I don’t have a problem with the “cloaking” half of “AFK cloaking” and I haven’t suggested any changes to cloaks. I have a problem with “AFK” of all forms, which includes “AFK cloaking”. (I don’t really think AFK station sitting is that bad, but wouldn’t complain if I was logged out while doing it.) Obviously, the game allows a degree of AFK with AP, but it comes with a built in risk.
Really I’m not some nullbear wanting risk free ISK, I don’t have a problem with the cloaks, cyno, or anything. Other than computers and not players using the server.
If we remove AFK, then we “fix” AFK cloaking, without doing anything that nerfs ATK cloak use. If you read my opinions here and in the main bots thread you could see that I am very anti-bot/AFK, the general idea is that players, who can pay attention to their screen, are who we should make things work for. A computer by itself, either bot or AFK, doesn’t have any right to be connected to the game servers and this should be fixed.
Hope you feel better regarding whatever you need the painkillers for (assuming it isn’t reactional).
kidney stone, I’ve developed a reasonably high pain threshold over the years. Probablobly helpful for an EvE player
The real problem is we have two non-ideal things keeping each other in check ( in terms of this thread). AFK Cloaking keeps some danger in null ratting, local enables AFK cloaking in the first place. It’s because cloaks work fine everywhere else that people suggest changing local as opposed to cloaks.
We need to stop this reasonable discussion at once. At least I can blame the meds for this irrational behaviour…
I understand why people say this, but I can’t really agree with it. The main reason is that the AFK part of AFK cloaking isn’t needed to keep some danger in null ratting. If AFK was removed, then the same effect could be achieved with three people taking shifts. Therefore, AFK cloaking doesn’t actually create or do anything compared to ATK cloaking, it only makes it cheaper and easier.
The second reason I don’t agree it’s keeping anything in check is because of how it’s effected by power balance. If a corp/alliance has deep protection around a system then nullbears can mine and rat in that system without any fear. So it isn’t keeping nullbears in check, it’s keeping small corp/alliances in check, giving more power to the big guys.
I’m not saying that a large corp/alliance with good defence and intel shouldn’t be able to benefit from those things. Just that if nullbear ratting/mining without any fear or risk is a bad thing, then something that fixes it or keeps it in check should do so equally regardless of corp/alliance power.
My idea to require ATK cloaking, would still keep with it the psy-ops and mystery of AFK cloaking, because even if you know the player is at their computer, you don’t know if they can be bothered to do something (maybe they’re watching Netflix) or if they have a fleet standing by to drop. It has all the same in-game effects of AFK cloaking, just with the crazy idea that someone should be around their computer to actually play the game.
It is entirely your opinion and your misunderstanding of what they EULA says. Legal documents are always written vague to not having to cover every single specific edge-case. You can’t take it literal (something you really have a problem with) and even if you do, it doesn’t support your argument. If it were any different, CCP would take action instead of endorsing it.
This is where people usually mutter about malcanis though, the large alliances are best placed to work shifts on cloaked psy-ops ( Assuming no randomized mouse nudging etc). The small corps would now be less able to respond in kind.
It’s a sticky problem, but the cause has to be attributed to perfect intel from local (in terms of this thread).
AFK in it’s entirety is a different beast. Market orders are AFK, PI is largely AFK, manufacturing on any reasonable scale is AFK, yet all are playing the game. I’m not sure any change to enforce ATK timeouts that can be easily circumvented will be any help whatsoever.
Implementing “cloak charges” similiar to command burst charges would be great idea. Their volume, capacity, reload time can be all balanced - doesnt really matter if you can cloak max for 15 mins or 2 hours. But once charges run out and you are afk you are vulnerable to be probed and destroyed. Going to bed with eve running and ship in space woudnt be wise any more
Or maybe implement some events, like “meteor swarm” happening periodically to all ships on grid. Shield damaged by x% and all modules deactivate, including cloak. If someone is active he will recloak in 30s, if not he can be probed and destroyed.
It’s obvious you never used a cloak before and have no idea about cloaky gameplay. So how about you show us on the doll where the AFK person psychologically touched you and then educate yourself before making suggestions about things you don’t understand.
Correct, but the small corps can’t respond in kind, because this tactic only works against the small groups that aren’t able to bring the levels of protection required. Removing the AFK part of AFK cloaking doesn’t remove anything from gameplay, it only increases the cost, which I think is a great idea for the big corps/alliances who want to use this tactic.
I can’t agree there, the problem (in terms of this thread) is cheap cost (500 PLEX and almost 0 man-hours) of shutting down that perfect intel.
If CCP introduced an option of “log out, but keep showing me in local” then I could accept these as being the same thing. There are many things in EvE that happen in an automated manner when you are not logged in, all of these are explicitly designed into the game, showing in local is not one of them.
Using your own computer (not CCP’s servers) to do things in EvE when you aren’t at the computer is botting. I bot doesn’t have to be active to be a bot. Holding a socket connection open is still automating something. Players have a right to play EvE, not their computers on their own.
It’s entirely your misunderstanding of how logic and burden of proof works. You could have a point if I said the EULA bans AFK, but I have not. You on the other hand have suggested that the EULA grants the right to be AFK, if it does, then prove it, show were it does. You have to prove your supposed right.
This conversation:
You: It’s snowing outside.
Me: Well we are in a locked room with no windows and doors, so we can’t really say if it’s snowing outside or not. And based on what we generally know about climate and such, it might not be snowing outside, but it could be.
You: You’re dumb, we can’t know if it’s snowing outside or not, but in the past it has snowed outside, so of course it’s snowing outside.
Me:
It would really help you if you could learn a little bit about logical arguments before you say stupid things like you do. But then your goal isn’t to have a conversation about the problem, but just make noise until everyone who disagrees with you goes away. Maybe you should just go with the classic putting your fingers in your ears and yelling “I can’t hear you”, that would at least save us having to read your mental diarrhoea.
You made a stupid argument, that argument has been dismantled by pretty much everyone else here. The burden of proof is on you for proving your argument in the first place and only if you manage to do so (good luck proving that 0 is in fact 1) do we have to provide proof for why you’re absolutely wrong.
That proof has also already been provided by us, you just claim it irrelevant because it
doesn’t fit your very limited intellect and
doesn’t support your made-up argument.
Just because there’s a logical connection between A and B doesn’t mean it makes any sense when A is completely made up. All you provide is a made-up foundation from which you draw your “conclusions” and you’re actually defending your moronic non-sense by saying “there’s a logical connection between A and B so I’m right”.
“The sun is cold” → “The closer I am to the sun, the more I’m freezing”.
That’s obviously a logical line of thought, but it doesn’t hold any water because the foundation, that the sun is cold, is wrong. I just made that up. Hence any conclusion I draw from that is inherently also wrong.
I have claimed no such thing, merely pointed out the lack of evidence for what you want to read out of the EULA.
You’re just a pathetic liar that fails at basic logic, basic reading comprehension and basic thinking skills.
How amusing that that describes you perfectly, but I fear the irony of that is lost on you.
This doesn’t shut down the intel though, merely introduces doubt (at a cost). The intel itself is entirely free and advantageous to the ratter in an unbalanced manner. The doubt introduced by the cloaky simply could not exist without the perfect intel of local.
This is why we don’t have the same issue in WHspace. We assume cloakies and plan accordingly. Of course there are different issues in different space, but the principle is the same. Assume and prepare for the worst or make perfect ratting ticks, but at risk of losing the ship.
IOW, your proposal changes nothing from a gameplay point of view and only exists because of your bizarre obsession with how many inches a player is from their computer at a given moment or how many clicks per hour they are making. How about, instead of obsessing over abstract principles, you deal with actual game design issues?
No, it isn’t. It’s valid, but not sound. You really aren’t good with logic, are you?
Or do you mean to say that “play” does not mean “to engage in (a game, pastime, etc.)” You can feel free to offer a different definition.
Or is name calling the extent of your “logic”?
If there is doubt, then it isn’t perfect intel, so it does shut down the perfect intel, although not the intel in general.
Nope, the intel give the same information to both of you, if you are actually hunting the ratter, knowing there is someone to probe for (especially in a large system) saves a lot of waisted time.
I know this is the party line, but I think it has more to do with WHspace not having Sov. I don’t honestly believe this conversation has anything to do with hunting ratters. It has to do with one Sov group suppressing the production of a rival Sov group. If you want to do that, then yes, you should have to pay for it and be active.
The answer to how to be a safe nullbear always includes things like pay attention and be aligned. So, according to the AFK cloaking side, you can only farm for ISK if you are active and paying attention. That’s good and right, but if you want to take that farming away from them, the same rules should apply to you. I.E. ATK cloaking.
“Remove local” doesn’t “fix” anything, it just takes your current cheap and easy method to suppress competition and let’s CCP do it for you. And it’s almost completely one sided in it’s effect regarding the strong vs. the weak.
If your fix for nullbear safe ratting doesn’t fix nullbear safe ratting in the deepest most protected of nullsov, then it doesn’t fix nullbear safe ratting.
There is a very worth while conversation to be had on the subject of this thread, but that conversation requires dropping all of the false versions of what is happening that both sides are using to sugar-coat their side of things.
This isn’t about hunting and content generation, this is about unattended power projection to suppress the resource gathering ability of a rival. And on the other side it’s bot or bot like risk-free resource gathering. So, please take off the halo that you are using to try to convince everyone that you are a crusader for better game play, it isn’t true. You are trying to get a economic advantage over your competitor.
And I’m sorry, but this is where I really get pissed off about things, this is the Players Features & Ideas section of the forums, like all of the EVE Technology and Research Center is a real world part of the forums, it isn’t a place for in-game political posturing for an advantage. (Would you serioulsy give someone bad advice about a technical problem in the Linux section because they were from an enemy alliance?) This is a place to help the game, not to help yourself.
It changes not playing into playing… that’s kind of a big thing “from a gameplay point of view.”
The EULA grants a person the right to access CCP’s servers to “Play EvE online”. So, please tell me what is or is not “playing EvE”? You can even use examples, if forming a definition is too hard for you.
No it doesn’t, because from the point of view of every other player in the game there is zero difference between an AFK account and a player who is technically ATK but only doing enough to keep their AFK flag off. All events in the game play out exactly the same for everyone involved, except you have your bizarre obsession with clicks per hour satisfied.
Then why do the people you are arguing with want to get rid of local? If you remove local then you remove the suppression effect of AFK cloaking entirely. There is no longer any advantage to staying logged in if you are AFK because nobody can see you in local and suffer the psychological effect of “OMG A RED IN LOCAL RUN AWAY”. If it’s all about passive income suppression, rather than removing the free intel that makes hunting impossible, we would be arguing for enhanced local. For example, for making potential threats in local flash aggressively and make scary noises, so that the carebear is reminded at all times that death is near and it’s better to stay docked. Or there could even be a pop-up window every time you attempt to undock saying “have you checked local yet, and seen the threat that is waiting to kill you?”.
That’s good and right, but if you want to take that farming away from them, the same rules should apply to you. I.E. ATK cloaking.
No they shouldn’t, because there’s a difference between actively accumulating wealth and passively sitting in a safespot.
AFK farming is bad because, in the absence of botting, it’s a sign that PvE content is way too easy. High-end PvE content should not be so easy that you can drop drones and go AFK without ever having to change your flight path, pick targets to shoot, etc. Requiring a player to be ATK to farm is just an inevitable consequence of the fact that (well designed) PvE has buttons to push.
AFK cloaking is fine because no interaction is necessary. Your ship is not doing anything different over that time, it’s just sitting there in the exact same state that you left it in. Any ATK enforcement is purely an anti-AFK restriction, it is not player input that is required for its own sake.
I know this is the party line, but I think it has more to do with WHspace not having Sov.
Lol no. You really are an idiot. WH space has no player names on the system, but it sure as hell does have control of systems just like nullsec. The difference is that people don’t go in there expecting 100% risk-free farming, and understand that claiming a system means actively fighting to protect it. Meanwhile many players in nullsec are just pathetic highsec parasites that realized that they can get better ISK/hour farming nullsec content, and expect the safety of highsec to come with them.
Nope, the intel give the same information to both of you, if you are actually hunting the ratter, knowing there is someone to probe for (especially in a large system) saves a lot of waisted time.
Except that’s not how it works.
Local gives immense value to the farmer, because a commitment to warp out and dock any time a non-blue player is in local results in 100% safety. The time between entering local and the fastest possible tackle is longer than the warp-out time required, so survival is guaranteed.
Local gives very little value to the hunter, in the absence of AFK cloaking. It shows you which players are currently docked in station but not much else. If you aren’t willing to invest time in the system there is zero difference between a system with players in local and an empty system. Only through the use of long-term cloaking does it potentially become a sign of targets. And if you’re staying in a system for a long time the savings in d-scan time are of limited value since you’re going to be there anyway.
I can’t agree there, the problem (in terms of this thread) is cheap cost (500 PLEX and almost 0 man-hours) of shutting down that perfect intel.
No, this is not a problem at all. The perfect intel should not exist in the first place, so the cost of shutting it down is irrelevant. It could cost zero ISK to shut it down and everything would be fine.
I have not understood why some never seem to grasp this. Sitting at a safe and cloaked puts no ISK in a player’s wallet. It puts no resources into their hangars. In terms of resources there is no benefit here.
BTW, you’ll note our shrinking violet wants to increase the amount of effort for those who AFK cloak, but with no commensurate increase in effort on the other side even though the other side are injecting ISK into the game and resources into the economy.
And don’t forget our friend is claiming that local conveys no advantage to the ratter/miner. This is not true. Local provides advance warning when a hostile enters system.
Correct. Even the fastest interceptor cannot jump into system and load grid, and by pure luck warp to the right anomaly before the ratter is in warp.
You are talking about an “actual change” which can not be perceived by any other player. No in-game actions occur differently. No effects on other players happen. The “reality” of the situation has zero impact on any actual gameplay. You might as well talk about the “reality” of the situation and how important it is that every player be wearing pants while playing EVE, because playing without pants is immoral.
The people who are docking if anyone is in local, will not undock at all if there is no local. As I already said, and you said was a good thing, they will run back to HS. Removing local gives all the income suppression that AFK cloaking gives, but is provided by CCP instead of the player base.
So if we’re in agreement that removing many of the nullsec farmers (and exposing the ones who stay to a proper risk vs. reward tradeoff) is a good thing then why are you complaining that removing local provides the effect for free and saves AFK cloakers $15/month?
There, fixed that for you.
Posted incoherent nonsense, you mean. High-end PvE difficulty is directly set by CCP through game mechanics. Psychological warfare difficulty, whether high-end or low-end, is set by the players involved in it. CCP can not make it more difficult when the reason it is so easy is that certain players allow themselves to be scared into docking by even the weakest threats. If you want shutting down a system to be more difficult than putting an AFK cloaked alt in there 23/7 then you need to fix the carebears inhabiting the system and give them enough of a spine that a more effective threat is required before they panic and shut down.
So it doesn’t have Sov.
It “doesn’t have sov” in the sense that you can’t put your name on the system. It absolutely does have control of systems in the sense that player groups declare their ownership of a system, establish a permanent presence, and kill anyone who violates their control. The fact that the result of this control is “only” exclusive ownership of a system is not changed by the fact that CCP doesn’t put their name on the system. After all, nullsec had players controlling space long before CCP added the mechanic to put their name on the system and acknowledge the reality of the situation that was already in place.
I never said the information doesn’t give a different advantage to one side or the other, I said the information is the same.
Only in the absolute most literal defintions of “the information”. Yes, the list of players in local is the same, but what information that list conveys is entirely different. It’s like sending each of us a video of you ****ing sheep: it tells me that you’re the kind of perverted loser who has to settle for sheep as a companion, it tells you that someone knows about your sheep ****ing habits and is probably about to blackmail you. Whether or not I use that information by posting it for everyone on the forums to watch, giving it to your local police, etc, is irrelevant, it’s still a different piece of information than the one you received.
I love the narrative here of increasing the effort of those want to hunt ratters/miners with cloaks, but decrease the effort of those ratting/mining. And why? Some vague hand waving about the EULA.
Also, the sov claim is silly. If we were to believe this, then it would seem reasonable that alliances who hold sov and have some of the highest alt counts would be AFK camping and predominantly AFK camping. How much AFK NC., PL, and Goonswarm engage in? Not that much from what I can see. In fact, in Delve the primary AFK camper is Replicator who I don’t think is part of any alliance that holds sov. In all my years living in NS and being part of NS alliances/coalitions I have been told to get in a cloaky ship precisely 1 time (about 8 years ago). We were to go cloak in a system that was part of a JF route. We used both ATK and AFK camping.
