.

We also do not have a consensus, but then facts seem to be an issue with you.

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
#4433 - 2015-12-13 13:11:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Wander
Ratters tend to optimize their fittings to kill rats and clear sites as fast as possible. Which means the ships are already as powerful versus specific rats types and as expensive as the ratter can afford to lose. Harder rats simply reduces the numbers killed per hour. Omni type damage and ewar capable rats would also not entail more expensive ships.

However, it is likely that cooperative ratting would become more common.

The only specific thing achieved is reducing the amount of yolo opportunistic predation. Which does reduce the things ratters need to worry about (or reduces implicit risk). Successful ratter killing would require a greater degree of pre-meditation, coordination, and planning.

Mags
We still seem to have consensus that wh style rats reduce implicit threat. Feel free to make your argument if you feel that is not the case.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#4434 - 2015-12-13 13:17:47 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Wander
Ratters tend to optimize their fittings to kill rats and clear sites as fast as possible. Which means the ships are already as powerful versus specific rats types and as expensive as the ratter can afford to lose. Harder rats simply reduces the numbers killed per hour. Omni type damage and ewar capable rats would also not entail more expensive ships.

However, it is likely that cooperative ratting would become more common.

The only specific thing achieved is reducing the amount of yolo opportunistic predation. Which does reduce the things ratters need to worry about (or reduces implicit risk). Successful ratter killing would require a greater degree of pre-meditation, coordination, and planning.

Mags
We still seem to have consensus that wh style rats reduce implicit threat. Feel free to make your argument if you feel that is not the case.


When the isk/hour drops because of more difficult rats, most will just justo to the next best isk/hour and that won't be ratting in groups. They will see that they can do the same isk with less risk in highsec, so null will get more quiet and there will be less targets.
And if you think that won't happen, you are a fool

Wormholer for life.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#4435 - 2015-12-13 13:21:44 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Mags
We still seem to have consensus that wh style rats reduce implicit threat. Feel free to make your argument if you feel that is not the case.
No we don't and I have already made my argument, you ignored it.

I very rarely say this, but at this point I'm starting to think you're just trolling. No one can be so ignorant and blatantly dishonest.

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
#4436 - 2015-12-13 13:40:06 UTC
Wander Prian wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Wander
Ratters tend to optimize their fittings to kill rats and clear sites as fast as possible. Which means the ships are already as powerful versus specific rats types and as expensive as the ratter can afford to lose. Harder rats simply reduces the numbers killed per hour. Omni type damage and ewar capable rats would also not entail more expensive ships.

However, it is likely that cooperative ratting would become more common.

The only specific thing achieved is reducing the amount of yolo opportunistic predation. Which does reduce the things ratters need to worry about (or reduces implicit risk). Successful ratter killing would require a greater degree of pre-meditation, coordination, and planning.

Mags
We still seem to have consensus that wh style rats reduce implicit threat. Feel free to make your argument if you feel that is not the case.


Wander
When the isk/hour drops because of more difficult rats, most will just justo to the next best isk/hour and that won't be ratting in groups. They will see that they can do the same isk with less risk in highsec, so null will get more quiet and there will be less targets.
And if you think that won't happen, you are a fool


Which still leaves us with reduced implicit threat, even if we were to assume that isk/hr does fall with wh style rats. Which seems an odd assumption:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=410322

Mags
Ok. Feel free to disagree for reasons of your own. It is noted.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#4437 - 2015-12-13 13:43:23 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Wander
Ratters tend to optimize their fittings to kill rats and clear sites as fast as possible. Which means the ships are already as powerful versus specific rats types and as expensive as the ratter can afford to lose. Harder rats simply reduces the numbers killed per hour. Omni type damage and ewar capable rats would also not entail more expensive ships.

However, it is likely that cooperative ratting would become more common.

The only specific thing achieved is reducing the amount of yolo opportunistic predation. Which does reduce the things ratters need to worry about (or reduces implicit risk). Successful ratter killing would require a greater degree of pre-meditation, coordination, and planning.

Mags
We still seem to have consensus that wh style rats reduce implicit threat. Feel free to make your argument if you feel that is not the case.


Wander
When the isk/hour drops because of more difficult rats, most will just justo to the next best isk/hour and that won't be ratting in groups. They will see that they can do the same isk with less risk in highsec, so null will get more quiet and there will be less targets.
And if you think that won't happen, you are a fool


Which still leaves us with reduced implicit threat, even if we were to assume that isk/hr does fall with wh style rats. Which seems an odd assumption:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=410322

Mags
Ok. Feel free to disagree for reasons of your own. It is noted.


So your idea of "fixing" AFK-cloaking is to drive people back to highsec to do their PVE?

Wormholer for life.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4438 - 2015-12-13 13:52:25 UTC
Wander
I think you are wrong in concluding isk/hr decreases with wh style rats (see link I provided). But we can note that down as something to avoid (isk/hour can be tweaked easily by manipulating drop rates or bounty levels for example).

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#4439 - 2015-12-13 14:08:43 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Wander
I think you are wrong in concluding isk/hr decreases with wh style rats (see link I provided). But we can note that down as something to avoid (isk/hour can be tweaked easily by manipulating drop rates or bounty levels for example).


I can't believe you still don't get it. No matter how much you tweak the rats, the risk will be the same or worse. You will either end up back where you started or drive people to do their PVE somewhere else. As long as there is a unknown name in local, people won't risk it.

This isn't a mechanical problem in the game, it's a mental problem in the head of sov-null ratters. They think they are entitled to complete safety because . It already is THE safest place to do PVE in. The only way the attackers have of disrupting that safety-net that is local and Intel-channels, is to make that local be something you cannot rely on 100℅

Wormholer for life.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4440 - 2015-12-13 14:17:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Wander Prian wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Wander
I think you are wrong in concluding isk/hr decreases with wh style rats (see link I provided). But we can note that down as something to avoid (isk/hour can be tweaked easily by manipulating drop rates or bounty levels for example).


I can't believe you still don't get it. No matter how much you tweak the rats, the risk will be the same or worse. You will either end up back where you started or drive people to do their PVE somewhere else. As long as there is a unknown name in local, people won't risk it.

This isn't a mechanical problem in the game, it's a mental problem in the head of sov-null ratters. They think they are entitled to complete safety because . It already is THE safest place to do PVE in. The only way the attackers have of disrupting that safety-net that is local and Intel-channels, is to make that local be something you cannot rely on 100℅


Yes, I get that you think that non-wormhole PvE activity is only done by the mentally and morally deficient. However, that was not the question at hand.

My query related to looking at wormhole mechanisms that reduce implicit risk as they might look if mirrored into nullsec. 1/8 was in regards to wh style rats. 2/8 was in regards to closing null sec gates that mirror wh players collapsing wormholes to restrict access.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1