Main AFK cloaky thread

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
1250

and yet again you skip over the part where at some point you cannot simply use the next plexed account to make more ISK because the player does not physically have the time to do so, but will always have the time to spend that plex ignoring an AFK account.

The decision to make ISK or AFK camp isn’t a mutually exclusive one because alt accounts aren’t limited in number, only by the need to spend a single plex activating them. Your cost in making that choice is One Plex per AFK account. You can have an Infinite number of ISK making accounts so long as their ISK income is greater than the cost of a plex, but the cost of an AFK account is never more than one plex, and if you can find a way to make ISK with it, like being subsidized to afk camp a system, it’s less than that.

You seem to be pretending like you somehow magically become more than one person when you make an alt account, but multiple personality disorders aside, you don’t. Your only limits are the time you can spend actively playing and the cost of one Plex. Since an AFK account requires effectively zero time actively playing, that leaves the total cost of one Plex.

For the cost of one Plex you could go do the most lucrative thing you can manage and still AFK camp, on into infinity. Until you run out of time to make ISK it’s never a mutually exclusive decision more expensive than a single plex. It does not compound, it’s always that one lonely plex to set up a single AFK camp.

1251

Both sides can be making billions a month farming. One is choosing to spend some of that on Plex to maintain a camp on the other without it interrupting more than a single moment logging in and pushing the magic cloak button.

All other costs beyond that plex are at best simply equal. The prey has all the onus of flying safe (regardless of your opinion of how much that is) while the camper need put forth no other effort other than logging in and pressing cloak.

Even if they never attacked, there would be an effect. It’s pure dishonesty to claim it does not, or we would not be having this ‘conversation’, thus that low ball t1 frigate is effective while the same could not be said of trying to rat in a similarly priced ship. Once again the disparity in costs of every sort other than that one plex heavily favor the hunter if they do choose to attack, nearly always far in excess of that plex (often, one single module would more than cover it). The hunter quite simply has almost no skin in the game relative to what he is hunting.

Beyond even those considerations, it’s long been understood that ISK isn’t a real balance factor in EVE, so trying to use the lack of earning ISK directly to balance being perfectly safe isn’t really valid anyway.

1252

Then both sides can AFK cloak. It is utter lunacy to start talking about how the AFK cloaker can be making billions a month farming because they can make a separate farming account and play that instead.

All other costs beyond that plex are at best simply equal. The prey has all the onus of flying safe (regardless of your opinion of how much that is) while the camper need put forth no other effort other than logging in and pressing cloak.

Again, because the prey account is making its owner billions of ISK per month farming the top PvE content in the game, while the AFK cloaking account is just sitting there doing nothing. I can’t imagine that you are so unbelievably stupid that you can’t grasp this simple concept, so the only conclusion here is that you are a PvE farmer (and probably RMT seller) who doesn’t like having their farming disrupted.

Even if they never attacked, there would be an effect.

Only against the weakest players who do not deserve to have anything. Damage to such pathetic parasites does not count.

Once again the disparity in costs of every sort other than that one plex heavily favor the hunter if they do choose to attack, nearly always far in excess of that plex (often, one single module would more than cover it). The hunter quite simply has almost no skin in the game relative to what he is hunting.

Now you are demonstrating how dishonest you are with this bait and switch attempt. You claim that the AFK cloaker invests nothing, but now you claim that the AFK cloaker can choose to attack. Choosing to attack is not possible if you are playing a zero-investment AFK cloaking account because that account has no PvP SP and is not flying a PvP ship. If you want to talk about “AFK cloaking” accounts that are not actually AFK (because they are attacking) and not making a one-PLEX investment (since they are flying a high-end PvP ship with lots of SP to use it effectively) then you are no longer discussing the same account that you used in your previous argument. You are talking about a player that is making a considerable investment in their activity, and faces a significant risk in doing so.

Beyond even those considerations, it’s long been understood that ISK isn’t a real balance factor in EVE, so trying to use the lack of earning ISK directly to balance being perfectly safe isn’t really valid anyway.

Lolwut. If ISK is so irrelevant that it is not a factor in determining which activities should have which levels of risk then why do people farm PvE content? The fact that people are farming PvE content for ISK clearly demonstrates that ISK has value, and obtaining value should require effort and risk.

2 Likes
1253

Because it is largely irrelevant. Let’s say that the upper bound on alts is…10. Note that specific number is irrelevant and is likely different for different people and also partly related to what they are doing with them. For that last one the player is still facing a choice, there for opportunity cost applies.

Even if that player is earning enough ISK to PLEX another account or 100 accounts to go AFK camp, he still faces opportunity cost. Maybe not what to do with the accounts, lets set that aside…but suppose it is 10 accounts and PLEXing all 10 costs waht? 16.5 billion ISK? There is still opportunity cost with respect to that 16.5 billion ISK. Do I spend it on alts to AFK camp or do I spend it on other stuff in game?

So the problem does not go away.

The only one engaged in magical thinking here is you Mike.

And nothing I have written says “I become more than a single person”. In fact, what I have written indicates the opposite. Each alt account comes with a choice I have to make. Did you know that the word “I” is singular, not plural?

There is still opportunity cost. There is opportunity cost associated with that choice. I could choose to spend ISK (or even RL money) on an extra account…or on other things.

I know you really want cloaky camping and especially AFK cloaky camping to be “free”, but it isn’t.

1254

What? Based on what evidence. This is a very specific claim: that people cloaky camp and in particular those AFK cloaky camping are doing so via PLEX.

Do you have any evidence or is this just something you made up based on assumptions?

We have already established that an account that is cloaky camping is not generating ISK. It is generating a benefit for the player. So where is all this “farming” taking place? You seem to have constructed a mental fantasy about what his happening. That someone who AFK cloaky camp also has an alt army out there farming for them, thus somehow through magic rendering the cost of AFK cloaky camping costless.

Seriously, this is an absolutely impressive fantasy you have going here. Perhaps you can flesh it out a bit more and also…oh I don’t know…provide a scintilla of evidence?

1255

Just stop.

An account used for AFK cloaky camping when the player is AFK can still be used while the player is ATK to generate isk. Either through active gameplay on another character on the account, or through using the active play time on that character to set up and maintain passive income streams.

Moving a covert ops to and from a camping position is not very hard. Maintaining isk-making activities when your active and going back to cloaky camping when you’re inactive is not hard.

I log into many of my alt-toons on various accounts once a week to maintain their isk generation activities. They are generating that isk regardless of if I log out the rest of the time or travel to a system in a covert ops and leave them logged in when I’m not playing.

Your narrative only makes sense with cloaky camping while at the keyboard.

1256

Nope, he has to stop cloaky camping…or if he keeps camping he can’t make ISK. You cannot do both at the same time.

Seriously you just do not get this concept at all. Going back a bit you wrote,

Let me go to the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics and quote a bit more,

The word “opportunity” in “opportunity cost” is actually redundant. The cost of using something is already the value of the highest-valued alternative use. But as contract lawyers and airplane pilots know, redundancy can be a virtue. In this case, its virtue is to remind us that the cost of using a resource arises from the value of what it could be used for instead.

In other words, the cost of something you pay some sort of currency for already incorporates the opportunity cost in it–i.e. all costs are opportunity costs, some costs though are not measured in terms of ISK or money. For example, suppose you are standing in your living room and trying to decide between reading a book or watching something on Netflix on your ipad. You can’t do both at the same time, so which ever you do not pick is the opportunity cost. The cost still exists, but it is not expressed in terms of money in this example.

Opportunity cost is costs. Some costs are explicit others are implicit, but they are still costs. You are trying to draw a meaningless distinction.

And setting aside your error, let’s look at this part,

Then where is the problem? If they are AFK…you know the rest. You guys really want to eat your cake and have it too.

And too summarize…yet again.

  1. If a player is AFK and cloaky camping they are not making ISK with that character that is cloaky camping.
  2. When the player is ATK and he has his cloaky camper logged in he cannot make ISK so long as he is cloaky camping with that character. This is indisputable. Anyone arguing with this is wrong. You can make ISK with another character on an another account. But you are still forgoing the ISK you could make on the cloaky camping character/account.

Thus a character that is cloaky camping, either AFK or ATK is not generating ISK. Any claim to the contrary is a mendacious lie perpetrated by liars who have an ulterior motive they simply are incapable of admitting.

It is just that simple.

Note, that David Henderson has part of his CV online here. He received his PhD in economics from UCLA one of the top 20 economics departments in the world.

1257

I’m going to give up Teckos.

I understand you’re unwilling to separate AFK activities from ATK activities… because once you do your argument is shown to be idiotic.

But at this point I concede that no amount of plain as day pointing out that ATK <> AFK will get through your skull.

When you are asleep… you cannot be at the keyboard playing a video game.
When you are asleep… you can AFK camp.

Nothing is an opportunity cost for AFK camping that cannot also be done while sleeping.

But whatever. Keep saying that I could be mining to make isk while I’m asleep. I give up.

1258

I understand, actually taking on my argument vs. your made up version is tough.

I’ll summarize again:

  1. If a player is AFK and cloaky camping they are not making ISK with that character that is cloaky camping.

  2. When the player is ATK and he has his cloaky camper logged in he cannot make ISK so long as he is cloaky camping with that character. This is indisputable. Anyone arguing with this is wrong. You can make ISK with another character on an another account. But you are still forgoing the ISK you could make on the cloaky camping character/account.

And nobody is AFK 23.5/7 and cloaky camping. They are at least there to log in and there to see if there are possible kills to be had and very likely do other things with other alts if they have them.

I have not once argued they were. IMO, you are trying to argue that simply because one is AFK the opportunity cost goes away completely. My point is that when the player is ATK then opportunity cost applies. Since no player is every AFK all the time, opportunity cost does apply.

See…your point is right there in my first item enumerated above. The problem is that that is not the whole story. You are just looking at that part that supports your position.

Now you are just lying.

1 Like
1259

Not free. as I have said a great many times now, it caps at the price of one plex.

That’s not free. It’s also not relatively a significant investment to justify immunity to the actions of your opposition.

You say that when you are ATK the opportunity cost suddenly applies, but the problem with that argument is that there is no need for that particular account to ever be ATK if you spend the plex to activate another account. Sure, you have to log it in and press cloak, but that’s it. At that point it’s having it’s effect, and you can use it or not with no interference with any other choice you want to make. Beyond that Plex there is absolutely no other cost that isn’t shared equally by every other account in the game.

1260

If I have an alt who can make say 3 billion a month via trading or I could use him for cloaky camping, if I use him for cloaky camping the opportunity cost is 3 billion, not the price of a PLEX.

1261

I was thinking that Covert Ops AFK cloaking should be tied to a system’s activity index, and combined with the Sovereignty system and Standings System. Essentially, the more a system is used, the shorter your covert ops cloak can last and the longer the recycle time is of the module. The base level for a low active system will be indefinitely. The more a system is used, the shorter that gets. All 3 activity indexes would be used to calculate a new cloak time; sov index modifying it a little with Industry and Strategic Index modifying it a lot… This is to make sure ACTIVE systems are actually benefiting over inactive. However, if you own or are blue to a system owner, your cloak will last forever.

I think this simple solution will mean that people can still pass through systems when they’re trying to just get someplace where as you give benefit to the system owners. This also ends the incessant AFK cloak-er that makes Null Sec just plain awful. This also preserves the mechanic in wormholes and empire according to the original intent of Cloaking.

What do you think? I like this idea because it doesn’t require a bunch of new code to be implemented as it runs off of already in-game mechanics.

1 Like
1262

Well, you should have tossed this into the AFK cloaking thread that is sticky for just this purpose for starters.

I personally will give it points for being a relatively new approach. The rest of the regulars are going to reject it out of hand because there can be nothing that interferes with the perfect safety of a cloaked ship since it might inject some risk.

Your going to hear various stupidities like what unrelated activity can they nerf to pay for a nerf to cloaks, ‘Save the Titans!’, unspecified astronomical opportunity costs involved with afk cloaking, and god only knows what other drivel they can conjure to protect their risk free existence.

1263

Even if implemented, the ships can just simply create sufficient safe spots during warp to switch around with while your combat probes are busy looking for a ship that doesn’t stay still.

If the intent is to make the “AFK” part of the equation disappear then the idea can work. But if it’s to make it difficult for cloakies to stay hidden, the idea is a failure from the start.

1264

The intent to all of these type of suggestions is to remove the ‘AFK’ part of the camping, and give the defenders a chance to proactively defend their space.

No one ever said hostiles should not be able to evade destruction. It should just require effort beyond pushing the magic cloak button and then taking a nap.

1265

Like always explain how someone taking a nap is a danger to you…
Short answer. They aren’t. No one afk is doing anything. Just the issue is you don’t know if they are akf or not. So the obvious answer is to remove local so you don’t know they are there and no atm cloaky can ever cause you an issue

1 Like
1266

Once local is gone, maybe.

1 Like
1267

That same argument cuts both ways, as it assumes someone needs a reason to attack and destroy a ship in space beyond “I want to”.

Explain how someone in space not attacking you is a danger to you…

Short Answer is they aren’t. You don’t need a reason to attack them, and if they are in space, napping or not, they should not be immune to interaction.

1268

Little known fact: The river of tears cried over cloaking has a higher buoyancy factor than the Dead Sea…

1 Like
1269

You are wrong, because it’s not a mutually exclusive choice. You can make the 3 billion and still keep the camping going for the price of one plex.