|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jukhta Mein
Independent Traders and Builders
MPA
   |
Posted - 2009.12.11 07:11:00 -
[1]
Afk cloakers harms you in different ways from an active, hunting cloaker. And they're able to do so at no expense of their time nor energy. I'm not really sure if that's intended.
|
Jukhta Mein
22nd Black Rise Defensive Unit
General Panic.
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 03:06:00 -
[2]
Why is people being mind-warped by seeing hostiles in local the bigger problem?
The issue here is AFK cloaking. The corollary is that defenders can't tell whether a hostile is AFK or not. An active hostile disrupts operations in your space in, I think we can all agree on, a fair way. Is it fair that an inactive hostile can have a similar, albeit somewhat reduced, effect when he isn't committed in the game? Perhaps. Is it fair that defenders can't tell for sure if a hostile is AFK or not? I don't think so.
We can say here that it doesn't matter we don't know whether a hostile is AFK or not, if he is AFK he isn't disrupting the game. But he is. He is having a real effect in the game without being in it. So shouldn't removing local be the correct solution? I'd agree with that, but removing local in null-sec doesn't remove related problems to AFK cloaking in hi/low sec: for example, logging into a hi-sec system and seeing 3 war targets in local and not knowing whether they are cloaked and afk outside station or afk in some other station or active outside the station you're docked in. Or whether 2 are AFK and 1 is active. A more precise solution will be to remove pilots based on inactivity in-game; problems with people using automated timed responses or whatever to fool such a monitoring system are not so much as objections this solution but a call for a need to have a better monitoring system.
Summary?
1. People who are not in game shouldn't have a perceptible influence in the immediate game. (Marketeers who created a monopoly have a lasting effect even when they're logged off, but the idea here is that they put in resources to create that monopoly)
2. People (hostiles) whom we can't tell are AFK or not have a perceptible influence in the immediate game. By influence I don't mind that they're killing people, I mean that they simply hold the threat over others who are active in the game. This threat has a perceptible influence on the way these people play the game.
3. Removing local is a solution, but the problem of AFK cloaking as defined 1 and 2 is not limited to null sec.
|
Jukhta Mein
22nd Black Rise Defensive Unit
General Panic.
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 04:28:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Jukhta Mein on 28/12/2009 04:28:03
 Quote:
It's as fair as an inactive blue having a similar, albiet somewhat reduced, effect when he isn't committed in the game. ;-)
-Liang
Oh yea I didn't think of that..That blues being afk have an effect too.
But two wrongs don't make a right do they. Simply remove blue afkers as well. Anyone who is AFK shouldn't have a perceptible influence on people who are active in the game, whether one is a hostile or blue.
|
|
|
| |
|