Yeah, we nail a bunch of them like that. Got a nemesis just last night, so much for Invulnerability cloaks...

Mags
If you add a dollar to your wishes you could buy some bubblegum.

Its more your not understanding the big picture that makes your positions a bit immature. We all know the suspension of disbelief is important to being able to play games at all. You have to pretend something is real that is not. But hell, even dogs enjoy hunting and retrieving sticks, so its not very advanced.

That was delightfully civilised of you. Thank you.

Oh yeah... This again. Killing a ship with a cloak mounted is not killing a cloaked ship. Killing a ship capable of cloaking when it can't use the cloak means nothing about the balance of the cloak, especially considering the pilot of the cloaking ship is 100% in control of putting himself in that position. There is no nonconsent there, just bad luck and poor choices.

Tell me again how you counter an active cloak out in open space?

That was delightfully civilised of you. Thank you.

Now... imagine cloaky probe launchers + DScan inhibitors (also coined as 'one of the possibilities') + local intact ..... that'd be carebear heaven, no?

Do you now see why some protest is in order?

Tell me again how you counter an active cloak out in open space?

Teklos
1. Move cloaky ship over a system
2. Cloaky camp in a fleet of cloaky campers
2. Find out when pilots with citadel permissions are active. Cloaky camp duing off hours.

See what I did there?

Then stop harping about your stupid suggestions then.

It is as stupid and impractical and undesirable for mike to do it, as it would be for your cloaky camper to have to do it to operate safer.

Which is why mike is only making the entirely reasonable suggestion that pilots cannot combine being safe with being afk.

Teckos
Blame the way your mind works for the fuzzy feeling you get when trying to ponder game features.

You want a forced undock feature now as compensation for any risk to your precious afk cloaky camper?

Sorry, you don't get to compare docked conditions and undocked degrees of safety.

I will repeat my helpful suggestion on how you can make scanable cloaky camping safer the next time you helpfully tell mike how he can compensate through behavioural change.

You could do with a few good lessons in reciprocity.

Like I said, you do not get to compare safety in stations to degrees of immunity in space.

The difference is one of the defining features of EvE. Ships are invulnerable docked and vulnerable undocked (with one glaring exception that is the topic of this thread). You can raise the issue of gate cloaks and force fields as exceptions too if you feel like getting schooled in those topics.

Of course renters and smaller corporations complain more about afk cloaky camping. They are the ones holding sov in the perimeter where afk cloaky camping is most effective. Core null-sec systems have buffer zones that can only be accessed with difficulty. And yolo yokel backup for cloaky campers dont do difficult.

Its like you don't understand that players adapt to denial of space with denial of space. Oh wait, you don't understand that. Hence your eternal search for outlandish character flaws that would be pure bigotry if you applied it to a otherwise diverse group of people in the real world. Wait - it is pure bigotry in EvE too.

The point that scannable cloaky campers can make themselves safer too. Simply by being at the computer. How is it even possible to have the chutzpah to insist that you should be able to be undocked, in hostile space, AFK, and completely safe? Its insane.

Mike is being reasonable. You are being insanely unreasonable.

The question is not about mike. Its about you.

Why should you be alloweed to be undocked, in hostile space, AFK, and completely invulnerable.

The answer that you need crutches to muck up Mike's day is invalid. It does however say everything about you, and nothing about Mike.

You just QED'd the bigotry.

This thread topic is not about Mike. Its about you.

Mike is saying only 3 of 4 should be true at any time

1. Undocked
2. In hostile space (low/null/wh)
3. AFK
4. Immune to unsolicited pvp

Perfectly reasonable.

That renters and smaller corps are the ones holding perimeters vulnerable to cloaky camping does not preclude other renters and smaller corps from holding core areas (what do they teach at schools these days)? Geeze.

Did I say its not about mike, its about you already. Why yes I did. Maybe repeating it will help.

Why should you be undocked, in hostile space, AFK, and immune? In what insane mind is that a good idea?

Mags
The point is on the top of your head? Or you feel you just need to fuel fires? Or you somehow missed that I have, can and will use the lowest common denominator in discussion? Debate onto Mike what I will debate onto your sorry synonym for donkey.

Brokk was right. He was trying a civilized approach. No reason to snipe at him.

What, you said AFK and safety should not be compatible....but that is precisely what happens in a station and has been pointed out in NPC space, this represents the same type of "enduring implicit threat" as AFK cloaking.

Of course, people in NPC space rarely complain about AFK campers, it is usually sov PvE players, typically renters.

And the point is Mike can make himself safer the real issue is he refuses. Seriously, a good system can easily support 10 ratters. Why not form a standing fleet? Why not work together and kill anomalies together? Why not get on comms?

Why not move over a system? At the very least it will give you more intel....is the guy AFK or not. Here is how it works..

We want to know the following:

Prob(AFK|Stay)

That, what is the probability that the guy in system with Mike is AFK given that once Mike leaves system the guy does not follow. We can attempt to solve this via Bayes Theorem,

Prob(AFK|Stay) = Prob(Stay|AFK)*Prob(AFK)/Prob(Stay)

Mike is very wary of AFK cloaked ships, so his prior probability, Prob(AFK) is very high, lets say 0.1 (we don't want to set a prior probability to 1 or zero because those are dogmatic priors, no amount of evidence will get you to change your beliefs--e.g. the guy who owns the AFK cloaking account could be sitting right next to Mike with no computer access yet Mike would still assume the guy is actually ATK). We also need a probability for Prob(stay). Lets say it is 0.5. Now all that is left is, Prob(Stay|AFK). Since an AFK player cannot change systems this probability is 1. So now we have,


Prob(AFK|Stay) = Prob(AFK)/Prob(Stay)
=0.1/0.5
=0.2.

In other words, the fact that the guy did not follow Mike when he moved systems Mike can conclude that it is more likely the guy is AFK. Now, if we do it again, we'd use the same formula, but it would be,

Prob(AFK|Stay) = Prob(AFK|Stay)/Prob(Stay)
=0.2/0.5
=0.4.

This is actually a simplified approach, a more exact approach would yield the following results:

First time leaving system:

Prob(AFK|Stay) = 0.182

Second time leaving:

Prob(AFK|Stay2) = 0.304

Third time leaving:

Prob(AFK|Stay3) = 0.471.

On the seventh time of entering and leaving the system, the same gate, etc. we get,

Prob(AFK|Stay7) = 0.934.

A similar analysis could be done based on when the guy gets his kills.

But no, this is just silly nonsense...we should give Mike the means to hunt down and kill that AFK cloaker. Or more accurately, such a mechanics change will eliminate all risk from a guy cloaked in system....because they will stop doing it.

The logic of basic probability theory also tells us that overall Mike's risk level goes down.

So why should Mike get a reduction in his risk level? Why should Mike be allowed to gather resources with less risk...more easily.

Hunting ratters should not give you a license to be immune to interaction while you do it.

A cloaky ship is not immune to interaction.

Unless you're trying to claim that it is not possible to decloak someone at all? If you are, let me know ahead of time, thanks to an old injury I need to take a deep breath before laughing really hard.

It's not just that. He's doing his normal disingenuous use argument. He'll include local when it suits, then omit it when it doesn't. That last post of his, is a prime example.

Still waiting for that counter to a ship camping under a cloak.