A fair assertion. Players can do this in other methods however.
Once a week I undock an Epithal to grab my PI… the rest of the time, my Epi stays docked. It produces many billions of isk every month.
Industrial jobs can chew for months at a time (building supercaps for example). While there is occasional risk involved in transporting materials, the bulk of the risk is moot unless they have a super fleet nearby to abort the baby titan.
I can stay docked and do Project Discovery for 23 hours a day.
My point is that while the AFK cloaker can absolutely accomplish their goal without any substantial risk (save for when they are traveling between gates), other methods of accomplishing the production of wealth also exist in concert with this.
Local is in game, and it is a problem. You said so yourself. Requiring that local use fuel in NS sov space is actually not that ridiculous in that is not that different from what CCP themselves have suggested/impied with the Observatory Array.
Why not, and please don’t say “meta-gaming” that makes no sense at all.
That has been part of the thread and previous ones. You’re new here aren’t you? I’m not trying to insult you, but this thread had a huge counter part on the old forms. There was considerable discussion of the Observatory Array and CCPs hints at possibly removing local and in turn making it possible to find a cloaked ship.
Nope, and no insult taken. (New forums, new forum posting identity.)
I know what’s in this thread, and what was in old threads about this. I have quite intentionally not taken any of those positions. But you appear to have a stock response to anyone who doesn’t agree with you, regardless of the actual position they have taken.
You have accused me of trying to nerf game play, and many other things that I haven’t said. I have only asked you to stop putting words in my mouth and then attacking something I haven’t said nor supported.
I did search and check all my posts in this thread now, and I have made three points:
I feel all AFK is bad for EvE or any other MMO
That some aspects of a game (like chat) are meta-game, and not part of the in-game
That AFK cloakers are “doing something” and the claim that they aren’t doing anything, can’t hurt anyone, or aren’t making ISK is false.
I feel that the “fuel” for being able to chat in-game is the cost (now free) to the game itself. Having to “pay” in-game to know who else is playing and to talk to them is just silly IMO.
Like I said, I know it can be abused, but I think it’s just that, abuse of the tools given. I don’t think getting rid of something would fix the abuse. There are (many?) players in game who use local chat for it’s intended purpose, to chat with people, to taunt people, etc. I don’t think it should be taken away from them because it’s being misused by some others.
Here’s an idea, maybe a little on the crazy side, but CCP could release an out of game chat client that could allow you to login and connect to chat as if you were in-game, with “local” being where ever your toon logged out. Obviously this would need some protection against bots, or maybe it just wouldn’t work in trade hubs. But, this would allow full chat functionality but would take away the “intel” side of local in null.
Don’t take that “idea” too seriously, it’s not intended as serious.
On the contrary, local prevents interaction by making it trivial to avoid hunters. It is afk cloaking that throws doubt into local which is what leads people to undock so that interactions can happen.
Without afk cloaking the null bears would know when its safe or not and interactions between players would go down.
I don’t care if somebody wants to AFK or not. I don’t see much if any downside in general to being AFK. Probably because most people who are AFK are AFK in stations.
I think your distinction here is not valid. Meta-game is generally in-game–i.e. it is something somebody is doing in game.
A player not at his keyboard can’t do anything. with one rare exception nobody has died to an empty chair, and you can’t earn ISK while AFK cloaking. This last one has been beaten to death, IMO. If somebody is AFK and earning ISK then they are almost surely botting. But if they are cloaked and AFK they can’t even do that.
Actually, it is more for the intel part of it. Personally, I’d rather they just made local a chat channel–i.e. delayed–and introduce another mechanic/item for intel.
Because AFK connections litterally cost CCP money, that money can better be spent elsewhere than to keep accounts connected that aren’t playing.
This is because you don’t understand what meta-gaming is, because it is so rampant in video games that no one really worries about it any more. Meta-gaming is when your character in a game uses knowledge or other resources that are available to you the player outside of the game. When you run a mission you are playing the game, when you look up online the waves and content of the mission before you run it, you are meta-gaming. In-game chat is primarily a tool used to connect players for the gaming experience, it does not exist in-game (like ships, ammo, station, rats, and other fictional elements of the game) it exists in the real world (like your computer, and the game interface). Using it for intel is meta-gaming, and not the reason it is there.
This is false, as you say it’s been beaten to death, but only with this same lie. Of course the player can’t do anything while he isn’t at his computer, but the name sitting in local is doing something, if it wasn’t doing anything there would be a thread full of nullbear tears. I already addressed this above:
In addition to that, I can present you another option of how an AKF cloaker can make a lot of ISK, or more correctly how a toon making a lot of ISK can be used as an AFK cloaker: SP farming.
As I have now said more than once, I view using local as intel to be an abuse of the tools CCP has given us to play a social game. I wouldn’t care if the intel part of it went away without anything being introduced to replace it. An item to give intel would be great, but it’s not needed to replace the “intel feature of local” because I don’t believe local has such a “feature” but more that it is an unavoidable bug of local.
I don’t think delayed would work because it takes away from the chatting, which is why local is there. Opt-in chat (which is what delayed is) is not something I think is good or useful for k-space.
If the point of chatting is to talk and in the case of EvE taunt other players then I could see something like you appear in the other guy’s local when you are visible on grid or when you talk, and you stay there until you leave the system or log-off. This would still allow chatting and taunting, but would not function as intel any more than the overview does. It would cause an interesting asymmetrical local when a cloaked player could see the uncloaked player, but the uncloaked player couldn’t see the cloaked player. Note: all players in or tethered to a structure are considered on the same grid for this purpose.
You are arguing a narrow view of “interaction”, you are worried about losing pew pew interaction, she is worried about losing blah blah interaction. Both are interaction.
The “AFK cloaking is fine” side and the “local is the problem side” are taking the position “you can’t do anything to effect cloaking because it will effect ATK cloakers also.” I’m not saying that’s wrong, but if that’s the reason cloaking can’t be changed, then we also can’t make any changes to local that would effect anyone using local who isn’t a running scared nullbear.
And once again more proof that the AFK cloaker is doing something.
These costs are trivial. It isn’t like I log in and go AFK and thus you can’t log in too. Any burden on the server is trivial. So what else is there?
Oh, I’m aware of the distinction, it is just that they are intertwined that it is a chicken-egg style argument. Meta-gaming is totally ubiquitous as you have defined it. Trying to separate them and draw a distinction just isn’t that helpful.
It exists in game. The chat, in local, is there in game. Everyone in system can see it. Maybe if the chat channel existed out of game and there was no information passed between those looking at it…
Could you at least describe how one makes ISK simply by having one’s name appear in local?
Value does not equal ISK.
Hmmmm…interesting and I don’t agree. Value is subjective and as such one cannot make this claim unless some how you have measured how each person values ISK. That is suppose I value ISK 2x your value of it. Now my ISK is halved. Now our subjective valuation of the ISK is same value. And if we have the same valuation ISK becomes worthless? Wut?
And so I would say that for the AFK cloaker the disruption he is causing and the possibility of a kill from his AFK cloaking is greater than the ISK he could have made, which is his opportunity cost. Therefore AFK cloaking, contrary to popular claims actually has a cost associated with it.
So no, your assessment here is wrong. An AFK cloaker may derive something of value from his activity, but he certainly does not obtain ISK…or at least not as much ISK if he were to use that character elsewhere (if he gets a kill and some loot he may make some ISK).
As for the rest you have basically set up a situation that cannot be solved. Local cannot change. At all. And AFK cloaking should not change either as a result, IMO.
Exactly why are you here in the discussion then?
No. He is having an effect. He is literally doing nothing, but despite this the nullbear is quivering with fear in station.
And the only time an AFK cloaking ship finds something it can kill, and therefore engage, is when the target is weak and bad at EVE. A competent and strong alliance runs PvE in PvP-capable groups, keeps capitals on standby to counter-drop any black ops attack, etc. Decloaking is suicide because a weak target is never presented. It doesn’t matter if they’re AFK or not, because they are never a threat. Alliance operations continue as usual, and everyone says “do it, I dare you to try something” to the irrelevant cloaked ship.
Bad alliances, on the other hand, expose vulnerable targets. They PvE in weak PvE-only ships, don’t organize defense groups, and generally assume that because their name is on the system (probably because they bought it from someone else) they are entitled to treat it like highsec and farm PvE content at maximum ISK/hour with zero risk. Their players can be caught flying solo and destroyed with no retaliation because the alliance is not capable of an effective defense.
Except, as we keep telling you, being “at their keyboard” does not, by itself, generate meaningful interaction. The players who are currently AFK cloaking will simply find a way (whether it’s by remote desktop, a mouse-bumping robot, etc) to generate the absolute minimum of activity to reset the AFK timer without actually playing the game. The only difference between that and the current situation is that the server will occasionally process an extra click or mouse movement or whatever.
The only way to remove the “false positive” effect of AFK players is to remove the incentive to be AFK. And that means removing local. If local no longer exists there is no longer any reason to stay logged in if you are not actively hunting targets, and people will log out when they go AFK. But until you do that all an AFK flag accomplishes is forcing people to evade it.
And that is not my only position. My main position is that null bears should not be able to tell when there is a bad guy present or not. Hence, ‘you can find a cloaker when you remove local.’
When i say that every attempt to remove afk cloaking hurts active cloakers is usually in tandem with the above AND the position that afk cloaking is not such a problem that it warrants screwing over active cloaking. This goes doubly so when considering the anemic arguments made by those that dislike afk cloaking.
‘they disrupt me’ just means you don’t belong in null and ‘but you shouldn’t be allowed to be afk’ is baseless (and i refer back to my main argument).
The ‘problem’ is that we don’t know if hes really afk or not. Which is THE WHOLE POINT!!! You are not supposed to know. If you think you should know when bad guys are around or not you don’t belong in null, simple as. There’s a place for players who want more safety: hi-sec.
Edit-
I can tell you with a great degree of certainty this is how its going to be. And no amount of threads are going to change that. As long as local remains as it is, and afk cloaking is the only way to create uncertainty, you are stuck with it.
If the costs are so trivial, why does CCP so actively close sockets if you are connected on the character slect screen but haven’t selected a character?
You claim to be an economist, yet the only definition of “value” you can think of is subjective value or marginal value? Currencies have real, objective value, this is what inflation and deflation are, this is what is measured by a CPI or WPI. If A and B have the same amount of currency, A and B have the same buying power, if A has more currency than B, A has more buying power, and the bigger the difference in currency, the bigger the difference in buying power. There is nothing subjective about this.
I never said it was the most affective ISK maker, I said that the effect on ISK is not zero. So you have just conceded my point, thank you.
Once again, you claim to be an economist. If your ISK quantity remains the same and the value of the ISK changes (there is inflation or deflation) it is the same as if the value had remained the same and the quantity had changed.
I have, more than once. If your action (being logged in is an action) effects the value of ISK, it is effectively the same as effecting the quantity of ISK you have.
No, it isn’t ubiquitous, it is a very clear distinction between the character and the player. I understand most players don’t make this distinction, and so this is hard for them to grasp, but that doesn’t make it unclear. Any role-player or anyone who was a “gamer” before that title had to do with computers will have no problem telling what is and isn’t meta-gaming.
I’m not suggesting that meta-gaming in computer games is the great sin that meta-gaming used to be, but there is still a clear distinction between what is game and what is meta-game.
No, it exists “in the game” but it does not exist “in-game”. Players also exist “in the game” but only characters exist “in-game”.
You both are having a problem with the meaning of the word “do”. You are both saying “he doesn’t do anything, he only does something” when we take all meanings of “do” into account. So he is literally “doing” something, he is having an effect, since having an effect is a literal meaning of “do”.
Do (v) 5. to be the cause of (good, harm, credit, etc.); bring about; effect.
source: dictionary.com
I did not setup the situation, I pointed out that it is the situation you (general “you”) are creating. If either side, cloaks or local, is untouchable or unchangeable, then there can be no discussion. I am willing to discuss changes to both, you (personal) and some others have showed no willingness to discuss anything that could change cloaking in anyway, so the question should really be:
Exactly why are you here in the discussion then?
The answer is that you like AFK cloaking, and you are not here to discuss it, but you are here to shout down any discussion that might change it in anyway. This is why until I didn’t go away and basically forced it out of you, you didn’t address a single thing I actually said but just replied with “OMG! You just want to nerf cloakers!”
Please don’t think I’m picking on you or even your side of the argument, the other side makes equally stupid claims, is unwilling to budge, and repeats the same tired lines over and over again.
To actually try to have a “discussion” instead of two sides both yelling the same things over and over again. And if you’ve been paying attention you should see that I’m not on either side.
intel from local is bad (your side)
AFK is bad (the other side)
changes to cloaking is okay (the other side)
changes to local is okay (your side)
nullbears mining/ratting in safety is not a good thing (your side)
the difference between in-game and meta-game (which honestly I think is now a side topic and can be dropped, I was just citing it as the reason for my view regarding local, and “fuelling local”)
AFK cloakers do something (neither side, the side of truth in discussion)
These are the points I’ve taken or the positions I’ve backed.
I’m sorry… but being at the keyboard is a requirement for interaction of any kind, meaningful or not.
For players to interact, the first requirement is that the player actually be there.
Other things have to happen as well, but being present is the very first thing that must occur. Requiring a person to be present to play a game is a basic thing to ask for. Quit making it sound like it’s a huge ask.
No, I want it because I play MMO’s to play with other players. If I want to play a solo game, I can go play civilization or something. I can’t see how you think that is unjustifiable. Multiplayer games frankly suck if the people aren’t actually playing in the other chairs.
I cannot understand the mindset that you think you’re playing the game when you aren’t at your computer. You aren’t playing. You should be logged out so I can try to interact with the people who ARE playing… not some idiot who thinks you play games by taking a nap while logged in.
I understand there are other Eve players who think like you. I just think you’re all nuts.
Yes, it’s pretty clear that’s what it’s really about. Otherwise removing local would answer all the problems with trying to interact with someone whos not there.
It’s a huge ask because it’s a fundamentally stupid ask that does not improve anything. Logging off AFK players does not generate interaction because it does not create incentive to be active in any meaningful way. It just creates incentive to find a way to bypass the AFK flag. Is your game experience really improved by having that AFK player remote desktop in to click the “don’t log off” button every 29 minutes? They still aren’t ever going to respond to your attempts to interact with them, and from your point of view nothing has changed. The chair is still just as empty as it used to be.
If you actually want to remove AFK players and never have to interact with an empty chair you have to remove local. Without the need to counter local there is no reason to stay logged in if you are AFK, and nobody will bother to do it.