Because in the second scenario, at least they have to put forth some effort to waste my time… instead of sleeping.
If I were trying to catch a miner and he kept warping off as soon as I arrived at the belt… I’d feel annoyed that I missed him but tip the hat because he was alert and bested me. If I later found he was botting and doing it while he was sleeping… I’d be pissed off because he wasted my time without putting any effort in.
It’s fine if I lose. I don’t mind being bested. I just want you to actually have to do something to beat me though… not just to win because you’re logged in while asleep.
That is not what I asked. I asked what the difference is from your point of view. You are not able to see any of the “effort” being invested. A ship that is AFK while cloaked and a ship that is ATK while cloaked and just doing the bare minimum to keep the AFK flag off are exactly identical from your point of view.
From my point of view it’s the knowledge that I may be wasting my time.
If AFK players were logged out, I would know it wasn’t that they wasted my time while sleeping, but rather were actively deciding that my bait wasn’t going to be taken. For me that is the difference between (to use a horrible analogy) being bested by a goal keeper in a penalty kick situation vs trying to kick a penalty kick into a goal that has been blocked by a brick wall. Yeah… I don’t score the goal in either scenario… but I had a CHANCE in one of them.
Also, I think you’re missing a bit of the impact from the perspective of the baiting party. If I’m trying to bait reds and 70% are not at their keyboards, 15% are there but ignoring my baiting and 15% consider taking the bait… I’m getting the bait ignored 85% of the time. If that 70% get logged off for being AFK… my bait is being considered 50% of the time. And that is a big difference that will be seen from the perspective of the baiting party.
But, again, you don’t have that knowledge. There is zero apparent difference from your point of view between a player who is AFK and a player who is only “ATK” by the strictest definition, and doing the bare minimum to keep the AFK flag off without ever meaningfully interacting with the game. In both cases you are wasting time without any possibility of an interaction, or even knowing if your target ever saw the bait attempt.
Also, I think you’re missing a bit of the impact from the perspective of the baiting party. If I’m trying to bait reds and 70% are not at their keyboards, 15% are there but ignoring my baiting and 15% consider taking the bait… I’m getting the bait ignored 85% of the time. If that 70% get logged off for being AFK… my bait is being considered 50% of the time. And that is a big difference that will be seen from the perspective of the baiting party.
You’re making the assumption that the 70% will allow themselves to be logged off rather than defeating the AFk detection mechanism and staying logged in. This is a bad assumption to make.
Even if hes at the keyboard you may be wasting your time. He may just decide to not take the bait.
Anyone who invests on the market may be wasting their time. Trying to find a good site in a wh may be wasting their time. Trying to find a fight during a roam.
There is always a chance you’re wasting your time in anything you do. You aren’t entitled to find what you are looking for and the not knowing whether someone is there or not IS THE WHOLE POINT. Honestly your position is ridiculous.
Can’t you accept that you won’t change anything about their whining? They want to farm billions in their perfectly safe space behaving like bots (and thus likely using bots), which makes it even more likely that they’re in it for the rmt.
Why would you give such people the opportunity to keep dragging this on and on? Let it rest. These guys won’t ever change, so it’s time the others do.
Remember: They act like bots, and they’re likely RMTers. What else are they doing with the money? Fund their PvP! Hahahaha!
That’s hilarious, in a thread full of potential botters continuously bullshitting everyone who tries to help… and this whole thread provides tons of evidence!
Now, about that empty threat… please, do tell how you’re going to achieve anything with your bots hiding in station! Your reaction proves it. You want me gone, because I`M RIGHT!
Everyone, just look at her posts. If she’s not botting/RMTing, why would she react in such a manner? You can all see what’s going on in here!She’s pissed and tries to lash out at me, and there’s no doubt about why she is pissed!
It’s because I`M RIGHT, and this is all she can do!
I was two weeks away, so that’s hardly a possibility.
I don’t post in every thread and it’s certainly not ■■■■■■■■, but of course you say that.
You just keep making things up, because you hate me throwing stones at those botters and RMTers you keep defending, who - clearly visible - will not stop argueing about how they want to bot* in perfect safety in nullsec.
Truth hurts. Thanks for proving it yet again.
*Bots, just like whiners about afk cloaking, dock up as soon as someone enters local.
Feel free to have the last word. It will be of no use for you.
This is actually pretty standard neoclassical economics. For example you might love acorn squash while I hate it. Our values are based on our individual preferences, that is, subjective–i.e. the value of something is dependent on the subject doing the valuation. And I did not say anything about marginal value.
They have a real objective nominal value, but in the end nobody really cares about that. What most people care about are real goods and services. Money just facilitates transactions in real goods and services, and depending on our underlying preferences (that subjective thing) our valuation of money can be different.
Buying power and value are not the same.
Here are two simple single good utility functions:
U = x^(1/4)
W = x^(1/2)
Taking a log transformation we have:
log[U] = (1/4) * log(x)
log[W] = (1/2) * log(x)
In this sense, the person with utility function W is always going to have higher utility or welfare than the person with utility function U. So even if both have say 25 of x the person with utility function U has a welfare of 2.432299 and person with W has a welfare of 5 which is more than double.
To be clear zero ISK is made. Value might be gained, but that is not the same thing. Taking leisure time vs. working means that I value my time more than the money I earn…but that does not mean I am actually making money.
Yes, and based on this you have a stunning level of ignorance of economics. Value does not equal ISK. Just because I do something in game does not mean it makes me ISK. I might value it more than making ISK because I could be burning down anomalies instead, but that is not the same as making ISK.
But even if this were true it does not mean one is “making ISK”. One is not doing something that puts ISK in one’s wallet.
Your definition pretty much renders this discussion a chicken-egg argument. The two are intertwined to such an extent that it it pointless to draw this distinction IMO.
What in the honest f— does this even mean?
Given I have explicitly noted I do not like AFK cloaking on numerous occasions I can only conclude you are ignorant of my over all position.
I like neither, I just happen to think one tends to cancel the other out to some degree; that the current situation is balanced yet sub-optimal. I would prefer separating intel from local, but that can only be done by making local delayed. You can still use if you want, but then it gives away some information about in doing so.
I think we need both. You can’t change one without the other. What we have now maybe balanced but is sub-optimal. If one wants to make finding cloaks a thing in game, then local needs to change so that local as a source of intel is no longer as powerful.
IMO, this should be everybody’s side. Nobody should be acquiring in game resources or ISK without some degree of risk otherwise it could cause problems in the economy. Even IRL, risk is a thing in economics. Maybe not being blown to bits and waking up in a new clone, but losing stuff is a serious thing IRL.
At this point I think this is just muddying the waters.
Yes, I do something while not at my keyboard with a module activated that prevents me from doing just about anything meaningful in game. Yup. That makes sense.
Now, if you said an AFK cloaker can have an effect or influence the behavior of others…fine. But that is not just the AFK cloaker then, that is also the other player.
So, in looking at your points you messed up my view in just about every instance that you could. Well done.
so, i do not like afk cloaky campers, they dont add anything, and we just continue to mine space rock.
wont change anything, we actually want you to have a cyno, and drop ■■■■ on us.
currently spying on the HTP staging, so triple guess where i am…
tbh i think it is too easy, even in a ship that cant warp cloaked, i cloaked up after burning in a random direction, and im safe.
i would like some counterplay, between cloaked ships lets make the feeling mutual, as that is more fun than an obvious decloaking pulse
I’m sorry, I’m not an economist, I didn’t know economist had such a narrow definition of the word “value”. I was using it like an investor/banker would as in valuation of a company, which is not subjective at all.
Dictionary .com gives the following deffinitions for “value”
relative worth, merit, or importance:
monetary or material worth, as in commerce or trade:
the worth of something in terms of the amount of other things for which it can be exchanged or in terms of some medium of exchange.
equivalent worth or return in money, material, services, etc.:
estimated or assigned worth; valuation:
As I thought was already clear, and now I am explicitly stating, my use of the word “value” is not the relative worth in definition #1 but the actual measurable worth found in definitions 2-5. In this monetary meaning of “value” your time, your enjoyment, etc. has no “value”. It doesn’t matter what you might call this in economics, as I have now 100% clearly defined my terms. Could you please now reply to the things I said before, and not your version of what I said with a twisted definition of the word “value”?
I never said it did. I said
Not “it is the same”, but “it has the same effect.”
No, the chicken egg argument is when both things require the other to exist. This is not the case here at all. The meta-game requires the game, without the game there can be no meta-game. There is no question about which came first, the game had to come first.
The word “in-game” is like the word “in-universe”, using the example from wiktionary “Lord Voldemort as the most feared person in the world” is a true statement “in-universe” (Harry Potter universe) but we can all clearly see that this is not true “in the universe” (the real world). “In-game” and “in-universe” are terms that have been used by gamers, RPers, and fangrils/fanboys for about 50 years, I don’t know what else to say on the subject.
Let me rephrase: as long as there is un-delayed local, you like AFK cloaking. Or you like the current effect of AFK cloaking, therefore you only support ideas like removing/delaying local which will provide the exact same effect that AFK cloaking currently provides.
If that is true, why is it that when a suggestion is made to change cloaking (timer, fuel, etc.) why is the reply always “it will nerf cloaking for ATK cloakers like in WHs”? Every-time anyone has suggested any change to cloaking, your side (I’m not directly accusing you of anything, but referring to the group that has taken the position “either keep it the way it is or change/remove local”) says that it will destroy cloaking for ATK cloakers and WH cloakers. If changing cloaks is on the table it should be on the table. And when someone suggested “make cloakers findable” so one responded “okay if we nerf local” only about how we can’t nerf cloaks at all. If this is your position, thank you for making it clear, I hadn’t seen you (or anyone form your side) take it before.
Of course, that how it works when you have a side, you want everyone to agree with you. I already agree with you on this, but obviously it isn’t universal or nullbears wouldn’t come in here whining for a safe place to mine/farm.
What part did you miss before that “do” literally means “have an effect” so what you wrote is literally the same as “an AFK cloaker can do something to the behaviour of others.” An AFK cloaker is not preforming an action, but an action is only one meaning of “do” not the only one. If someone asked you what a shield extender “does” would you tell them “nothing”? Because it is also inactive, but it has a passive effect, so what it “does” is increase your EHP.
So, I’m looking at the words you messed up: “value”, “in-game”, “do”, “effectively” in just about every instance that you could. Difference is these aren’t about missing my opinion, they are about not having an understanding of the English language or a dictionary handy. Well done.
When it comes to the monetary value of something there is this awesome word called “price”. Does AFK cloaking provide value. Sure otherwise people wouldn’t do it. But in no way does it put ISK in a players wallet. We could try to quantify that value in terms of ISK. For example I don’t AFK cloak because all my characters that could do it can also do things that make ISK. We could put it a say at least 1 billion ISK/month. If I were to AFK cloak with all of my cloaking capable characters that is about what it woul cost me in terms of forgone ISK. But also the ability to use my main for other things too…which have value as well such as claw fleets.
Not quite. I think the current situation is balanced yet sub-optimal. So do nerf local or cloaks is unbalancing. So to try and improve things both cloaks and local must change. So again you mistate my position. Even after I explained it to you.
Because it is lop sided and lazy. It is unbalancing; see my comment above.
I explained my reasoning already. Risk should always be a thing. Allowing for greater ISK creation and resource acquisition with out a comensurate increase in risk could be unbalancing. So it isn’t just a side thing but a reasonable game design thing.
Not really. When you do something you have taken an action, you undertook that action. If nobody is at the keyboard that charater can do nothing. I can do something whether another player is there or not. But I don’t have to do anything to influence another player…thanks to local.
I
Wow, I am so impressed that you have been able to take something as complex as ethical systems and find an absolute truth. You should publish, you could be famous. Also since over 6 Billion people on the Earth claim some sort of deontological ethics, you think most of the world consists of “fringe nutcases.” So now > 80% is “fringe.”
Imagine a story:
There is a guy who decides he wants to be a terrorist, so he joins a terrorist group and becomes part of a plan with four other terrorists to set off bombs and each bomb will kill 100 people. But, in the process of putting on his bomb vest, he accidentally sets it of, killing himself and the other four terrorists.
Since this is a thought experiment, we will assume the plan would have worked without his accident and 500 people would be dead. No according to your stated view regarding ethics, anyone who thinks blowing up people is bad and doesn’t also praise this guy as a good person, is a “fringe nutcase.”
For it to be “relevant” it would have to be relevant to what I said. I said nothing about game design, only that what @yellow_parasol said, not about game design but about views people hold, was one point of view, and that there are other valid points of view in the world.
There is also another awesome word, that any first year economist would know called “real value.” The remainder of this paragraph of yours can be addressed by you still not understanding the word “effectively.”
No, I understand your postition just fine, cloaks can only be changed if local is also changed. What I said was that the other side wanted to change cloaking with no requirement changes to local, and that your side would support changes to local even if they didn’t change cloaking.
If I’m wrong, what change to cloaking would you like to see, if no changes are made at all to local?
You completely missed the point of what I said. I didn’t say anything about the validity of your opinion, just that it is normal when any person has an opinion that they would want other people to hold the same opinion.
You keep saying this, but it doesn’t change the definition of the word “do” which includes “to have an effect.”
